ALLIANCE
FOR
BI0-INTEGRITY
Preserving the Safety of Our Food, the Health of Our Environment,
and the Harmony of Our Relationship with Nature
2040
Pearl Lane #2, Fairfield, Iowa 52556
(206) 888-4852
info@biointegrity.org
www.biointegrity.org
Genetic
Engineering: An Affront to Religious Principles
The false claims and faulty procedures of the biotechnicians not only
affront genuine science, they affront religion as well.
From a religious perspective:
(a) By insisting that forced, piecemeal gene-splicing is substantially
equivalent to sexual reproduction, and by attempting to trivialize the
multiple barriers against cross-species gene flow, bioengineers
denigrate the presence of purpose in nature.
(b) By sundering these barriers without sound safeguards, they
display irreverence toward the Creator and an irresponsible attitude
toward the creation.
Accordingly, an increasing number of people oppose the genetic
restructuring of our food as a trespass on the realm of God and a
disruption of the divine plan.
PLAINTIFFS
WITH RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS TO GENE-ALTERED FOODS
There are seventeen plaintiffs who object to consuming genetically
engineered foods on the basis of religious principle. Many of them are
listed below.
Christian Clergy
1. The Rev. Dr. Colin B. Gracey, (Episcopalian) head of the Religious
Life Office at Northeastern University in Boston and University
Chaplain.
2. The Rev. Dr. Donald B. Conroy, (Roman Catholic) President of the
North American Coalition on Religion and Ecology, Washington, D.C.
3. The Rev. Dr. Margaret Mitchell, (Baptist) The Olivet Health &
Education Institute, Cleveland, OH.
4. The Rev. Paul C. Kucynda, Pastor of Holy Spirit Orthodox Church,
Wayne, NJ.
5. The Rev. Samuel Kedala, Pastor of Holy Spirit Orthodox Church,
Wantage, NJ.
6. The Rev. Dr. John Reigstad, pastor of the Evangelical American
Lutheran Church (ELCA), Jesup, Iowa; Lecturer in Religion at Wartburg
College, Waverly, Iowa.
7. The Rev. Dr. DeWitt Williams, director of the Health Ministries
(North American division) of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Jewish
8. Rabbi Harold S. White, (Reform) Director of Jewish Chaplancy and
Lecturer in Theology, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
9. Rabbi Alan Green, (Conservative) Beth Israel Synagogue, Winnipeg
(a U.S. citizen).
10. Rabbi Jossi Serebryanski, (Orthodox) A kosher supervisor for O.K.
Labs, Brooklyn, NY.
Buddhist
11. Dr. Ron Epstein, Chancellor of the Americas Dharma Realm Buddhist
University; Research Professor, Institute for World Religions, Berkeley,
CA.
Hindu
12. Gayatri Pariwar-Yugnirman, a Hindu religious organization in the
Chicago metropolitan area with a membership of approximately 1,000.
WHY THE VENTURE TO
GENETICALLY ENGINEER OUR FOOD OFFENDS SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND THE BILL OF
RIGHTS
A
Summary Overview
- Unprecedented Risks /
Dubious Benefits
- Flawed Foundational
Assumptions
- Deliberate Thwarting of
Consumer Choice and Religious Freedom
Redesigning Nature. Within recent years, the
biotechnology industry has launched a massive enterprise to genetically
restructure our food supply. Hundreds of genetically altered plants and
animals are being developed in laboratories, and many varieties of such
foods are on grocery shelves. It's estimated that 60 to 70% of packaged
foods already contain ingredients from bioengineered organisms. In most
cases, biotechnicians circumvent natural cross-breeding barriers by
forcibly splicing a gene from one species into organisms of a distant,
dissimilar species to endow them with a trait they do not normally
possess -- with the result that grains, fruits and vegetables are being
implanted with genes from viruses, bacteria, animals, and even humans.
If the process continues as planned, the genetic blueprints of a
majority of the world's edible plants and animals will be permanently
reconfigured.
Why Is It Happening? Bioengineers say they can enhance
the quantity and quality of the world's food while reducing dependence
on pesticides. They claim their venture is in tune with nature,
scientifically sound and virtually risk-free.
Is It a Wise Thing To Do? Counsels of Caution. A
growing number of distinguished scientists and respected public interest
organizations (such as Consumers Union, the Environmental Defense Fund
and the Union of Concerned Scientists) dispute these claims. They say
that genetic engineering is being irresponsibly oversold and warn it
poses unprecedented threats to the health of both consumers and the
environment. As the following paragraphs explain, these warnings are
well-grounded.
1. Unsound Science: Relying on a Flawed Assumption.
The Fallacy of Equating Gene-Splicing With Traditional
Breeding. The claims about the safety of the bioengineering
enterprise have not been confirmed through standard scientific tests.
Rather, they rest on an unfounded assumption -- the assumption that
genetic engineering is substantially the same as traditional breeding.
As many experts point out, careful consideration of the facts reveals
that this assumption is scientifically unsound.
Traditional breeding is based on sexual reproduction between like
organisms. The transferred genes are similar to genes in the cell they
join. They are conveyed in complete groups and in a fixed sequence that
harmonizes with the sequence of genes in the partner cell. In contrast,
bioengineers isolate a gene from one type of organism and splice it
haphazardly into the DNA of a dissimilar species, disrupting its natural
sequence. Further, because the transplanted gene is foreign to its new
surroundings, it cannot function without a big artificial boost. And
because this unnatural boosting is continual, it causes the transplanted
gene to act independently of the host organism's intricate control
system, unlike any of the native genes. Consequently, not only does the
foreign gene produce substances that have never been in that species
before -- it produces them in an essentially unregulated manner.
Accordingly, molecular biologist Liebe Cavalieri, a Professor at the
State University of New York, says it's "simplistic, if not
downright simple-minded" to claim that genetic engineering is
substantially the same as traditional breeding -- and that doing so
borders on "sham."
Recognizing How Radical Genetic Engineering Really Is.
Scientists who have objectively evaluated genetic engineering recognize
not only that it radically differs from traditional breeding but that it
is the most radical technology ever devised. Nobel laureate biologist
George Wald termed it "the biggest break in nature that has
occurred in human history." Biochemist Erwin Chargaff points to its
potential irreversibility as "awesome," and he and several
other eminent scientists warn it is a greater threat than nuclear
technology.
2. Unprecedented Risks. Due to its deep differences
with traditional breeding, genetic engineering entails unprecedented
risks to both the consumer and the environment.
New Risks to Our Food (a) Because the foreign genes
enter the host DNA haphazardly and disrupt the region into which they
wedge, they can broadly and adversely alter cellular function. (b) The
powerful boosters (called "promoters") artificially attached
to the foreign genes operate independently of the host's intricate
control mechanisms. They can therefore induce erratic expression of
neighboring genes as well as other imbalances. (c) The transplanted
genes' unregulated production of foreign substances can upset complex
biochemical feedback loops.
Each of these three types of disruption can cause the generation of
toxins and carcinogens -- or other harmful effects -- in unpredictable
ways, and the minimal testing currently performed cannot adequately
screen for the numerous potential problems. In addition, the foreign
proteins can cause serious allergic reactions.
Therefore, gene-spliced foods present abnormal risk. Professor Philip
Regal of the University of Minnesota, a renowned plant biologist, says
it is "scientifically justified" to be concerned about their
safety -- and warns that some could be "quite dangerous."
Risks of Irreversible Harm To the Biosphere. Organisms
with radically restructured DNA pose major threats to the world's
eco-system. (a) Through cross-pollination, they can pass their novel
traits to wild relatives and create superweeds. (b) The pieces of
viruses engineered into many plants could recombine with other viruses
to create superviruses -- and dangerous new diseases. (c) Plants
engineered to produce their own pesticide can kill beneficial species as
well as pests. These and the many other environmental risks are
especially problematic because their effects are to a substantial extent
irreversible. Once gene-altered organisms are released, it is difficult
to recall or control them. They continue to propagate, migrate, and
cross-breed with similar species.
3. Entrenching Unsustainable Agriculture. Although
proponents claim genetic engineering will reduce unsustainable
practices, in reality it causes greater dependence on them. For
instance, the majority of bioengineered crops are designed to tolerate
high doses of herbicides, which encourages increased use of these toxic
chemicals. Even plants engineered to produce their own pesticide may
well prove a net loss to sustainable agriculture. Their wide-scale use
induces the development of pests resistant to them, which not only
hastens their own ineffectiveness, but can destroy one of the main tools
of natural, earth-friendly pest management.
4. An Affront to Religious Principles. The false claims
and faulty procedures of the biotechnicians not only affront genuine
science, they affront religion as well. From a religious perspective:
(a) By insisting that forced, piecemeal gene-splicing is substantially
equivalent to sexual reproduction, and by attempting to trivialize the
multiple barriers against cross-species gene flow, bioengineers
denigrate the presence of purpose in nature. (b) By sundering these
barriers without sound safeguards, they display irreverence toward the
Creator and an irresponsible attitude toward the creation. Especially
arrogant is their presumption that human intelligence can restructure
the intricate genetic programs that guide the growth and function of
living organisms with greater competence -- and with less precautionary
procedure -- than when amending a man-made computer code. Accordingly,
an increasing number of people oppose the genetic restructuring of our
food as a brazen trespass on the realm of God and a disruption of the
divine plan.
5. An Official Policy to Underinform -- and even Misinform --
the Public. Because manufacturers fear consumers will reject
gene-tampered foods, they strongly resist labeling them. They are
supported in their stand by the regulatory agencies of the U.S.
government, which have a stated policy to promote bioengineered
products. Thus, although federal law mandates that all material facts
about food be disclosed, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
staunchly refuses to require identification of foods implanted with
genes from foreign species and the foreign substances they synthesize.
Moreover, in order to justify its lax policy and to gain public
acceptance of bioengineering, FDA officials systematically misrepresent
it. They claim it is a seamless extension of natural, time-tested
practices instead of acknowledging it as an artificial and radical
departure; they assert it is more precise than traditional techniques
when on balance it is far less precise; they treat its safety as an
established fact when in reality it is an open question -- and in
several respects doubtful.
By permitting the fact of foreign gene implantation to be hidden, not
only does the FDA ignore clear demands of both the law and consumers, it
thwarts the right of citizens to make an informed choice about their
foods. Moreover, it also inhibits the free exercise of religion, since
millions of people object to eating some or all genetically altered
foods on the basis of religious principle.
6. Inadequate Safety Testing. Besides asserting that
the radical alteration of an organism’s genetic structure is too
insignificant to label, the FDA further claims it is too minor to
monitor (based on the fallacious assumption that genetic engineering is
substantially equivalent to traditional breeding). Accordingly, although
genetically engineered foods present a range of unprecedented risks, the
FDA exempts them from the standard testing required of new food
additives -- in what appears a stark violation of federal law. As a
result, numerous varieties of bioengineered foods are being widely
marketed even though their safety has not been confirmed through
reliable procedures and remains subject to reasonable doubt.
7. Eminent Scientists and Religious Leaders Take the FDA to
Court. Many well-credentialed scientists have deplored this FDA
policy as unsound and irresponsible. Further, in order to emphasize the
pressing need for the policy's revision, nine such scientists have taken
the unprecedented step of becoming plaintiffs in the lawsuit our
organization has filed against the FDA. The suit demands that the agency
bring its policy back in line with sound science and U.S. law by
requiring comprehensive safety testing and labeling of all genetically
engineered foods.
Underscoring the fact that labeling is required not only to uphold
the basic right of consumer choice but religious freedom as well,
seventeen religious leaders have also joined as plaintiffs. They
represent a wide variety of faiths and include seven Christian clerics
(spanning Roman Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Protestant
denominations from Episcopalian to Baptist); three rabbis (orthodox,
conservative and reform); a Hindu religious organization; and a
prominent Buddhist. They believe that the wholesale sundering of the
species boundaries is an irreverent disruption of the integrity of God's
creation, and they wish to separate themselves from it as a matter of
religious principle. They therefore feel obliged to avoid all
genetically engineered foods, and they allege that the FDA's refusal to
institute labeling unlawfully restricts their free exercise of religion.
Other documents on our website more fully discuss the points in
this overview and explain why every individual has reasonable grounds to
reject gene-tampered foods and oppose the enterprise that is producing
them out of concern for both personal safety and environmental
protection. They also explain why all religious individuals have
additional reasons to do so in order to uphold the integrity of God’s
creation -- and the integrity of humanity’s relationship with God
BACK TO
WHAT RELIGIONS SAY ABOUT GMOS |