Download GM Crops - Green Christian

CHRISTIAN ECOLOGY LINK
GM CROPS BRIEFING PAPER
Foreword
Introduction
The debate on growing GM crops
commercially in the UK has
started.
With so many competing views, surely it’s impossible to say
who is right and who is wrong? By no means; not all views
are valid and not all are of equal weight. There are also
areas of agreement. This pamphlet attempts to unravel the
GM debate and identify different philosophical issues. It
offers a framework that suggests how people, particularly
Christians, may choose to think. Once people have reflected
on the debate some will want to act. The pamphlet
concludes with suggestions for further action.
Some of the world’s biggest
chemical
companies
have
invested vast sums of money into
GM. Meanwhile the world’s major
environmental agencies, plus
Christian Aid and Action Aid,
have united in opposition. The
world’s only super-power, the US,
is an aggressive promoter of GM.
Scientists have been split, with
the Royal Society and the Food
Standards Agency taking a proGM stance and other scientists
forming opposition groups.
In the UK, many consumers think
their food is GM-free, but some
supermarkets are now looking to
sell cheap meat products reared
on GM feed.
Whereas many consumers view
GM food negatively, organic food
is regarded as of premium
quality.
However, the real debate is not
about competing products, but
competing philosophies, beliefs
and value systems.
Christian Ecology Link
www.christian-ecology.org.uk
We use the abbreviation GM to stand for crops engineered
by inserting one or more genes into the crop’s genome.
Concerns about the technology relate not only to the effects,
expected or unexpected, of the inserted genes, but also the
effects of viral promoters and antibiotic resistance markers
which accompany the engineering process.
Much has had to be omitted or abbreviated. Our aim in this
briefing is to provide a broad over-view of a controversial
topic. There are no views from nowhere, however, and, like
all participants in the debate we offer our own distinctive
view based on Christian principles and ecological insights
too.
GM and a life ethic?
Most Christians would agree that plants, animals and natural
systems are not mere commodities and therefore reject
reductionist approaches which give living things only a
utilitarian value. Christians are generally pro-the sciences.
But the deployment of technologies, and setting acceptable
levels of risk, are decisions that belong not to science but to
a spiritually aware and morally informed society.
One thing that is agreed upon is that genetic engineering is
not just like natural cross-fertilisation. The inserted genes are
generally not available to the crop by any natural process,
and nor is the other DNA material inserted as part of the
engineering, such as antibiotic resistance markers and viral
promoters. But does that make GM technology
fundamentally ethically flawed? By engineering the buildingblocks of life, are we compromising an expression of God’s
purpose or essence? Are we taking the role of co-creator too
far? Do we risk imminent judgement for our mis-use of
creative gifts? For some people, this is the case and the
debate stops here. For others they are not major concerns.
.
1
GM and the many faces of
science
“Science” is made up of
contrasting
communities
of
interest - academic, Governmental, and - by far the largest commercial. The social sciences
show that no “science” is
perfectly objective and value-free.
There is no science from
nowhere. The Royal Society has
been reported to the Charity
Commission for its close links to
both Government and the biotech
companies and also its overt
political activities in favour of GM
which, it is claimed, exceed its
charitable status. Other scientists
have formed alliances opposing
GM or, more broadly, the current
direction of science. In June 2003
the Independent Science Panel
released its report, The Case for
a GM Free Sustainable World,
claiming it to be the strongest,
most
complete
dossier
of
evidence ever put together to call
for a ban on GM crops and
widespread adoption of organic,
sustainable agriculture. See the
report at www.indsp.org
There are, nonetheless, some
elements in this debate that the
scientific communities are likely
to agree on
 the search for understanding
of the genetic universe is
basically a good thing;
 the search is valid because
we know very little about
recombinant effects, and
horizontal transfer of genes;
 there is much yet to learn
about soil organisms, quite
apart from the effects of new
GM material within soils.
Most believe the sciences are
critical to add to our learning, but
value judgements need to be
morally and spiritually informed.
For example, do we know enough
about the risks GM crops pose to
the environment to conduct farmscale trials to test for particular
events? Alternatively, is not
enough known to risk releases
into the environment and, is
growing a GM crop to see if it
leads to contamination a logical
nonsense? Many scientists and
environmentalists advocate the
“precautionary principle”, which
puts the onus on the developers
of new technology to demonstrate
human and environmental safety,
rather than on members of the
public to demonstrate harm. The
precautionary principle applies
standard legal and statistical
conventions,
as
used
in
laboratories and Courts, to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that
benefits outweigh risks.
GM and human health
Other than crops withdrawn
before being granted commercial
licence, there is as yet no
substantial evidence of direct
harm to human health. There are
no records of “gene deaths” or
GM-specific illness as a result of
the current commercial GM crops
grown for direct or indirect (e.g.
animal
feed)
human
consumption.
It is a rapidly developing
technology, however, and there
have been very few studies on
the effect of GM on human
populations.
The
scientific
evidence garnered thus far from
research on animals is of limited
utility as some of the studies lack
rigour.
Recent research has raised
questions about various matters
including antibiotic resistance
transfers,
the
potential
to
increase
allergies
and
anaphylaxis, and evidence of
harm to chickens fed on t-25
maize. Unless a wide range of
specific tests are undertaken
health threats may not be
uncovered.
GM and the environment
“Land”
is sacred in many
religions. For instance, the Bible
portrays land as God’s gift, his
bounty to all, for the community’s
well-being. People and land are
inter-connected and have a
shared future. The idea of
"stewardship" of God’s creation
has often been used to frame
Christian thinking about the
environment.
2
Another principle is that of the
“good neighbour” - applying this
to the environment suggests
acting in ways which enhance,
rather than diminish, living things
and their habitats. The good
neighbour principle is a rich one
and captures a range of concerns
raised by GM crops. For instance,
the emergence of herbicide - and
insecticide -resistant weeds and
insects as a result of GM farming
is not good neighbourliness
towards already fragile ecosystems. This is of particular
concern in the UK. Some
countries have wilderness areas
separated by great distance from
arable areas. In the UK, most of
what we value as "wild" lives
close to farmed land. The good
neighbour principle suggests the
risks to an already diminished
gene pool are unwarranted.
All sides agree that some
contamination is inevitable. The
following incidents have already
been recorded: GM material
found in related non-GM crops
and wild plants; gene transfer to
soils
and
soil
organisms;
contamination of non-GM seeds
at
harvesting;
accidental
contamination during storage and
shipping; GM material found in
processed foods thought to be
GM-free. For farmers the most
immediate concern may be
potential financial liability but
there is also a potential
environmental liability.
GM and the food business
Ours is an age of plenty, but the
gap between the richest and
poorest countries is widening.
Global
corporations
wield
enormous power with little
accountability. The corporate
ownership of the food chain
raises
concerns
for
many
Christians. Chemical intensive
agri-business is global and
dominant and it is intrinsically
destructive of the environment,
particularly biological diversity.
The claim of the biotech industry
that GM crops may require less
use of chemicals misses the point
-- agri-business is inherently
unsustainable.
GM may lock a farmer into a
relationship with a chemical
company and the use of its
proprietary
herbicide
or
insecticide.
Sometimes
portrayed as a way of using less
herbicide, the basic reason
behind
chemical
companies
developing GM crops was unsurprisingly - to find new ways
of continuing to sell their
products. It is not about cheaper
food or morally superior practice.
GM locks the crop-growing part of
the food production process into
the ownership of a handful of
multinational corporations. Four
global chemical companies are
responsible for over 90% of the
world’s GM crops: Monsanto,
Syngenta, Dupont, Bayer. GM is
the new flagship of chemical agribusiness.
GM and the end of world
hunger?
Christians have long had a
commitment to tackling world
hunger - a basic expression of
good
neighbourliness.
This
concern has been exploited by
the biotech companies to claim a
moral
imperative
for
GM.
However, we know, and have
known for decades, that the
hungry need justice, not aid.
Roughly 80% of the world’s
hungry live in countries where
there are food surpluses. The
Jubilee
2000
campaign
challenged a system in which
impoverished countries have to
make debt repayments which far
exceed the total aid they receive.
The global trading system and
operation of global companies too
often work against the interests of
the poorest countries. Mega
corporations are businesses, not
charities and biotech companies
are no different from others. The
system
involves
not
only
companies but Governments: the
US
Government
spends
enormous sums each year buying
crops from US corporations to
give as aid. Zambia famously
resisted the donation of GM crops
by USAID. Is this really aid? Or
the US subsidising its own agribusinesses - injustice dressed as
charity?
The hype about solving hunger is
not supported by evidence. For
instance, GM “Vitamin A” rice
would only provide sufficient
vitamin A if an adult consumed an
unlikely 9kg a day! Alternatives
include a single spoonful of red
palm oil. Food production using
cheap, low-cost, locally available
technologies and inputs offer
more realistic solutions to the
problems people in the least
developed countries actually
face. Professor Jules Pretty has
reported that a study of 208 such
projects, across 52 countries,
found yield increases of 50-100%
for key crops.
GM or a food ethic?
Food is more than fuel. Growing,
harvesting, sharing and blessing
of food can have religious
meanings,
expressing
the
relationships between God and
believer, between members of a
community, and between that
community and the land.
If a person, for moral or religious
reasons, chooses not to eat GM,
should that not be respected? But
the inevitable GM contamination
of conventional and organic crops
removes
that
right.
EU
discussions have focused on
permissible
levels
of
contamination. But what level of
meat contamination is acceptable
for a vegetarian? Many prefer not
to eat GM - at all. It is a matter of
moral
principles,
not
mathematical
proportions.
Knowing that some contamination
is inevitable a ban on commercial
growing of GM crops is required
to allow people to exercise that
right.
GM and the Government’s
public debate
The
validity
of
the
UK
Government’s GM trials has been
called into question numerous
times. A trial crop of t-25 maize,
destroyed by Greenpeace, had
been
planted
before
the
Government’s scientific panel had
ever met. The discovery of secret
trials (some discovered by a CEL
3
member) further eroded public
confidence. The Government’s
advisory group, The Agriculture
and Environment Biotechnology
Commission, concluded that the
Government should not approve
commercial cultivation on the
basis of the field trials alone, and
that further scientific and ethical
considerations needed to be
taken
into
account.
The
Commission recommended a
public debate. Sir Tom Blundell,
chair of the Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution in 1998
and professor of biochemistry at
Cambridge
University,
has
effectively accused ministers of a
fix.
Blundell
condemned
ministerial efforts to have an
independent scientific review of
GM technology as “artificial”.
Furthermore, the completion of
the trials - designed to discover
whether GM crops affect the
environment - has been delayed
such that potentially controversial
findings cannot now be discussed
in the Government’s public
debate,
which
is
already
underway. The Government looks
set to allow commercial plantings
of t-25 GM maize, but public
opinion
has
remained
consistently against GM - 56%
against and 14% in favour of GM
crops (MORI poll, 28/4/03.)
GM v Organic
Some claim that organic food
tastes better or causes less harm
than conventional food but, in the
view of others, this is missing the
point. The mode of agriculture
that dominates reflects the wider
economic culture of which it is
part. It should come as no
surprise then, that in the West
agriculture is industrialised and
food is treated as a commodity.
Organic
methods
are
underpinned by an alternative
philosophy. Organic can be highly
scientific and sophisticated, but
has its own characteristics and is
clearly distinguishable from agribusiness.
An organic approach is basically
non-chemical, works with natural
processes, relates productivity to
the natural capacity of the crop
and the environment, uses a
systems approach to farming,
produces in ways which enhance
local biodiversity and increase
local
habitats,
applies
the
precautionary principle to safety
issues, favours local production
and consumption, and promotes
closer links between producer
and consumer.
Cultivating GM crops could wipe
out all the UK's 4,000 organic
farmers. The Agriculture and
Environment
Biotechnology
Commission suggested that the
spread of pollen from GM crops
means that certified organic
produce would be contaminated.
Because
any
degree
of
contamination is unacceptable to
organic
producers
and
consumers there is a clear choice
for the UK: either GM and no
organic agriculture, or no GM.
Action…Action…Action
1. GM debate
Though
many
think
the
Government’s “public debate” is
flawed Christian Ecology Link is
encouraging participation. Local
debates can be organised and
fed into the consultation process.
See www.gmnation.org.uk
The postal address is GM
Nation? The Public Debate, PO
Box 44431, London SE1 7YW.
Useful websites for information
are:
www.greenpeace.org.uk
www.foe.co.uk
www.genewatch.org
www.i-sis.org.uk
Failure by the public to engage
may be used by proponents of
GM to say that no-one is
bothered anymore.
2. Freeze or Ban
Various environmental groups
have
campaigned
for
a
moratorium
on
commercial
planting until much more is
known about the impact on the
countryside.
Some critics argue that if
commercial growing is wrong
then a permanent ban is better.
Others reason that by the time
the freeze is lifted, commercial
growing will not be viable - in
effect creating a total ban. See
www.fiveyearfreeze.org
3. GM-Free Zones
Some areas have declared
themselves to be GM-free. These
include Devon County Council
(January 2003), Cornwall County
Council (March/April 2003) and
Warwickshire County Council
(May 2003). A local debate could
lead to such a move. See
www.GMFreeBritain.com
4. Direct action
Peaceful direct action against GM
crop
plantings
has
been
undertaken by a wide crosssection of the public, including
Christians. Participants include:
 those who now take direct
action having exhausted all
other options
 those who act to protect the
property of others, such as
conventional and organic
farmers and bee-keepers
(which can be a lawful
excuse);
 those who feel a moral
compulsion
to
act,
for
instance thinking it is a moral
duty to disobey unjust
practices;
 those who see it as an
appropriate
response
to
unaccountable power.
Nightmare?,
1998.
Gateway
Books,
6. Solutions
Irrespective of the threat posed
by GM technology, today’s
intensive
agri-busines
is
intrinsically
unsustainable.
Agriculture needs to move in the
opposite direction, away from the
control of the chemical giants.
What steps might we take to
achieve this?
Use your LOAF
Sustainable
practices,
and,
ideally, organic practices, offer
real
“good
neighbour”
alternatives. CEL has developed
the LOAF principle - to buy food
that
is
Locally
produced,
Organically
grown,
Animalfriendly
and
Fairly
traded.
Perhaps we give a few pounds a
week to an environmental group;
that is good. But whenever we
buy food we spend far more
buying either into agri-business or
into a philosophy which sustains
biodiversity
and
increases
habitats.
Say your prayers
Saying grace before meals? By
then it is too late to effect change!
Your purchases have either
invested in a handful of giant food
and chemical companies that
control the food chain, or bought
into a philosophy that cherishes
and enhances the environment.
Pray before you shop!
5. Books to read
Luke
Anderson,
Genetic
Engineering, Food and Our
Environment,
Green
Books,
1999.
Donald
and
Ann
Bruce,
Engineering Genesis, Earthscan,
rev. ed. 2002.
Celia Deane Drummond, Genetic
Engineering for a New Earth,
Grove Books, 1999.
Stephen Nottingham, Eat Your
Genes: How genetically modified
food is entering our diet, Zed
Books, 2003.
Mae
Wan
Ho,
Genetic
Engineering,
Dream
or
4
This GM Crops Briefing Paper
written by Malcolm Carroll, is
produced by Christian Ecology
Link, 3 Bond Street, Lancaster
LA1 3ER.
01524 33858.
[email protected]
www.christian-ecolgy.org.uk
Registered charity no. 328744.
June 2003.