You Are What You Eat: Genetically Modified Foods ... - Springer Link

8 downloads 65 Views 72KB Size Report
of the good life. I develop a set of objections to GMF grounded in the concept of integ- rity and maintain that food and food choice can be intimately connected to ...
ASSYA PASCALEV

YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT: GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS, INTEGRITY, AND SOCIETY

ABSTRACT. Thus far, the moral debate concerning genetically modified foods (GMF) has focused on extrinsic consequentialist questions about the health effects, environmental impacts, and economic benefits of such foods. This extrinsic approach to the morality of GMF is dependent on unsubstantiated empirical claims and fails to account for the intrinsic moral value of food and food choice and their connection to the agent’s concept of the good life. I develop a set of objections to GMF grounded in the concept of integrity and maintain that food and food choice can be intimately connected to the agent’s personal integrity. I argue that due to the constitution of GMF and the manner in which they are produced, such foods are incompatible with the fundamental values and integrity of certain individual moral agents or groups. I identify three types of integrity that are threatened by GMF: religious, consumer, and integrity based on certain other moral or metaphysical grounds. I maintain that these types of integrity are sufficiently important to provide justification for political and societal actions to protect the interests of those affected. I conclude by proposing specific steps for handling GMF consistent with the moral principles of informed consent, non-maleficence, and respect for the integrity of all members of society. They include mandatory labeling of GMF, the implementation of a system for control and regulations concerning such foods, and guaranteed provision of conventional foods. KEY WORDS: authenticity, food choice, genetically modified foods, integrity, society, ways of life

THE MORAL CHALLENGES OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS Food is of utmost importance and value for human beings. It has biological, social, and cultural-symbolic significance. We consume food to survive, but also to socialize. We express ourselves through our food choices and use food as a means to communicate meaning and values in religious and cultural ceremonies. Beyond that, food has a very intimate effect on human beings: it directly affects our health, bodily constitution, and well-being. We are what we eat in a very literal sense. Recent advances in agricultural and food biotechnology led to the advent of genetically modified foods (hereafter GMF). This is a new category of foods derived from plants or animals produced through genetic Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16: 583–594, 2003. © 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

584

ASSYA PASCALEV

engineering. Genetic engineering involves the artificial manipulation of the genetic material of a plant, animal, or bacteria, or the transfer of foreign genes into the DNA of an organism, which results in the creation of a transgenic organism. The term “foreign” refers to genetic material derived from another species, or produced synthetically.1 Consequently, GMF or their ingredients contain altered genes that do not exist in nature, and possess new qualities that are unlikely to develop naturally. GMF brought to the fore the moral dimensions of food and food choices that, in the context of genetic engineering, take on previously unknown moral significance and pose unprecedented moral challenges and questions: Should GMF be produced, marketed, and consumed? Are they safe? What is their effect on the environment? What are the moral implications of adopting GMF and what are the responsibilities of food manufacturers, distributors, consumers, and society at large with respect to such foods? The moral debate thus far has revolved around questions about the possible health hazards, environmental safety, and potential benefits of GMF. The opponents of GMF claim that they are unsafe or that there is not sufficient information to establish the safety of GMF. They argue that the mass production and sale of such foods (as they occur in the United States) amount to an immoral, uncontrolled human experiment to measure the long-term safety of GMF (Hart, 2002, p. 7). Some health hazards associated with GMF are their allergenicity, and the possibility that the new proteins may be toxic, or that GMF may increase the antibiotic-resistance of disease-causing bacteria in humans through consumption of plants with antibiotic-resistant genes (Hopkins, 2001, p. 61). The critics charge that biotechnology corporations such as Monsanto and responsible governmental agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration in the US have been endangering the health of citizens and have been violating the religious and consumer rights of “an unwitting American and an unwilling international community” (Hart, 2002, pp. 7–8). Concerned scientists and environmentalists worry that the genetically engineered plants used in GMF pose environmental risks because they may contaminate conventional crops through cross-pollination, may mutate to create super-weeds that cannot be killed with the existing herbicides, or may disturb the ecological equilibrium and lead to the extermination of certain innocent species (Brown, 2001, pp. 51–57). 1 The currently produced GMF do not contain synthetic genes. However, it is in prin-

ciple possible to produce and insert synthetic DNA into the host organism and it is not unlikely that GMF or their ingredients would contain synthetic genes in the future. Consequently, the proposed definition and the arguments presented in this paper are meant to capture not only what is physically and scientifically possible at the moment but also to account for reasonable logical possibilities in the realm of biotechnology.

YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT

585

The proponents of GMF maintain that the worries of the critics are unfounded. They argue that no adverse effects have been reported, that GMF are subjected to rigorous testing and that they are safe.2 The proponents claim that the allergenic factors can be controlled and eliminated and cross-pollination can be avoided by following simple procedures such as separating GM plants from non-GM plants. According to the supporters, the mistrust towards GMF is not based on good science but stems from misconceptions about these foods. They charge that the objections are rooted in mistaken intuitions, cultural bias, and hidden economic and political agendas.3 The proponents stress that there is no significant difference between conventional foods and GMF and thus no mandatory labeling is needed. Those who support GMF point to their potential to alleviate world hunger. They also note that GMF would have a positive impact on the environment. They could be made from plants designed to produce their own pesticides or to be resistant to herbicides.4 Such plants would reduce or eliminate the use of poisonous chemicals, which would result in environmentally friendly farming. The two conflicting positions are based on what ethicists call extrinsic or consequentialist arguments for or against GMF (Comstock, 2001, p. 4). Such arguments are not particularly compelling because they depend crucially on empirical claims. However, currently, there is not enough data and no conclusive evidence about the effects of GMF to warrant those claims. Furthermore, the extrinsic objections to GMF are contingent rather than principled in nature: they do not oppose GMF as such but criticize their effects. In principle, such objections can be met by perfecting the technology for GMF, enforcing strict safety regulations, and demonstrating that the benefits of GMF are large enough to outweigh the risks. The more challenging and theoretically more interesting task is to determine the moral quality of GMF without appealing to unsettled, empirically dependent extrinsic claims. In other words, the question is 2 Critics question the claims of safety because of problems with testing, oversight and

self-monitoring, and the lack of knowledge of long-term and pleiotropic (unintended and/or uncontrolled) genetic effects (see: Batalion, 2000; Mellon, 2001, pp. 64–65; Hart, 2001). 3 The United States trade representative Robert B. Zoellick presented such arguments in support of the decision of the US administration to “approach the World Trade Organization with a case against the European Union for its ban on genetically modified food, asserting that the ‘Luddite’ and ‘immoral’ European position was leading to starvation in the developing world” (Becker, 2003, p. 4). In June 2003, the US filed an official dispute settlement case with the WTO against the EU seeking to end the de facto moratorium on GMF in the European Union. 4 Interview of Sasha Nemecek with Robert B. Horsch, vice president of product and technology cooperation at Monsanto Company (Horsch, 2001, p. 63).

586

ASSYA PASCALEV

whether there is anything morally objectionable about GMF if they were proven safe and beneficial. This question can be answered through arguments that problematize the morality of the very practice of producing GMF and that are largely independent of empirical findings or scientific data. In what follows, I take up this task and develop a set of moral objections to GMF based on the concept of integrity. I argue that the mass production and sale of GMF, especially in the absence of strict oversight, traceability, and labeling, violates important forms of agent integrity and this constitutes moral ground for rejecting such foods. Minimally, the integrity objections provide justification for societal and political actions to protect those whose integrity is threatened or violated by the production or consumption of GMF. The integrity-based objections stand independently of the issues of safety and the environmental impact of GMF. The objections illuminate important aspects of GMF and provide a deeper understanding of what is at stake in the debate on GMF.

THE INTEGRITY-BASED OBJECTIONS TO GMF At the core of the integrity objections is the view that due to the constitution of GMF and the manner in which they are produced, GMF are incompatible with the fundamental values constitutive of the identity of certain individual moral agents or groups, and violate or eliminate ways of life that are worthwhile. More specifically, GMF interfere with the ability of the individuals (or groups) to exercise food choices consistent with their deeply held beliefs. In such a way, GMF impede the ability of the individuals or groups in question to express and create themselves freely through such choices. To gain a deeper understanding of the moral relevance of food to integrity, we need to take a closer look at the concept of integrity and to explicate the connection of food and food choice to human integrity and well-being. Integrity is a complex notion with multiple meanings. It may be applied to objects, organisms, or persons and signifies wholeness, integration, and purity. With respect to institutions or practices, the notion of integrity signifies their unity and internal coherence and mandates that those be preserved and protected. When used to describe human beings, integrity refers to a person’s character. With respect to character, the concept of integrity has two major meanings. One signifies the agent’s ability to be true to her fundamental values and deepest commitments, to achieve a coherent integration of the various aspects of the self and to maintain selfidentity. The other sense of integrity refers to the agent’s moral character and implies that she has the right moral values and understands her true

YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT

587

moral obligations. The first sense is more general and corresponds to what is referred to as “personal integrity,” whereas the second aspect captures the more specific notion of moral integrity. For my present purposes, I adopt the first meaning of integrity as personal integrity or being true to oneself. “Personal integrity” is a broader and looser notion than “moral integrity,” which is more restrictive and implies that the agent has the right set of moral values. Since a democratic and pluralistic society accords legitimacy and cultivates tolerance to a variety of different moral codes, I find the looser notion of personal integrity more appropriate for a discussion of the moral problems raised by GMF. This notion allows for a plurality of views and does not require the endorsement of a particular set of values or a specific conception of the good. The intuitive appeal of “personal integrity” is that it acknowledges the value of different perspectives without regard to their origin, e.g., religion, philosophy, or a personal worldview. The integrity-based objections and the notion of integrity have their roots in the tradition of virtue ethics. What is distinct about virtue ethics is that it does not focus on isolated acts but judges the moral acceptability of a practice in a more holistic manner by asking whether the practice is consistent with a set of virtues and values that is essential for the good life. While philosophers disagree on the precise list of virtues necessary for the good life, they agree that the virtuous life is a life of unity, stability, and avoidance of conflicts between the various aspects of one’s life (Homiak, 2003). Thus, the Stoics define the good life in terms of “living coherently” and Aristotle sees the virtues as human excellences necessary for achieving the good life. Some critics argue that the notion of integrity cannot serve as a basis for moral evaluation because, at least in its more general sense of “personal integrity” that I adopt here, integrity lacks normative constraints. It is nothing more than a complete integration of the self and preservation of identity. As such, it places only formal constraints on what will count as integrity: acting according to one’s fundamental values. Yet, a person’s values and identity may be based on mistaken beliefs, ignorance, selfdeception, or an unrealistic picture of the self or reality. Integrity thus seems to mean “whatever the agent believes” and it is hard to see how such a relativistic principle could have a moral grip or how it could yield a substantive standard for moral evaluation. Some argue that this notion of integrity makes it impossible to distinguish the fanatic from the person who is truly moral (McFall, 1987, pp. 5–20). This criticism, however, is wrongheaded. This notion of integrity does impose normative constraints on what counts as integrity since it involves some degree of self-knowledge of one’s core commitments. This requirement makes instances of self-

588

ASSYA PASCALEV

deception, ignorance, or weakness of the will incompatible with integrity. Furthermore, judgments of integrity presuppose that one’s values and commitments are at least in principle intelligible to other reflective agents and lend themselves to intellectually responsible justification (Cox et al., 2001). Food is relevant to integrity because of the biological importance and intimate value of food for human beings. It directly influences one’s health, physical constitution, and overall well-being. Consequently, food choice, be it reflective or unreflective, becomes a basic form of self-creating, selfexpression, and self-definition. By making food choices, we literally create our bodies, our health, and ourselves, and affect directly the health of our children and loved ones for whom we care and with whom we share food. Therefore, to deprive a person from the ability to choose what goes into her body represents a violation of one’s authenticity and authorship in life that limits greatly that person’s ability to live according to her conception of the good life. It is important to note that the integrity objections differ in their orientation, values, specific reasons, and particular justification for the rejection of GMF. At the same time, they are grounded in a common concern for the preservation of a “way of life” that is perceived as valuable and threatened by GMF. Implicit in these objections is the idea that integrity of some sort is an important component of moral life, which ought not to be violated. Indeed, the value of integrity carries sufficient moral weight to justify a rejection of GMF and to warrant and require governmental intervention to protect the way of life in question.

TYPES OF INTEGRITY AND WAYS OF LIFE AT STAKE GMF pose a threat to several fundamental types of integrity: religious integrity, consumer integrity, and integrity based on other personal and philosophical values. What makes GMF offensive is their composition, e.g., plants containing animal or human genes,5 and their mode of production, which violate the values and endanger or even destroy the ways of life that support these types of integrity. 5 While, currently, transgenic plants with animal or human genes are not produced commercially, they exist and have been produced experimentally for years. One recent example is the transgenic lettuce with rat genes to stimulate vitamin C production in the plant (Benthon, 2002). Another example is the transgenic tobacco with human and nematode genes reported in 2001. It was engineered by researchers from the Deparmtent of Plant Pathology at the University of Nebraska to help fight off fungal pathogenes in tobacco (Dickman et al., 2001).

YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT

589

One major type of integrity threatened by GMF is religious integrity. GMF are offensive to religious people for a number of reasons.6 First, from a religious perspective, it can be objected that any form of genetic engineering, including GMF, interferes with the divine order on Earth and represents a blasphemous attempt to “play God” (Christianity). Because of this, it is immoral to engage in any form of genetic manipulations. A second, related argument against GMF can be made to the effect that life, food, and reproduction are sacred, and it is wrong for human beings to interfere in these processes. Since genetic interventions (com)modify life and alter food, it is immoral to consume their products. Thirdly, many religions contain explicit dietary prohibitions against mixing certain foods (e.g., the Jewish laws of the Torah proscribing the mixing of kinds), or prohibit the consumption of meat and other animal products (e.g., Hinduism and Buddhism). For those who oppose the consumption of mixed kinds, eating transgenic plants or animals that contain foreign genes from other species constitutes a sin. Those who avoid animal products altogether will find it offensive to consume food products containing transgenic plants with animal or human genes just as it is sinful to consume products containing gelatin or animal flavorings.7 Regardless of the truth value of the claims on which such arguments rest, religious objections to GMF ought to be taken seriously because of the value accorded to the freedom of religion in a democratic society. Interfering with this freedom undermines the trust of citizens and, ultimately, the basis of democracy. Another type of integrity that GMF violate is consumer integrity. Typically, in a market transaction, including the purchase of food, the consumer has the right to make choices consistent with her interests, needs, and values. To be able to do this, the consumer needs sufficient and accurate information about the products to make an informed decision what to buy. In the ethics literature, this is known as the principle of consumer sovereignty (Thompson, 1997, pp. 35–38). It is the moral basis of the regulations requiring food labels. The uncontrolled, unlabeled, massive production of genetically modified foods in the US makes it impossible for consumers to tell which foods on the market have been genetically modified. Consequently, consumers cannot exercise informed consent and free choice. Furthermore, since the opponents of genetically modified foods cannot abstain from eating, they are left virtually without any choice and recourse. This violates another important aspect of a democratic society: the individual’s right to exit. When an individual is 6 For a critical analysis of the religious arguments against GMF, see Comstock (2001,

pp. 5–8, 13–14). 7 For a Hindu, even the inadvertent consumption of animal products is impermissible and harms the individual irreversibly by depriving her of the possibility to achieve dharma.

590

ASSYA PASCALEV

deprived of the opportunity to remove herself from a situation that she finds offensive or generally unfair, she becomes a subject of a coercive, asymmetrical arrangement. This undermines the equality of the parties to the market transaction that is the very condition for a free market exchange, and introduces an element of deception or lack of transparence for the consumer. Apart from religious and consumer integrity, GMF can violate important secular values and deeply held personal convictions that are part of one’s fundamental worldview and are thus constitutive of one’s personal integrity. For secular vegetarians, consuming plants containing animal genes may be morally wrong, distasteful, or aesthetically repulsive. Likewise, many will find it unacceptable and even disgusting to eat food products that might contain synthetic or human genes. Even for the atheist, genetically modified foods may violate one’s “way of life” or one’s understanding of order in nature. For the naturalist who is bound by deep respect for the environment and commitment to its preservation, GMF are unacceptable because they involve drastic human interventions in the natural processes. Such foods are produced from genetically modified organisms that, in the naturalist view, disturb the balance of the ecosystem and threaten its ability to regulate and integrate itself. By consuming GMF, the naturalist is forced to become part of a process that she strongly disapproves of. This generates an internal conflict that undermines that person’s integrity. For those who share agrarianist views, the effects of GMF on agriculture go beyond the economic concern that the big corporations producing GMF will drive small farms out of the market and out of existence, about unfair competition, or about leaving farmer families without means. This is only one aspect of the problem and it can be argued that most major technological innovations cause some socio-economic imbalance. Similar processes have taken place at any important junction of technological development and implementation and they result in and are neutralized by restructuring the work force and re-orienting the affected groups to new professions. However, agrarians’ core concern is much more fundamental. The worry is that farming as a way of life has intrinsic and unique value. It is a source of important experiences, human relations and virtues that form a unique, valuable way of life, which grows out of small farming. Jeffrey Burkhart elaborates that The practice of bringing forth sustenance from the soil in the face of nature’s unpredictability requires that the farmer be patient, strong and self-reliant, and respectful of natural processes. It also requires that the farmer works in harmony with others in the community, since only through mutual respect and reciprocity that many of the tasks of farming, or living in a rural community, can be accomplished. Agrarianism sees the traditional family

YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT

591

farm as a place where real human values and virtues can be practiced, instilled in the next generation, and hence preserved (Burkhart, unpublished manuscript; p. 17).

Agrarians fear that this way of life will vanish if genetically modified plants and foods are allowed.

INTEGRITY, GMF, AND SOCIETY: POLICY IMPLICATIONS The three types of integrity discussed above are fundamental. Each of them defines the individual in an essential way. Because of that, it is morally repugnant to coerce a person to make food choices that she finds morally offensive or spiritually harmful and that undermine her integrity. The word “coercion” is indeed an accurate description of the situation of those who refuse GMF. They are left virtually without alternatives due to the vital biological role of food that makes avoidance impossible. Furthermore, in industrialized societies, the process of food production is highly specialized and socially mediated, which makes it almost impossible for the average individual to produce her own food. Thus, short of becoming one’s own farmer, a person who opposes GMF on grounds of integrity is left to choose between starvation and betrayal of one’s values. Now, one can object that this is a false dilemma since those who oppose GMF have a third alternative: they could consume only foods that are free from genetically modified organisms. Such foods are available on the market and a number of companies have started to label their products as GM-free on a voluntary basis. However, this alternative does not represent a genuine solution to the integrity problem and could not restore the food choice of the conscientious objectors for a number of reasons. First, in the US and many other countries where GMF are produced, a relatively small number of companies volunteer to label their foods as GM-free. Second, a related problem is that the GM-free foods on the market are not sufficient in quantity and variety to provide a wholesome and well-balanced diet. The process of voluntary labeling is spontaneous and does not take into consideration the nutritional needs of the consumers. Further, GM foods are produced by large companies with a big market share, which makes such foods more competitive, affordable, and readily available. Another problem with this solution stems from a general limitation of the very idea of food labels. Labeling of foods, even if it is mandatory, provides information but it does not offer an actual choice. While the information given in a label is a useful tool that enables people to make decisions based on their values and needs, its utility ends there. Once the agent has the information or makes the decision, she needs to act on it. This presupposes that there exist real conditions for individuals to implement

592

ASSYA PASCALEV

their decisions in practice. In the case of food choices, individuals ought to have access to a sufficient number and variety of GM-free foods that are affordable to them. In other words, food labels could be of value only if there are GM-free foods on the market. Yet (and this is what makes agricultural biotechnology and GM foods so important from the standpoint of morality), genetic engineering on an industrial scale and without proper control and deliberate effort to provide conventional food, could eliminate GM-free foods altogether. Although at present there is no scarcity of GM-free crops and foods on the market, the tendencies that could create the scarcity are already in place, at least in the US. On the field, this is the possibility of contamination of GM-free plants by close GM relatives of the same species, and, on the market, there is the economic power of the big companies, the absence of a regulatory framework to control the outpour of GMF, lack of consumer awareness, and a political climate that encourages agricultural biotechnology. This is why the GM-free food cannot solve the dilemma of those who object to GMF. They are forced to bear a burden that is disproportionately heavy. This poses more than an individual problem. The interference, restriction, or manipulation of one’s food choices may have profound social and political consequences. They threaten to undermine the very basis of society, the moral fabric that holds the community together. In particular, the interference with one’s food choices violates important political values and principles: the freedom of religion, the right to exit, and informed consent, individual autonomy, and self-expression. Those who oppose GMF will find themselves in a society that does not deliver for them: it imposes tremendous burdens without providing adequate benefits. Such an arrangement is unfair and it is inconsistent with basic democratic principles and legislation. Most Western societies recognize the values and choices behind the three types of integrity and acknowledge their moral and political importance. Article 5 of the American Convention of Human Rights stipulates that every person has “the right to have his physical, mental and moral integrity preserved” (Bovenkerk et al., 2002, pp. 16–22). Deeply held religious and personal convictions enjoy legal protection in various institutional and social contexts such as health care and education. For instance, we recognize and protect the patient’s right to refuse treatment on religious grounds (e.g., Jehovah’s witnesses) even if this would result in the patient’s death. In the US, the members of the Amish community are allowed to limit school attendance for their children in order to preserve the Amish way of life. Also, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine states that “Parties to this Convention shall protect

YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT

593

the dignity and identity of all human beings and guarantee everyone, without discrimination, respect for their integrity” (Council of Europe, 1997; Article 1). Yet, Western democracies have not guaranteed similar freedom regarding food choices, and have not acknowledged reflectively the moral value, intimate importance, and self-defining role of food for the individual. This is particularly true of the United States where over 60% of the foods on the market are genetically modified and there is no labeling requirement for GMF. Such an asymmetrical arrangement undermines the trust of those affected in the government and, ultimately, in the social contract. To prevent this from happening, society at large and the government in particular ought to protect the interests of those citizens who do not wish to consume GMF on grounds of integrity. The specific form of this protection is best crafted in an open ongoing public dialogue that would take into account the specific socio-cultural and economic characteristics of a given society. The importance of food choice and the moral weight of integrity, however, allow us to anticipate the basic conditions of an adequate and responsible policy towards GMF. It ought to include the development of unified standards for GMF and the implementation of a system for control and regulations of such foods. As a means for upholding informed consent, mandatory labeling of GMF ought to be introduced.8 If grocery stores are allowed to sell GMF, they should be obliged to carry a sufficient number and variety of conventional foods to provide the material conditions for conscientious objectors to exercise their autonomous choice. Social policies ought to encourage the production of conventional foods, and, if necessary, the government ought to subsidize the production of such foods. In such a way, society would be able to guarantee that people who prefer non-GMF will have reasonable access to such foods as an extension of their freedom of thought and expression through food choice.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics (EurSafe) for inspiring the ideas expressed here and I am especially thankful to the Third and Fourth Congresses of EurSafe for providing the fora to share and test these ideas. I am indebted to Volkert Beekman and Humberto Rosa, guest editors of this issue of the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, for their helpful comments on the earlier drafts of this paper. 8 In the European Union, there exists a strong public support for mandatory labeling of GMF and such a measure is likely to be implemented in the near future.

594

ASSYA PASCALEV

REFERENCES Batalion, N., “50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods,” http://www.cqs.com/ 50harm.htm (2000) (accessed on 26 June, 2003). Becker, E., “U.S. Threatens to Act Against Europeans Over Modified Foods,” New York Times, January 10, 2003, p. 4. Benthon, N., “Rat Gene Increases Vitamin C in Plants,” Science From Virginia Tech (2003), http://www.research.vt.edu/resmag/sciencecol/2002vitamin_C.html. Bovenkerk, B., F. W. A. Brom, and B. J. van den Bergh, “Brave New Birds: The Use of ‘Animal Integrity’ in Animal Ethics,” Hastings Center Report 32(1) (2002), 16–22. Burkhart, J., Taking Ethics Seriously (unpublished manuscript, University of Florida). Brown, K., “Seeds of Concern,” Scientific American (April 2001), 51–57. Comstock, G., “Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods,” SCOPE GM Food Controversy Forum 2 (2001). Cox, D., M. La Caze, and M. Levine, “Integrity,” in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2001), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2001/entries/ integrity/ (accessed on 26 June, 2003). Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/ 164.htm (2001). Dickman, M. B., Y. K. Park, T. Oltersdorf, W. Li, T. Clemente, and R. French, “Abrogation of Disease Development in Plants Expressing Animal Antiapoptotic Genes,” MEDLINE (2001), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db =PubMed&list_uids=11381106&dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000 (accessed on 26 June, 2003). Hart, K., Eating in the Dark (Pantheon Books, New York, 2002). Homiak, M., “Moral Character,” in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2003), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2003/entries/moral-character/ (accessed on 26 June, 2003). Hopkins, K., “The Risks on the Table,” Scientific American (April 2001), 61. Horsch, R., “Interview with Sasha Nemecek, ‘Does the World Need GMF? Yes!’,” Scientific American (April 2001), 62–63. McFall, L., “Integrity,” Ethics 98 (1987), 5–20. Mellon, M., “Interview with Sasha Nemecek, ‘Does the World Need GM Foods?’,” Scientific American (April 2001), 64–65. Thomson, P., “Food Biotechnology Challenge to Cultural Integrity and Individual Consent,” Hastings Center Report 27(4) (1997), 35–38.

Department of Philosophy University of North Florida 4567 St. Johns Bluff Road, South Jacksonville, FL 32224 USA E-mail: [email protected]