50s Movie Poster mad scientist style, by Glen Edelson, Flickr creative commons
A friend of Cornwall Alliance in Africa wrote,
I am not yet certain what the real truth is about Genetically Modified Organisms (God’s). Are they dangerous, or are they harmless? In a recent article on your blog, the writer totally asserts there’s no danger in GMO’S, and provides links for further reading on actual findings about these products.
I wonder, why is there such an aggressive crusade against them? Even well meaning, mature Christian leaders speak against their use. I would like to hear your opinion on this, and you may refer to me any references for further reading.
In our country, the president has hesitated signing into law the “GMO BILL” and it seems there’s an influence from the anti GMO crusade.
I’d like to know the truth.
Many mature, sincere Christian leaders do indeed oppose GMOs, but not, I’m afraid, because they actually have sound factual basis for their opposition. (Being a fine pastor or even theologian doesn’t mean that one knows a lot about science.)
The simple fact is that no properly done scientific study has ever found any link between GMOs and any human illness—and hundreds and hundreds of such studies have been done. Some improperly done studies have purported to find such links, but they violate all kinds of research standards. Wikipedia isn’t always a very reliable source, but in this case its article on GMO food controversies is pretty good.
Radical environmentalists oppose GMOs simply because they’re not “natural,” and many Christians infer invalidly from the fact that God declared His creation (before the fall) good (Genesis 1:31) that therefore “nature knows best,” or nature is best “untouched by human hands.” That is to ignore the mandate of Genesis 1:28 that we subdue and rule the earth and everything in it and God’s cursing of the earth as part of His judgment on mankind’s sin (Genesis 3).
B. Dulock says
Which studies cover long-term effects of consumption of GMO foods and what is the term length? For example, how many studies have conducted research over a 50- or 60- year period to actually verify safety of GMOs (i.e., that they do not cause cancer)? This would need to be done for each individual GMO.
Which studies cover long-term effects of introduction of GMOs into our planet’s eco-system and over what term length? For example, will populations of insects or other organisms be effected to the detriment of a regional ecology which in turn effects the food supply and/or human health?
I suspect the scientific community is far from fully understanding the impact/effect that GMOs have on human health and the natural balance of the environment. Research in the short term appears positive. However, the problem is that the only way to find out long-term effects is to introduce GMOs into our ecological system. If long-term problems occur they might be virtually impossible to correct before damage is done.
Another line of thinking which might seem far fetched but deserves consideration–what will prevent a future corporation from introducing GMOs that cause pernicious harm at the gain of short-term company profit. For example, a corporation introduces a GMO that is resistant to various pests but over long-term destroys bee colonies. This might not be discovered until bee population was so reduced that bee recovery would take a long period (after eliminating the GMO from the environment).
GMOs raise serious long-term questions that should be answered definitively before scientific organizations state categorically that GMOs are safe. A prudent person would weigh known short-term benefits against unknown long-term worst-case risks before letting GMOs loose into the wild and into our food supply.
E. Calvin Beisner says
Essentially, what you’re asking is for the proof of a universal negative–something impossible for science because it would involve the inductive fallacy. Your position is similar to the “precautionary principle,” which says that no new technology should be implemented until it has been proven not to have harmful consequences. Not only is it impossible to prove any such thing in advance, but also that principle would have prohibited the adoption of pretty much every technology humankind has ever developed. Even aspirin–one of the most useful drugs ever devised–wouldn’t have passed this test. For a good critique of the precautionary principle, see Indur M. Goklany’s THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004YJPJYK/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1).
The burden of proof is on those who allege that a technology is harmful, not on those who develop and offer it.