|
| |
The Council for the Countryside has produced a number of booklets on topical
issues. The most recent is on GMOs
Introduction.
Every week, if not every day, there seems to be some news item or
another about genetically modified crops. Whether it is Tommy Archer's
court case on the radio, Arphad Pustai in the Lancet or Prince Charles
talking about mankind "playing God", there seems to be a debate raging
over the issue and this booklet is designed to enable Church members,
lay and ordained, to have a fuller understanding of what the issues
are and to provide a theological basis for reflection.
What are genetically modified organisms?
The simple answer to the question is that they are crops or animals
where a gene from another organism has been introduced into it to
provide some quality which otherwise would not be present. Probably
the most well known example is the introduction of a gene from a fish
into a tomato. This was done in order to delay the ripening process
and length the time before the tomato would rot, thus lengthening
the period the tomato could be stored.
In some ways there is very little that is new with genetic modification
of plants. We have been selectively breeding plants and animals since
the dawn of civilisation and thus selecting the genetic characteristics
which we find most useful. The difficulty with this conventional method
of selection is that as well as introducing the gene that is wanted
in a particular plant there will inevitably be a larger number of
"unwanted" genes introduced as well. The process of including the
right genes and getting rid of the wrong ones was slow, clumsy and
uncertain.
Genetic modification uses techniques so that a specific gene (or group
of genes) is introduced. The main difference with Genetic Modification
from traditional breeding techniques is that the changes in the plant
can be much more closely controlled. A further difference is that
we are able to introduce genes into one organism from another to
which it bears little or no relationship, hence the tomato with the
fish gene.
The issues involved
For Christians this development, as with any new technology must be
looked at from a biblical perspective. Scripture gives no direct teaching
on GMOs, but there are a number of issues around this debate that
we should consider in assessing how desirable or otherwise they might
be.
Concern for the hungry
One of the themes which runs throughout the bible is the concern which
God has for those in want, and this is a concern which ought to be
reflected in the lives of his followers.
When, having come out of Egypt, God's people in the wilderness were
hungry, He provided manna and quails for them to eat. The Old Testament
people of God were encouraged to provide for those in want, and lack
of food is seen as being something negative not positive. Feeding
the hungry is a cause for rejoicing.
With the announcement of the coming of Jesus as Messiah, Mary's song
of praise to God at her meeting with her cousin Elizabeth includes:-
"He has performed mighty deeds...
He has lifted up the humble
He has filled the hungry with good things" (Luke 1,53)
Indeed in Jesus' teaching on the subject of Judgment in the parable
of the sheep and the goats He goes so far as to identify himself as
being present with the hungry. "I was hungry and you gave me something
to eat" (Mat 25, 35)
The need to feed the world is a need which Christians ought to recognise
as being a legitimate concern which we take seriously.
Those who favour using GMOs believe that by providing the right qualities for plants and animals we are able to maximise production
in a world with an ever increasing population. The world population is anticipated to rise from its present 6 billion to 8 billion in
the next two decades. Hunger is already a very real issue.
GM crops can significantly increase yields and so, if we are to feed the world using the available land, we need to increase production.
There is not sufficient land available to meet the world's food need
without using GM technology.
GM crops can be bred to be resistant to disease. Recently the cassava
crop (a staple diet in many parts of Africa) has been devastated by disease. GM technology allows the growing of disease resistant cassava.
Denying the use of that technology is condemning many people to starvation
or dependency on aid.
Further, with genetic engineering plants can be given the necessary
characteristics so that they can be grown in areas which currently would be considered to be unsuitable to be used for cultivation (e.g.
too dry, too salty ...). Without GM foods we will, they assert, face impossible challenges in meeting the food needs of the world's population
in the foreseeable future.
Those opposed to GM foods maintain that using GM technology will not
deal with the real problem which is one of unfair distribution and a lack of equality in consumption of resources. Already in the UK
there is more food in our rubbish bags than there was half a century ago in our shopping bags. The current (world wide) crisis in agriculture
arises from there being an over-supply of food with the consequent collapse in market prices. If, with an over supply of food, we cannot
feed the hungry then we need to address other issues than levels of production. It is not lack of food (of which there is plenty) but
lack of money to buy the food which produces hunger. The real issue
is poverty.
In any event the increase in world population is slowing down with the birth rate in some countries already being less than the replacement
rate needed to maintain current population levels. The forecast is for a stable population figure by the year 2100.
Concern for justice for the poor; release for the oppressed
Tied up with the issue of hunger, and an equal concern which runs
through scripture is that of justice for the poor and release for the oppressed. While Jesus is clear that the poor will always be with
us there is no romantic view of the blessings of poverty. In the beatitudes
it is the poor in spirit not the poor in pocket who Jesus describes as "blessed". When Jesus announced his mission in the synagogue at
Nazareth he proclaimed
"he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor
...to release the oppressed""
The pro-GM case would run that (especially in the less developed countries) the use of GM technologies allows more efficient farming which makes
less demands on the time of farmers, thus enabling them to take part in other activities (such as being educated) and thus greater wealth
creation.
Advocates of GMOs would point to examples of multi-national companies
giving away (patented) GM technology to farming communities which could not afford to buy that technology. Their behaviour in doing
so arising either from philanthropic motives or with a view to raising the standard of living so that in the future the multi-nationals will
have a market for their products.
Those who have concerns about GM point to the development of herbicide
resistant crops and would argue that because the crops have been modified
to be resistant to a particular brand of herbicide (supplied by the same firm as seeds) that it is effectively tying a
producer to one particular supplier and this cannot be about releasing the oppressed.
The counter argument would be that herbicide resistant crops reduce
costs and are thus good news for the poor. (More on herbicide resistant
crops follows.)
Another area of concern (though not strictly a matter confined to the GM debate) is the question of patenting of genes. Does the behaviour
of the multi-national companies who promote genetic modification of crops bring about "release for the oppressed"? It is possible (so
that those who finance the research benefit from their investment) to patent the processes whereby genes are moved from one organism
into another. It has recently been suggested that as well as being able to patent the process of moving genes, it is also possible to
patent the knowledge about what the gene is itself.
If this happens then the potential exists for a company to patent and have a control over seed varieties which may have been grown for
generations (perhaps in the developing world). There are very real questions about oppression and release.
A further example of concern in this area is in the development of so called "terminator" seeds (seeds which may produce increased yields
but infertile seeds for subsequent years). The concern is that this increases a farmer's dependency on a seed supplier having to buy
new seed every year.
However the counter argument here is that really this is nothing to do with GM crops. Farmers have been growing hybrid crops for years
and these produce infertile seeds. In any event re-using seed is not
good practise as it reduces yields and increases disease.
Stewards of Creation
In Genesis we see that God has put us in his creation with a mandate to care for it. Increasingly we are aware of the interrelatedness
of creation. We are discovering how human mistakes and short sightedness can cause damage to God's creation that can take years and pounds
to put right.
What are the environmental effects of GM crops? Those concerned about GMOs has argued strongly that we do not know what effect the growing
of GM crops will have and that it would be irresponsible to risk contamination of the "natural"
environment by the use of "unnatural" GM crops. The counter-argument would be that it is possible
to establish through laboratory procedures which plants can cross-pollinate with wild relatives and then it is possible to be aware of any risk
and to take the appropriate steps to minimise it.
Further, the argument would go, (because of greater disease resistance and specific use of herbicides) there are several beneficial effects
on the environment. Reduced herbicides, insecticides and fungicides benefit the environment. Sprays which are used with GM crops are broken
down more quickly leaving less residue in the soil and have less effects on the environment. Reduced ploughing reduces the amount of carbon
dioxide released into the atmosphere and thus contributes less to the "greenhouse effect". As one document puts it:-
"Better weed control reduces tillage, benefiting soil biodiversity,
reducing erosion and helping to conserve moisture" (1)
Where GM crops have been grown in the USA the observation is of increased
insect and bird life.
A further consideration surrounding the idea of our stewardship is about using for good the resources which we have been given. The resources
include the ability to modify organisms genetically. The steward in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25 14ff) who was condemned by
Jesus was the one who refused to take any risks. Is there a danger of burying a God given talent if we refuse the possibilities of GM
technology and find that we have been acting as the wicked and lazy steward in Jesus' parable?
According to its kind
The Genesis account of creation speaks of God creating "plants bearing seed according to their kind, trees bearing fruit with seed in it
according to their kind" (Gen 1,12) as well as animals and livestock "according to their kinds" (Gen 1,24).
What does that principle of "according to its kind" mean bearing in mind that on a Darwinian evolutionary model those "kinds" have been
changing rather than static
It is perhaps this understanding of species being different and distinct that gives rise to the accusation that Genetic
Modification is playing at being God.
That complaint has been made against a number of what were at the time new technologies which have now come to be acceptable
to the majority. When lightening conductors were first put on Church towers they were described by some people as "the Devil's rod". More
recently, it is not long ago that those who worked with in vitro fertilisation
were similarly accused of playing at being God.
Is transferring a gene from a fish to a tomato failing to recognise the differences which God has ordained in his creation, or is the
emphasis on maintaining the differences going to lead to the kind
of theology of Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa?
Personal Choice
One of the features of scripture is that we have a responsibility for the personal choices which we make. When, (for example) in Ezekiel
18 the Israelites were apparently saying that their predicament was not their fault but their ancestors fault, the response of the prophet
was that each one individually was accountable for the decisions they
took and the choices they made. In the GM debate there is an issue of personal choice which is being denied to some of those who want
to eat GM foods.
An example of this would be that when GM products were first introduced
to UK supermarkets it was possible to buy a tomato paste made using GM tomatoes. The product was, originally, popular with consumers as
you got a larger tin at a lower price than the non-GM equivalent.
Following pressure from the anti-GM lobby several of the major supermarkets
made a decision to stock no GM products in their stores. The choice of the individual to buy GM or non-GM tomato paste has been removed.
Effective exercise of choice means that there needs to be clear and informative labelling of produce. Arguably the introduction of unlabelled
GM soya products into the UK by GM food companies was both restricting
choice and a public relations mistake.
Food and identity
The idea that "you are what you eat" is not something found within
scripture, but nevertheless, there is a link between who you are and what you eat.
Part of the Old Testament understanding of what it meant to be the people of God was intimately tied up with diet. The people of God
were those who did not eat the foods proscribed in the dietary code.
The people of God were those who did, on Passover night, eat unleavened bread, roast lamb, bitter herbs.
When Daniel and his companions made a stand to preserve their Jewish
identity in exile in Babylon they accepted Babylonian education, positions
and even names, but refused to accept the diet offered. (Daniel 1)
(Interestingly there is nothing in the text to suggest that they refused the food because it was not kosher!)
With the coming of the New Testament the people of God are still those
who identify themselves through diet. The food laws may have been superseded, but Christians are those who associate with Jesus in eating
bread and drinking wine as a memorial of Him
While Mark's understanding of Jesus' teaching (Mark 7,19) and Luke's account of Peter's vision
(Acts 10) radically affect the link between food and identity the
issue re-emerges in the early Church in the debate over food sacrificed
to idols.
Food is different from any other consumer product in that it is something
which we literally take in and, because this can have something to do with our identity there is a perceived need for that food to be
wholesome. Jesus may have declared all food clean (Mark 7,19) but
he was not declaring all food to be wholesome. Issues of food safety are ones which should properly concern Christians.
Is GM food safe to eat?
Because the technology is new, GM foods are subject to safety checks
before being made available to the general public. GM foods have been
eaten in substantial quantities both in the USA and in China for a number of years with no reason to think that there are any causes
for concern about safety. In many foods the preparation process destroys
the genetic material. Where it is not destroyed there is no evidence
that genetic material from food (whether genetically modified or not) is not broken down in the body.
Two specific areas of concern about food safety have been raised in relation to GM foods. One is to do with antibiotics. The process of
inserting a gene into a plant has used an antibiotic marker. Concern
has been expressed about the possible increase in consumption of antibiotics
with all the problems of increased antibiotic resistance. Alternative
technologies exist and are being developed to replace the antibiotic
markers.
The other area of concern is to do with possible allergic reactions
to GM foods. If someone is allergic to a substance that has provided
a gene that has been put into a plant are they going to be allergic to that plant? (If someone was allergic to fish could they safely
eat the tomato with the fish gene?) The answer to that is that GM crops are no more of a risk (and some would say in fact less of a
risk) than conventionally bred crops. Any new plant may produce a
new allergen and new plants (GM or non-GM) are tested for allergens.
The assertion is that with GM plants because only a single gene (or
group of genes) is being introduced the risks of new allergens is less than with conventional breeding programmes. It could be that
GM technology has the possibility of producing plants that do not
contain the allergen.
The righteous will live by faith (Romans 1,18)
It has been suggested that St. Paul took that text and used it as
a basis for his letter to the Church in Rome, and that he wrote theletter to deal with the situation that we learn about in chapter 14,
a church divided by the question "What can we eat?" The "strong in faith" believed that it did not matter what you ate. The "weak in
faith" had concerns about whether it was legitimate to eat food which had been sacrificed to idols, essentially most meat that was commercially
available.
St. Paul's response in his letter was to try and get the Roman Christians to see that each person on either side of the debate was someone loved
and cared for by God; each one being a person that Jesus loved enough to die for.
This booklet is not the place to repeat in detail Paul's arguments, but it is pertinent to look to his conclusions and his
exhortation
"Let us do everything that leads to peace and mutual edification"
(14,19).
In all the heat that has surrounded the GM debate perhaps the Church ought to be a community in which both sides of the debate can speak,
be heard and be respected.
Footnotes
(1) from the leaflet "GM agriculture in the UK?" biotechnical and
biological sciences research council July 1999
This Booklet was produced by Robet Barlow, Diocesan Rural Officer
Peterborough Diocese March 2000
Help, support, comments and observations were made by members of the
Council for the Countryside
The Rectory,
Crick
Northampton NN6 7TU
Other Sources of information/views on GMOs
www.bbsrc.ac.uk Biotechnology and biological sciences research
council
www.foe.co.uk Friends of the Earth
www.monsanto.com Commercial producer
www.srtp.org.uk Society religion technology & people.
Church of Scotland page
|
