|
 |
|
 |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Genetically Manipulated Plants: Ethical and Religious IssuesSCOPE GM Food Controversy Forum (1 November) Esra Galun, Professor, This contribution to the debate on genetically modified foods focuses on genetic manipulations of flowering plants aimed at improving crops and manufacturing medical products; it does not describe methodologies or progress toward producing such transgenic crops. Two books have been published that provide information on those topics (1, 2). This essay discusses some of the ethical-religious issues surrounding transgenic plants. The ethical consequences of genetic engineering are the subject of a book by Russo and Cove (3). This essay is not comprehensive but is intended to serve as a basis for further detailed discussions. ... is [it] ethical for humans to [engage in] manipulations that lead to production of transgenic plants, and [is it] ethical for humans to consume transgenic plants.... The ethical-philosophical-religious issue may be separated into two components: (i) whether it is ethical for humans to be engaged in manipulations that lead to production of transgenic plants, and (ii) whether it is ethical for humans to consume transgenic plants (or the products derived from them). It can be argued that genetic manipulation performed for research purposes (the majority) should be considered separately from genetic manipulation to produce plants for human consumption, because research activity does not impose a threat to the human diet or to the environment. But for people of certain faiths, such as the Jewish religion, the question of whether humans are permitted to interfere with God's creation is a legitimate one that extends to transgenic plants used for biological research. I will return to the question of production and focus first on the question of consumption that is relevant to all potential users. For many centuries the division of nature by Aristo into four distinct groups was widely accepted. He grouped nature into nonliving entities (e.g., rocks), plants, nonspeaking animals, and speaking animals (humans). Humans were considered supreme and were ethically permitted to handle the other groups in any manner they liked for their benefit. The Hellenic philosophers did not restrict the diet of either nonspeaking or speaking animals. Any organism was considered to have its normal heritable nature. Thus, the nature of a lion is to kill and eat deer and gazelles. But the prophet Isaiah (Chapter 11) predicted a change in the lion's diet when peace and wisdom will prevail in the world: "… and the lion shall eat straw like the ox." (... can the consumption of plants that express human genes be considered cannibalism, can vegetarians consume plants that express animal genes....) We are still far from such days, and in the United Kingdom (as well as in some other European countries) oxen and cows were fed carcasses of other (not transgenic!) ruminants with the catastrophic result of mad cow disease. In 1993, the British government nominated a committee on the "Ethics of Genetic Modification and Food Use" [see the paper by Aldridge (4) about this committee]. The committee handled mainly the ethics of introducing human and animal genes into organisms that are used as food: can the consumption of plants that express human genes be considered cannibalism, can vegetarians consume plants that express animal genes, and what about dietary restrictions for people who avoid eating certain animals? The chairman of this committee was the Reverend Dr. John Polkinghorne. I am not aware of a government report resulting from the committee's deliberations, but several regulations concerning compulsory labeling of transgenic foods have been enforced by the British government. (... the choice of whether to consume specific foods resulting from genetic manipulation was left to ... the public.... But the public is not well informed about genetic manipulation and transgenic plants.) Hence, the choice of whether to consume specific foods resulting from genetic manipulation was left to individuals in the public. This is the heart of the matter. The public is given the choice, is permitted to express its concern, and is even allowed to convince its representatives to ban transgenic plants. But the public is not well informed about genetic manipulation and transgenic plants. A poll in several European countries indicated that most people who were asked stated that they never ate DNA! Therefore, as public acceptance is a decisive issue, it is urgent that the public be educated and well informed. Currently, we are in a situation in which the public is being manipulated by interest groups. Will we reach the stage at which we accept public opinion only from those individuals who have passed a test of basic knowledge of the issue of genetic manipulation? Not all people who follow a vegetarian diet can be included in one coherent group. Some abstain from eating meat because of health considerations and others do so because of ethical considerations or religious faith. Moreover, some people consume eggs and dairy products (and even fish) but avoid animal meat. For each of these subgroups the question of whether to consume plants that express animal genes may have different answers.Moreover, as the weaving of flax fibers with wool fibers into one cloth is not permitted, the use of fibers from transgenic flax that expresses sheep genes may be questioned. The Jewish (orthodox) religion has very detailed laws about foods--not only which kinds of food are permitted or not permitted but also which combinations of food are allowed in the same meal. The laws also regulate production of food (e.g., regulations concerning grafting, breeding, growing two different crops in the same field, and even using two different animals in a team for plowing). Moreover, as the weaving of flax fibers with wool fibers into one cloth is not permitted, the use of fibers from transgenic flax that expresses sheep genes may be questioned. True, adherence to these laws concerns only a small minority of the world's population but here we have an example of religious concern about genetic modification. This subject was recently described by Goldschmidt and Maoz (5). Interestingly, the Jewish religion, which is very detailed and strict about dietary matters (kosher regulations), stresses the issue of production instead of the issue of consumption (wheat and barley are not to be planted in the same field, but once the field is harvested Jews are allowed to consume the crops). (... Goldschmidt and Maoz [suggest that] production of transgenic plants ... is permissible if ... there is no direct Halacha against it, and [if the] activity is expected to benefit humans.) Two aspects of production are relevant to Jewish religious laws: (i) whether genetic engineering can be considered as interference with God's creation, and (ii) whether the transfer of genes from one species to another constitutes a nonpermissible cross-breeding (kilayim). The first aspect is interesting because the Jerusalem Gmara (part of the Oral Bible) predicted the ability of humans to cause vast changes in organisms. Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Hananya said: "I could take melons and water-melons and convert them into deer and gazelles and these deer and gazelles will breed deer and gazelles." Jewish religious scholars are not very clear and detailed about the subject of interference with God's creation. The very respected Maharal (Rabbi Yehuda Leob Ben Bezalel, 1518-1607) claimed that God created creatures in a fully functional and beautiful form; on the other hand, the task (and purpose) of humans is to further improve the world. The consideration of benefit to humans is a major one in the Jewish Halacha (the Jewish law). Searching the Halacha, Goldschmidt and Maoz (5) arrived at an interim suggestion about the question of permissibility of interfering with God's creation in the production of transgenic plants. They suggest that this production is permissible if the following two conditions are met: (i) there is no direct Halacha against it, and (ii) the activity is expected to benefit humans. The second condition is interesting because it indicates that transgenic plants for better food, better feed, better crops, and medical products are permissible, but producing transgenic plants for biological experiments that are not obviously leading to an advantage to humanity may not be permitted--unless we accept the philosophy that increased knowledge improves humanity. References 1. Galun, E., and Breiman, A. (1997) Transgenic Plants. London: Imperial
College Press. |
|
|
|
|
|
