GMO: Part 2 of 2

This article is the continuation of last Wednesday's topic on Genetically Modified Organisms.

The Christian Church has been deceived by commercial interests in the matter of GMOs. "We will feed the poor and the masses," they promised. This righteous rhetoric has fooled more than the theologians. It has, in fact, fooled most everyone.

In response to the proposals on GMOs, the Catholic Church made very few proposals - please respect life - please uphold the dignity of creation. One of the few specific suggestions was to recommend labeling. The theologians felt that common sense would indicate that this was the minimum response that the public was entitled to. "Justice requires that no one should be fooled into eating GMO if they did not want to; the economy exists to serve human beings, not entrepreneurs," was the consensus. This of course was never done (according to Brother Keith Warner, Executive Director of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference).

The corporate objective was to bulldoze the technology onto the public before there could be an outcry. In this they succeeded -- to a degree, -- but not so in Europe. The European public has balked, and will not be silenced with corporate rhetoric. (At the time of writing this, our Prime Minister is in Europe trying to convince the Spanish Prime Minister that Canadian genetically modified canola is eh-OK.)

The most troubling thing about this biotechnology is that scientists simply do not know the long term effects of their manipulations. Time is the key. It is the only thing that will answer the questions:

Will these manipulations cause new allergens to be introduced into the food sources? (This almost happened at least once through the transfer of a Brazil nut gene into a different species.)

Will these manipulations act as toxins or will the animals using them produce new allergens or toxins?

Will nutritional values be compromised?

Is this the panacea, as we are led to believe, or is it the start of an environmental catastrophe?

What is the effect on soil, non-target pest species, or wild relatives of the manipulated species?

While most of society does not comprehend what is happening, and has already happened with the items noted above, there are individuals who have. These same people are passionate about their views and have strong objections to the process. These same people are the ones who take the time to be informed and make the time to write letters, picket and protest against the WTO, and the corporations behind such enterprises. These are the same people we tend to call tree huggers, or profoundly worse.

This was evident at the WTO summit in Seattle and elsewhere. There are backlashes against corporate policies because it is felt that the impacts of economic policies and activity are beyond social control. "Too much control is being exercised by too few" is often heard.

The claim that we will feed the poor and hungry is a hollow claim. This claim is made to garner support for the corporate actions.

It is foolish to believe that man can find a solution to the feeding of the hungry for the long term. The corporations can make all the claims they want, but there is no permanent solution without first a change in distribution methods and secondly without a reduction in population growth. The efforts of those in the food processing business are in a holding mode at best.

There is little in religious doctrine that directly gives guidance on biotechnology. There is however a tradition of values and moral ethics that are there to fall back on if the theologians ever wake up and offer some initiative and direction.

"Our ancestors separated the 'Affairs of State' from 'Church Dominance' and now we must separate the Affairs of State from Big-business Lobbyists and Influence. A big challenge. A challenge that must be met to bring common aspirations to governments." (Once again I quote a 72 year old Preston gentleman by the name of Joe Duobaitis.)

Think Proportional Representative government.