Is Genetic Alteration and Engineering of Animals and Plants wrong?

[Pieman333272]

Should Catholics not endorse genetically engineered products?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Should Catholics not endorse genetically engineered products?

TOUGH question. I think it depends on what the modification is. We have to realize that all kinds of genetic modification has gone on for millenia. Modern corn, for example, “doesn’t exist” other than a genetic modification. Corn as we know it, cannot live and reproduce without human intervention. The plant from which it developed is not even recognizable as related to corn.

Cattle have been genetically modified over the millenia, to have better health, more meat, require less in (name removed by moderator)uts, be less wild. Every rancher on earth “genetically modifies” his herd by elimination of undesirables that might pass on undesirable traits and by selecting animals that have good traits to breed with other animals that have good traits.

Now, there is, for example “Roundup ready corn” and other similar products. It’s genetically modified to resist the herbicide Roundup, so farmers can kill competing weeds by simply spraying Roundup on corn and everything. Will that allow some kind of cross-trading of DNA among plants so we end up with all kinds of “Roundup ready” weeds in time? Some say so. Could we end up with unkillable Kudzu, for example? Some think so.

Genetic modifications, I understand, are often introduced by modifying viruses to inject snippets of the desired DNA into the cells of the plan or animal sought to be modified. Can that somehow get out of hand? Might we develop some killer virus inadvertently? Maybe.

Certain things, I think, are monsterous. If, say, one modified a cow to have pig traits or even human traits. Some of those things are going on. I’m no expert at this, but I believe some pigs have been modified so they produce human insulin. Useful, no doubt, but taking snippets of human DNA and introducing them into pigs? That chills me a bit, not for itself, of course, in that limited context, but because one has to wonder where it stops.

And humans. Sharks, I understand, never get cancer for some reason. Will science be wanting to genetically alter humans so part of us is shark? Some would readily do it. Will we be altered so we live to 200? Maybe. If so, will the Warren Buffets and George Soros’ of the world end up owning absolutely everything because they have long enough lifetimes in which to get it done?

Some possibilities are troubling. I can’t argue with the notion in principle, but the potential applications hold the potential for much mischief.

 

[tafan]

Should Catholics not endorse genetically engineered products?

Of course we should endorse those which are beneficial to mankind. Of course we should oppose those which are detrimental to mankind. Overly simple questions beget overly simple answers. Sometimes, neither one gets us anywhere.

 

[John21652]

Should Catholics not endorse genetically engineered products?

Genetic engineering is a really broad topic. There are different types of genetic engineering and so the “products” are going to be very different. There is plant genetic engineering and animal genetic engineering, with results tailored for medicine and food production, so just from that we have a plethora of products to worry over.

In general terms, I think genetic engineering is a wonderful tool for scientific, medical and agricultural development, but it also raises a great many ethical issues. In terms of Catholicism, we need to keep in mind the Catechism, which has a lot to say on issues surrounding the use of care of nature. For instance at 2415 it specifically tells us -

The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation

Then at 2417 we are reminded that -

God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice, if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

I would contend that the part I underlined would also apply to the scientific experimentation done with plant material.

The danger is, of course, that the scientific establishments that carry out the experimentation on plants and animals need to show a return for their investment. The need and the desire for profit could lead to unethical outcomes. A lot of the genetic engineering is still not fully understood even by the scientists involved and the danger is that novel results can be used as money making ventures but with unpredictable, or unforseen results. The blurring of the lines between what is natural and what is novel will require deep thought about the ethical issues and it is a heavy burden that necessarily lays upon the shoulders of those involved.

 

[oldkiss789]

thumps up for your article, great post… Kids Dress

 

[torch621]

Careful, there are some on this forum who apparently would rather use all organic food and have billions suffer starvation because we can’t produce enough food than allow GM crops to be used to fight world hunger.

 

[bmullins]

Careful, there are some on this forum who apparently would rather use all organic food and have billions suffer starvation because we can’t produce enough food than allow GM crops to be used to fight world hunger.

I don’t think Genetically Modified foods are the answer. I also sincerely doubt there are any Catholics who want people to suffer and die from starvation. The answers are there, and GMO is not the only or even the most efficient answer.

 

[torch621]

I don’t think Genetically Modified foods are the answer. I also sincerely doubt there are any Catholics who want people to suffer and die from starvation. The answers are there, and GMO is not the only or even the most efficient answer.

A respectable point, but the cry that “we should only use organic” isn’t the answer either. It’s not efficient enough to meet our needs and I’m not convinced it’s much better for us OR the environment.

I don’t believe any Catholic would want anyone to suffer (though if I suggested I did I apologize) but I can’t see any other outcome if we were to switch to a method that isn’t proven to meet our food needs. Modern farming methods represent our best hope, if we use them the right way.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

Technically, genetic alteration of animals and plants has been going on for ages: it’s been called animal husbandry, since it involved breeding animals together if they had certain desirable characteristics (ie. Holstein cows were bred for their milk production). These days, however, it’s being done in a lab, involving gene splicing, etc. I won’t say I’m for it, as some of these GMOs are turning out to be harmful to existing species (eg. bees are not reacting well to GM corn), and in some cases to the animal itself (there’s a video of a GM beef cow that’s been modified to have way more muscle meat than a regular beef cow, and apparently, the poor thing’s skeleton is stressed by the amount of muscle it’s got. Plus, it’s as ugly as sin: imagine the most extreme body-builder you can think of, like some kind of cartoon muscle man. Now imagine a cow that looks like that).

Maybe if the first world nations rationed their food and sent the extra food to the third world nations, there’d be enough to go around and we wouldn’t need GMOs.

 

[edwest2]

Here is an article from a reputable Catholic source concerning this:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004910.htm

Here is an article about a subject that I think is related.

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/dont-end-agricultural-subsidies-fix-them/

Billions of dollars are paid each year to farmers in the US to grow nothing. The reason is simple: say one trillion bushels of corn per year will meet the needs of everyone who uses corn. But if more corn is grown, the oversupply will lower the market price for corn. Should a drought hit some part of the country, prices would go up until other farmers or imports brought in more supply.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Dale_M]

TOUGH question. I think it depends on what the modification is. We have to realize that all kinds of genetic modification has gone on for millenia. Modern corn, for example, “doesn’t exist” other than a genetic modification. Corn as we know it, cannot live and reproduce without human intervention. The plant from which it developed is not even recognizable as related to corn.

Cattle have been genetically modified over the millenia, to have better health, more meat, require less in (name removed by moderator)uts, be less wild. Every rancher on earth “genetically modifies” his herd by elimination of undesirables that might pass on undesirable traits and by selecting animals that have good traits to breed with other animals that have good traits.

I think you make an important point. When people complain about genetically modified foods, they usually mean transgenic crops and livestock: plants and animals which have had genes from other species spliced into their DNA. However, the non-transgenic practices of selective breeding or hybridization have been practiced for a very long time and have produced plants and animals significantly different from their ancestors.

Now, there is, for example “Roundup ready corn” and other similar products. It’s genetically modified to resist the herbicide Roundup, so farmers can kill competing weeds by simply spraying Roundup on corn and everything. Will that allow some kind of cross-trading of DNA among plants so we end up with all kinds of “Roundup ready” weeds in time? Some say so. Could we end up with unkillable Kudzu, for example? Some think so.

I am not sure about kudzu, but Roundup resistant pigweed is already a significant problem in some counties of the US. And similar resistant weeds have been reported in Australia, Brazil and China.

Genetic modifications, I understand, are often introduced by modifying viruses to inject snippets of the desired DNA into the cells of the plan or animal sought to be modified. Can that somehow get out of hand? Might we develop some killer virus inadvertently? Maybe.

Viruses are perfectly capable for recombining on their own to form killer varieties. Influenza, in particular, sometimes kills millions of people in a single season. Fortunately, we haven’t had such a killer flu since 1918.

I wouldn’t worry scientists accidentally creating killer viruses. However, the prospect of them deliberately creating such killers is very real, and has been done more than once.

Certain things, I think, are monsterous. If, say, one modified a cow to have pig traits or even human traits. Some of those things are going on. I’m no expert at this, but I believe some pigs have been modified so they produce human insulin. Useful, no doubt, but taking snippets of human DNA and introducing them into pigs? That chills me a bit, not for itself, of course, in that limited context, but because one has to wonder where it stops.

Its certainly a creepy thing to reflect upon. However, I believe an established consensus among researchers is to terminate any experiment involving human genes which results in behavioral changes.

Still, there are potential dangers. Genetic engineering is neither all good nor all bad. It needs to be conducted safely, and with ethical oversight.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

A respectable point, but the cry that “we should only use organic” isn’t the answer either. It’s not efficient enough to meet our needs and I’m not convinced it’s much better for us OR the environment.

I don’t believe any Catholic would want anyone to suffer (though if I suggested I did I apologize) but I can’t see any other outcome if we were to switch to a method that isn’t proven to meet our food needs. Modern farming methods represent our best hope, if we use them the right way.

Organic food is more than sufficient to feed everyone today and then some. It is far more sustainable as it is much less abusive on the land and uses far less energy.

Technically, genetic alteration of animals and plants has been going on for ages: it’s been called animal husbandry, since it involved breeding animals together if they had certain desirable characteristics (ie. Holstein cows were bred for their milk production). These days, however, it’s being done in a lab, involving gene splicing, etc. I won’t say I’m for it, as some of these GMOs are turning out to be harmful to existing species (eg. bees are not reacting well to GM corn), and in some cases to the animal itself (there’s a video of a GM beef cow that’s been modified to have way more muscle meat than a regular beef cow, and apparently, the poor thing’s skeleton is stressed by the amount of muscle it’s got. Plus, it’s as ugly as sin: imagine the most extreme body-builder you can think of, like some kind of cartoon muscle man. Now imagine a cow that looks like that).

Maybe if the first world nations rationed their food and sent the extra food to the third world nations, there’d be enough to go around and we wouldn’t need GMOs.

Husbandry and gene splicing are two very different things even though they are for the same purpose.

Global hunger is not caused by lack of production, it is caused by bad distribution

 

[Dale_M]

Here is an article from a reputable Catholic source concerning this:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004910.htm

Thank you for posting this. As the article mentions, the Vatican has never taken a position on genetic modified foods, either for or against.

 

[edwest2]

Global hunger is not caused by a lack of distribution. Trucks, ships, and at point of entry, other trucks have to be leased to bring food to those who need it. This all costs money.

In some cases, attempts are made to bring food to those who need it, but it is stolen:

nytimes.com/2011/08/17/world/africa/17somalia.html?_r=1&ref=worldfoodprogram

Peace,
Ed

 

[Dale_M]

Global hunger is not caused by a lack of distribution. Trucks, ships, and at point of entry, other trucks have to be leased to bring food to those who need it. This all costs money.

Ed, I wonder if you meant to say that global hunger is caused by a lack of distribution. Surely, the cost of ships and trucks are part of the distribution process.

The article you cited has to do with Somalia, which is a failed state. In the absence of political order, distribution becomes especially difficult.

 

[edwest2]

It boils down to this: money. Who will pay for the distribution and who will pay for the grain to be distributed?

Peace,
Ed

 

[bmullins]

It boils down to this: money. Who will pay for the distribution and who will pay for the grain to be distributed?

Which is precisely the problem. The reason genetic engineering is not the answer is that it will still be about money. We have the capacity as it is to change our eating habits worldwide and be able to feed everyone. It would require sacrifice on everyone’s part. People aren’t starving because food isn’t available. Look how much is thrown away in America alone daily.

 

[Dale_M]

Which is precisely the problem. The reason genetic engineering is not the answer is that it will still be about money. We have the capacity as it is to change our eating habits worldwide and be able to feed everyone. It would require sacrifice on everyone’s part. People aren’t starving because food isn’t available.

I agree that, among the benefits of genetically modified foods, the alleviation of world hunger is not among them. One of the criticisms of the Green Revolution of the 1960’s (which truly did reduce starvation) is that the annual cost of hybrid seeds (which have to be purchased and can not be gleaned from the prior year’s harvest) is a hardship on poor farmers in third world countries.

And the immense largesse of crops grown in first world countries, if shipped to where they are most needed, tends to flood the marketplace making it difficult for local farmers to compete. So such farmers shift to non-food crops, which prolongs the food shortage, creating a situation of permanent dependency on foreign aid. A few years ago, the international relief organization CARE began to refuse US food aid because it consisted of US grain shipped overseas rather than cash which could be used to buy more grain more regionally.
articles.sfgate.com/2007-08-21/opinion/17258027_1_farm-bill-food-policy-humanitarian-groups