compiled by John E. Peck for Bioethics 2006
According to a 2001 poll by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, 57 percent of Protestants (62 percent of Evangelicals) oppose biotech based on their religious or ethical views while 37 percent are in favor; Catholics followed closely behind with 52 percent opposed and 42 percent in favor. Among Muslims, 46 percent said they are opposed, with 32 percent in favor. Jews were the most favorable towards biotech, with 55 percent in favor and 35 percent opposed. In all religious groups, women were more opposed to biotech than men (46% of Jewish women, 49% of Muslim women, 60% of Protestant women, and 61% of Catholic women).
Judaism:
The Orthodox Union, a leading kosher authority, has ruled that genetically modified organisms (GM Os) do not violate kosher or kashrut. It asserts that since genes are microscopic, they are therefore botul, or nullified, in the new plant or animal. Of course, this is not true based upon scientific knowledge. On the other hand many rabbis, kosher supervisors, and Jewish groups dispute this position on moral grounds, citing the explicit prohibition in Leviticus 19:19: “Do not crossbreed your livestock with other species. Do not plant your field with different species of seeds. Do not wear a garment that contains a forbidden mixture of fabrics.”
In 1990 the FDA approved the use of a GMO enzyme cheese production. Historically, the enzyme – rennet - had been isolated from calves' stomachs. Jewish dietary laws prohibit combining meat and milk products -- even preparing the two products with the same utensils -- but Jewish leaders have approved cheese containing the GMO enzyme as kosher, though it is still not fit enough for consumption during Passover.
Lubavitch Rabbi Yossi Serebryanski of Crown Heights, a kosher supervisor for OK Labs Brooklyn, NY said he has “stopped eating tomatoes and only eats potatoes he knows are organic. The rabbi said he fears that genes from non-kosher foods, such as pigs or insects, could be implanted in vegetables and Jews may unwittingly break kosher laws by eating them.” (New York Post, May 23, 1999). One Jewish man has even sued the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) for failing to require labeling of products containing genetically modified foods, on the grounds that because of the laws of kilayim , his religious freedoms as a Jew are being violated if he cannot distinguish between GMO foods and non-GMO foods.
One progressive Jewish organization that has been highly critical of GM Os and is a helpful resource on this issue is the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, 443 Park Avenue South, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10016 (212) 532-7436 http://www.coejl.org/
Islam:
According to the Islamic Jurisprudence Council (IJC), foods derived from biotechnology-improved (GMO) crops are halal - fit for consumption by Muslims. Some scholars, though, have suggested that foods derived from biotechnology-improved crops could possibly become haram (non-halal) if they contain DNA from forbidden foods. For example, swine DNA in soy could make the soy product haram. This issue is still the subject of some debate among scholars and certifying organizations. Should a product be brought to market with a gene from a haram source, today it would at least be considered Mashbooh -- questionable -- if not outright haram. Shireen Pishdadi with the Chicago group, Faith in Place (www.faithinplace.org) has produced an excellent brochure titled “Faith and Food – An Islamic Perspective” which includes many relevant critiques of industrial agriculture and genetic engineering based upon passages of the Quran. She also wrote a good article on this topic, titled "Unwholesome Harvest - the Food Crisis in the World and the Need for Genuine Halal Selling and Labeling" which appeared in the June/July 2006 issue of Al Jumuah.
Hinduism:
In Hindu religion, there is a story of "parallel creation" engineered by Rishi Aagust, and how he was stopped by the Hindu Trinity from interfering in the existing Creation. Hinduism does not sanction human beings donning the mantle of spiritual authority, and this applies to the manipulation of species and their genetics.
Christianity:
The World Council of Churches has collected an ecumenical listing of biotech positions. Many of these deal with human cloning and stem cell research, but others include GM Os:
http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/biodocs.html
The UK-Based Christian Ecology Link has produced a simple Christian oriented anti-GMO brochure for distribution to congregations:
http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk/gmo.htm
Catholism:
“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 that in any area as delicate as this, indifference to fundamental ethical norms, or their rejection, would lead humankind to the very threshold of self-destruction.” – Pope John Paul II, 1990 World Peace Day Message
“One cannot use with impunity the different categories of beings, whether living or inanimate – animals, plants, the natural elements – as one wishes, according to one’s own economic needs.” Pope John Paul II, 1987 Social Concern of the Church, # 34
Following is excerpted from Lesseps, Roland, SJ and Peter Henriot SJ “Church’s Social Teaching and the Ethics of GM Os” – paper presented at the Int. Symposium on "Genetically Modified Organisms, Threat or Hope?", held in Rome 10-11 Nov. 2003, organized by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (Full paper available online at: http://www.jctr.org.zm/publications/cst-gmos.htm)
Common good: The oft-repeated calls for promotion of the national common good have in recent years been supplemented by calls for the global common good. The common good has been defined as the sum total of the structures and practices of society that make possible the fullness of human life and the integrity of creation. It is a principle with political implications. Thus promotion of the common good demands the subordination of economic interests (e.g., profit maximisation, protection of proprietary rights) to the overall improvement of human life.
What this means in practice, for example, is that corporations coming into Zambia with GM Os must take as their primary responsibility the promotion of the common good and not simply a return to their shareholders. The ethic of the common good is recognized in the social teaching as a restraint on the operations of the free market. It raises questions such as: can seeds of life be patented or subjected to “terminator” processes if this endangers the common good? The Church’s Social Teaching (CST) says no!
Option for the poor: Our CST emphasises clearly that the political decisions governing policies in and between countries must always be made on the basis of answering a priority question: what impact does this have on the poor in our society? And that impact must be measured in both short-term ways and in long-term ways.
Here the introduction of GM Os faces two important challenges. First, the current design of commercially promoted GM Os is based on an industrial model of agriculture that favors large farms and high external inputs at the expense of smaller family farms. This introduces a serious dependency of small-scale and mostly poor farmers on large multinational corporations for seeds and complementary necessities. The ability to practice alternative agricultural approaches— e.g., organic farming – is severely limited. The ancient tradition of saving seeds each year for replanting is abrogated. In Zambia, it threatens the continued existence of the small-scale farmers that we daily work with.
Secondly, the frequently advanced grounds for introducing GMO crops – that its supposed increase in productivity will lessen the problems of hunger – is open to direct challenge. From the case of Zambia and other poor countries, it is clear that hunger is not primarily a matter of scarce food resources but of the economic structures of distribution and accessibility and the social structures of traditional practices and education. In short, hunger is directly related to poverty. We all know the figures that tell us there is no shortage of actually produced food in the world today, and no shortage of potential food production. Referring to the latter, a statement from the Justice and Peace Environment Desk of the Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference noted the untapped potential within the wealth of existing crop varieties. “In Africa, for instance, more than two thousand native grains, roots, fruits and other plants are found. These have been feeding people for thousands of years, but most are receiving no scientific attention whatsoever today.”
Subsidiarity: This CST principle states that decisions that can be made responsibly and effectively at the local level should not be taken by a higher level. The presumption is that those closer to the issues will have both the wisdom and the concern to make the best decisions. Even with ever increasing international interdependencies, this principle still has political and ethical value. Indeed, in the age of globalisation, it assumes a fundamental importance relating to the legal conditions of national sovereignty.
Look at the case of Zambia, a nation faced in 2002 with a food shortage because of poor weather conditions. The President had to resist very strong international pressures, primarily coming from the USA, to introduce GMO crops before any adequate bio-safety policy was in place. And after a thorough study about the safety of the GM Os was conducted – paid for by the USA – the President was ridiculed for accepting the results of that study and maintaining policy based upon the “precautionary principle.”
Solidarity: Something new in the CST and very dear to the current Pope is the principle of solidarity. This is the recognition of the interconnectedness -- ethical as well as empirical -- of personal and institutional activities that make up the social fabric of human existence. In the church’s social teaching, solidarity is promoted in conscious acts that build community. Solidarity among humans is not vague compassion for the less privileged but active structuring of a society of mutual and socially just sharing. When economic activity undercuts community -- e.g., creating the great gaps between rich and poor that exist throughout the world today -- then solidarity is destroyed.
This understanding of solidarity is what drives the recent papal concerns about the dynamics of globalisation. The case of Zambia’s resistance to GM Os is a classic example of the geo-political and neo-liberal forces of globalisation that would trivialize Zambian concerns and marginalize Zambian decisions. We believe that this is why the Pope has so eloquently spoken of the need for a “globalisation with solidarity, a globalisation of solidarity.” The exclusive political and economic dynamics of a non-solidarity-oriented globalisation has been strongly criticised by the Vatican at international gatherings such as the recently concluded WTO meeting in Cancun. Surely the outcome of this Study Seminar should echo the same position.
