|
SRT Home Page What is the SRT Project? Site Map & Subject Index What's New? Highlights Current Talking Point SRT Publications SRT Newsletter SRT Information Sheets SRT Topical Papers Press Room Contact SRT Send a comment Guest Book SRT Trust & Associates Links European Christian Environmental Network Eco-Congregation |
|
Some see Genetic Engineering opening up great opportunities in agriculture, food and medicine, as we learn to harness the power of the gene.
For others it's a threat to something very basic about ourselves and the natural world, unnecessary, harmful, unethical, and mostly benefiting big business at others' expense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? <<<<<<<<<<<<
|
|
Should we be doing Genetic Modification?
Some Christians object in principle to genetically modified food, as an unacceptable intervention in God's creation violating barriers in the natural world. Others see the potential for using God's gift of our technical skills, but with strong provisos, on matters of food safety and environmental risk. Christians believe that all of God's creatures are much more than their genes. To change one or two genes wouldn't make an organism less than itself, unless the change itself caused a major disruption. Ethical problems may arise for certain types of gene, for example animal genes for a vegetarian or pig genes for a Jew or Muslim. Such products are not envisaged, out of respect for these questions. Before a gene is transferred from one organism to another it is copied millions of times, so the chances of eating the same gene are tiny, but a pig gene doesn't cease to be pig by copying it. What matters to most is where it originally came from, and the genetic information, which is still the same.
Problems with Genetically Engineered Soya Bean and Maize Imports
The first main genetically modified food was a tomato paste, introduced with careful consumer consultation, clearly labelled. It sold well until the current furore began. In 1996 the EU accepted the import of US genetically modified soya bean and maize, staple commodities which go untraced into a large number of processed foods. The US companies refused to label or segregate the new products, more concerned with winning markets than public attitudes. Ordinary people ended eating modified food without knowing it, with no tangible benefit to them, and having no real say in the decisions. This major failure of democracy resulted in a huge consumer backlash. It also raised questions of environmental risks of GM crops spreading genes to other species and possible loss of biodiversity. These risk issues will be addressed in a new SRT information sheet.
Who Benefits, Who Loses? - Labelling and Segregation
Food is a special case. Anyone wanting to make substantial changes to what we are offered to eat must take the greatest care to listen to the public and respect their views. Those with objections to genetically modified food must be given the option of not eating it, and should not have to pay more for what till now has been "normal" food. EU legislation is unjust in requiring labelling only if foods contained identifiable levels of foreign DNA or proteins. This is irrelevant to the many people who object on ethical or environmental grounds to the fact that genetic modification had been used in the process. They have no choice but to eat what they object to. This injustice needs to be righted by a change in the law, with mandatory labelling by process, and proper segregation of source materials.
Will Genetic Engineering Really Feed the World?
Claims are often made for the potential of genetically modified food to "feed the world". If genes could be manipulated to enable staple crops to grow in what are today marginal conditions, it might make a big difference to many countries which struggle to feed themselves. However Christians are concerned that the driving forces of biotechnology are leading us to create of unnecessary products for western indulgence, when the real food shortages elsewhere in the world remain neglected. Technically these areas are proving difficult, and financially there is less return than products for our supermarkets. If the claim to feed the world is not to be mere propaganda, biotechnological investment and expertise needs a radical reorientation to the specific needs of marginal agriculture in the Third World. At present it is just another "rich man's" technology. Often the best solutions will be better breeding with their own indigenous resources, rather than high tech. solutions which may be inappropriate. Whatever is done must be in sensitive collaboration with local communities. Exploitation by multi-national agrichemical and seed corporations, more interested in market share than people is another reason for bringing these technologies into a proper public accountability.
Return to Top of Page
Go to SRT GM Foods Pages
Return to SRT Home Page
Go to SRT Contents Page
SRT Website Map
Ref.no. GMFOOD1 Text revised 30/11/99, page revised 4/4/01.
