How Useful are the Concepts of Familiarity, Biological Integrity, and Ecosystem Health for Evaluating Damages by GM Crops?
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (1):3-17 (2012)
|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)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Kurt Jax (2007). Can We Define Ecosystems? On the Confusion Between Definition and Description of Ecological Concepts. Acta Biotheoretica 55 (4).
Bruce Morito (1999). Examining Ecosystem Integrity. Environmental Ethics 21 (1):59-73.
Emily Brady (2002). Aesthetic Character and Aesthetic Integrity in Environmental Conservation. Environmental Ethics 24 (1):75-91.
Luka Burazin, Analysis of Legal Responsibility in the Case of Causing Damage (From the Standpoint of General Theory and Philosophy of Law).
Hugh Lehman (2000). Ecosystem Health as a Moral Requirement. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12 (3):305-317.
Paolo Vineis (1995). Environmental Risks: Scientific Concepts and Social Perception. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 16 (2).
George Schedlerf (2002). Principles for Measuring the Damages of American Slavery. Public Affairs Quarterly, 16 (4):377-404.
Daniel Gregorowius, Petra Lindemann-Matthies & Markus Huppenbauer (2012). Ethical Discourse on the Use of Genetically Modified Crops: A Review of Academic Publications in the Fields of Ecology and Environmental Ethics. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (3):265-293.
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.
Salahaddin Mahmudi-Azer (2006). Arms Trade and its Impact on Global Health. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (1):81-93.
M. O. Hardimon (2013). Race Concepts in Medicine. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38 (1):6-31.
Added to index2010-11-18
Total downloads5 ( #169,891 of 722,745 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,745 )
How can I increase my downloads?