Promise or Threat?

INTRODUCTION
Now that agricultural biotechnology at the genetic level have been transferred from the laboratory to the field, social discourse about its value has gone from a simmer to a rolling boil. The genetic manipulations of seeds, plants and animals have extraordinarily complex implications for society and agriculture. The revolutionary significance of today’s biotechnology is comparable to the advent of chemical inputs in the early 20th century, and the conflicted discourse that surrounds genetic technology is comparable to nuclear power.

If agricultural biotechnology is to even partially fulfill the promises claimed by its adherents, it would indeed be one of the most remarkable human innovations. By engineering desirable traits into seeds, proponents claim that agricultural biotechnology will feed the world’s growing population of hungry people, combat disease, promote nutrition and provide more environmentally-sound agricultural practices. These are admirable goals, but the means to achieve these goals cannot bypass our moral understanding of life and the integrity of creation. Unless agricultural biotechnology is subjected to compelling scrutiny, the public will not appreciate the social costs of adopting genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We must challenge ourselves as a community of faith to help measure this new technology against our moral strictures. The genie may be out of the bottle - widespread planting of GMO crops has rapidly grown since 1996 - but there are still actions to take to safeguard human health and the integrity of creation from potential biotech risks.

Curiously, proponents of agricultural biotechnology argue that values or beliefs have no role in debating the intrinsic merits of genetic engineering. For example, Robert Shapiro, the CEO of Monsanto, stated: "Like most tools, like most scientific knowledge, biotechnology in itself is neither good nor bad. It can be used well, or it can be used badly." The ethical perspective of the biotech advocates is best described as utilitarianism, which can be defined as the doctrine that what is useful is good, and consequently, that the ethical value of conduct is determined by the utility of its results. Many well-meaning scientists operate within this philosophy, some without even being aware of its implications. Some utilitarian thinkers engage in actions that some people would consider morally wrong, but the actions are justified by reductionist utilitarian thinking.

Some foes of GMOs portray this as a technology whose release will have apocalyptic consequences. They argue that genetically modified seeds and plants will cause disaster, create superweeds, alter our genetic legacy, create resistant agricultural pests, kill unintended targets, and "risk our future". Many European countries have banned the use of genetically modified seeds for just these concerns. How are we to make sense of all these claims? Both proponents and detractors are suggesting that society needs to engage in a decisive discourse to determine how to appropriately regulate agricultural biotechnology. These potential risks provide an opportunity for society - for us - to weigh benefits and costs, and to make decisions that will have far-ranging implications not only for the US, but around the world.

Catholic Social Teaching
What does Catholic teaching have to say about agricultural biotechnology? Explicitly, very little. There have been only a few church documents that have addressed it (most notably, the 1999 study by the Pontifical Academy for Life on ethics and genetic technology). But for over a century, Catholicism has elaborated a set of values and moral principles that can be used to evaluate political, economic and social issues as they affect society. For example, Catholic social teaching has addressed medical ethics, nuclear weapons, and economic justice - not by telling people what to do, but by presenting fundamental values that can guide us as we wrestle with moral conflicts.

Catholic social teaching insists that we consider the means used to achieve a good end. In respect to a technological innovation, particularly a biotechnology, we ought to observe the following norms:
Respect for life
Uphold human dignity
Respect the integrity of creation

These principles were elaborated by Pope John Paul II in 1990 (World Day of Peace message) as moral norms to guide our relationship with the environment and the use of biotechnology. He did not prohibit the use of such technology, but insisted it be controlled by society. Genetic engineering is acceptable if certain conditions are met: The integrity of creation is safeguarded, life in all its forms is respected and, above all, the dignity of the human person is upheld. The Pope stated unequivocally that there is something intrinsically wrong with genetic engineering of humans. Genetic engineering of plants and animals, however, is an acceptable activity provided it does not violate the integrity of creation.

Despite the claims of GMO proponents, society does not have sufficient information at this time to make an adequate evaluation of the ecological impacts of transgenic crops. During the Bush Administration (1989-92), the federal government decided to adopt a strong pro-biotechnology stance for agriculture. Under the Clinton Administration, this type of research and promotion continued, although there is increasing public pressure for the federal government to reconsider its stance. Concerns are raised about the minimal requirements for field tests, and how these are usually conducted by those who develop the new technology. Such tests do not adequately assess the ecological threat of unwanted traits spreading to wild species, or the possibility that engineered plants will themselves become pestilential weeds. In either case, the integrity of creation is compromised.

The Hunger Issue
Claims are often made that agricultural biotechnology will significantly improve food production for years to come. According to GMO advocates, the threat of world hunger can only be met by improving seeds and increasing yields through genetic engineering. There is surprisingly little discussion of exactly how these increased yields from biotech crops will address world hunger. Miguel Altieri, a leading agroecologist, and Peter Rosset, director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy, argue that the GMO claim to resolve world hunger rests on two persistent misconceptions:
People are hungry due to a gap between food production and human population density and growth.
Genetic engineering is the best or only way to meet future food needs.

Contrary to these misconceptions, Altieri and Rosset argue that there is no relationship between the prevalence of hunger in a given country and its population. There is enough food produced in the world to feed everyone: World production of food would be able to provide 4.3 pounds of food for every person daily. This breaks down to 2.5 pounds of grain, about a pound of dairy and meats, and a pound of fruits and vegetables. Proponents of agricultural biotechnology err in translating global aggregate agricultural statistics to the reality of hunger in a specific region or country. It is obviously clear that yields need to be increased in areas where hunger is severe, especially Africa and parts of Asia. But it is also clear that local and international markets serve as crucial links between food producers and consumers, and it is naive to readily suggest that lack of production is the problem when local economic policies and international trading regimes distort the distribution of food. The Church believes that the real causes of hunger are poverty, inequality and lack of access. Claims that agricultural biotechnology will "feed the hungry world" need to be thoroughly questioned.

Biotechnology and Sustainable Agriculture
GMO proponents assert that besides increasing yields, agricultural biotechnology will contribute to more sustainable agricultural practices. These proponents claim that biotechnology offers new opportunities for decreasing the environmental damage of agricultural practices, and doing so while reducing the cost of food production. By reducing pesticides, fertilizers and tillage (field plowing), it would make farming more sustainable. Cost savings will come from decreased dependency on petrochemical inputs, even as crops yields increase.

Genetically modified crops may reduce the need for certain kinds of inputs, but they do little to change the overall direction taken by conventional farming. At this time, the benefits described above are promises, not reality. Society must question the rather fantastic claims made about agricultural biotechnology and challenge its promoters to bear the costs of damages when the genetically modified organisms go awry. In contrast to continuing on the "technology treadmill" on which genetically modified crops are placed, the sustainable agriculture movement critiques the inputs, scale and environmental impacts of conventional farming practices. In short, the sustainable agriculture movement seeks to reconfigure the entire agroecological paradigm. However, significant economic barriers exist which block the transition of most farms toward genuine sustainable agriculture.

Respect for the integrity of creation calls us to practice stewardship of the land. The earth is the Lord’s; it can never be reduced to a mere commodity. The present generation cannot dispose of natural resources as we please; future generations have just claims on the earth. For agricultural practices to reflect this value, they must be sustainable. One of the most basic principles of sustainable agriculture is to reduce off-farm inputs to an absolute minimum, and to selectively adopt inputs that support the economic independence of the farmer. Even if petrochemicals are reduced by the use of GMO seeds, the farmer is still dependent on seed companies and laboratories to produce the seeds for each new planting season. What extraordinary control leaves the hands of the farmers and is taken over by a handful of agribusiness corporations.

Modified Seeds and "Life" Patents
Corporate control over the use of genetically modified seeds is a major issue in the development of biotechnology, especially agricultural biotechnology, because tremendous expenses are incurred in developing processes and organisms that are relatively inexpensive to reproduce and bring to market. The economics of engineering plants and seeds is somewhat different than designing and manufacturing automobiles, for example, which have many fixed expenses. Once the development of a genetically modified crop seed is completed, producing the seeds is relatively inexpensive. This is why "life science" companies and biotech industries have worked so hard to strengthen control over the knowledge used in their products through the expansion of patents.

The modern patent system was developed to ensure that the inventors of industrial products receive a just return for their innovation - something that is clearly just. But patents on life go far beyond the ownership of a single cow or type of crop. Patents are a so-called "negative right" because they prevent others from owning similar organisms unless they pay the corporation that first developed the modified organism. This is inconsistent with Catholic teaching about private property and the principle which allows people to own private property: God and society also have claims on the property. Pope John Paul II extended this concept in 1999 when he said that the "social mortgage" on all private property must be applied to intellectual property and to knowledge as well. The current system of patents in the United States - developed through judicial precedent, not legislation - is too broad.

Patenting assures the right to either control or derive financial benefit from all of the patented life forms; it is a much broader sense of ownership than a title to real estate or an investment. As currently practiced, patents on life forms have become excessively broad. For example, the biotech company Plant Genetic Systems (owned by AgrEvo) has been granted a patent in the United States for all genetically engineered plants containing a naturally occurring bacteria toxic to insect pests. Another biotech firm, Sungene, developed a variety of sunflower with a high oleic acid content, and patented the genes that control this quality -- along with all possible sunflowers with this characteristic as well. If reactions are muted in this country, developing countries have raised their concerns at world forums. They are understandably alarmed when Western corporations take jasmine rice from Thailand and basmati rice from India, modified a small fraction of the respective seed’s genes, and then patented them.

A Path to Follow
Catholic social teaching guides us along a prudent path in this discourse on agricultural biotechnology. Our tradition calls us to be suspicious of both miraculous and apocalyptic claims. From the points laid out above, we can conclude that genetic engineering of plants and animals is acceptable so long as it does not undermine the fundamental moral principles of utmost regard for human dignity, respect for life in all its forms, and the integrity of creation. These principles provide a moral guide for scientific utilitarianism. From a Roman Catholic perspective, GMOs can be adopted to achieve a social good so long as the users of this technology follow a morally appropriate means.

The difficulty in using GMOs prudently is that the ecological reach of this bio-technology is significantly greater than other forms of technology. There is not sufficient information to conclude definitively whether this new technology is inherently wrong or right. While it appears that there are merits to genetic modification of seeds and crop, carried out in respect to life and human dignity, this technology carries potential risks against the integrity of creation. Political leaders and society in general must ensure that sufficient testing of the ecological impacts of GMOs is carried forth. Granted, this is like advising a farmer to close the barn door after the cows have escaped - millions of acres in the US have been planted with genetically modified crops. Given our uncertainty about the ecological impacts of these crops, ongoing evaluation of the ecological effects should be a stipulation for their use, simply because there is the potential for this technology to undermine the integrity of creation.

Given that research into the ecological impacts of commercial-scale planting of GMO crops is not yet sufficient, and until there is clear consensus among agroecologists, agricultural biotechnology can only be approved provisionally. From a Roman Catholic perspective, any technology that erodes the integrity of creation is inherently wrong. Definitive judgment on this technology must wait for conclusive studies of their ecological impacts, so government agencies must be in a position to act quickly to control any negative consequences should these appear.

The most important question to ask when considering the release of a new technology is: How will it impact society? To date, this more circumspect question has been ignored for GMOs. Concerns and objections about genetically modified foods have been bulldozed to the side as the life science companies have made an unprecedented rush to bring an unprecedented new technology to unprepared consumers. Given the enormous stake that life science companies have put into biotech research, their resistance to any restrictions will be considerable. The application of agricultural biotechnology is moving ahead much faster than the public discussion. Those in the best position to ensure that a public discussion takes place - public officials - have abandoned their responsibility. It appears that the desire for corporate profit has trumped social need, at least so far. Given the significant environmental risks, it would be imprudent to allow the market to be the only regulator of this industry. For this reason, civil society organizations ought to step into this vacuum of political leadership and insist on more open and thorough debates.

What follows are proposals offered to give society and social forces the opportunity to exert some control over the use of GMOs.

Labeling of GMO Foods
Labeling of all foods containing GMOs is a small but critically important first step. It is a basic human right that people be able to control the food they consume. Given the ubiquity of corn and soy products in manufactured food, GMO foods will be difficult to avoid, but people have the right to know. Beyond this, labeling will play an important role in educating consumers about the presence of GMO foods in their diet. It is unlikely that we will be able to assess all the effects of this technology for some time, so it is important for everyone to know that they are taking some risk, even if it is minimal. Arguments from the food industry that this is unfeasible or unnecessary do not stand up to scrutiny, even from a neo-liberal economic perspective. Once the proper health characteristics of altered food products are guaranteed, it is right that consumers should know if their food has been genetically modified. It is also important for consumers to know who produced their food and how it was produced.

Regulatory Oversight
The government must abandon its "hands off" policy and involve itself in establishing regulations for the industry. It cannot treat agricultural biotechnology as it would cars or other consumer goods, because the potential risks will reach almost everyone in society. The involvement of the government needs to be commensurate with the impact of the industry. To those interested in environmental stewardship, we encourage you to join with groups urging Congressional leadership to allot more money to USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in order to properly study and monitor the ecological impacts of large-scale GMO crop release. APHIS ought to be given a stronger mandate, regulatory authority, and appropriate funding to properly supervise the immensely more complex agricultural practices of the GMO market. Civil society organizations should call on Congress to strengthen regulatory oversight of APHIS.

Environmental Monitoring
The Union of Concerned Scientists has led the scientific community in efforts to ensure the federal government is monitoring the ecological impacts of genetically modified crops. Civil society organizations can support this effort by calling on the government to establish a strong federal program (presumably through APHIS) to assess and minimize the risks of transgenic crops before any more are released. This program would consider the risks to agriculture and natural ecosystems in the US and elsewhere in the world, paying particular attention to protection of agricultural diversity for food and fiber crops. All transgenic crops should be evaluated for at least two aspects of ecological risk - weediness potential and gene flow - before being approved for commercial release. APHIS should be given clear authority to prevent the release of transgenic crops at risk of becoming pestilential weeds. Transgenic crops that have already been approved should be studied most intensively. Civil society organizations may want to recommend that a moratorium on release of further transgenic crops until adequate studies evaluating their ecological impact have been done.

Citizen Panels
The GMO issue has assumed national attention. In order to create public trust and confidence in this new technology, government leaders need to establish a transparent regulatory process. One way to do this is to set up citizen panels to assess the social merit of agricultural biotechnology. Citizen panels have been used with great success in European countries such as Denmark to help society grapple with the dizzying effects of technology. These panels allow ordinary people, selected as citizen representatives, to have a say in deciding whether and how much technology their society wants to accept. A citizen panel offers a broader focus than evaluating the biological risk of the new technology; they would help fashion a social consensus about how society might want to adopt it. They could identify social and ecological research needs, stipulate what kinds of constraints are needed, assess risk and potential liability, and promote public education about the choices this technology presents us.

It should not be hard to interest the industry in such a process. Even Monsanto is chafing from the uproar in Europe, and its executives would do well to support such a process. The terrific financial risk taken in conducting biotech research is now exposed by the reluctance of many farmers to continue using GMO seeds. The uncertainty over the future of agricultural biotechnology benefits no one. Not farmers, not consumers, not the industry and not the government. Independent citizen panels are best initiated at the federal level, but it may be more realistic to focus energies on creating such panels in key farm states. However, the GMOs issue has concerns for consumers which are not necessarily addressed in environmental and food production discussions.

Civil Society Organizations
Biblical principles of justice, and indeed basic principles of fairness, can be brought to bear on the issue of risks associated with GMOs. If new information undermines the agricultural biotechnological revolution, there would be staggering economic impacts. Hundreds of thousands of farmers could wake up one morning to find their entire crop worthless. The present political economy assigns risks to life science companies and to farmers, yet the legal defenses of the former are substantial and the later are insignificant. Civil society organizations would do well to consider advocating for a GMO liability bond. Such a bond should be large enough to cover all of the economic risks of agricultural biotechnology assumed by farmers. Life science companies should not be permitted to externalize the risks of GMO crops.

Civil society organizations, in concert with farmer advocacy groups, may want to investigate the applicability of the Sherman Antitrust Laws to the life science and food system industries. The accelerating concentration of economic power in the agricultural and food system makes food production and distribution much less accessible to social control. Our government doesn’t allow one corporation to make cars, refine petroleum, and build roads. The same should be true in agriculture: No one corporation should be permitted to own seed, agrochemical, farm product transportation and food processing companies. The trend of accelerating economic concentration will continue unless society intervenes.

Agricultural research priorities are in need of radical correction. Civil society organizations should advocate for more comprehensive studies of the social impacts of agricultural biotechnology. In addition, they should insist on the end of government-funded research that enhances agrochemical use and pose environmental risks. Every opportunity should be taken to advocate for government-funded agricultural research to pursue agroecological sustainability.

Challenging the Patenting of Life
Finally, civil society organizations should pursue some advocacy in patent law, both in US and international law, even though this area is terribly complicated. Patenting, however, can never substitute for a proper discussion about the social merits of a new technology. Patents laws should be seen as the fine points of a contract between entrepreneurs and society. Due to the lack of social structures to address the merits and problems of biotechnology, patents have become the arena of last resort for this debate, a function the patent office is poorly equipped to support. There would be considerable resistance to any reform of patent laws by biotech corporations, but it should be clear that current laws and legal precedents are inadequate to respond to the biotech revolution. There is considerable unease among Americans about the patenting of life forms. Americans have a strong tradition of defending private property, but there is a broad perception that the biotechnology rush is close to "stepping over the line" if it has not already done so.

Most vexing is the "negative right" of the patent holder to require other parties to pay them (usually a corporation) simply for the use of an organism that really isn’t very different from a species that has been selected over millennia. Efforts to minimize this negative right should be included in any discussion of patent law reform.

Current biotechnology patents are too broad. They have been determined by court rulings, not legislators. Efforts should be undertaken to constrain the excessive breadth of agricultural biotechnology patents. How could this be done? First, limit the scope of patents on GMOs to the addition of the specific gene yielding the desired trait, or the configuration of genes that give this trait, but exclude the rest of the organism from eligibility for patenting. Put simply, laws should allow biotech innovators to patent the gene, not the whole plant - to say nothing of all the genetically-altered plants of a species.

Second, Congress should consider mechanisms to transfer the benefits of agricultural biotechnology into the public domain. Food and agriculture are unique aspects of economic activity, and should be treated as such. There is virtually no chance that international benefits (i.e., feeding the hungry in Africa) will ever be realized as long as agricultural biotechnology patents are held by transnational corporations. Biotechnology advocates must be persuaded to recognize the contradictions between their optimistic vision and current patent laws.

Third, international issues of justice must be included in this discussion. Patents now held in the US on crop varieties or crop traits of distinct national origin (such as basmati or jasmine rice) are outrageous, and an insult to other nations. Countries that are host to global germplasm resources must be protected from such egregious piracy. It is manifestly unjust that a corporation take from a country a race of plants that has been cultivated over millennia, genetically modify a tiny percentage of its cells, and then patent the race so that only they can profit from it. Basic principles of proportionality must be observed. Agricultural biotechnology patents must be reconfigured so that the traits and plant characteristics that have been husbanded by cultures are protected as a common heritage, and only the modifications are patented.

CONCLUSION
Agricultural biotechnology is not value-free. By contrasting Catholic teaching on the integrity of creation with the scientific utilitarianism of corporate advocates, we can see that GMOs bear the values and ideology of its creators. Unless subjected to compelling scrutiny as advocated above, the public will not be made aware of the social costs of adopting this technology. We must challenge ourselves as a community of faith to help embed this new technology within the moral strictures of society and our social structures. We may not be able to put the genie back in the bottle, but we must insist that human and ecological health be put before corporate profits. Our call to respect life, uphold human dignity and ensure the integrity of creation requires each of us to do so.