Why is it so important to talk about the ethics of GM farming?
OK, lets keep this simple (to start with at least!).
· We need to eat to survive.
· Methods of producing food are changing – fast?
· Large areas of the world are struggling to produce enough nutritional food to feed their people.
· GM farming offers a way to develop and produce crops that can survive in conditions that traditional crops cannot.
· GM farming also offers crops which will grow containing more of the essential vitamins specifically lacking from the diet of the most nutritionally deprived in the world.
· Even in our relatively easy climate in the UK crops are produced using vast amounts of herbicide and pesticides.
· GM farming promises to develop and produce crops that are resistant to pests and diseases – thus reducing the need to chemical eradication of these problems.
OK – so what is the problem?
· Almost all of the above statements can be questioned (at least in part).
· There are huge, much disputed questions about the effects of genetic modification on the environment and on those who eat the crops produced as a result.
· Views expressed by ‘experts’ in this field often rely on evidence which is discounted by those with opposing views.
· Much of the ‘evidence’ needed to make judgements about the safety or otherwise of this technology will not be fully know until well into the future.
So we are faced with choices:-
· Do we trust those who say that GM farming offers greater benefits than risks and allow progress with appropriate safeguards (do we know what these are?)?
· Do we refuse to trust the reassurances and reject the potential of GM farming and the benefits it might bring to all those whose circumstances give them much fewer choices in life and death?
· Do we seek to find out what we can, think about the information we are given, listen to the ideas and opinions of others who are thinking it through and come to ethically informed decision based on that process?
This final point is why I am thinking about GM farming. This is a subject which directly effects us now and increasingly in the future. I can read around and come to my own opinions, but those will be limited by my individual perspective. I invite you to contribute your perspective. It will be uniquely valuable because it is uniquely yours. Maybe together we can come to an understanding which will feed the opinions and choices both of ourselves and others. Now that really could be Bread of Life!
Thank you for your time and interest. I look forward to reading and responding to your thoughts. Helen.
5 comments:
OK – so are we basically saying that as plants are the start of the food chain and support life on the planet, to interfere with their genes is to take a risk with the planet?
Humans have been messing around with the makeup of plants and animals for hundreds of year’s through the process of hybridisation and selection to improve on the natural characteristics of them. Just look at the stunning prize winning blooms at the chealse flower show or the prize winning animals at any agricultural show and compare them to the wide relatives. So many of the plants and animals that we might consider the wonder of goods creation may not be entirely so (the wonder of goods creation with a bit of interference from man kind). Nearly all farm crops and animals have been created by a careful process of picking the best plants or animals and breading crossing them to perpetuate the best characteristics. It is in human kind nature to want improve upon things and get the best crops and yields. Generic modification may be seen as just the next step in this search. There are two questions that spring to mind the first is; what impact of messing with the genetic makeup of plants and animals? The second is what are reasons for genetic modification?
In support of Catherine's argument that man has been messing with nature since the beginning of time read Genesis 30:25-43. Was Jacob the first to use genetic modification to benefit himself? He certainly used selective breeding.
Going back a little further to Genesis 1:29 God gave "every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it" to man. If God has entrusted man with free will and given mankind domination over other living creatures and plants then surly it is right that mankind should use his knowledge to manage nature in such a way as to be of good.
Problems arise in the moral domain when mankind messes with nature not for the good of all but for personal gain. However, this didn't bother Jacob.
I understand natural selection in both plants and animals. And in moving from foraging to planting and harvesting humans engage in selection of desirable traits, and then disease and insect resistant crops, introduction of chemicals to enhance growth, etc. I'm not sure that we fully understand the knock on effects from hybridization, and chemicals. At the same time it seems only natural to take crop production the next step further, and to alter those genes that would enhance yield, nutrition, etc. to make vegetables healthier, hardier, and easier to grow. Part of me asks, "what next, who decides, how far is too far," and part of me wants to trust that 'they' wouldn't allow anything harmful. I wonder why we think this is necessary? And do we know the consequences?
Hmmmmm - picking up on what Martin has said, it is very hard sometimes to distinguish between 'personal gain' and 'for the good of all' motivation.
Looking at the Parable of the Talents, I am often keen to try and use my talents to the full in order to please God but the talents need to be used, ultimately, to the Glory of God and his creation. So what is our motive in the GM debate?
Post a Comment