equivalence means that if the GMO crop has comparable amounts proteins, fats, and
carbohydrates to the non-GMO crop then it can be said that it is substantially equivalent to the
non-GMO crop. In short this means that the GMO crop can technically be a non-GMO crop.
(McCann, 2014). This is basically lying to the public saying their food is raised naturally even
though it was mostly created in a lab since it is a GMO. This can be looked at as morally wrong
in the public eye. When it comes to these companies fighting to be able to use the substantial
6
APA RESEARCH PAPER 5.17.17 8:16:55 PM
equivalence theory they are using the
utilitarian ethics approach. With utilitarian ethics morals
can be flexible, and this is because the outcome of what they are doing is more important. These
company’s are using GMOs to try and help improve others lives by providing food even though
hiding what they are doing is not exactly morally correct. Even though these companies are
allowed to say there product is non-GMO even if it is, it still has to be run through FDA
regulations. The FDA states “Foods from GE plants must meet the same food safety
requirements as food derived from traditionally bred plants” (FDA on GEs, 1992). This can help
give some piece of mind to those who are worried about eating GMOs, no matter what kind of
food it is, it still has to pass FDA codes before making it to a shelf life. The FDA uses the same
utilitarian ethics when coming to decisions on food. They are making sure the food is safe to
focus on improving lives of others and looking at what issues in the food could raise a concern.
The good must out weigh the bad in this situation.
3. There is a term known as the revolving door. This happens with politics but also in the
agriculture world. This is where people who work for a private industry also have a job as a
government policy maker. In
The Future of Food
a good example of this revolving door idea was
shown. FDA scientists had gotten into a dispute with a guy named Don Quail because Quails
council said that there should be no regulations on food. This was happening because Quail
wanted to be the first person in the world to market a growth hormone. While this dispute was
going on a man named Michael Taylor, who was a former vice president of Monsanto, came into
the U.S. office in 1992 and had a “no policy” policy. Taylor was able to have his say since he
was a policy maker for the U.S government as well and it was passed that there could be no
regulations. (Koons & Butler, 2016). In the long run these revolving doors can cause more harm
than good in the long run. These health ramifications do not only affect people in the U.S but
7
APA RESEARCH PAPER 5.17.17 8:16:55 PM
have an impact across the globe. The U.S government also has to negotiate agriculture aspects of
international treaties that end up affecting people on a global scale. (Madhusoodanan, 2015).
