Vexing Nature?: On the Ethical Case Against Agricultural Biotechnology

300 Pages·2000·7.238 MB·English

by  Gary L. Comstock (auth.)

Vexing Nature?
On the Ethical Case Against
Agricultural Biotechnology
Vexing Nature?
On the Ethical Case Against
Agricultural Biotechnology
by
Gary L. Comstock
Iowa State University
SPRINGER SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, LLC
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Comstock, Gary, 1954-
Vexing nature? : on the ethica1 case against agricultural biotechnology / Gary L. Comstock.
p.cm.
IncIudes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-1-4613-5533-5 ISBN 978-1-4615-1397-1 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4615-1397-1
1.Agricultural biotechnology-Moral and ethical aspects. I.Title.
S494.5.B563 C653 2000
631.5' 23 3-dc2l
00-064014
Copyright © 2000 by Springer Science+Business Media New York
Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 2000
Softcover reprint ofthe hardcover 1s t edition 2000
Ali rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, photo
copying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission ofthe publisher,
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
Printed on acid-free paper.
The Publisher offers discounts on this book for course use and bulk purchases.
For further information, send email to<[email protected]> .
for Lisey,
pretty-goodest
Contents
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...... 1
1. The Case Against bGH (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2. Against Herbicide Resistance (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....... 35
3. Against Transgenic Animals (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4. Against Ag Biotech (1994) ................... . 139
5. Problems for the Case Against Ag Biotech, Part I:
Intrinsic Objections. . . . . . . .. .......................... 175
6. Problems for the Case Against Ag Biotech, Part II:
Extrinsic Objections. ................................. 225
Conclusion ................................................. 285
Credits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
Index ..................................................... 291
Acknowledgements
I venture, at the risk of overlooking someone, to acknowledge those
who helped to improve this manuscript. My deepest gratitude, then, to:
Rich Noland, who argued with me about every idea in the book. All
factual errors and mistakes in reasoning should be attributed to him.
Ned Hettinger, who responded with dozens of pages of single-spaced
comments on drafts of nearly all the chapters. Would that I had answers for
each of his questions.
Tom Regan and Gary Varner, whose writings changed my life. Paul
Thompson, whose work in agricultural ethics pioneered the field.
Robert McKim and Jeff McMahan at the University of Illinois; Fred
Gifford and Tom Tomlinson at Michigan State University; Lilly Russow and
Martin Curd at Purdue University; Tom Regan and Tim Hinton at North
Carolina State University; Courtney Campbell at Oregon State University;
and Humberto Rosa at the University of Lisbon, all scholars with whom I
have had the privilege of planning various ISU Model Bioethics Institutes,
and with whom I have discussed many of the arguments in these pages.
Hector Avalos, Bob Hollinger, Margaret Holmgren, David Kline, Joe
Kupfer, Bill Robinson, David Roochnik, Tony Smith, Michele Svatos, and
Dik Vanlten, collegial commentators on various drafts.
Kathryn P. George, whose review of a book I edited on family farms
prompted me to write "The Rights of Animals and Family Farmers," now
part of chapter 3, one of my first attempts to articulate my changing views
about the moral status of animals. David Detmer, whose reply to my paper
"Should We Genetically Engineer Hogs?" helped to refine ideas that have
made their way into chapter 3.
Emery Castle and Bruce Weber, who made it possible for me to write
chapter 2 by inviting me to be a Center Associate of the National Rural
Studies Committee at the Western Rural Development Center, Oregon State
University, 1989. Peter List and Kathleen Moore, who extended several
courtesy summer appointments to me as a member of the OSU Philosophy
Department.
Art Caplan, Bill Frey, Glenn McGee, Mike Meyer, Phil Quinn, James
Serpell, Tom Shanks, Bill Spohn, Max Rothschild, and colleagues in the ISU
Department of Animal Science, for comments on the intrinsic objection to
plant and animal genetic engineering, now incorporated into chapter 5.
Will Aiken, Robin Attfield, Bryony Bonning, Baruch Brody, Allen
Buchanan, Douglas Buege, Steven Burke, Fred Buttel, Charlotte Bronson,
Gary L. Comstock
Baird Callicott, Marti Crouch, Don Duvick, John Fagan, Walt Fehr, Clark
Ford, Harry Frankfurt, Jack Girton, Rebecca Goldburg, Richard Haynes,
Thomas Imhoff, Wes Jackson, Dale Jamieson, Hugh Lehman, John Mayfield,
Mardi Mellon, Tom Peterson, C. S. Prakash, Bernie Rollin, Max Rothschild,
Mark Sagoff, David Schmidtz, Steve Shafer, Steve Sapontzis, Loren Tauer,
Paul W. Taylor, Luther Tweeten, Vivian Weil, Bob Zimbelman, and Bob
Zimdahl.
Jack Dekker, Steve Radosevich, Homer LeBaron, and Richard S.
Fawcett, who taught me what I know about the science and economics of
herbicide resistance and saved me from major errors in chapter 2.
Lisa Peters, Dan Nebbe, Shileen Groth, Lisa Kane, Aimee Houser,
Brad Perri, and Lynette Edsall, Program Assistants for the Iowa State
University (ISU) Bioethics Program, who typed much of the manuscript and
contributed valuable editorial remarks as well. Cyan Pharr, aspiring
veterinarian and promising animal ethicist, for composing much of the Index
as part of her Honors project.
Edna Wiser and Janet Krengel, incomparable secretaries and good
friends.
Molly Taylor, editor at Kluwer.
Krista, daughter of verve and verb, who used her editorial skills to
make changes on a late summer version of the manuscript in Manzanita,
Oregon.
I appreciate the institutions that support me. Iowa State University
provides me with a fifteen-foot-ceiling corner office on the fourth floor of the
refurbished 1892 Agricultural Hall, once Old Botany, now Carrie Chapman
Catt Hall. Here, surrounded by hundreds of books on oak shelves, I look
down on mature gingko and eastern white pines rimming the playground of
the university's new lab school. When I complain to my relatives that writing
is hard work, I get little sympathy. Nonetheless, absent a quiet place to work
and generous financial assistance, I would never have completed this
manuscript.
My thanks, therefore, to these ISU units: the Graduate College,
Liberal Arts and Sciences College, Office of Biotechnology, and Bioethics
Program. Additional supporters of my research include the National Science
Foundation (NSF); the Center for Theological Inquiry, Princeton, New
Jersey; the US Department of Agriculture; and the National Agricultural
Biotechnology Council, at Cornell University.
Willamette University permitted me to work in the Mark Hatfield
library on the glorious intermittent occasions I have had to live and write in
Salem, Oregon, where Doug McGaughey graciously allowed me the use of
his office and computer. Wheaton College, dear alma mater, granted me
Acknowledgements
access to a word processor and printer one hot Illinois summer.
I mentioned my good fortune in being associated with the ISU Model
Bioethics Institute. In helping to conduct these week-long faculty
development workshops, I have been lucky to learn some biology from
hundreds of outstanding life scientists who come to the Institute dedicated to
incorporating discussions of ethical issues into their classes. The Bioethics
Institute would not have been possible, however, without the support of
Rachelle Hollander, Director of the Ethics and Values Studies Program at
NSF.
I am particularly indebted to individuals at ISU who helped to release
me from other responsibilities so that I could pursue scholarship: Patricia B.
Swan, former Vice Provost for Research and Dean of the Graduate College,
who originated the idea of the ISU Bioethics Institute. Walter Fehr, Director
of the Biotechnology Program. David Kline, William S. Robinson, and
Michael Bishop, successive chairs of the Philosophy and Religious Studies
Department.
I dedicate the book to my beautiful Norwegian beloved: quilt
designer, teacher, and author; actor, administrator, punster; mother and wife
extraordinaire. Seemingly never vexed, she makes us laugh.
Jeg elsker deg.
Introduction
Agricultural biotechnology refers to a diverse set of industrial
techniques used to produce genetically modified foods. Genetically modified
(GM) foods are foods manipulated at the molecular level to enhance their
value to farmers and consumers. This book is a collection of essays on the
ethical dimensions of ag biotech. The essays were written over a dozen
years, beginning in 1988.
When I began to reflect on the subject, ag biotech was an exotic,
untested, technology. Today, in the first year of the millenium, the vast
majority of consumers in the United States have taken a bite of the apple.
Milk produced by cows injected with a GM protein called recombinant
bovine growth hormone (bGH), is found, unlabelled, on grocery shelves
throughout the US. In 1999, half of the soybeans and cotton harvested in the
US were GM varieties. Billions of dollars of public and private monies are
being invested annually in biotech research, and commercial sales now reach
into the tens of billions of dollars each year. I Whereas ag biotech once
promised to change American agriculture, it now is in the process of doing
so.
The ethical issues associated with ag biotech are diverse and
complex. Many worry that genetic engineering might produce unanticipated
allergens in previously safe foods; or unexpectedly toxic health supplements;
or novel GM diseases. Or environmental catastrophe. Or bizarre new lines of
animals possessing genes taken from humans. Or exceedingly wealthy
corporations more powerful than the nations trying to regulate them. Or
bankrupted family farmers in the US and Europe. Or exploited peasant
farmers in developing countries. Or inhumanely treated animals in our labs
and on our farms. Or corrupted attitudes to nature among our children.
The book begins with one of the first articles to oppose ag biotech on
explicitly philosophical grounds, "The Case Against bGH." Also known as
bovine somatotropin (or, BST) and recombinant BST (rBST), bGH is a serum
containing a genetically modified protein that farmers inject into dairy cattle
to increase milk production by as much as fifteen percent. The first ag
biotech product to hit the market, bGH seemed to me in the late 1980s as the
most suspect of the early GM products. It seemed destined to single-handedly
bankrupt large numbers of family dairy farmers and indirectly to cause
various other disruptions in the social fabric of rural communities. Believing
that we should be saving small and medium sized farmers rather than driving
them out of business, I argued that bGH was a premature technology foisted
2 Gary L. Comstock
onto the public by the well-heeled advertising departments of a handful of
multinational corporations.
Ethical concerns: Family farms
When I began to write, stories were appearing regularly in Iowa's
main newspaper, The Des Moines Register, about depressed farmers, stress in
rural areas, and suicide. Farm ledger sheets showed high debt loads and low
profit margins, and rural businesses faced record rates of foreclosure. It was a
time labeled by the media as "the farm crisis," and families throughout the
region were palpably strained by economic pressures.
Believing that moral philosophers should address the concerns of
those around them I, an assistant professor at Iowa State University, edited a
book on ethical issues involved in the farm crisis. The book appeared in 1987
and was titled Is There a Moral Obligation to Save the Family Farm?2 The
conclusion to the book argues that there is no direct moral obligation to
"save" any particular family farmer, but there are good reasons to try to
preserve our system of medium-sized, owner-operated, farms. The system
represents a politically and economically viable structure by which we can
meet our social obligations to distribute resources equitably, to treat animals
humanely, to care for land properly, to nurture mature citizens, and to sustain
vibrant rural communities. Whereas there is no direct duty to save this or that
farm, a strong case can be made that there is an indirect duty to pursue
policies likely to have the effect of saving something like the present system
of family farms.
When I had finished writing, my brother-in-law Rich, ever the
skeptic, quizzed me about my picture of the ideal farm.
"Just what would a farm look like, if it were philosophically and
morally justifiable?" he asked, suppressing a cynical grin.
Unable to resist a good question no matter how impertinently put, I
began to think more broadly. What larger vision ought to guide us in shaping
agricultural policy? And how ought we to regard ag biotech, if we want
farming to be "morally justifiable?" The questions are not easy, but I came to
believe that they have a relatively simple answer, once we find the right place
to begin.
The right place to begin is with the question, What is a good farm? and
the answer comes from one of America's most prophetic writers. A good
farm, argues Wendell Berry, is a farm that does not destroy either farmland
or farm people) It is one thing to farm merely to earn cash income, another
to farm well. To farm well, in accordance with the appropriate standards of