* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download GM Crops - Green Christian
Survey
Document related concepts
Transcript
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.