This issue on biotechnology and genetically modified (GM) food is full of questions, many of them prompted by last January's conference on "Genetic Engineering and Food for the World" co-sponsored by the Episcopal Church's Faith Ethics, Science and Technology Committee and the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine. I attended that conference pretty confident that I'd leave with my biases intact -- namely, that such innovations as genetically engineered or modified crops are the demonic creatures of the multinational agri-corporations who have developed them soley to increase profits without concern for their potentially negative impact on the health of the planet and the starving millions of the developing world.
As
usual, I found that the truth is more nuanced -- and confusing (to this non-scientific
mind, at least) -- than that. While mammoth multinational corporations were,
indeed, behind the GM "green revolution," and while they have, indeed, focused
their research on developments that would immediately benefit their own bottom
lines, genetic engineering of crop plants might not be inherently a bad thing
for ecosystems and for hungry people.
The operative word here is "might." And the big question is, as food scientist Marion Nestle pointed out in a conference workshop, who gets to decide if the risks to human and environmental health are acceptable? Even more fundamentally, who rightfully "owns" the very stuff of creation?
Somehow, up until now the public-as-stakeholder has been absent when answers to these questions have been given (by scientists working for Monsanto and other food corporations) -- and accepted virtually without question by government regulators. Most notably, the churches and other keepers of cultural and social values -- and seekers after justice -- have been pretty much dismissed as having nothing of relevance to add to the lopsided conversation about what shape the globe's agricultural future should take. But a shift may be on the horizon. As a recent "Agriculture White Paper" issued by the Kansas Catholic bishops points out, "The great problems posed by the agricultural sector cannot be addressed as technical problems only. Nor can they be addressed as political problems only. They are, at their root, ethical problems."
So far, the ethical challenges to the rapid spread of GM foods have been raised most persuasively by the organic farming community. Food safety, of course, has been at the heart of organic agriculture's appeal -- and, certainly, health concerns are a powerful reason to support the natural processes of organic agriculture. For me, though, the even greater draw of organics is the fact that when I support organic agriculture I am also supporting an environmentally positive ethic of regional and local food security and an economically just system of wage-cost relationships that values the intensive labor involved. Most organic operations, too, are small farms owned by people who have a personal stake in the quality of their communities' lives. And, where poultry, pigs and cattle are involved, the treatment of these "crops" is vastly more humane than in factory-farming contexts where both animals and land suffer unspeakable degradation, pain and suffering.
A measure of the success of the organic community in making the benefits of its crops better known -- and perhaps a measure of the failure of agri-corporations to respect consumers' right to know what they are eating -- is that a British supermarket company, Iceland, has announced that, in addition to banning GM foods, it will invest more than $13 million to make organic produce available to customers at prices comparable to those of foods grown with pesticides. According to Grist magazine, Iceland has made deals to buy nearly 40 percent of the world's organic produce and it plans to invest $1.5 million in the British National Trust's farming program to increase the amount of organic farmland in Britain.
From a North American and Western perspective, the choices are there. And my intuition suggests that for people in developing countries, traditional agricultural practices are a fit with the ethic of sustainability and social/cultural/environmental health implied by organics. But what do I know? As Marianne Arbogast's sidebar interview with the U.N.'s Peter Matlon suggests, biotechnology may offer developing countries a fast-track to self-sufficient food production. Who can be against that?
But one thing seems certain. It is high time that people who live out of a faith in the goodness of creation -- and a commitment to justice in every sphere of life -- join in figuring out the answers. As Susan Youmans, of the Episcopal Church's Faith Ethics, Science and Technology Committee pointed out at last January's genetic engineering conference, we've all got a responsibility to try.
For more information on the Episcopal Church's Committee on Faith Ethics, Science and Technology check out http://ecusa.anglican.org/science/. Established in 1997, the committee is open to all Episcopalians interested in the interactions of Christian faith with science, technology and medicine. The Steering Committee is appointed by the Episcopal Church's Executive Council.
A note on the great photos: We've obtained much of the fine art photography in this and other recent Witness issues with the help of Brooks Jensen at LensWork Publishing, which is devoted to "Fine Art Photography at Real People Prices." We're grateful. Check them out at www.lenswork.com; 1-800-659-2130.