1. World Hunger GMOs as a possible solution

2. Original Articles: Greenpeace (The Nation, Business World) Greenpeace pushes Kraft to adopt no- GMO policy Greenpeace activists label foods Greenpeace protests in Manila Conspiracy? Targeting certain companies

3. Opinion article: The World Needs Genetically Modified Foods by: Robert Paarlberg (Wall Street Journal) FDA made a statement that so far GMOs bring no new risks to human health Greenpeace fights for labeling Europeans fighting on both sides Protestors are preventing the production Positives: plants that can resist bugs, help resist virus’, longer seasons, more nutrients ect.

4. Negative article: Uganda; We Do Not Need GMOs - Ugandan Farmers by: East African Business Week GMOs will hurt the agricultural industry in developing countries as well as the small town farmers Expensive seeds and materials will lead to rising cost of food Biotechnology patents don’t allow the reproduction of their products

5. Global Justice Issues What is the primary cause/purposed solution for world hunger? Who is responsible to aid in the solution? What is our role as affluent westerners? Do people have the right to know how their food is made?

6. World Hunger Paarlberg and GMO argument suggests lack of production Others suggest an overpopulated world Pogge suggests radical inequality/lack of basic rights Singer suggests a lack of charity (or duty) along with Pogge suggestions + population control (surprisingly)

7. Paarlberg-production Droughts and frosts in certain developing countries lead to extended periods of food shortages and starvation Developing countries aren’t producing food at capacity There is not enough useable land for authentic agriculture

8. Over populated world There is evidence to support the fact that the capacity and conditions for food production are not sufficient for the growing population Singer supports that the earth cannot support a continued population growth There are too many people for what our earth naturally produces

9. Pogge-Radical inequality radical inequality consists of people being worse off, in every aspect of their life, than the majority of the population with no ability to change their situation. Mean while, others have the ability to help them, without becoming badly off themselves there is plenty of food for everyone to be satisfied, the problem is unfair distribution

10. Singer- Duty to give (marginal utility) If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, do it. Humans are not fulfilling their duty to eradicate inequality and “redistribute” the wealth Westerners don’t feel obligated to help those far away

11. Global Justice and GMOs Can GMOs be a promising solution to world hunger? Are people being used as guinea pigs? Is it more important to satisfy world hunger Should developed countries such as the US and Europe by protesting GMOs? Can developing country’s economies adapt to the changes in their economy and lifestyle with the introduction of GMOs? How can researchers justify creating patents for GMOs and when they could potentially feed millions of starving people?

12. Issues of Poverty + Rights Immediate solution to hunger /poverty Vs. experimenting with health and enviornmental GMOs a the property of the people Vs. GMOs are the property of biochem firms

13. Thomas Pogge and GMOs Do GMOs undermine Pogge? GMOs= resources Still radical inequality Solution: GMO’s = stock dividends Biochem firms positive duty/negative

14. Singer and GMO’s Bioengineers' skills-marginal utility Child drowning- life guard neglecting their duty Preventing death by hunger and famine has priority over possible health risks Affluent individuals need to focus on contributing to solutions to poverty and hunger

15. Responsibility Identified in the articles: government institutions, organizations (biochem firms/Greenpeace), affluent individuals Supported by Pogge and Singer as responsible

16. In Final Analysis GMOs could be an immediate solution to world hunger, therefore has higher moral significance than possible health and enviornment effects It is unjust to prevent the worlds poor and hungry from having access to these products-therefore the biochem firms have a positive duty to focus on a solution and a negative duty to not have patents

17. Works cited Pogge, Thomas. Eradicating Systemic Poverty. Brief for a Global Resource Dividend. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2008. Print. Global Justice Reader. The Nation, “Greenpeace warns over GMO cookies”, The Nation Thailand October 8 th 2005. Singer, Peter. Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2008. Print. Global Justice Reader. The Nation, “GMO PROTEST: Greenpeace targets Carrefour's shelves”, The Nation Thailand. March 21 st 2002. Paarlberg, Robert. "The World Needs Genetically Modified Foods." Wall Street Journal. N.p., 14 Apr. 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2013. Macapagal-Aroyo, Gloria. “Greenpeace backs labeling” BusinessWorld. Feb. 28 th. 2002. Nabwisso, Samuel. “We Do Not Need GMOs-Ugandan Farmers” East African Business Week. Apr 01, 2013. Windhoek. “GMOs to be Benchmarked”. Africa News. April 18 th, 2013.