Woodstock Report | The Ethics of Eating Seminars

John Farina

On November 2, 2006, Woodstock’s Catholicism and Civic Renewal project held a conference on “The Ethics of Eating” at the Bunn Intercultural Center at Georgetown University. The conference highlighted the work over the previous year of seminars devoted to the study of the ethical and theological issues concerning the use of genetically modified (GM) organisms in agriculture. The seminars represented the final part of a three-year project, funded by the Henry Luce Foundation.

To examine how theological reflection could contribute to public questions, the project chose to examine “the ethics of eating.” Over the year, the project held a series of seminars with participants representing the fields of law, history, theology, and public policy. During that time, component seminars in each of those fields met separately and in two plenary sessions. In these seminars, the participants examined the role of theological reflection in the current debate on GM food as it related to their particular disciplines. The study concluded with a final forum, presenting the conclusions from the year of discussion and writing.

John Farina, director of the Catholicism and Civic Renewal program, summed up the goal of the seminars in his introduction to the November conference, “The idea behind this was to see whether it would be worthwhile for morally-concerned, religiously-astute citizens, expert in their own disciplines, to address a matter of public concern – in fact one that involves us all: eating.”

What is genetically modified food? GM food consists of crops that have had their genomes altered by the inclusion of DNA from other organisms, in order to establish a useful trait in that crop. The crops, most often corn, canola, or soybeans, have been modified to be disease- or pest-resistant or herbicide-tolerant. Some of the moral questions surrounding GM crops extend to the broader category of biotechnology, including hybridization and other types of genetic engineering.

Currently, criticisms of GM food range from concerns over unknown long-term health effects, to fears of monopolistic seed production driving small-scale and poor farmers out of business, to ecological concerns over biodiversity and the overuse of pesticides. Proponents cite the advantages of GM food, including increased crop yield and lower fertilizer requirements.

In order to delve into the questions raised by these debates, the seminars began their discussions by presenting the public policy questions and challenges associated with GM foods. What are the implications of using GM foods to meet the nutritional needs of developing countries? Zambia and Mozambique had recently rejected U.S. food aid, despite widespread famine, because the grain was genetically modified. The countries feared that the grain might harm human health in the long-term and harm agricultural exports in the short-term. They acted on these concerns even though the food could have fed thousands who were starving at the time.

(left to right) Grazier, Kimbrell, Rivas, Lewis, and Lo Biondo

Legal structures and precedents relevant to the GM debate were discussed. In the case of Diamond vs. Chakrabarty in 1980, the Supreme Court allowed the patenting of a live bacterium that had been developed by an Exxon scientist to eat oil in the event of an oil spill. Paul King, partner at McIntyre, Harbin, & King and a participant in the legal seminar, described his experience working as a clerk for Judge Giles S. Rich on the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. Judge Rich wrote an opinion in a case before his court that laid the groundwork for Chakrabarty. He specifically refused to deal with any of the broader ethical implications of the issue of patenting life and saw the matter strictly in terms of statutory interpretation. The Supreme Court followed his lead in handing down its ruling allowing the patenting of a microorganism under the current patent statutes. Once the courts decided to exclude any broader analysis of benefits and risks or moral issues regarding the ownership of life, the patenting of microorganisms became a crucial component in the development of GM products. With that legal structure in place, companies could reasonably expect to profit commercially from the development of GM crops.

The seminars also included an historical component. In his presentation, historian Jeff Marlett highlighted the plight of the small American farmer, who embodies the foundational American and community-oriented Christian values, but is now threatened by the rise of corporate agribusiness. Woodstock director Gasper Lo Biondo, S.J., pointed out the difficulties faced by indigenous farmers throughout the world, who struggle for survival and are threatened by falling commodity prices or trade embargos, such as Europe’s ban on GM foods.

Josette Lewis, senior biotechnology advisor at the U.S. Agency for International Development, and Andy Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, brought the public policy debate to the forefront. Kimbrell warned against the threat of monopolies and profit-seeking by large agribusinesses such as Monsanto, while Lewis emphasized the importance of investing in public resources, especially in developing countries, precisely so that GM crops are not only available to large-scale farmers in wealthy nations. Both acknowledged a high-level of misinformation in the current political debates.

The full impact of GM foods is yet to be seen and will depend on many factors, including aspects of the economy, large agribusinesses, publicly funded research, patent laws, and the judiciary system. As major stakeholders, these institutions will undoubtedly exercise significant influence. As theologian Chet Gillis pointed out, “Theologians may offer analysis and the Church may object to it on moral grounds, but it cannot be dis-invented. Economics and business control its fate.” How then, as members of the Church, do we “earn a place at the table” of these debates? And once present, what is the role of religion?

Acknowledging that humans have been changing the natural order of things since the beginning of time, the theologians moved beyond the accusations that this technology was “tampering with creation” to a focus on our responsibility as stewards of the earth. Morally-based questions, such as whether we can assume legal ownership over the living through patents, led to more broad-based concerns. Gillis framed the underlying question, asking, “Is what we do benefiting creation – the natural and human order – or is it damaging it? If it is benefiting, is it doing so at the expense of a particular segment of creation or individual humans?”

Summarizing the work of the legal seminar, Frank Orban, a partner at DeKeiffer and Horgan, LLP, pointed out that the main impediment to including a religious or moral dimension in the legal sphere is the role of legal positivism in the American legal system. That system highlights the role of stare decisis and reduces law to the behavior of judges. Orban continued, “The courts very often get into this balancing test rather than focusing on moral, ethical, or theological considerations…. Theology and morality might re-enter the legal picture by focusing on discussing what should inform the process of balancing.” It is here, he asserted, that elements from Catholic social teaching such as the common good could come into play. Working within the status quo, these values and concerns can be incorporated in public policy and legislation.

“Does genetically engineered food contribute to developing a just and sustainable agricultural system, or not?” – Walt Grazer.

Walt Grazer, policy advisor and director of the Environmental Justice Program at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, followed this assessment with a discussion of the role that the Church can play in public policy: in particular, advocacy for social justice. He asked, “Does genetically engineered food contribute to developing a just and sustainable agricultural system, or not?” Untangling the answer, though, requires answers to myriad questions about policy, beneficiaries, and moral obligations.

The theological seminar asked about the role of theologians. The theologians must sharpen the moral question at heart of the debate, attempting to create what Bernard Lonergan, S.J., described as a mediating matrix. “A theology mediates between a cultural matrix and the significance and role of religion within that matrix.” That matrix must be constructed out of the tangled layers and webs of facts, figures, propaganda, current problems, and future concerns that are part of the policy debate. But it must bring questions of authenticity, self-awareness, tradition, and justice to the heart of the analysis. This must all take place in the context of a willingness to confront the distortions of the current political, economic, and cultural system, which might at times be a form of what one of its most articulate critics, Andrew Kimbrell, calls “cold evil.”

But how does theology play a role without either becoming diluted by appeasing every faith perspective or ostracized because of its exclusivity? Must it speak only from the perspective of unified pluralistic and universal “religion of humanity”? Theologian and ethicist John Langan, S.J., spoke about the balance that must be found. On the one hand, it must be clear that “the religious approach will not be destructive and divisive,” but that there are perhaps “principles for living together, which are both philosophically available and present in different forms in our religious traditions.” On the other hand, there is a need to maintain one’s religious identity.

It is especially important that the religious and moral questions are not watered down, as theology must ask the deeper questions that our secular institutions fail to ask. Moreover, theological reflection can give voice to the voiceless – those who have not been offered a place at the table but are nonetheless involved in the debate. As Langan pointed out, “One of the functions of theology, I think, is to connect us with broad historical communities, which the nature of traditions does, and to connect us with our experiences as a whole.”

Rebecca West is a senior at Georgetown University, studying Theology and Economics. She worked as a research assistant on the Catholicism and Civic Renewal program.

Woodstock is grateful to the Henry Luce Foundation for their support of the Catholicism and Civic Renewal program.