on
this page:
events
go back to:
home page
site directory
|
events
|
|
|
on
this page: |
|
Rosalie Rendu Roundtable for Religion and Science "QUESTIONING THE MORAL IMPERATIVE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY FOR FEEDING THE WORLD" Brother David Andrews, CSC * The National Catholic Rural Life Conference The National Catholic Rural Life Conference has for over 80 years, been the lead voice for the United States Catholic Bishops on food, farm, environmental and agricultural policy. In 2003 the US Bishops approved unanimously a new statement of policy entitled: "For I Was Hungry and You Gave Me Food." It was published in January of 2004. This statement reinforced past policies of support for family farm agriculture, of concern about corporate control and concentration of land ownership, of support for conservation of the air, land and water for the well being of rural communities. In the statement, the bishops of the United States developed new policy positions on agricultural trade and genetically modified organisms. They called for targets in support of small and medium sized farms in the United States as well as special and differential approaches to developing countries in the global arena. Further, The Bishops adopted the "Precautionary Principle" in the use of genetic engineering in food. The ""Precautionary Principle"" is an approach to risk management; it says that if we don't know the results of the use of technology, we should err on the side of caution. It is contrary to the principle that says that if no science has proven a problem will ensue, then we should move ahead, which is the position of the U.S. government. Genetic engineering is a process whereby genes from one organism are moved into the genome of another organism. In the case of genetically engineered foods, genes from bacteria or other plants or organisms are moved into crop varieties with the assistance of a viral vector. This provides herbicide-tolerance and/or insect resistance to existing domesticated plant varieties. In many cases, biotechnology breaks down barriers to interspecies reproduction. The genes inserted cannot be removed and thus become released into the environment during the pollination process. Soybeans, Cotton, Corn, Rice, Sugar Beets, Canola, and Potatoes are the predominant crop plants being engineered. There are nearly 170 million global acres planted with genetically engineered seed. To date, the bulk of modifications have been performed to reduce labor costs while no plants have been engineered for enhanced nutrition. Nearly 70% of foods in the United States grocery stores contain byproducts of genetically engineered organisms. Nabisco®, Frito-Lay®, Proctor & Gamble, and Kraft® are just a few of the food processing companies who are using genetically engineered byproducts. Baby food being produced by companies is not at the present time genetically modified or engineered. Genetically modified plants are being regulated by a patchwork of three agencies: the EPA, FDA, and the USDA. The FDA considers genetic bioengineering to be a mere extension of traditional agriculture. In 1992, the FDA determined that foods with genetically engineered byproducts were not significantly different than conventionally grown foods. In June of 2002 the Board of Directors of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference called for a moratorium on the commercial use of biotechnology. Some of the points made in that statement are the following: • The National Catholic Rural Life Conference believes that plant and animal biotechnology must respect the sacredness of created life. • The technology of genetic engineering requires an ethical critique of its social and economic consequences and a close scrutiny of the power and control over agricultural practices. • A reverent understanding of Creation and a firm belief in a revealed purpose for humankind here on Earth leads to how we should interact with the physical world and our fellow human beings. • Our position on agricultural biotechnology reflects a care for creation, a care for community and a just expression for rural areas dependent on agricultural production and for all impoverished areas suffering from hunger. • NCRLC believes that poverty and development issues are the significant issues in this examination, not simply the capacity of production. Scrupulous Development In his World Day of Peace message, January 1, 1990, Pope John Paul II addressed the ecological responsibility of humankind: "We can only look with deep concern at the enormous possibilities of biological research. We are not yet in a position to assess the biological disturbance that could result from indiscriminate genetic manipulation and from the unscrupulous development of new forms of plant and animal life, to say nothing of unacceptable experimentation regarding the origins of human life itself. It is evident to all that in any area as delicate as this, indifference to fundamental ethical norms, or their rejection, would lead mankind to the very threshold of self-destruction." Again, the message could not be clearer, the moral imperative regards research and examination before utilization, not advocacy for the use of genetically engineered food or biotechnology in agriculture production. Rigorous Examination Pope John Paul II reminded the faithful that the "earth is entrusted to man's use, not abuse" (Jubilee of the Agricultural World, November 11, 2000). "This is a principle to be remembered in agricultural production itself, whenever there is a question of its advance through the application of biotechnologies, which cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of immediate economic interests. They must be submitted beforehand to rigorous scientific and ethical examination, to prevent them from becoming disastrous for human health and the future of the earth." The moral imperative the Pope pointed to has to do with ethical examination before the use of the technology; it is not a moral imperative to use it for commercial purposes. The National Catholic Rural Life Conference, witness to the past century of the industrialization of agricultural life, is compelled to safeguard the integrity of biological and social relationships that may be compromised by profit-driven industries of biotechnology. Therefore, we have called for a moratorium on the commercial introduction of genetically engineered crops until a principled food policy is developed through public debate. Fundamental Moral CriteriaAgricultural biotechnology brings humankind extraordinarily close to upsetting the intricate order of biological and ecological relationships upon which life and health depend. Also disturbing, agricultural biotechnology is altering social and economic relationships within food production. There is deep concern about the ethical use of intellectual property rights and the patenting of genes and genetically modified organisms. Christian principles inform a way of living and shape a response to genetic engineering that is respectful to our fellow human beings, the physical world and a loving God. The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace recently published a "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church." In that book is the following statement: 474. Modern biotechologies have powerful social, economic, and political impact locally, nationally and internationally. They need to be evaluated according to the ethical criteria that must always guide human activities and relations in the social, economic and political spheres. 1003 Above all the criteria of justice and solidarity must be taken into account. Individuals and groups who engage in research and the commercialization of the field of biotechnology must especially abide by these criteria. In any event, one must avoid falling into the error to believing that only the spreading of the benefits connected with the new techniques of biotechnology can solve the urgent problems of poverty and underdevelopment that still afflict so many countries on the planet. Invoking the "Precautionary Principle" , NCRLC believes that g enetically engineered crops should not be commercially available unless: • Independent, peer-reviewed assessment demonstrates that a genetically engineered organism has no harmful effects on human health or the environment. • Foods with genetically engineered ingredients are labeled for the consumer's right-to-know. • Genetically engineered seeds and plants are rigidly separated from other seeds and plants so that growers and their markets are protected from cross-pollination and contamination. • Patent law is limited to technical processes and does not include patenting of genes, gene sequences or genetically engineered species. Failure to abide by these precautionary points will: • Accelerate the decline of agricultural biodiversity in local areas, where vast crop varieties have already been lost in the past century to monocultural practices. • Allow a few, dominant seed companies to control the supply of seeds worldwide, reaping a greater share of the food dollar at the expense of farmers and primary producers. • Deny farmers of the world their just benefits to the development of genetic resources by their endless experimentation and local application. • Threaten the livelihoods of smallholder farmers and indigenous people around the world who depend on open access to resources, such as the traditional saving of seeds for future sowing. Many other commentators on agricultural biotechnology have questioned the assertion that there is a moral imperative to use it to cure or ease world hunger. Bishops from countries such as the Philippines, Brazil, and South Africa have argued that biotechnology would harm rather than help farmers in their regions. Catholic development groups such as CIDSE (CIDSE represents 15 development organizations from Europe and the United States) and Caritas (Caritas Internationalis is a confederation of 162 Catholic relief, development and social service organizations working to build a better world, especially for the poor and oppressed, in over 200 countries and territories) have argued against the introduction of agricultural biotechnology. CIDSE and Caritas are concerned about the plight of small farmers around the world, especially in the developing countries where they serve. In a statement on the issue they said:
Peasant farmers around the world, and the special rapporteur for the FAO, have suggested an alternative to biotechnology to feed the hungry of the world. They speak of a moral imperative to food security at the household and community levels. This is based on a right to food (which most of the nations of the world, including the Holy See endorse, the US does not), about the right to food sovereignty, and about the right to protect both indigenous knowledge and indigenous foods, including the right to save seeds, calling these human, economic and social rights, "a moral imperative." They support eco-agriculture, organic, locally produced, sustainable agriculture. Governments that support their efforts speak about the multi-functionality of agriculture to bring in culture, social concerns, the environment and food production into a holistic focus. Spirituality is a part of that focus as well. ConclusionNCRLC's statement draws the following conclusion: "The genetic engineering of plants and animals is not a question of playing God. This technology, like any human endeavor, is a call to do God's work. The moral imperative is to follow God's will and do good -- not to substitute our will and self-interest in such a way that causes harm. People of faith believe that humanity needs a humility of spirit in order to do God's work. The science of agricultural biotechnology may indeed enhance food and fiber production, but the control of the technology by a few may diminish the human family as a whole." "Therefore, while NCRLC accepts the scientific advancement of agricultural bio-technology, it is clear that genetic engineering bears the values and ideology of its manipulators. Unless plant and animal biotechnology is subjected to compelling scrutiny scientifically and ethically, the public will bear the burden of social and environmental impacts of this technology gone awry. Communities of faith must challenge themselves to understand this new technology, and then to embed it within the moral strictures of a fair and just society. The promise of genetic engineering is admirable, but we must insist that human and ecological health be put before corporate profits. Before all else, we are called to respect life and the blessings of creation." Or in other words, agricultural biotechnology, is not a moral imperative. To think that it is to fall into error! The basic issue is not agricultural production, but deeper issues of poverty and underdevelopment. The moral imperative is to ethically scrutinize the science and its application in terms of the principles of Catholic Social Thought. A separate but significant issue has to do with the question of power relations in the policy and practice debates. Recently the American Farm Bureau Federation in association with the industries promoting agricultural biotechnology began a preemptive march through state legislatures. They launched a preemptive strike against local control and home rule. A prohibition on GMO seeds has been passed in a number of countries around the world, and in a small number of communities such as Mendocino County in California and Brooklin, Maine. The preemptive strikes on county regulations effectively prohibit local governments and communities from passing policies, ordinances, or initiatives related to seeds including genetically modified ones (GMOs). The states that have passed laws removing the power to regulate seeds at the community level and putting it at the state level are Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, West Virginia. Catholic Social Teaching, especially the principle of subsidiarity has relevance in this ongoing debate. In February of the year 2000, John Paul II spoke on democracy to the Holy See's Academy of Social Sciences and reminded his audience that the health of a political community is measured to a large extent with the thermometer of the citizens' participation in public life. Keeping the present phenomenon of globalization in mind, at the social level this means that "smaller social units -- whether nations themselves, communities, ethnic or religious groups, families or individuals -- must not be namelessly absorbed into a greater conglomeration, thus losing their identity and having their prerogatives usurped." The Holy Father asserted, "this is nothing other than the principle of subsidiarity, which requires that a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its rightful functions; instead the higher order should support the lower order and help it to coordinate its activity with that of the rest of society, always with a view to serving the common good. Public opinion needs to be educated in the importance of the principle of subsidiarity for the survival of a truly democratic society." The principle of subsidiarity should rightly be invoked in support of local control and home rule. What is at stake is respecting the right of communities to zone, to site, to regulate land use, to protect their livelihoods, the seeds utilized in agricultural production, to assess liability to companies rather than to farmers, to enforce police powers ensuring communities' health and well being. When states and federal powers limit the capacities of towns, villages, counties and municipalities of self-governance, they frequently violate the right order of things. As the social writer Alexis de Toqueville so clearly understood, individuals and society alike become self-governing only by regularly and repeatedly engaging in acts of self-determination. As de Toqueville once said: " Local institutions are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they put it within the people's reach; they teach people to appreciate its peaceful enjoyment and accustom them to make use of it. Without local institutions a nation may give itself a free government, but it has not got the spirit of liberty." Preemption of communities' capacity to decide on the seeds they want to plant ought to be subjected to the principle of subsidiarity. The moral imperative in agricultural biotechnology is to assess biotechnology thoughtfully; not to implement it immediately and commercially. Moral principles should be the basis for analysis not technological possibility. Many persons have the right to speak to this issue, not simply governments, or scientists. The crucial issue is not agricultural production, but deeper issues of poverty and underdevelopment. END* Brother David Andrews, CSC is a member of the Congregation of the Holy Cross. He is the Executive Director of the 80-year-old National Catholic Rural Life Conference based in Des Moines, Iowa. He holds a law degree from Loyola University, New Orleans. He serves as a consultant with the Domestic Policy Committee of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, the Governor of Iowa's Agricultural Task Force and was an accredited NGO representative at several international meetings on Food and Sustainable Development. He also serves as a consultant for the Roman Catholic Church in the US and at the Vatican on globalization and agriculture. He is an editor of two books on rural ministry. This lecture was presented at St. John's University on April 19, 2005 as part of a Religion and Science dialogue that began in 2000 at the Vincentian Center for Church and Society at St. John's University and received a funding in 2004 for the development of a Local Society Initiative of the Metanexus Institute . 1003 Cf. John Paul II, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (3 October 1981): AAS 73 (1981), 668-672.
|
