Many critics of GM feel that the techniques reflect an unwelcome form of ‘tampering with nature’. This is a particular concern of some consumers with respect to food. Such a view is sometimes scornfully interpreted as an expression of what is called the ‘naturalistic fallacy’ – a belief that equates morality with naturalness, seeing what is natural as ‘right’. But concerns about GM foods may reflect a more reasoned and defensible position

Deciding whether GM technology is acceptable, in ethical terms, involves a judgement about the plausibility and moral weight of competing sets of claims.

The issue of global food security is at the heart of many of the ethical issues related to GM technology. Proponents of GM crops argue that further development of this technology is vital to meet the challenge of ‘feeding the world’ but others, notably Jules Pretty, are more critical of such suggestions.

Above text sourced from OpenLearn under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=398604

Furthermore, there are reasons to question the legitimacy of the traditional ‘nutritional pyramid’ that places farmed carbohydrates at the base, as the foundational dietary staple. Although this pyramid is preached widely, some would argue that this is a ‘received wisdom’ perpetuated by those in the agri-business to ensure that profits from cereal crops continue to roll in.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the high carbohydrate diet brought by farming is perhaps less balanced and nutritious than that of our hunter-gathering ancestors. Indeed, there are even new dietary regimes, such as the ‘Palaeolithic Diet’ that are gaining in popularity as people seek to loose the weight brought through excessive consumption of carbohydrates.

 

Above text and image sourced from OpenLearn under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence
http://labspace.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=452006&extra=thumbnail_id391744489892