How Useful are the Concepts of Familiarity, Biological Integrity, and Ecosystem Health for Evaluating Damages by GM Crops?

Abstract
In the discussion about consequences of the release of genetically modified (GM) crops, the meaning of the term “environmental damage” is difficult to pin down. We discuss some established concepts and criteria for understanding and evaluating such damages. Focusing on the concepts of familiarity, biological integrity, and ecosystem health, we argue that, for the most part, these concepts are highly ambiguous. While environmental damage is mostly understood as significant adverse effects on conservation resources, these concepts may not relate directly to effects on tangible natural resources but rather to parameters of land use or ecological processes (e.g., the concept of biological integrity). We stress the importance of disclosing the normative assumptions underlying damage concepts and procedures for the evaluation of damages by GM crops. A conceptualization of environmental damage should precede its operationalization. We recommend an unambiguous definition for damage developed earlier and recommend that evaluation criteria be based on this. However, a general damage definition cannot replace case-specific operationalization of damage, which remains an important future challenge
Keywords Adverse effects  Assessment criteria  Biodiversity  Concept formation  Convention on biological diversity (CBD)  Environmental damage  Genetic engineering
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,351
External links
  •   Try with proxy.
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA
    Andrew Dobson (1997). Genetic Engineering and Environmental Ethics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 6 (2):205-.
    Nils Holtug (2001). The Harm Principle and Genetically Modified Food. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (2):168-178.

    View all 12 references

    Citations of this work BETA

    No citations found.

    Similar books and articles
    Bruce Morito (1999). Examining Ecosystem Integrity. Environmental Ethics 21 (1):59-73.
    Hugh Lehman (2000). Ecosystem Health as a Moral Requirement. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12 (3):305-317.
    Mark Sagoff (2005). Do Non-Native Species Threaten the Natural Environment? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (3):215-236.
    James Wilson (2007). GM Crops: Patently Wrong? [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (3):261-283.
    Jozsef Kovács (1989). Concepts of Health and Disease. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 14 (3):261-267.
    James G. Lennox (1995). Health as an Objective Value. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (5):499-511.
    M. O. Hardimon (2013). Race Concepts in Medicine. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38 (1):6-31.
    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2010-11-18

    Total downloads

    5 ( #178,728 of 1,088,400 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    1 ( #69,601 of 1,088,400 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.