Ethical and environmental considerations in the release of herbicide resistant crops

Agriculture and Human Values 9 (3):31-43 (1992)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Recent advances in molecular genetics, plant physiology, and biochemistry have opened up the new biotechnology of herbicide resistant crops (HRCs). Herbicide resistant crops have been characterized as the solution for many environmental problems associated with modern crop production, being described as powerful tools for farmers that may increase production options. We are concerned that these releases are occurring in the absence of forethought about their impact on agroecosystems, the broader landscape, and the rural and urban economies and cultures. Many of the benefits and risks associated with HRCs are not apparent to either the public, farmers, policy makers, or the scientific community. HRC technology raises moral issues in three areas: our duties toward the natural environment; our political and economic responsibilities to each other; and our communal character as one generation among many. We also need a rational basis on which to make evaluations of this new biotechnology. The technical aspects of their release require a logical guide to the ecological, environmental, and biological effects the release might have in sustainable agroecosystems. The initial step should include an assessment of the intrinsic qualities of the crop, the herbicide, and the resistance mechanisms. The second step should include an assessment of effects associated with population ecology, population genetics, environmental degradation, consumer health, and farm economic viability due to the resistant crop-herbicide pair. Herbicides have been used in crop production for nearly a half a century. There has been a tremendous increase in the use of these chemicals in that time. Society has seen the use of these chemicals not only help to feed many people, but also to bring costs not anticipated before the introduction of the chemicals. We need to draw on that long history of use and learn the lessons it can provide us as we approach the introduction and commercialization of the next generation of weed control technology, herbicide resistant crops. We also need to reflect on the lessons we missed during that half century because we spend more time imagining the possible benefits that would come from the technology than scrutinizing the possible harm

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,611

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Herbicide resistant sugar beet – what is the problem?Kathrine Hauge Madsen & Peter Sandøe - 2001 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (2):161-168.
Genetically engineered herbicide resistance, part two.Gary Comstock - 1990 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 3 (2):114-146.
Staying Sober about Science.Rob Carlson - 2011 - Hastings Center Report 41 (4):22-25.
GM crops: Patently wrong? [REVIEW]James Wilson - 2007 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (3):261-283.
Ethical Frameworks and Farmer Participation in Controversial Farming Practices.Sarika P. Cardoso & Harvey S. James - 2012 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (3):377-404.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-23

Downloads
39 (#412,276)

6 months
7 (#441,920)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Gary Comstock
North Carolina State University

Citations of this work

The doctors of agrifood studies.Douglas H. Constance - 2023 - Agriculture and Human Values 40 (1):31-43.
Rethinking agricultural research roles.Robert L. Zimdahl - 1998 - Agriculture and Human Values 15 (1):77-84.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Genetically engineered herbicide resistance, part one.Gary Comstock - 1989 - Journal of Agricultural Ethics 2 (4):263-306.
Genetically engineered herbicide resistance, part two.Gary Comstock - 1990 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 3 (2):114-146.

Add more references