|
I am neither a scientist nor an authority on the complex laws
of kashrut (i.e., what's kosher and what isn't.) So I will not
attempt to give practical guidance on this question, but instead
attempt to illustrate what some of the Jewish concepts and categories
might be in thinking about the problem.
Basically, as I understand it, the genetic modifications to food
that could be problematic for kashrut reasons would involve taking
genes from a non-kosher animal (like pigs, insects, or shellfish;
see Leviticus 11 for a more complete list) and putting them into
either a kosher animal or a plant. For example, certain tomatoes
have been modified to resist cold by receiving genes from cold
water fish; it was trout if I remember correctly, but it could
have been shark or eels or something non-kosher. (Fish are considered
kosher if they have fins and scales; see Leviticus 11:9-10 & Deuteronomy
14:9-10.) If a plant had animal genes in it, one might say that
it was considered "fleishig" (meat) and therefore many people
wouldn't eat it with any kind of dairy product; this could be
a real hassle when it comes to making pizza and salads and things
like that.
On the other hand, there is precedent for the principle that substances
can be so far removed from their origins that they are considered
to be "new," neutral substances. The classic example of this is
cheese, which is curdled with rennet, an enzyme obtained from
animal stomachs. Going back to Talmudic times, some rabbis have
argued that it's not really "meat," but a neutral chemical, a
"new thing." [Davar hadash in Hebrew.] So you could certainly make the same argument for
something like genetic material; not only is it just a chemical,
but by the time it's in the tomato, it's several steps removed
from the actual animal it was derived from- the tomato (or whatever)
actually produced its own genes and would have no contact with
the original animal. So it certainly seems that the idea of davar hadash would apply in this case.
Another relevant halachic principle is called batel b'shishim, which means "nullified in sixty." That means that something
doesn't count if it's less than 1/60th of the total; thus, if
a drop of milk falls into a big pot of soup, it doesn't cause
a mixing of meat and milk. However, many traditional authorities
say that batel b'shishim only applies to accidents, not to deliberate action. Thus (in our example) if a drop of
milk spills into the big pot of soup because your hand slipped,
fine, no problem; but if you flavor the chicken soup with a dairy
ingredient to make it tastier, that's forbidden (according to
most rabbis who make rulings about such things) even if it's only
1/100th of the total. Furthermore, how could we know what part of the
total body weight of a plant or animal would consist of the genetic
material from a forbidden animal? It's certainly added deliberately
as well. And there are other rules pertaining to the dietary laws
that might or might not apply; I just wanted to give you a little
sample of some questions that a group of rabbis (or at least the
kind of rabbis who discuss kashrut issues) might ask.
However, there are also other, broader questions that seem to
me to be a necessary part of the discussion as well. Judaism insists
that we preserve life and health; do we know that these foods
are safe? Are we causing potential ecological damage by release
genetically modified animals or plants into the wild ecosystem
to mix with native species, with unpredictable results? In that
case, we might be ignoring our imperative to "guard the garden"
(see Genesis 2:15, which many contemporary liberal rabbis interpret
as a command to act as responsible stewards of our only planet.)
Yet another rabbi might come along and answer the ecological concerns
by saying that genetically modified food helps feed people in
poor areas, and helps farmers make more money by allowing them
to grow hardier crops, and so on. If this is really true (and
I remain unconvinced that it is), then that rabbi could argue
that the needs of human beings come first, and feeding the hungry
is a greater imperative than protecting species of wild animals
and plants.
As you can see just from this little smidgen of a possible debate,
the ethical issues involved are complex. For that reason, several
years ago the rabbis of the Reform movement passed a resolution
on genetic engineering that called for greater research into both
the potential benefits and the potential dangers. Here is the text of that resolution.
You may also wish to consult recent works on Jewish medical ethics
for discussions of issues pertaining to genetics; however, to
my knowledge no rabbi or rabbinic body has issued any formal statements
with regard to the dietary laws.
NJL |
|
