Click here if you don’t see subscription options
Fields and Tables
The article on genetic engineering by Gerald D. Coleman, S.S., (2/21) lays out a framework for evaluating the arguments for promoting genetically engineered crops to meet the problems of world hunger As one who has been engaged in this debate for some time from a practical, political and ethical perspective, I cannot let pass unchallenged his remark that it was a moral disgrace that in 2002 African governments gave in to G.M.O opponents and returned to the World Food Program tons of G.M.O. corn simply because it was produced in the United States by biotechnology. Had the author been in Zambia in mid-2002, when the government, after very serious scientific study, rejected importation of the G.M.O. maize pushed by the U.S. government, he would have commended this move as a moral necessity to protect lives of both present and future Zambians and to safeguard the agricultural infrastructure of the small-scale farmers who produce 80 percent of the local maize.
In fact, the real moral disgrace was that the U.S. government refused to provide financial assistance for the purchase of the readily available non-G.M.O. maize offered to Zambia by several countries, such as Kenya and India. A more honest analysis would ask whether the United States is so adamantly pushing genetically modified crops on humanitarian grounds to feed the hungry or on economic grounds to support its own heavily subsidized agricultural sector. If there is truly a humanitarian interest as the primary concern, why did the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See reject participation on the panel of its September 2004 conference by any representative of those national bishops’ conferences such as the Philippines, Brazil and South Africa that have cautioned against use of G.M.O. crops, or by any scientific voice critical of this approach? Surely such censorship of divergent opinions is another moral disgrace.
For those who have questions about whether G.M.O. crops are necessary to feed the poor who are hungry, let them leave libraries and laboratories and come to the fields and tables of a country like Zambia to see how local farmers can feed and are feeding people without genetic engineering being introduced.
Peter J. Henriot, S.J.
A Fifth Conclusion
Bishop Emil A. Wcela is right, in A Dangerous Common Enemy (2/21), that consumerism and its accompanying expressive individualism are at the core of many affluent Catholics’ decision to stay away from most forms of community. He mentions four conclusions about the practice of the faith todayparish involvement, a strong family, greater emphasis on spiritual education of the laity and the need to be part of a larger Catholic communitythat are all very important to maintain a sense of the common good.
I would add the preferential option for the poor that is central to Catholic living. The Faith in Focus article Looking Into the Heart, by Peter A. Clark, S.J., illustrates this. A relatively affluent family spends a week on a Navajo reservation and are transformed in the processespecially the children, who realize that poor families in the canyons are truly wonderful Christians even without all the trappings of modern living.
This idea of volunteer vacations makes sense. Maybe affluent Catholic families from Long Island could spend some time with poor families to see how the other half lives. We even have some of these poor communities here!
Edward J. Thompson
