Skip to main content

Ethical Issues in Genetically Modified Foods: From Transgenesis to CRISPR-Cas9 Genome Editing Technology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Bioethical Decisions. Volume I

Part of the book series: Collaborative Bioethics ((CB,volume 2))

  • 725 Accesses

Abstract

Traditional ethical quandaries related to GM foods have been addressed profusely throughout the years. Still, some concerns remain regarding potential impacts on human health, natural environment and society. Moreover, the emergence of new genome editing technologies, such as CRISPR-Cas9, has implied relevant breakthroughs for plant and animal breeding. However, this enormous milestone in biotechnology has also raised new and unprecedented quandaries involving ethical, regulatory, policy and global governance dimensions. In this chapter, we analyze some of the ethical concerns that the production of GM foods involves, by addressing and discussing “traditional” issues as well as those emerging from new genome editing techniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, for example: Bostrom & Cirkovic, 2008; Bostrom, 2011, 2013; MacAskill et al., 2020; Ord, 2020.

References

  • Andersson, M., Turesson, H., Nicolia, A., Fält, A., Samuelsson, M., & Hofvander, P. (2017). Efficient targeted multiallelic mutagenesis in tetraploid potato (Solanum tuberosum) by transient CRISPR-Cas9 expression in protoplasts. Plant Cell Reproduction, 36(1), 117–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Araki, M., & Ishii, T. (2015). Towards social acceptance of plant breeding by genome editing. Trends Plant Science, 20, 145–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. (2014). Gene editing at CRISPR speed. Nature Biotechnology, 20, 215–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, J. (2012). Selection from Jeffrey M. Smith. “Scrambling and Gambling with the Genome.” Balance Your Life. https://www.responsibletechnology.org/scrambling-and-gambling-with-the-genome/. Accessed 18 Nov 2022.

  • Bomgardner, M. M. (2017). CRISPR: A new toolbox for better crops. Chemical and Engineering News, 95(24), 30–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom, N. (2011). Information hazards: A typology of potential harms from knowledge. Review of Contemporary Philosophy, 10, 44–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom, N. (2013). Existential risk prevention as global priority. Global Policy, 4(1), 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom, N., & Cirkovic, M. M. (2008). Global catastrophic risks. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Branum, A. M., & Lukacs, S. L. (2009). Food allergy among children in the United States. Pediatrics, 124(6), 1549–1555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, B. E., Conn, C. C., & Wiles, J. R. (2016). Concern about hunger may increase receptivity to GMOs. Trends in Plant Science, 21(7), 539–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, K., Wang, Y., Zhang, R., Zhang, H., & Gao, C. (2019). CRISPR/Cas genome editing and precision plant breeding in agriculture. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 29(70), 667–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cremer, J. (2019). One billion acres of Bt crops, Zero Unintended Consequences. Cornell Alliance for Science. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2019/02/one-billion-acres-bt-crops-zero-unintended-consequences/. Accessed 18 Nov 2022.

  • Dunn, S. E., et al. (2017). The Allergenicity of genetically modified foods from genetically engineered crops. Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, 119(3), 214–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt, T. (2008). The precautionary principle: A dialectical reconsideration. In T. L. Beauchamp et al. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in bioethics (7th ed., pp. 760–764). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gizaw, Z. (2019). Public health risks related to food safety issues in the food market: A systematic literature review. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 24(1), 68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gjerris, M., Gamborg, C., & Röcklinsberg, H. (2016). Ethical aspects of insect production for food and feed. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 2(2), 101–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gjerris, M., Gamborg, C., & Röcklinsberg, H. (2018). Could crispy crickets be CRISPR-Cas9 crickets – Ethical aspects of using new breeding Technologies in Intensive Insect-Production. In S. Springer & H. Grimm (Eds.), Professionals in food chain (pp. 424–429). Wageningen Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gregorowius, D., Lindermann-Matthies, P., & Huppenbauer, M. (2012). Ethical discourse on the use of genetically modified crops: A review of academic publications in the fields of ecology and environmental ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(3), 265–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, S., Weigel, D., Beachy, R. N., & Li, J. (2016). A proposed regulatory framework for genome editing techniques: Opportunities, safety and regulation in the EU. The Plant Journal, 78, 742–752.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hundleby, P. A., & Harwood, W. A. (2019). Impacts of the EUO GMO regulatory framework for plant genome editing. Food and Energy Security, 8, e161. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keese, P. (2008). Risks from GMOs due to horizontal gene transfer. Environmental Biosafety Research, 7(3), 123–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruse-Plass, M., et al. (2017). Reply to the EFSA (2016) on the Relevance of Recent Publications (Hofmann et al. 2014, 2016) on environmental risk assessment and management of Bt-maize events (MON810, Bt11 and 1507). Environmental Sciences Europe, 29(12), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuzma, J., & Haase, R. (2012). Safety assessment of genetically engineered foods: US Policy & Current Science. University of Minnesota Food Policy Research Center.https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ef38/863980feb88c436e31fa2a9cd8663fc6336f.pdf?_ga=2.14366750.709011079.1585503950-176259060.1583168196. Accessed 17 Nov 2022.

  • Lawson, C., & Charnley, B. (Eds.). (2016). Intellectual property and genetically modified organisms: A convergence in law. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, B.-R. (2008). Transgene Escape from GM crops and potential biosafety consequences: An environmental perspective. Collection of Biosafety Reviews. International Centre for Engineering and Biotechnology. https://conacyt.gob.mx/cibiogem/images/cibiogem/comunicacion/publicaciones/CBR-V4/Bao-Rong.pdf. Accessed 18 Nov 2022.

  • MacAskill, W., Bykvist, K., & Ord, T. (2020). Moral uncertainty. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, S. (2019). Are market GM plants an unrecognized platform for bioterrorism and biocrime? Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 7, 121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, D. E. (2021). GMO food (2nd ed.). ABC-CLIO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ord, T. (2020). The precipice. Existential risk and the future of humanity. Hachette Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinholster, G. (2012). AAAS board of directors: Legally mandating GM food labels could ‘Mislead and Falsely alarm consumers’. https://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-directors-legally-mandating-gm-food-labels-could-mislead-and-falsely-alarm. Accessed 16 Nov 2022.

  • Pirscher, F., & Theesfeld, I. (2018). The ethical dilemma with governing CRISPR/Cas genome editing. In S. Springer & H. Grimm (Eds.), Professionals in food chain (pp. 419–423). Wageningen Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, C. J. (2016). How should risk-based regulation reflect current public opinion? Trends Biotechnology, 34, 604–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porterfield, A. (2019). Why GMOs Aren’t responsible for a spike in food allergies. Genetic literacy project. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/06/07/why-gmosarent-responsible-for-a-spike-in-food-allergies/. Accessed 17 Nov 2022.

  • Price, B., & Cotter, J. (2014). The GM contamination register: A review of recorded contamination incidents associated with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), 1997–2013. International Journal of Food Contamination, 1(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Röcklinsberg, H., & Gjerris, M. (2018). Potato crisps from CRISPR-Cas9 modification – Aspects of autonomy and fairness. In S. Springer & H. Grimm (Eds.), Professionals in food chain (pp. 430–435). Wageningen Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Romeis, J., et al. (2019). Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control. Biological Control, 130, 136–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronald, P. (2011). Plant genetics, sustainable agriculture and global food security. Genetics, 188(1), 11–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarich, C. (2015). Over 40 rodent feeding studies show genetically modified food is disastrous to health. Global Research. https://www.globalresearch.ca/over-40-rodent-feeding-studies-show-genetically-modified-food-is-disastrous-to-health/5481036. Accessed 17 Nov 2022.

  • Séralini, G. E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N., Malatesta, M., Hennequin, D., & Spiroux de Vendômois, J. (2012). Long term toxicity of a roundup herbicide and a roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50(11), 4221–4231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spicer, A., & Molnar, A. (2018). Gene editing of microalgae: Scientific Progress and regulatory challenges in Europe. Biology, 7, 21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Šutković, J., Mahmutovic, L., Huseinbegovic, E., Adilovic, M., Sinanovic, F., & Akcesme, F. B. (2020). Ethical, legal and social implications of genetically modified organism in the shadow of advanced genetic tools. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 8(4), 2118–2128.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board. (2017). A summary: The gene technology act – Invitation to public debate. Available at: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.bioteknologiradet.no/filarkiv/2017/12/Genteknologiloven-sammendrag-engelsk-til-web.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2022.

  • Tsatsakis, A. M., et al. (2017). Environmental impacts of genetically modified plants: A review. Environmental Research, 156, 818–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valdés, E. (2021). Biolaw. Origins, doctrine and juridical applications on the biosciences. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Valdés, E., & Rendtorff, J.D. (2022). Biolaw, economics and sustainable governance. Addressing the Challenges of a Post-Pandemic World. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Huis, A. (2017). Edible insects and research needs. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 3(1), 3–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Huis, A., van Itterbeeck, J., Klunder, H., Mertens, E., Halloran, A., Muir, G., & Vantomme, P. (2013). Edible insects: Future prospects for food and feed security. FAO forestry paper 171. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, R., & Preedy, V. R. (2016). Genetically modified organisms in food: Production, safety, regulation and public health. Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worall, M. (2011). Homeostasis in nature: Nest building termites and intelligent buildings. Intelligent Buildings International, 3(2), 87–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, D., Hussain, A., Manghwar, H., Xie, K., Xie, S., Zhao, S., Larkin, R. M., Qing, P., Jin, S., & Ding, F. (2020). Genome editing with the CRISPR-Cas system: An art, ethics and global regulatory perspective. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 18, 1651–1669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erick Valdés .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Valdés, E., Lecaros, J.A. (2023). Ethical Issues in Genetically Modified Foods: From Transgenesis to CRISPR-Cas9 Genome Editing Technology. In: Valdés, E., Lecaros, J.A. (eds) Handbook of Bioethical Decisions. Volume I. Collaborative Bioethics, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29451-8_38

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics