Sanet Post, Gil Gillespie
Re: Question rephrased
December 24, 1996
I think Willie Lockeretz, in asking us whether bioengineered crops would be OK if reasonable scientific investigation showed no human harm, has posed a question of importance for SANETters. What do we favor and what are we opposed to? Is genetic engineering itself an evil or are issues of who controls the genetically altered organisms and the long-term anticipated and unanticipated effects of genetic engineering the evils or potential evils. Many of the general issues affecting bioengineering also apply to biological control of pests, something favored by many promoting sustainable agriculture. I certainly agree with those who argue that the science cannot tell us much about the long-term, unanticipated effects of releasing genetically-engineered organisms. Philosophy may be better (e.g., Mark Sagoff, "Biotechnology and the Environment: What is at Risk?" Agriculture and Human Values 5(3):26-35, 1988), but is far from perfect. At least we ought to avoid hubris. Given this, I would want to ask further:
In general I would not favor use of crops that lead to greater social inequality (including of access to resources and of power), that undermine biodiversity or other aspects of sustainability (arguably rendering our food system less stable), and accelerate change (systems with high rates of change are likely to be more unstable and prone to problems). Changes tend to be promoted by those who believe they will benefit from them and any costs that arise later tend to be borne others. This position reflects my values, but in practice application of values is situated in particular circumstances and tough tradeoffs are often involved. What risks are we more willing to accept and what risks are we less willing to accept? Genetically engineered organisms are probably not unalloyed evils, but they at best risky (like any other intended or unintended introduction of new genetic materials into ecosystems). What about crops that are salt-tolerant? Were they to be used to promote local food self-sufficiency in an area with salinized soils, possibly yes. Were they to be used to permit continued over-irrigation, most likely no.
Like most of the other issues discussed on SANET, especially that of "what is sustainable?", I would expect a variety of stances on Lockeretz's question. Exploring these stances is important in defining who we are.
****************************************************************************
Gil Gillespie voice: 607-255-1675
Department of Rural Sociology (& fax: 607-254-2896
Division of Nutritional Sciences ) e-mail: gwg2@cornell.edu
439 Warren Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-7801
USA
The transition to sustainability is like a bend in the road. It will be the end of the road only if we fail to negotiate the turn.
