I drink diet because there isn't that much of a taste difference and the obesity epidemic is much more dangerous for our health then a cancer epidemic, especially considering aspartame is far less of a carcinogen then Tobacco while soda is one of the leading causes of obesity.
Now I apologize for the Obi like post to answer your main question, I don't know, its a tough call, I could play the right-wing nut that I normally play and just declare LET THE FREE MARKET DECIDE! But that wouldn't really answer the question, people are irrational and focus on short term gains and ignore then long run, even when it isn't in their best interest. Fast food is a good example, eating healthier foods would no doubt be better for them, they know this and many of them want to change, but when it comes to buying the meal, they take the burger and fries.
On the topic of fast food, my main reason for supporting the free market in this area is because with inventions like GMOs and factory farming, we have been able to vastly increase the food production of the world, taking millions, if not billions, out of poverty. I would be reluctant to support any regulation that would increase food costs.
That said, fast food is a tricky subject for me, obesity is a massive problem in North America and, especially because I live in a country with universal healthcare, I think its a case where people can make an argument for government intervention.
I guess the most simple argument is that tobacco kills 400,000 people every year in America, but that isn't enough to stop people from smoking the amount that they do. Clearly, as a whole should GMOs that cause cancer be available on the market, if they were cheaper , tastier and more nutritious then regular foods, people would still eat them.
The question is, just because people would prefer it, does it mean its ok? Morally I would be torn, sometimes, morally I am pro-freedom in every way shape or form, but other times I am not, depending on my mode. If I am going to argue from a utilitarian perspective, then this is an interesting question (if I am arguing from egoist or deontological ethics, then I would be in favour of GMOs hands down).
Would it be better for the short term benefits (happiness, monetary and lower poverty) but giving us a big long run problem (cancer), or would it be better to avoid the long run problem but giving us all the short term ones?
I would say that in this instance the short term benefits outway the long term costs because:
1. Being overly optimistic I could claim that cancer might be cured before this becomes a problem. Though I shouldn't, and wont, use this as the center of my argument because its probably an unlikely wish.
2. I think the benefits from decreased poverty are more then enough to justify an increase in cancer deaths.
The life expectancy of a smoker in Ontario is 75 (According to the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Public Health Ontario), which, while lower then the life expectancy of Europe, North America and Japan, is far higher then the life expectancy of most of the world, poverty and malnutrion being one of the reasons.
I would therefore conclude that it would serve a net benefit to use GMOs, even if they were a proven carcinogen (which keep in mind they aren't).
)
Face to face
)
)
)
