
|
|

January 25, 2002
Lives are in the balance
Editorial
Tu B’Shevat (this year on Jan. 28) is traditionally known
as a time for planting trees and celebrating nature. Over the last
decade, people have also begun to see it as a time for serious thought
and discussion around environmental issues. The Vancouver Jewish
community was fortunate to be able to put into practice this tradition
recently at the latest Philosophers’ Café Jan. 20.
SFU Prof. Mark Winston, former head of the Burquest Jewish Community
and a world-reknowned academic, brought before the audience a question
of ethics surrounding the production of genetically modified organisms
(GMOs). The scenario to ponder was, How does Judaism inform our
decisions in using GMOs? If GMOs can save lives, should we put aside
our concerns about the impact these crops may have on their environment
or on ourselves?
The scene set by Winston included the unequivocal statement that
genetically modified crops can save lives. (By taking genes from
daffodils, for example, and transferring them into rice, scientists
can create golden rice, which fights Vitamin A deficiency, a disease
that kills millions of children every year.)
But members of the audience at the café were quick to raise
concerns about the possibilities of detrimental effects from “playing
God.” The uncertainty of the long-term effects of GMOs, including
the possiblity of carcinogens, led more than one speaker to say
that more research was needed before continuing the production of
GMOs.
Even when Winston pointed out that, in the 20 years that scientists
have been testing GMOs, there have never been any documented cases
of medical harm due to commercialized, genetically modified crops,
the crowd seemed unwilling to yield. It was if they had come there
wanting nothing better than to knock GMOs and no one was going to
take that opportunity away from them.
Part of the problem is the reputation of companies that are making
GMOs. People who work for corporations like Monsanto, for example,
don’t have to do much more than get up in the morning before
they’re accused of poisoning the earth, taking advantage of
poor populations or otherwise acting out of pure self-interest.
But they should no more all be painted with the brush of self-interest
than Jews should be colored with the notion that we want to take
over the world.
Winston reminded the crowd that the people who work with GMOs have
diverse feelings about what they are doing, and are very cautious
and rigorous about their tests. Even so, one after another, the
speakers pointed fingers at what one young participant called “the
corporate beast.”
And therein lies part of the problem. Despite the fact that millions
die from diseases that could be prevented through GMOs, paranoia
and mistrust of corporations stand in the way of accepting these
solutions.
In addition, the fact that we don’t suffer from such diseases
ourselves, or know personally anyone who does, also makes it easier
to say we should test the research for another 20 years, as one
café participant suggested. Twenty years? And how many people
will die during that period? Consider if it were a million Israelis
dying this year due to a lack of Vitamin A, or some other disease
that Jews might be prone to that could be prevented with GMOs. Would
that person have made the same suggestion?
We’re being asked to consider the certainty of saving millions
of people’s lives against the potential of upheaval in the
natural world. Is it really such a hard question to answer? As long
as the threat is just a potential and not proven, as long as there
are constant efforts to monitor the effects of GMOs, how can we
choose to let people die?
^TOP
|
|