The ‘what if?’ factor. (What might we have to lose?)

With a desire to be even handed, let’s have a look at some of the main areas of concern which might lead to a view that the risks of GM agriculture outweigh the potential benefits.
Neil Messer (2006) identifies four such areas:-

• That using herbicide-tolerant GM crops might result in increased use of herbicides, resulting in harmful effects to wildlife and possibly to human health.
• The risk of GM plants cross-pollinating with wild relatives resulting in herbicide resistant ‘superweeds’ which might prove extremely difficult to control.
• The risk that foods made from GM crops might be harmful to human health either because they are directly toxic or through increased sensitivity to allergens.
• The concern that an increase in the development of GM technology would lead to increasing exploitation by the developers on those vulnerable and powerless communities, particularly in developing countries.
  

Each of these concerns might seem like reason enough for exercising great caution over GM farming. However there are two problems with all of them. Firstly the evidence to prove or disprove them is itself disputed. For example, with the issue of the increased use of pesticides The Institute of Science in Society (see Useful GM links – on right) reports findings by Dr. Charles Benbrook, director of the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Centre, Idaho, who ‘concludes that the 550 million acres of GM corn, soybeans and cotton planted in the US since 1996 has increased pesticide use (herbicides and insecticides) by about 50 million pounds’. This increase seems to be an overall figure with some crops requiring less intervention and others significantly more. He suggests four main reasons for the rises:-

• Spread of glyphosate-tolerant marestail (horseweed);
• Shifts in composition of weed communities toward species not as sensitive to glyphosate;
• Early-stage resistance in some major weeds; and
• Substantial price reductions and volume-based marketing incentives from competing manufacturers of glyphosate-based herbicides.
  

All of the above seems very convincing, however the website ‘foodfuture’ which claims to work ‘in consultation with a panel of experts, as part of its foodfuture initiative, to provide consumers with facts and figures about genetically modified (GM) crops and foods.’ comes to very different conclusions about this question. It suggests that ‘Some studies have shown significant reductions in herbicide and insecticide usage where GM crops are grown.’ (see ttp://www.foodfuture.org.uk/factsfigs_chemicals.aspx).

Over the issue that GM crops might be harmful to human health a similar conflict can be seen. The Journal of Experimental Botany states that ‘Current GM crops, including soybean, have not been shown to add any additional allergenic risk beyond the intrinsic risks already present. Biotechnology can be used to characterize and eliminate allergens naturally present in crops’. (See- http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/54/386/1317) however an article by Arpad Pusztai (see - http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html) claims that many studies which conclude the safety of GM crops have used seriously flawed methods of testing. Peter Pringle (2005 p.5) highlights the feeling that although there is a consensus between all but the most ‘committed opponents’ that ‘there is nothing inherently unsafe about genetically modified foods, however, there are possible hazards’. He notes that ‘transferring genes between species is an unpredictable operation that could cause new allergies for future consumers unless proper precautions are taken’.

It seems that the key to this conundrum is the phrase ‘some studies’. When considering a subject that raises such strong feelings in both those who commend and those who condemn it, research will appear highlighting both the potential gains and risks of its progress. Realistically this might especially be expected to be so if those undertaking some of the research were in a position to gain financially from further developments in the technology.

The second problem encountered when assessing the negative claims about GM agriculture is that it seems likely that the true results of Genetic Modification will only be seen when it has been allowed to be in place for a number of years. In America where planting of GM crops has been taking place since 1996, studies are beginning to be able to draw on the data and experience of those years, although the time span is still essentially short term. In the UK and most of Europe concerns have blocked commercial planting to date. The trials which were carried out were small scale and short term, not allowing for more wide ranging data to be assessed.

In the midst of such uncertainty and conflict the Key Questions at this point seem to be:-

• Is it necessary to accept an element of (properly controlled) risk in the growing, testing and assessing the safety of GM technology in order to be able to reach a conclusion about its longer term benefits?
• Who should be responsible for carrying out such research and what safeguards need to be applied to ensure their impartiality?
• Given that the long term effects of GM agriculture cannot be accurately assessed at this stage, what other ethical and even theological tools could be used to help the making of decisions about the rightness or wrongness of pursuing the use of this technology?

So what have we to gain?

The responses from the last posting seem to conclude that to hope that in our dealings with the natural world we can act with respect for its intrinsic value is at best wishful thinking. It seems that when thinking about plants this becomes particularly difficult. We can appreciate their value, but can only really act in terms of its effect on ourselves. That being the case, the next step in this discussion would seem to be to identify what are benefits of GM farming to us.

All of the main writers on this subject identify the same five main benefits:-

• An increased tolerance to herbicides when introduced into crops would make it possible to use stronger but fewer herbicides on the weeds which grow alongside the crops.
• Crops could be made more resistant to pests and diseases, reducing the amount of pesticides needed.
• Crops could be made more resistant to the effects of environmental factors such as drought, frost or salty conditions. In the developing world in particular this would enable once unproductive land to be used for agriculture and might allow agriculture to be sustained and made more successful in spite of deteriorating environmental conditions.
• Crops could be developed with characteristic which would be of particular benefit to health, for example containing higher levels of vitamin or even vaccines against common illnesses in the developing world.
• Genetic changes to food crops could allow for more attractive products for consumers. Features such as shelf-life and flavour could be improved, availability could be extended and costs to the consumer reduced.
  

The key questions at this point would seem to be:-

• Is it morally justifiable for us as healthy, well-fed westerners to impose our scruples on and deny such benefits to those who often have little or no choice about the food they eat?
  
• By refusing to accept GM farming is progress being hampered which will bring about even greater benefits to humankind and to the environment as a whole?

What's your value? Defining questions?

Is this debate about changing the genetic make up of plants purely an anthropocentric one? Can we make ethical judgements about what we do to plants and the environment at large based purely on their value to humankind? Do we need to extend the sense of interconnection in the natural environment to the point where humankind becomes not the centre but a part of the picture, where plants, animals, human beings and the wider environment which supports them all have intrinsic value in themselves? But how is their value defined and by whom? Is it really possible to quantify and allow true intrinsic value of anything without any reference to its instrumental value? Does a biocentric approach make it inherently wrong for humans to change the genetic code which defines any other form of life?
Margaret Atkins (2002) makes the point that ‘the choices generated by the holistic approach will be unpredictable . . . . At the very least, all our ordinary intuitions about the value of individual creatures, human and others, will be questioned.’ (p.244). She sees the same risks in a more egalitarian approach, where cooperation might make it possible to ‘respect the needs of all relevant creatures’ but where choices constantly have to be made ‘all of which would harm the interests of some creatures.’ If, as Margaret Atkins suggests, we are trapped by ‘Adam’s dominion’ should we just accept that there are always going to be some losers in any environmental choices that we make and just focus on the winners and losers amongst humankind?

Why worry about plants?

Of the various forms of genetic manipulation, GM farming is sometimes seen as less significant than altering the genes of animals or indeed human. Yet by altering the genes of plants changes are made to the means of satisfying one of the most fundamental human needs – that for food. Such changes to plants also affect the food sources of many animals, both farmed and the wildlife which live on and around them. Further to this when alterations are made to plants, changes can be seen to be being made to the very fibre of the environment. Plants as Reiss and Straughan (1998) note ‘provide the oxygen in the atmosphere and significantly affect the climate’ (p.131). Indeed it is only now that the reality of the threat to the environment through climate change is becoming unavoidable that a clear sense of interconnection within the environment is being rediscovered. (The development and loss of this interconnection is set out by Timothy Gorringe in his book ‘Harvest – Food, Farming and the Churches (2006).)

Beliefs and identity

In a debate which might be characterised by polarised viewpoints, claims and counterclaims of truth and of vested interest it seems to be important to acknowledge right at the beginning my starting point and the baseline views which inform my ethical take on this issue.

Firstly I am not a scientist. O-levels twenty something years ago have given me the barest inkling of the scientific terms and jargon, a far larger awareness of my own ignorance, but on the positive side a lively interest in what motivates a debate which is giving rise to such strong views. As a result this blog will not be about the science of GM farming. Where I venture into this area I will rely on the sources which I will quote and acknowledge. (Where I have misquoted or misunderstood them please let me know – as only that way do we learn.)

Having said what I am not let me now say what I am and where I am coming from. If you have read the ‘About me’ section on the right of this page you will have probably guessed that I am a Christian and a member of the Church of England (hopefully in the future I will be a ‘paid’ as well as a ‘paid up’ member!). I am also, although it frequently seems presumptuous to say it, a theologian. In thinking about what my theology could offer to this subject I am grateful to Celia Deane-Drummond who in her book Theology and Biotechnology, (p. 80, 1997) sets out her three theological premises, ‘belief in the goodness of God, the love of God for all creation and the idea of humankind made in God’s image.’ These three seem to offer a strong personal base line for my own thinking about this issue and I would like to presume to share them. On to this baseline however I would like to add the belief that the natural world is a past and continuing project of God’s creation. This project is now more than at any point being radically affected by our abilities to permanently and fundamentally alter the genetic make up of species. The speed, permanence and far reaching nature of these changes make it inevitable and essential that strong views should be raised and aired by all who will be touched their effects.