Can Genetically Engineered Foods Compromise Social Equality?

Britt Bailey

Both the volume and extent of genetically altered food crops newly introduced into our food supply ensures they will have an impact on society. New genetic sequences are often introduced into such food crops from disparate species assuring a de minimus deviation from conventional food products. Of necessity, when a genetically modified seed is able to replicate and carry its features on the next generation of consumers, it poses special ethical issues both now and in the future. The central public health and ethical questions center on whether engineered changes are sufficiently new enough to pose unanticipated health risks, and if so, do they impact differentially on varying members of the population.

If genetically engineered foods differ significantly in terms of adverse health impacts, the skewed distribution could disproportionately burden vulnerable populations, exacerbating health gaps already created by differential access to health care and exposure to toxic substances. For instance, persons with deficient metabolizing or detoxifying systems including children may be unjustly burdened by genetically engineered foods. Some infants and newborns, especially those living in poorer socioeconomic conditions, may have little or no choice but to eat genetically engineered foods. This is because their parentsâ food choices are constrained by poverty or because non-genetically engineered (e.g., organic) foods are unavailable.

Are susceptible populations unjustly burdened?
Currently in the United States, no mandate exists to label genetically engineered foods, in spite of the fact that 65-75% of the foods sold contain genetically engineered components or byproducts in the form of new proteins. This reality conflicts with consumers legitimate desires for labels that would reveal the presence of byproducts of genetic modification in their food. Presently the only way to avoid genetically engineered foods is by purchasing organic foods which by definition exclude genetically modified material. But many families are unable to purchase such premium priced, non-genetically engineered goods, raising the a question of access to non-genetically engineered foods. More critically, should any novel protein adversely stimulate the immune system, the inability of persons in the lower socioeconomic strata (for whom asthma and food allergies are special problems) to avoid such foods raises a critical question the equitable distribution of risk in society.

A second issue hinges on whether or not genetically engineered foods are in any way nutritionally deficient or defective compared to their conventional counterparts. Our own work suggests soybeans may lose valuable phytoestrogens after being genetically engineered. (We have recently confirmed our initial finding of below conventional levels - by some 12-18% - of genistin and daidzin in a third series of tests). Were genetically engineered foods, which are presently flooding world markets at below par prices, to prove nutritionally inferior as a group, they could compromise the very populations the life science industry claims to be interested in aiding.

Special Attention to Children
The fact that children seem to be more likely to react adversely to novel foods than do adults makes it important to ask if genetically engineered foods pose any undue burden upon this young population. Foods derived from the advances in genetic technology include new and potentially allergenic proteins coded by their novel genotypes. Should children from lower socioeconomic strata experience an especially elevated risk, such as from allergic reactions, as a result of their increased exposure to genetically engineered antigens, the inability of their parents to "exit" the system (e.g. no labels; because of the high price of organic foods, limited availability of conventional foods, etc.) compounds the ethical problem.

General Concerns
The debate surrounding the alteration of the food supply has been entrusted to the science community with very little input from those with differing philosophical and perceptual convictions. For instance, the scientific community has continued to debate the equivalency of genetically engineered foods in relationship to conventionally created ones, while neglecting the potential secondary effects of novel foodstuffs on exposed populations, or the necessity to perform extensive safety testing to assure the well-being of infants or children.

In spite of only a tiny fraction of the necessary testing being completed, the Food and Drug Administration has declared foods derived via molecular biology to be analogous to conventionally bred foods. Likewise the Life Sciences industry has published data asserting the comparability of genetically engineered foods, and have even claimed the novel foods may improve health and nutrition. However, the novel genes and their products, many originating from bacteria, have not been tested adequately for long-term safety. Nor have the foodâs active biological chemicals been tested for significant alterations which might create novel antigenic configurations, e.g. through differential folding of genetically engineered proteins.

Specific Concerns: Allergenicity
These realities are particularly eventful in light of the potential allergenicity posed by new genes which program for novel proteins. In part because of this concern, the National Academy of Sciences, after thorough review of potential harms stemming from genetically engineered crops, has recommended an extended testing protocol for allergenicity.

Allergic reactions can cause discomfort, including shortness of breath, hives, and in some cases can cause life-threatening anaphylactic shock. Since known food allergens tend to be proteins, foods with new proteins added via genetic engineering could potentially become newly allergenic food sources. Eighty-eight percent of people suffering from food allergies are "atopic" in that they have other allergic reactions including asthma or rhinitis, an inflammation of the nasal mucous membrane causing a runny nose and sneezing.

Were allergenicity to prove to be a problem, it would almost certainly impact differentially on the poor, and affect children specifically. Food allergies tend to affect susceptible individuals. They have become a serious public health concern, affecting roughly 2.5 to 5 million Americans. Up to two million, or 8%, of children in the U.S. are affected by food allergies as are up to 2% of adults. Food allergens - those parts of foods that cause allergic reactions - are usually proteins. Many food allergens can still cause reactions even after they are cooked or have resisted the degradation which normally accompanies digestion. Some like the Cry1A toxins expressed in insect resistant genetically engineered plants (for human consumption) fit this latter category.

Most proteins added to foods via genetic engineering cannot be tested directly for allergenicity prior to their incorporation into a foodstuff. Instead, industry scientists simply screen the biochemical characteristics of proteins to see if they are "consistent" with the characteristics associated with allergens. It remains to be seen how effective such screening will be in protecting the health of vulnerable populations of the public.

Ethical Considerations
In order to decide that special duty of care is owed to children who may be placed at a greater disadvantage due to the marketing and ubiquitous nature of genetically modified foods, there needs first to be a discussion as to why society should give special consideration to susceptible populations. The underlying premise for such consideration is the notion of equivalency: if two groups with varying degrees of vulnerability to a health limiting factor are to be kept equal in health outcome, the more vulnerable group requires differential treatment. In its broad sense, justice requires that distribution be fair as a means of respecting the equality of deservedness under an equal rights doctrine or to assure the fair distribution of goods in a system designed to guarantee equality of outcomes and/or utility.

Recall that as an independent ethical principle, justice permits a pattern of distribution to be morally right even if it conflicts with maximizing the aggregate social good. When patterns of distribution or risk status are unequal, such as when one group is disproportionately burdened with a health risk, egalitarian justice would defend assistance to those worse off.

Recall also that egalitarian theory strives for an equality of well-being, not of sameness. In the circumstance of the distribution of genetically engineered foods, the relevant question is whether children generally, and the children of adults not having access to non-genetically foods specifically, have equal opportunity to achieve well-being as do those with the means to avoid potentially deficient harmful foods. This problem is exacerbated if genetically engineered foods create differential risks say by virtue of their allergenicity, nutritional composition, or specific deficiencies, thereby unjustly burdening susceptible populations. Conversely, preferential marketing protections and "streamlined" safety testing might be justified if enhanced gene products had greater nutritional levels, greater yields, etc. Were these advantages afforded to "higher quality" genetically engineered foods under this system, it could be justified under the principle whereby basic inequalities are justified only when they work to the advantage of the socially worst-off group.

Genetically engineered foods thus may not deserve their apparent preferential treatment if they are not in fact "better." If the foods do place children and in particular children from lower socioeconomic classes at an increased rate of risk for allergenic reactions they would be deserving of differential restrictions, not permissiveness. What is clear is that no one has determined whether or not genetically engineered foods are physiologically neutral, inferior, or better than conventional varieties already on the market. Given that the new genetically engineered varieties have virtually supplanted their predecessors, the ethical question of equality is central to a deliberation of value to vulnerable populations. The penultimate question turns on whether are we permitting the creation of foods which could place an already vulnerable population at potentially greater risk instead of creating foods and new technologies which could truly create better health particularly for those who are worse off.