After learning about Monsanto’s past involvement in the dumping of harmful PCBs, a myriad of ethical concerns arise when examining Monsanto’s genetically modified soybeans. A serious issue is whether or not genetically modified crops (GMCs) are safe for human consumption; thus, making it unclear if GMCs are good or bad. This is especially frightening when considering that the FDA is supposed to require changes in food products to “[meet] the criteria of reasonable certainty of no harm, but when you genetically engineer a food which can cause untold differences in that plant, they don’t require anything.” (Robin, 2008, (3)) As a result, Monsanto’s soybeans were allowed on the market despite inadequate testing and served as a complement the “Round Up” herbicide. This government agency regulates food and with the approval of GMCs, the cost of crop production has made the cost of food to the public, easily affordable; therefore, “[making] the world a better place” in a Utilitarian’s view (Hammack, 2014, slide 12). …show more content…
In fact, “utilitarianism seems to imply that we should always break our promises whenever this will have better, even if only slightly better, direct social consequences than keeping our promises would” (Harsanyi, 1977, p. 30, para. 2). The FDA ultimately acted to Monsanto advantage and deceived the public in the process. The term substantially equivalent was used to describe GMOs in comparison to their unaltered state (Robin, 2008, (3)). According to a joint FAO/WHO report in 1990, “[s}ubstantial equivalence embodies the concept that if a new food or food component is found to be substantially equivalent to an existing food or food component, it can be treated in the same manner with respect to safety” (p. 5, para. 1). It is no wonder why GMOs seemed