Abstract
The public discourse on the acceptability of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is not only controversial, but also infused with highly emotional and moralizing rhetoric. Although the assessment of risks and benefits of GMOs must be a scientific exercise, many debates on this issue seem to remain impervious to scientific evidence. In many cases, the moral psychology attributes of the general public create incentives for both GMO opponents and proponents to pursue misleading public campaigns, which impede the comprehensive assessment of the full spectrum of the risks and benefits of GMOs. The ordonomic approach to economic ethics introduced in this research note is helpful for disentangling the socio-economic and moral components of the GMO debate by re- and deconstructing moral claims.
Highlights
Public controversy is the new hallmark of the global food and fiber system
The encompassing rationality related to the sustainability goals of the global food and fiber system seemingly breaks up into multiple partial rationalities, which are unable to establish rational contacts with each other
This imperviousness, in turn, is conditioned by the narrow emotional and moral framing of the relevant issues, such as those related to small-scale farming, world hunger, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
Summary
Public controversy is the new hallmark of the global food and fiber system. Among the hotly debated issues, the acceptability of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) stands out in terms of the heatedness of debates and the concomitant public anxiety. Similar concerns can be raised with regard to mental models related to GMOs or to speculation with agricultural commodities [14,15] These models, while seeking to reconcile the reality of industrialized agriculture with sustainability ideals, are apparently impervious to the evidence on how genetic engineering boosts agricultural productivity [16] and how speculation allows small producers to hedge against price risks [15]. In view of their impressive resistance to parts of empirical evidence, it does not seem far-fetched to characterize these mental modes as modern myths which are defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary as ideas or stories that are believed by many people but are not true. The rest of this research note will illustrate the ability of the ordonomic approach to analyze and straighten out the distorted discourses, both in general and in relation to the problem of widespread opposition to GMOs
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
