Complete the answers to the five (5)
questions at the end of Case 13, “The High Cost of High-Tech
Foods”, pp. 637-638.
Case 13, “The High Cost of High-Tech Foods”
1) What are the ethical issues in this case?
2) Do you think either group, pro-GM or anti-GM foods, is correct while the
other group is wrong? If so, what reasoning do you give for supporting
the position of one group over the other? Is it possible for both to be
right? What ethical concepts help you decide?
3) Is there any way to bridge the gap between these groups? If so, what
would the advantages and disadvantages be?
4) If you were crafting GMO public policy, what would you recommend?
5) Do hybrid seeds represent as serious a concern as that represented by GM
foods? What policy would you recommend for hybrid seeds and vegetables?
Case Analysis Guidelines The guidelines presented below have
been designed to help the student analyze the cases that follow. They are not
intended to be a rigid format. Each question is intended to bring out
information that will be helpful in analyzing and resolving the case. Each case
is different, and some parts of the guidelines may not apply in every case.
Also, the student should be attentive to the questions for discussion at the
end of each case. These questions should be answered in any complete case
analysis. The heart of any case analysis is the recommendations that are made.
The Issue/Problem Identification and Analysis/Evaluation steps should be
focused on generating and defending the most effective set of recommendations
possible. In all stages of the case analysis, the stakeholder, ethics,
sustainability, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) concepts presented in
the text should be used. The guidelines are presented in three stages, as discussed
in the following sections. ISSUE/PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 1. Facts and
Assumptions. What are the central facts of the case and the assumptions you are
making on the basis of these facts? 2. Major Overriding Issues/Problems. What
are the major overriding issues in this case? (What major questions/issues does
this case address that merit(s) their/its study in this course and in
connection with the chapter/material you are now covering?) 3. Subissues and
Related Issues. What subissues or related issues are present in the case that
merit consideration, discussion, and action? ANALYSIS/EVALUATION 4. Stakeholder
Analysis. Who are the stakeholders in this case, and what are their stakes?
(Create a stakeholder map to depict relationships.) What challenges/threats/
opportunities are posed by these stakeholders? What stakeholder characteristics
are at work (legitimacy, power, urgency)? 5. CSR Analysis. What CSRs
(economic/legal/ethical/philanthropic) does the company have, and what exactly
are the nature and extent of these responsibilities to the various
stakeholders? 6. Evaluations. If the case involves a company’s or manager’s
actions, evaluate what the company or manager did or did not do correctly in
handling the issue affecting it. How should actions have been handled?
RECOMMENDATIONS 7. Recommendations and Implementation. What recommendations
would you make in this case? If a company’s or a manager’s strategies or
actions are involved, should they have acted the way they did? What actions
should they have taken? What actions should the company or manager take now,
and why? Be specific and include a discussion of alternatives (right now,
short-term, and long-term). Identify and discuss any important implementation
considerations.non-GM ones and, therefore, do not pose a threat to consumers.
Environmental watchdog groups, like the U.S. Public Interest Research Group,
disagree. Studies claiming similarity between GM and non-GM crops, they say,
are flawed and conclude nontoxicity without sufficient evidence. 5 GOING TO
EXTREMES? Neither pole is exempt from accusations of extremist thinking.
Anti-“GMers”believe that researchers and developers of new technology promise
too much. In recent years, a variety of plants that produce their own
pesticide—as well as herbicide-resistant seed and plants, and others with
more“exotic”features—have made it to the marketplace where their benefits are
lauded and their deficits seem nonexistent. But the GM food opponents ask
whether the testing has been sufficiently long term to really test
environmental impact. Have possible dangers for wildlife and plants that
consume or ingest GM food been tested? What is the effect of that food as it
moves through the food chain? Has gene flow been controlled? Some say that new
reports provide evidence that studies are often too limited in both space and
time to reach a conclusion. 6 INDUSTRY’S RESPONSE GM proponents respond that
their detractors often exaggerate environmental hazards, do not substantiate
their claims with scientific evidence, and are simply reacting out of fear.
Those who stand by GM technology then point to examinations by government
agencies“so long and rigorous that many standard foods wouldn’t pass.”Their
field research never uncovers even a slight headache. Some even say it would be
wrong to try to replicate the research. 7 THE PROBLEM CONTINUES In September
2006, a contaminated rice scandal bore an eerie resemblance to the StarLink
situation. Greenpeace found U.S. rice on European store shelves that contained
illegally genetically engineered rice. The German company Bayer was responsible
for the contamination. They had ended their U.S. field trials of LL601 and
LL604 over five years earlier, but some of the LL601 rice escaped the field
trials and contaminated conventional U.S. rice fields. In response to this
contamination, Ebro Puleva, the world’s largest rice importer, stopped the
shipment of U.S. rice to Europe. LL601 rice had not been approved for human
consumption when Bayer conducted their trials. When it was found that the
genetically altered rice infiltrated the U.S. conventional rice crop, Bayer
hastily filed an application for approval by USDA. The USDA approved LL601 for
human consumption in November 2006. No other country in the world has approved
LL601 for human consumption. Neither the United States nor any other country
has approved LL604 for human consumption. 8 In 2010, an estimated 10,000
peasants staged a march in Central Haiti to protest what they described as“the
next earthquake for Haiti”—a donation of 475 tons of hybrid corn seeds and
vegetable seeds by Monsanto. Monsanto stresses that these seeds are not
genetically modified organism (GMO), but are conventional hybrids. The people
of Haiti find the distinction to be unimportant because the hybrid corn does not
produce seeds and is expensive to fertilize, making the people of Haiti
dependent on outsiders. The issue is complex because the move comes at a time
of acute need in Haiti. Nevertheless, many feel the introduction of these seeds
will undermine rather than strengthen Haiti’s food security. Chavannes
Jean-Baptiste, leader of the peasants, describes the entry of Monsanto seeds
into Haiti as“a very strong attack on small agriculture, on farmers, on
biodiversity, on Creole seeds… and on what is left of our environment in
Haiti.”
