GM and Kosher?
In a recent article in the UK’s Jewish Chronicle, Michael Green of our ally across the pond, Swords and Ploughshares, writes about the questionable kashrut status of genetically modified foods:
A long tradition of Jewish thinkers has emphasised the importance of protecting the natural environment, but Jewish voices have failed to reach a consensus since GM food hit the shops in 1996. . .
As Jonathan Sacks puts it, God and man are “partners in the work of creation”. The ancient covenant is mirrored in the modern concept of sustainability which seeks to “meet the needs of the present [generation] without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Or, in biblical terms, the environment must be preserved l’dor v’dor, from generation to generation.
While the facets of GM technology that may lead to environmental degradation may place it generally at opposition with Jewish emphasis on preserving the earth, and potentially undiscovered negative health consequences would contradict the importance of saving a life, it seems like there is little that Judaism has to say directly about GMOs. Clearly this is because they are the epitome of modern technology which could not have been imagined back in the biblical/talmudic day.
I don’t agree with Green’s use of the prohibitions: “You shall not let your cattle mate with a diverse kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed” (Leviticus 19:19) and “You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed” (Deuteronomy 22: 9-11) because some of the best sustainable and organic farming practices traditionally (and scientifically) rely upon planting complementary (and very different) crops together, to promote healthy soil and to eliminate the need for fertilizer through nitrogen-fixing crops. Any solid argument against GM foods generally considers its emphasis on monocropping, tendency towards monoculture and subsequent future harm to the environment and to the security of the food supply. Since these arguments apply to any monocropping in general, the use of these biblical prohibitions does not seem like a logical defense against further use of GMOs, since it would also eliminate all healthy farming practices.
That said, it is worth continuing to think about the relationship between morality, religion and new biotechnology, and any potential religious precedent for the precautionary principle, a mechanism used to guide policy in the EU and other parts of the world, which has the potential to preserve morality and prioritize social welfare over profits if it is used effectively.
Props to Green for his previous references to Jcarrot about organic (and therefore GM-free) matza.
9 Responses to “GM and Kosher?”
-
judi Says:
May 4th, 2007 at 4:04 pm“While the facets of GM technology that may lead to environmental degradation”
I’m confused. Part of the attraction of GM tech is that it could enable crops to be grown without harmful pesticides, using less water, requiring less intervention when temperatures rise or fall. By increasing crop yield, we could grow more on less land, hopefully leading to less deforestation. It seems to me (an observantly Jewish geneticist) that genetic modification could actually help fulfill bal tashchit.
Knee-jerk reactions are a dime a dozen. If you think about it, genetic modification has been around forever (how do you think we got so many variants of vegetables, animals within a species, etc?). It’s just that now that we have the ability to do it transgenically, suddenly there’s an uproar. We’ve got more important things to worry about, people!
-
Michael Green Says:
May 5th, 2007 at 1:53 pmJudi - “I’m confused. Part of the attraction of GM tech is that it could enable crops to be grown without harmful pesticides, using less water [ad nauseum]”
The key word here is ‘could’. Could GM really deliver these wondrous benefits? One thing that’s lacking from the debate on GM is some robust scientific research into the effects of GM - on yields, the environment, our health etc. So far, all of the ‘benefits’ that you list are purely speculative and unproven. The reality of GM crops is an entirely different matter.
Scientists from Cornell University found that cotton modified to contain Bt, a biological insecticide, failed to reduce pesticide use in the long-term. This GM ‘miracle crop’ actually reduced farmer income by creating devastating new pest infestations that weren’t a problem previously. Farmers in India and Africa have testified to the same thing.
GM has been an economic disaster in North America with farmers losing millions of dollars of export trade - not to mention organic farmers wiped out - due to uncontrolled GM contamination.
GM is a totally new process, it’s been around commercially since 1996. It’s a case of technology moving way faster than our ability to understand or control it. Perhaps no surprise then that the small amount of research that has been done indicates alarming negative health effects on lab animals.
-
judi Says:
May 6th, 2007 at 6:23 amMichael,
That Bt cotton in China, according to the Cornell report, required 70% less pesticide application by the third year of use and provided approx. 1/3 higher earnings for those who farmed it (even measured against the significantly higher cost of seed).
According to this study, the increases in other insects had nothing to do with the evil effects of biotechnology; these insects had merely previously been eradicated by the wide-spectrum pesticides that farmers had used on the conventional crops. This is a long-term management strategy issue, not a deal-killer or prophesy of doom.
This reminds me of the time I grew heirloom tomatoes after years of growing multi-resistant plants. The previously benign bugs in the soil ate those naive tender heirlooms like they were candy. Which part of my system was at fault? The resistant tomatoes? The heirlooms? Or can we just agree that the bugs won that round?
Your argument proves exactly what? That wide-spectrum pesticide use on conventional crops is good? Talk about “nauseum”.
You have thrown around terms like “creating devastating new pest infestations”, “economic disaster in North America”, “alarming negative health effects on lab animals”, yet you cite no sources. The sources I’ve seen (I’m a geneticist and have access to tons of info) give no indication that any of your sweeping allegations hold true. And if they did (and I happened to miss all that research), wouldn’t the market force modified crops out of existence? It worked for “New Coke”, you know.
It’s a shame that you couch your arguments in such a reactionary manner.; any reasonable arguments you may make would tend to get lost in the noise.
-
judi Says:
May 6th, 2007 at 6:31 amHere’s a url for the Cornell study cited, which seems to contradict its original mention, summed up in this line:
“These results should send a very strong signal to researchers and governments that they need to come up with remedial actions for the Bt-cotton farmers. Otherwise, these farmers will stop using Bt cotton, and that would be very unfortunate,” said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, the H.E. Babcock Professor of Food, Nutrition and Public Policy at Cornell, and the 2001 Food Prize laureate. Bt cotton, he said, can help reduce poverty and undernourishment problems in developing countries if properly used.
-
Jeanne Says:
May 15th, 2007 at 5:45 pmIt’s a pity that Judi thinks that she has access to all of the real research because she is a geneticist. Should I remind her that universities get their funding from corporations nowadays, and what information do you think these corporations make sure are published - geared toward the common good, or toward private profit? Let me point out that the New England Journal of Medicine had been publishing for years studies that “showed” that smoking cigarettes has absolutely no negative impact on one’s health. Who do you think these studies came from? Today, a disturbing trend has arisen, in which all studies performed by corporations show that GM foods are safe, while all other studies show that GM foods have an incontestably deleterious impact on human, animal and ecosystem health. To get an idea, go to http://www.organicconsumers.org and follow the links on Genetic Engineering on the left side of the home page, or go to http://www.ppnf.org, click on “books”, go to the book “Seeds of Deception”, and I think that the book desciption alone will give you a good idea as to how “benign” these GM foods are.
Also, Judi has the wrong picture on the relationship between bugs and plants. Heirlooms normally grow like weeds, so if someone isn’t growing them successfully that means that the poor things don’t have enough nutrients in the soil to not be bothered by the pests. Here’s something you won’t learn in university: bugs don’t attack every plant, they only touch the weak, bad ones that must be eliminated. Sure, resistant hybrids are resistant and look pretty, but they’re resistant for the wrong reason - they’re designed so that, no matter how sickly the plant really is, the bug doesn’t want to eat it because it’s just a total abomination, and we should follow the example of the bugs by not eating those mutant tomatoes. (The Torah scores again.)
Finally, don’t you EVER buy the outright lie that GM foods are designed to increase crop yields. All native, traditional foods grow just fine; famines are caused by lack of effective distribution of resources, not by a problem in food production. In fact, as Nobel-laureate economist Amartya Sen shows, historically years of famine witnessed GREATER food production than the years preceding and following the famines. Also, go to websites like banbiotech.org, and you’ll find anecdotes of myriads of traditonal groups around the world fighting AGAINST biotech, not for it. Similarly, GM foods and other seeds pushed by large agribusiness are always WAY less nutritious than traditional varieties, as Tom Pawlick conclusively shows in his book “The End of Food”. (And there is a HUGE difference between making heirloom varieties and making “conventional” ones. The first rely on simple artificial selection, ie you choose seeds of tomatoes of a certain shape, and after a few generations later you get a variety based on the desired trait. You don’t stick your finger into the genes and mess around with them - which you do in GM foods, and which is COMPLETELY foreign to Torah.)
So, what is the real agenda of these GM people? Why, to control the food supply of the world, of course! GM crops don’t give seed, so farmers can’t save any seed. With conventional agribusiness corn, farmers can’t save seed for commercial uses, because the next generation seed is designed to not be “true to type”, forcing dependence on the corporation. But at least they can save seed if they want some food. Not so with GM. Not only that, but GM crop pollen contaminates non-GM crops, and then the farmers of non-GM are sued for “stealing” GM crops - just witness what happened to organic canola farmer Percy Schmeiser when GM canola was found on his property because his seeds had been contaminated. Let me just say that the end result wasn’t pretty. Thus, even farmers who don’t want GM are forced into growing and buying it in the end, they can’t save seed from it, and even if they could the stuff is too poisonous to eat anyway.
And doesn’t the Torah, right in Bereishis, say “all seed-bearing herbs and fruit shall be yours for food” - but GM FOODS AREN’T SEED-BEARING!!! Bingo! -
Jeanne Says:
May 15th, 2007 at 5:49 pmHere’s a more legible copy of what I wrote above:
It’s a pity that Judi thinks that she has access to all of the real research because she is a geneticist. Should I remind her that universities get their funding from corporations nowadays, and what information do you think these corporations make sure are published - geared toward the common good, or toward private profit? Let me point out that the New England Journal of Medicine had been publishing for years studies that “showed” that smoking cigarettes has absolutely no negative impact on one’s health. Who do you think these studies came from? Today, a disturbing trend has arisen, in which all studies performed by corporations show that GM foods are safe, while all other studies show that GM foods have an incontestably deleterious impact on human, animal and ecosystem health. To get an idea, go to http://www.organicconsumers.org and follow the links on Genetic Engineering on the left side of the home page, or go to http://www.ppnf.org, click on “books”, go to the book “Seeds of Deception”, and I think that the book desciption alone will give you a good idea as to how “benign” these GM foods are.
Also, Judi has the wrong picture on the relationship between bugs and plants. Heirlooms normally grow like weeds, so if someone isn’t growing them successfully that means that the poor things don’t have enough nutrients in the soil to not be bothered by the pests. Here’s something you won’t learn in university: bugs don’t attack every plant, they only touch the weak, bad ones that must be eliminated. Sure, resistant hybrids are resistant and look pretty, but they’re resistant for the wrong reason - they’re designed so that, no matter how sickly the plant really is, the bug doesn’t want to eat it because it’s just a total abomination, and we should follow the example of the bugs by not eating those mutant tomatoes. (The Torah scores again.)
Finally, don’t you EVER buy the outright lie that GM foods are designed to increase crop yields. All native, traditional foods grow just fine; famines are caused by lack of effective distribution of resources, not by a problem in food production. In fact, as Nobel-laureate economist Amartya Sen shows, historically years of famine witnessed GREATER food production than the years preceding and following the famines. Also, go to websites like http://www.banbiotech.org, and you’ll find anecdotes of myriads of traditonal groups around the world fighting AGAINST biotech, not for it. Similarly, GM foods and other seeds pushed by large agribusiness are always WAY less nutritious than traditional varieties, as Tom Pawlick conclusively shows in his book “The End of Food”. (And there is a HUGE difference between making heirloom varieties and making “conventional” ones. The first rely on simple artificial selection, ie you choose seeds of tomatoes of a certain shape, and after a few generations later you get a variety based on the desired trait. You don’t stick your finger into the genes and mess around with them - which you do in GM foods, and which is COMPLETELY foreign to Torah.)
So, what is the real agenda of these GM people? Why, to control the food supply of the world, of course! GM crops don’t give seed, so farmers can’t save any seed. With conventional agribusiness corn, farmers can’t save seed for commercial uses, because the next generation seed is designed to not be “true to type”, forcing dependence on the corporation. But at least they can save seed if they want some food. Not so with GM. Not only that, but GM crop pollen contaminates non-GM crops, and then the farmers of non-GM are sued for “stealing” GM crops - just witness what happened to organic canola farmer Percy Schmeiser when GM canola was found on his property because his seeds had been contaminated. Let me just say that the end result wasn’t pretty. Thus, even farmers who don’t want GM are forced into growing and buying it in the end, they can’t save seed from it, and even if they could the stuff is too poisonous to eat anyway.
And doesn’t the Torah, right in Bereishis, say “all seed-bearing herbs and fruit shall be yours for food” - but GM FOODS AREN’T SEED-BEARING!!! Bingo!
-
Jeanne Says:
May 18th, 2007 at 10:53 amB”H
Here’s a great article on GM foods and Jewish halacha:
http://www.biotech-info.net/jewish_law.html -
Jeanne Says:
May 18th, 2007 at 7:04 pmwait, the website that I posted only has half of the article. oops! The better one is http://www.biointegrity.org/Halakha
-
Helen Says:
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:20 pmJeanne, you rock.
