5774.5

 CCAR RESPONSA COMMITTEE

5774.5

On Genetically Engineered Foods

Sh’elah.

A new product called Golden Rice has been developed to help prevent blindness in children due to vitamin A deficiency. However, this product uses what is called recombinant DNA technology, in which two genes normally not present in rice are introduced into the rice genome. While there remains some uncertainty and dispute about the effects of this technology, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that Golden Rice is harmful or dangerous to the environment. Would Jewish tradition permit its use to save the vision of children? (Steven Abrams, M.D., Houston, TX)

T’shuvah.

Jurists speak of the distinction between questions of law and questions of fact.[1] A question of law “is one to be answered in accordance with established principles, one which has been already authoritatively answered, explicitly or implicitly, by the law,”[2] while a question of fact is decided not by reference to a legal rule or principle but by “weighing the strength of evidence and credibility of witnesses.”[3] The answers to questions of fact will often depend upon the testimony of experts – scientists, physicians, and the like – who are regarded as qualified to establish the “facts” to which the law must speak.[4]

Your sh’elah presents us with both a question of law and a question of fact. While the answer to the former is, in our view, tolerably clear, we as a committee find it quite difficult to resolve the latter. While this difficulty may prevent us from reaching a definitive conclusion in this responsum, however, it need not prevent you or anyone else from arriving at their own conclusions based upon their own considered judgment and weighing of the facts.

1. Genetic Engineering of Plants and Jewish Law. We turn first to the question of law: does the production of genetically modified food or organisms (GMOs) violate an explicit or implicit prohibition of Torah? Golden Rice, our particular case, is created through the addition of two genes to the rice genome by means of a bacterial agent. This enables the rice grain to synthesize beta-carotene, a chemical that the body converts into vitamin A (retinol).[5] While beta-carotene is naturally synthesized in the leaves of the rice plant, that process is “turned off” in the grain; the genetic modification essentially restarts the process in the grain, the part of the rice plant that is actually consumed.[6] The goal, as our sho’el indicates, is to combat vitamin A deficiency, which “is the leading cause of preventable blindness in children and (which) increases the risk of disease and death from severe infections.”[7]

As is the case with most procedures of genetic modification (GM) of plants, Golden Rice is the result of the injection of genetic material (in the form of recombinant DNA) from a “donor” species into a host organism. Is this process the sort of “mixture” that transgresses the ritual prohibition (isur) in Leviticus 19:19: “you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed (kilayim)”? At least one noted halakhic authority thinks it does,[8] yet his appears to be very much a minority viewpoint. Other scholars hold that the analogy does not fit, for several reasons. First, the prohibition of kilayim applies only to “mixture” accomplished in the “natural and accepted way,” that is, by sowing seeds, and not when it is done by synthetic means in a laboratory setting.[9] Second, when the DNA extracted from the donor plant, its chemical structure is transformed in the laboratory. It is therefore no longer the DNA of a separate species (a “diverse kind”) of plant but that of a non-plant, a different substance altogether (davar chadash), and the “mixture” no longer meets the definition of kilayim.[10] Third, while the aim of the isur is to prohibit the creation of new species of plant, the GMO is not in fact a new species but rather a member of the same species bearing new characteristics.[11]

We could argue, of course, that GM violates the spirit, even if not the letter, of Leviticus 19:19. No less a figure than Ramban (Nachmanides) seems to make that argument in his commentary to the verse, where he explains that the prohibition of kilayim teaches that God’s creation is perfect as it is and that one who “mixes” the species denies that perfection.[12] We might therefore conclude that Jewish tradition regards GM as an impermissible tampering with ma`aseh bereishit, the Divinely-created order of the physical universe. But even if we read Ramban’s comment as relevant to genetic modification technology – a dubious interpretation at best[13] – it is far from a unanimous opinion. Rashi holds that this isur lacks any discernible rationale; it is simply one of the commandments known as gezeirot, “decrees of the Sovereign that have no other purpose or explanation (ta’am).”[14] Additionally, the rationale that Ramban offers for kilayim contradicts much opinion within the Rabbinic tradition that denies that we must accept physical reality as “perfect as it is” and that openly acknowledges human control over the natural order.[15] One of the most famous statements of this position, indeed, is Ramban’s own commentary to Genesis 1:28 (“… God said to [the man and the woman]: Be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it…”): “God has given to humankind power and sovereignty over the earth, to do as they please with the animals and all that crawl upon the earth, to build, to uproot, and to plant.” That comment, expressing the incontrovertible observation that all human civilization has involved “tampering” with the order of creation, has in turn been cited by contemporary halakhists in support of a permissive approach toward genetic engineering.[16]

For our part, we side with the preponderant view within the halakhic tradition that the prohibition of kilayim does not apply to contemporary techniques of genetic modification. And while we will not attempt to resolve the apparent contradiction between Ramban’s comments to Leviticus 19:19 and Genesis 1:28, we will repeat what we have written in a previous t’shuvah:[17] “we cannot say that Jewish tradition requires that we regard the existing natural order, including the existing genetic structures of the various species of plant and animal life, as sacred and inviolate.” As we noted there, the new technologies of genetic modification, when used with wisdom, open the door to many hopeful and exciting possibilities in the field of medicine and human health. We should therefore take care not to draw strained analogies that might question the religious permissibility of these scientific advances. For these reasons, we conclude that Jewish law contains no ritual prohibition that in principle forbids the application of genetic modification technologies for the betterment of the world and of mankind.

2. GMOs and the Environment. That last sentence raises the question of fact. The technologies of genetic modification are said to offer exciting prospects for what we call tikun olam, the betterment of the world. They herald the introduction of new and hardier strains of food crops that can withstand disease and climate change and thus help feed our planet’s growing population. Some of these strains, such as Golden Rice, are touted for their contributions to human health and nutrition. But these claims must be evaluated against the possibility that the introduction of new or modified species into the world’s ecosystem may be a source of significant environmental harm. To cause such harm is not only an evil in and of itself; it also transgresses against our religious obligation to safeguard the natural world. That obligation, as we have written,[18] is known as bal tashchit, and it is derived from the Torah’s injunction against the wanton destruction of fruit-bearing trees (Deuteronomy 20:19-20).[19] From this, we learn that Torah requires us to be faithful stewards of the environment, and we do not keep that faith when we ignore the damaging effects of genetic technology.

At the same time, the bal tashchit prohibition is hardly absolute. Our tradition forbids “destructive” behavior precisely when it is “wanton,” when it is undertaken as it were for its own sake, but permitted when undertaken for the sake of some recognized useful purpose (to`elet).[20] If so, it does not follow that, on Jewish grounds, we must oppose the introduction of a new technology simply because that technology is “destructive” in some way. Rather, we have to measure the nature and extent of its potentially damaging effects and balance them against the benefits that the technology possibly offers to humankind. Any responsible Jewish decision concerning environmental action would demand a cost-benefit analysis of this nature, a careful evaluation of the facts of the case.

And in this case, the facts are very much in dispute. On one side stands an impressive array of scientific organizations, such as the European Commission,[21] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[22] and the British Royal Society,[23] that argue for the health and environmental safety of plants produced by GM technologies.[24] With respect to Golden Rice, there is evidence that the new strain can contribute substantively to the battle against vitamin A deficiency.[25] On the other side, we find respected scientific and environmental organizations raising cautions against genetic modification in general[26] and Golden Rice in particular.[27] The objections center upon the claim that the health benefits advertised for Golden Rice are either unproven or superfluous (that is, other “natural” sources of vitamin A exist) or that whatever benefits it offers do not warrant the risks, such as possible threats to biodiversity, posed by the introduction of genetically modified organisms into the environment. Meanwhile, at least one health agency associated with the fight against blindness and malnutrition and that in general supports the use of GM foods as a source of vitamin A is currently acting as an “independent evaluator” on the Golden Rice project, with the aim of testing the product’s safety and efficacy.[28] This would indicate that, in the agency’s view, the issues surrounding Golden Rice have yet to be conclusively resolved.

3. A Note on Science and Culture. All this presents a substantial problem for us, especially if our goal is to arrive at a definitive answer here and now to your sh’elah. Generally, when the Responsa Committee considers inquiries involving science and technology, we rely upon the consensus view among the scientific community to answer the relevant questions of fact. As we have written:[29]

As rabbis, we are not competent to render judgments in scientific controversies. Still, we do not hesitate to adopt “the overwhelming view” as our standard of guidance in this and all other issues where science is the determining factor. … (W)e rely upon “the overwhelming view” of scientists, not because scientists are immune to error, but because today’s science is a discipline defined by a rigorous methodology that leads to the recognition and correction of mistakes. The findings of any researcher are tested and retested carefully; they are subject to close scrutiny and peer review… It is precisely because scientists acknowledge that they can be wrong…that “the overwhelming viewpoint,” the consensus opinion among practitioners,[30] is worthy of our confidence.

The question, then, is not whether we “listen to” science. Of course we do, because facts matter, because we want our decisions to be grounded in empirical reality, and because science is the way in which our intellectual culture determines the answers to many questions of fact.[31] The question, rather, is how we should proceed in cases where a scientific consensus does not exist or where, if it does exist, it is challenged by those whose opinions ought to command the public’s respectful attention. Ours is such a case. Our reading of the evidence cited above suggests to us that a consensus or “mainstream” viewpoint, supportive of GMO technology in general and of the Golden Rice project in particular, may well be developing among the scientific community. This developing consensus, however, has yet to overcome all (or the preponderance of) reasonable doubt and objections; it has yet to settle firmly the questions of fact. It persuades some but not all of the members of this Committee. Thus, the findings of science do not – yet – determine our response to this sh’elah.

Conclusion. We can answer the question of law: Jewish tradition does not prohibit, on ritual grounds, the modern technological processes that lead to the genetic modification of plants, unless it can be shown that those processes pose a significant risk to the natural environment and to human health. But we are divided over the question of fact: do the processes of GM pose such a risk? Consequently, we as a committee cannot respond definitively at this time to your sh’elah.

That we cannot do so, however, does not mean that no response is possible. Your sh’elah, as we have emphasized, requires an evaluation of the scientific facts surrounding genetic modification and, in this instance, the product known as Golden Rice. You as a physician are certainly as qualified as we rabbis to arrive at an educated judgment as to those facts. If that judgment leads you to conclude, as you put it, that “there is absolutely no scientific evidence that Golden Rice is harmful or dangerous to the environment” and that it makes a real and substantive contribution toward the remedy of vitamin A deficiency, you are entitled to support the development of that product, on good Jewish grounds, as a contribution to human health. Others within our Reform Jewish community, of course, may disagree with you, but this is not a bad thing. For as long as the disagreement centers upon an honest difference of opinion over the question of fact, over the implications of GMOs for the environment, we consider it a machloket l’shem shamayim, “a dispute for the sake of Heaven” that will spur the study, argument, and debate that will ultimately yield the truth.[32]

NOTES

1. The distinction has long served in common law to help decide whether a particular issue should be decided by a judge or a jury. Thus, in the words of Chancellor Coke, “the most usual trial of matters of fact is by twelve such men [i.e., jurors], for ad quaestionem facti non respondent judices [judges do not answer a question of fact]; and matters in law the judges ought to decide and discuss; for ad quaestionem juris non respondent juratores [jurors do not answer a question of law]”; Edward Coke, Commentary on Littleton (Thomas edition, 1818), p. 460.
2. John Salmond, Jurisprudence, 4^th edition (London: Stevens and Haynes, 1913), p. 15.
3. “Question of Fact,” Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute, http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/question_of_fact (accessed January 21, 2014).
4. The same holds true for Jewish law, especially when rabbis must rule on questions involving scientific or medical knowledge. For example, halakhah clearly permits the suspension of Shabbat and Yom Kippur prohibitions in cases of sakanat n’fashot (danger to life) or even potential danger to life (safek n’fashot), but the determination of just what medical situations constitute “danger” is left to the judgment of qualified physicians (M. Yoma 8:5-6) and, at times, of the patient him/herself (see Shulchan Arukh Orach Chayim 618:1). The question of law, in other words, is decided by the texts and sources, while the question of fact is decided by those who are qualified to evaluate the medical situation. And see note 30, below.
5. Beta-carotene has an orange pigment, which accounts for the “golden” color of the genetically-modified rice.
6. For a detailed description of the science and technology behind the genetic modification of plants, see Suzie Key et al., “Genetically Modified Plants and Human Health,” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 101:6 (2008), pp. 290-298, http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/101/6/290.full (accessed January 21, 2014). For Golden Rice specifically, see  http://www.goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how1_sci.php (accessed January 21, 2014). The following is the abstract of the publication by the researchers who developed Golden Rice: “Rice (Oryza sativa), a major staple food, is usually milled to remove the oil-rich aleurone layer that turns rancid upon storage, especially in tropical areas. The remaining edible part of rice grains, the endosperm, lacks several essential nutrients, such as provitamin A. Thus, predominant rice consumption promotes vitamin A deficiency, a serious public health problem in at least 26 countries, including highly populated areas of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Recombinant DNA technology was used to improve its nutritional value in this respect. A combination of transgenes enabled biosynthesis of provitamin A in the endosperm”; Xudong Ye et al., “Engineering the Provitamin A (β-Carotene) Biosynthetic Pathway into (Carotenoid-Free) Rice Endosperm,” Science 287:5451 (January, 2000), pp. 303-305.
7. World Health Organization, “Micronutrient Deficiencies,” http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/vad/en (accessed January 21, 2014). The webpage notes two “salient facts”:  1) an estimated 250 million preschool children are vitamin A deficient and it is likely that in vitamin A deficient areas a substantial proportion of pregnant women is vitamin A deficient; and 2) an estimated 250 000 to 500 000 vitamin A-deficient children become blind every year, half of them dying within 12 months of losing their sight.
8. R. Shelomo Zalman Auerbach, Resp. Minchat Sh’lomo 2:100. The volume appeared in 2000. Auerbach’s conclusion here contradicts the view reported in his name by his nephew R. Yechiel M. Stern in Sefer Kashrut Arba`at Haminim (Jerusalem, 1992), p. 182, namely that the prohibition applies only when the material drawn from either of the plants has the capability, if planted in the ground, of growing on its own.
9. Rabbi Dov Leor, “Handasah genetit b’tz’machim,” Da`at 28 (1999), http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/emunat/28/02807.htm#_ftn2 (accessed January 21, 2014). See also R. Avraham S. Avraham, Nishmat Avraham, vol. 4 (Jerusalem, 2007), p. 181, in the name of Rabbi Y. Y. Noivert.
10. See Professor Eliezer Goldschmidt and Dr. Aryeh Maoz, “Handasah genetit b’tz’machim: reka mada’I v’hebetim hilkhati’im,” Assia 65-66 (1999), http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/assia/goldshmit.htm (accessed January 21, 2014). Goldschmidt and Maoz display a much deeper familiarity with the technology in question than does Rabbi Auerbach.
11. Goldschmidt and Maoz (note 10, above). This argument is also advanced by Rabbi Ya`akov Ariel, “Hitarvut B’ma`aseh B’reshit,” in Y. Raziel, Shibut Geneti: Mabat Torani (Jerusalem, 2004), pp. 74-85, http://98.131.138.124/articles/GC/cloning11.asp# (accessed January 21, 2014). That the purpose of the isur is to prevent the creation of new “species” (minim) is stated by Ramban (Nachmanides) in his commentary to Leviticus 19:19 (see note 13, below).
12. See also Sefer Hachinukh, mitzvah no. 244.
13. Ramban understands the mitzvah as cautioning against the creation of brand-new species: והטעם בכלאים, כי השם ברא המינים בעולם, בכל בעלי הנפשות בצמחים ובבעלי נפש התנועה, ונתן בהם כח התולדה שיתקיימו המינים בהם לעד כל זמן שירצה הוא יתברך בקיום העולם. וצוה בכחם שיוציאו למיניהם ולא ישתנו לעד לעולם, שנאמר בכולם “למינהו” (בראשית א), והוא סיבת המשכב שנרביע בהמות זו עם זו לקיום המינין כאשר יבואו האנשים על הנשים לפריה ורביה. והמרכיב שני מינין, משנה ומכחיש במעשה בראשית, כאילו יחשוב שלא השלים הקב”ה בעולמו כל הצורך ויחפוץ הוא לעזור בבריאתו של עולם להוסיף בו בריות. As we have seen the procedure we address here does not create a new species but seeks to change a particular characteristic in an existing one; see Nishmat Avraham (note 9, above), p. 184, addressing Ramban’s comment.
14. Rashi to Leviticus 19:19, on the word chukotai. See also ibn Ezra to the verse, who describes the prohibition of “mixtures” as a purely ritual expression – a zikaron – similar to the festivals, the shofar, and tefilin.
15. The created universe, that is, has been entrusted to us to use, to exploit – and to alter – for our own benefit. See B’reishit Rabah, 11:6, the conversation between Rabbi Hoshaya and a “philosopher”: “everything that God created during the first six days requires subsequent action: mustard requires sweetening, wheat must be milled, and even human beings require improvement (tikun).”
16. See Ariel (note 11, above) and Avraham (note 9, above).
17. CCAR Responsa no. 5768.3, “On Human Genetic Modification,” http://www.ccarnet.org/responsa/nyp-no-5768-3, section 1.
18. CCAR Responsa no. 5769.7, “Dissection and Cruelty to Animals,” http://www.ccarnet.org/responsa/nyp-no-5769-7 , section 1. The principle has become a major element in the construction, during the last several decades, of a rhetoric of Jewish environmental ethics. See, for example, Barry Freundel in Ellen Bernstein, ed., Ecology and the Jewish Spirit (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights, 1998), p. 73 (“Any discussion of Jewish law and the environment must begin with… Deuteronomy 20:19-20″); Eilon Schwartz, “Bal Tashchit: A Jewish Environmental Precept,” in Martin Yaffe, ed., Jewish Environmental Ethics: A Reader (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001), pp. 230-249; Rabbi Yonatan Neril, “Summoning the Will Not to Waste,” http://www.coejl.org/resources/summoning-the-will-not-to-waste (accessed January 31, 2014); and “Eikhut Has’vivah,” Encyclopedia Y’hudit, http://www.daat.ac.il/encyclopedia/value.asp?id1=44 (accessed January 31, 2014).
19. See Yad, M’lakhim 6:8:-10. This mitzvah teaches us, say some authorities, to perfect our moral character, “to train our souls to love the good and the beneficial… and to keep ourselves far from evil and destructive behavior”; Sefer Hachinukh, mitzvah no. 529.
20. See our responsum 5769.7 (note 18, above), at notes 6 and 7.
21. See A Decade of EU-funded GMO Research (Brussels: European Commission, 2010; ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/kbbe/docs/a-decade-of-eu-funded-gmo-research_en.pdf, accessed February 3, 2014), at p. 18: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.”
22. American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods,” http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf (accessed February 3, 2014): “The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”
23. “Making Science Work,” an address delivered by Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/news/2013/2013-09-12-Making-Science-Work.pdf (accessed February 3, 2014), p. 12: “The generation of genetically modified foods by the introduction of genes by genetic engineering has been controversial in some countries around the world, including in the UK. The consensus view of the majority of expert plant scientists is that in principle this is a safe approach and can lead to considerable benefits.”
24. Some of these organizations recognize the uncertainty inherent in the introduction of genetically modified organisms into the environment while holding that existing testing protocols are sufficient to protect both human and environmental health. See “Labeling of Bioengineered Foods,” Report of the Council on Science and Public Health, American Medical Association, 2012, http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf (accessed February 3, 2014); National Research Council. Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004), http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977 (accessed February 3, 2014), pp. 1-16; The World Health Organization, “20 Questions on Genetically Modified Foods,” http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.html (accessed February 3, 2014).
25. G. Tang et al., “Beta-Carotene in Golden Rice is as Good as Beta-Carotene in Oil in Providing Vitamin A to Children,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 96:3 (2012), pp. 658-664, http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/3/658.abstract (accessed February 3, 2014). For a discussion and a list of peer-reviewed studies see http://www.ajstein.de/cv/golden_rice.htm (accessed February 3, 2014).
26. “While the risks of genetic engineering have sometimes been exaggerated or misrepresented, GE crops do have the potential to cause a variety of health problems and environmental impacts. For instance, they may produce new allergens and toxins, spread harmful traits to weeds and non-GE crops, or harm animals that consume them… In short, there is a lot we don’t know about the risks of GE—which is no reason for panic, but a good reason for caution”; Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering (accessed February 3, 2014).
27. Among these is the environmental advocacy group Greenpeace: “’Golden’ rice is environmentally irresponsible, poses risks to human health, and could compromise food, nutrition and financial security.” See http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/Greenpeace-and-Golden-Rice (accessed February 3, 2014).
28. “Addressing Vitamin A Deficiency,” Helen Keller International, http://www.hki.org/file/resource/Nutrition/HKI_GoldenRice_12272013.pdf (accessed February 3, 2014). The agency takes a generally positive attitude toward genetic engineering of foodstuffs undertaken for nutritional ends; see http://www.hki.org/reducing-malnutrition/biofortification (accessed February 3, 2014).
29. “Compulsory Immunization,” Reform Responsa for the Twenty-First Century, v. 2, no. 5759.10, pp. 107-120, at p. 114. We have omitted the original notes to that text here; note 30, below, is new to this responsum.
30. For the “consensus view” as a standard of medical obligation see the discussion of r’fuah b’dukah or r’sfuah vada’it in “The Treatment of the Terminally Ill,” Teshuvot for the Nineties, no. 5754.14, pp. 348-349, at notes 37-40.
31. The Central Conference of American Rabbis, for example, bases its stance on the issue of climate change upon the consensus view among the world’s scientists, even if others in our society, preferring obscurantism to knowledge, ignore the scientific findings altogether or cling to outdated and discredited positions. See the resolution “Climate Change,” 2005, http://www.ccarnet.org/rabbis-speak/resolutions/all/climate-change (accessed February 4, 2014). See also the resolution of the Union for Reform Judaism, “Climate Change and Energy,” http://urj.org/about/union/governance/reso/?syspage=article&item_id=27421, as well as the resources posted by the Religious Action Center of the Union for Reform Judaism, http://rac.org/advocacy/issues/issueenv/issuecc (accessed February 4, 2014).
32. M. Avot 5:17, and see Bartenura ad loc.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.