Christian Ecology Link, Britain's main church-based environmental organisation, today urged the Church Commissioners to sell its shares in companies involved in developing genetically modified organisms.
The call is in direct response to a press report (The Observer, 21st November) that an unnamed Church source has said that it would be inconsistent for the Church to invest in companies undertaking genetically modified crop trials while refusing to allow such trials to take place on Church land.
Christian Ecology Link (CEL) has urged the Church of England's Ethical Investment Working Group to turn down the request from the Central Science Laboratory when it meets next Wednesday (1st December) to decide its recommendation to the Church Commissioners, who take the final decision. The source claimed that blocking the trials would have a dramatic impact on the Church of England's investment policy. Last year the Church invested over &37m in companies developing genetic engineering techniques such as AstraZeneca and Novartis.
CEL Chairman Tim Cooper said: "The Church Commissioners should disinvest from companies such as AstraZeneca and Novartis forthwith. Widespread public opposition to GM food means that investing heavily in their shares involves undue risk. The Commissioners should instead be exploring opportunities for increased investment in companies associated with organic food, which benefits the environment and is increasingly in demand."
He warned that if the Church Commissioners allowed the trials to proceed "ordinary churchgoers will find it hard to understand why the Church disregards the known environmental threats and dismisses widespread public concern." He added "If the Church accepts its environmental responsibility it must adopt the precautionary principle, which means rejecting farm scale trials on its land."
- -CEL supports research into genetically modified organisms but only in an enclosed environment.
CEL has also expressed concern to Church House officials at a statement on the official Church of England web site suggesting that there is an agreed policy sympathetic to immediate uptake of the technology. Tim Cooper said:
"The suggestion that there is an agreed policy is not true. The statement was originally intended a briefing paper and has not been discussed by General Synod. Some senior figures in the Church are deliberately promoting a misleading policy claim."
Contact: Tim Cooper - 0114 225 4838 George Dent - 01524 36241
1. Any decision to allow trials of genetically modified crops to take place on Church owned land is liable to have a profound effect on public perceptions of the Church. In the past the Church has often attracted criticism from environmentalists for teaching about human dominion without emphasising the need for good stewardship. In recent years a series of events and initiatives organised by the Board for Social Responsibility and Christian Ecology Link has helped to improve understanding within the Church. It would be most unfortunate and untimely for the Church now to give a public signal that it is willing to take the kind of environmental risks that other landowners evidently wish to avoid.2. Too little information has so far been made public on the approach made by MAFF to lease church owned land in the York area. It is unclear how much land has been requested, whether the land is currently tenanted, what tests would be undertaken and for whom. Such information should not be kept secret but should be revealed as part of the process of public debate. Nor is it clear why MAFF has judged it necessary to approach a national public institution rather than smaller landowners. It is liable to be seen as an attempt by Government to use the Church to give greater authority to its current policy.3. There has not been adequate consultation within the Church. Indeed Christian Ecology Link, Britain's leading church-based environmental organisation, with approximately 500 church and individual members, only became aware through the press of the prospect of Church owned land being used in this way. There was a fringe meeting at the recent Synod, but this was closed to non-members, there was very limited time for questions, and no collective opinion was established. Prior to any decision being taken it is important to consult theologians and social scientists as well as independent scientists.4. The BSR briefing paper on Genetically Modified Organisms provides some interesting insights on the issue. However, it takes an uncritical approach to science and does not adequately address some important ethical and theological considerations. Christian Ecology Link has produced a comprehensive critique of the paper, which is attached. The description of the BSR briefing paper as 'The Church of England's View' on its web-site* is misleading, as the stance taken will be unacceptable to many Church members. (* http://www.cofe.anglican.org/view/environ.html) 5. The use of land for trials of genetically modified crops is to be treated as a potential investment by the Church. The decision should be determined by ethical criteria as much as by financial considerations. In any case, however, there is a concern that land upon which genetically modified crops have been grown will decline in value (as may land on neighbouring farms). Moreover, the issue of liability for possible legal claims in the event of unforeseen environmental or health problems remains unresolved. 6. More generally, the use of farm scale trials is premature and dangerous. Research should be done in a closed environment for the foreseeable future. The precautionary principle should be adopted, which puts the onus of proof on the scientists to show that their activities will not cause any harm.7. The Church need to review its approach to alternative farming options. Last November Professor David Bellamy, speaking at a major conference on Christianity and the Environment held at Southwark Cathedral, shared a vision that all Church land would be farmed organically and that churches would become distribution centres for organic food. There are. of course, limits to the ability of Church Commissioners to impose any particular type of farming on its tenants. However, it is within their power to offer advice and support, and to make recommendations. It should also consider the need to introduce conditions to leases in relation to environmental concerns.8. It is our belief that the Church Commissioners should not at the present time permit trials of genetically modified crops to be take place on Church owned land. This will allow for further laboratory research, adequate consultation within the Church, and additional public debate on this important issue.
Christian Ecology Link
20 Carlton Road
Harrogate
North Yorks HG2 8DD
Tel: 01524 36241
Web-site: http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk
1. Christian Ecology Link welcomes the Church of England's willingness to provide resources to assist Christians to explore ethical concerns such as the use of genetically modified organisms. However, we have strong reservations on whether such resources should be described as 'The Church of England's View'. In the case of genetically modified organisms this is misleading as the stance taken will be unacceptable to many Church members.
2. The paper raises important issues relating to human intervention in nature. It recognises that genetic engineering can lead to changes in living organisms that could never be achieved by natural breeding, noting that much public concern arises out of a perception that genetically modified foods are 'radically unnatural' and that producing such foods is 'playing God'. Our understanding of what is 'natural' requires further exploration. It would be wrong to fall into the trap of equating 'natural' with 'good': many toxins are 'natural'.
3. Environmental degradation suggests that an appropriate balance between human intervention in nature and restraint has not been achieved, which may explain why many people are so concerned about this particular scientific development. By contrast, the paper argues that 'genetic engineering does not seem very different from other forms of scientific advance' and then fails to explore why many people do not accept this claim. There is no clear justification for the paper's conclusion that 'wisdom is unlikely to lie either in an unrestricted exploitation or in a total prohibition.' A middle path is not invariably wise. For example, the total prohibition of biological weapons is widely accepted.
4. The theological section of the paper is too short and narrowly focused. The approach adopted of focusing on genetically modified organisms as a scientific concern results in a lack of balance. For example, the paper lacks any significant theological discussion of land, on which much has been written, or food. This is a serious flaw. Moreover, although the paper touches upon important issues relating to global trade and the use of commercial power, it offers no critical insights.
5. The paper lacks critical depth when describing several purposes served by genetically modified crops. It suggests that use of the technology may improve agricultural productivity and thereby enable the world's growing population to be fed. This suggests an underlying assumption that more food is needed rather than different diets or better distribution. It does not refer to the recent Christian Aid report Selling Suicide, which concluded that, far from ending starvation, application of this technology threatens to place too much power over food into too few hands and leave the poor more vulnerable.
6. The paper notes that genetically modified technology enables fields to be sprayed with herbicide without crops being destroyed. However, it does not mention the implications for biodiversity, the potential for 'superweeds', or the implications of disrupting the food chain. Nor does it question the apparent utilitarian assumption underlying this approach, that the only legitimate living species are those which can be used by humans and that other flora and fauna are dispensable.
7. The paper refers to the prospect of genetically modifying crops to make them resistant to virus and insect predators and suggests that this might lead to a reduction in the use of chemical sprays. However it does not refer to recent US Department of Agriculture research which found that in practice no significant reduction of chemical use is taking place on American farms which are growing genetically modified crops. Nor does it refer to concern that if crops are genetically modified to resist insects there is an increased probability that insect populations may acquire resistance.
8. The paper recognises that genes may be transferred from genetically modified crops to other crops or species. However, while recommending an 'appropriate degree of isolation of genetically modified crops from possible unintended recipients' it fails to acknowledge that such isolation will gradually become impossible, as eco-systems interconnect. In this sense, any decision to introduce the technology is irreversible. The paper does not address the potential injustice to organic farmers who will no longer be able to market their produce as organic if it is contaminated as a result of nearby farms growing genetically modified crops.
9. It is unfortunate that the paper should propose that refined products derived from genetically modified plants need not be labelled. The suggestion that they are 'identical' to products from unmodified plants is disputable. While labelling such foods certainly raises 'greater difficulties', this is should be seen as a challenge for scientists, rather than an excuse not to offer consumers choice. The problem exposes the fact that the science is undeveloped and its application premature.
10. The paper notes that processed foods may have some ingredients in very small quantities. However it is wrong to dismiss the case for labelling all ingredients derived from genetically modified food made by, among others, the Consumers Association. The paper should accept that Christians who take a principled stance against use of this technology will want products wholly free from genetically modified ingredients.
11. It is unclear why the paper specifically highlights the possibility that the Church 'might well wish to exert an influence' on issues relating to the two-thirds world but not on other aspects of the debate. It suggests an underlying belief that the Church's ethical concern should be limited to the relief of poverty rather than embracing environmental sustainability or dietary choice.
12. The paper describes the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes as offering 'independent assessment'. As membership of this committee (and the Government's other advisory committees) has been widely criticised as lacking independence this could be regarded as somewhat naive. More than half of the members of ACNFP have close links with the industry and there is only one consumer representative.
13. Although it may have been the intention to offer a neutral stance, the language used in the paper shows evidence of a presumption in favour of using genetic engineering. Thus, for example, genetic engineering is described as an 'advance'. A moratorium would not be 'introduced' but 'imposed'. In terms of agricultural productivity the technology is 'promising'.
14. The paper concludes with a remarkable comparison with irradiated food, which was rejected primarily because consumers judged that it served the interests of large scale producers while offering no real benefit. Many consumers will find patronising the suggestion that they might reject genetically modified food because of 'slogan words that are unreflectively (sic) taken to carry sinister meanings'.
15. In summary, it is our belief that in seeking to take care of creation (Gen 2:15) the Church should adopt the precautionary principle as recommended in the British Medical Association report The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health. This puts the onus of proof on the scientists engaged in genetic engineering to show that their activities will not cause any harm. Christian Ecology Link thus supports the Five Year Freeze Campaign, which calls for a freeze on growing genetically engineered crops for any commercial purpose and on importing genetically engineered foods and farm crops.
July 1999
Christian Ecology Link
20 Carlton Road
Harrogate
North Yorks HG2 8DD
Tel: 01524 36241
Web-site: http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk
* This response is based on the paper accessed on 25th June 1999 from the Church of England web-site: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/view/environ.html |
Say No to Suicide Seeds 