 |
THE JEWISH VEGETARIAN AND ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY |
|
THE JEWISH VEGETARIAN AND ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY |
RECENTARTICLES
Here are a some recent articles from the Jewish Vegetarian,
the JVS magazine sent four times a year to members
of
the Society.
March 1998 issue - CONTENTS
December 1998 issue - CONTENTS
Through my book, Judaism and Vegetarianism, articles, and talks, I have tried to help make Jews more aware of Jewish mandates to take care of our health, treat animals with compassion, protect the environment, conserve resources, and help hungry people, and how far the realities related to the production and consumption of animal products are from these mandates. I have hoped that sensitive, committed Jews, "rachamim b'nei rachamim" (compassionate children of compassionate ancestors), once they were aware of these discrepancies, would switch to vegetarian diets. While this has happened in some cases, the vast majority of Jews still consume animal products.
Hence, I am starting to think about the argument that committed Jews are not only permitted but are obligated to be vegetarians. This article aims to further respectful dialogue on this question, in order to determine a position most consistent with Jewish values.
Hence, comments and suggestions are very welcome.
First we will present the case for those who take halacha (Jewish law as interpreted by Jewish sages and rabbis) seriously. A fundamental question for such people is: since Jews can only kill animals for an essential human need, and it is not necessary to consume animal products in order to maintain good health (the contrary is the case), aren't observant
Jews obligated to be vegetarians?
Points in support of this argument include:
1. It is generally agreed by Jewish scholars that animals can only be killed to meet a basic human need. For example, in an essay on "Animals", in his The Jewish Encyclopaedia of Moral and Ethical Issues, Nachum Amsel, an Israeli Orthodox rabbi, states, "Man's need
to use animals must be a legitimate and not a frivolous one". As an example, he points out that "hunting for sport is not considered legitimate, and is not only discouraged in the Talmud, but is also prohibited in Jewish law."
2. There are many people who abstain completely from animal products and yet lead very healthy lives. Many degenerative diseases, including heart disease, stroke, and several types of cancer have been related to animal-based diets.
3. Jewish sages and others thought that meat was necessary for proper nutrition. Maimonides, for example, stated that it is the need of procuring food that necessitates the slaying of animals, and thus the laws of shechita were established in order to minimize the animal's pain during the slaughtering process. However, modern science has found that all necessary nutrients can be obtained from plant foods, with the possible exception of vitamin B12, which can easily be obtained by enriched cereals, soy milk, or yeasts, or a vegetarian vitamin supplement.
Next, we will consider the possibility of obligation for Jews who are committed to being Jewish, but do not attempt to live their lives according to halacha. It is assumed that these people wish to live according to Jewish ideals and values, but do not base their practices completely on Jewish law, although Jewish law is also based on these values. Hence, they should be impressed by the following argument:
In view of Judaism's strong teachings with regard to preserving human health, treating animals with compassion, protecting the environment, conserving resources, and helping the hungry, and the very negative effects that the production and consumption of meat has in each of these areas, shouldn't committed Jews who take Jewish values seriously be vegetarians?
It should be noted that many of the values discussed in this question are also relevant to halachic Jews, since the mandates to take care of our health (v'nishmartem meod l'nafshotechem, Deuteronomy 4:9), to treat animals with compassion, to conserve resources, and to help hungry people are Torah teachings.
The above question can be reinforced with the following comparisons:
1) While Judaism mandates that people be very careful about preserving their health and their lives, animal-centred diets have been linked to heart disease, stroke, several forms of cancer, and other illnesses. This has contributed to recent soaring medical expenditures in the United States and major change in the health care system, with insurance providers having a major voice in medical decisions.
2) While Judaism mandates compassion for animals, most farm animals are raised for food today under cruel conditions in small confined spaces where they are denied fulfilment of their instinctual needs.
3) While Judaism stresses that we are to share our bread with hungry people, over 70% of the grain grown in the United States is fed to animals destined for slaughter, as 15 to 20 million people worldwide die annually because of hunger and its effects.
4) While Judaism teaches that "the earth is the L-rd`s" and that we are to be partners with G-d in preserving the world, animal-centred diets contribute substantially to soil erosion and depletion, extensive air and water pollution related to chemical fertilizer and pesticides, the destruction of tropical rain forests and other habitats, and global warming.
5) While Judaism mandates bal tashchit, that we are not to waste or unnecessarily destroy anything of value, livestock agriculture requires far more food, land, water, energy, and other resources than plant-based agriculture.
6) While Judaism stresses that we must seek and pursue peace and that violence results from unjust conditions, animal-centred diets, by wasting valuable resources, help to perpetuate the widespread hunger and poverty that frequently lead to instability and war.
Another concern for committed Jews is tikkun olam, the general mandate to preserve and protect the world, and, when necessary, to restore it to a less polluted state. It is becoming increasingly apparent that vegetarianism is not only an important individual choice today, but it is a societal imperative because of the severe economic and environmental costs of animal-based diets. In 1993, almost 1,700 of the world's scientists from 70 countries, including 104 Nobel laureates, signed a "World Scientists Warning to Humanity", which stated that:
"a great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated."
Judaism teaches that Jews are to be partners and co-workers with G-d in preserving the earth. This requires active involvement today, and an essential part of that involvement is a switch to vegetarian diets.
The above seems to provide a strong case for the proposition that Jews who take Jewish values and/or Jewish law seriously should be vegetarians. However, there may be a problem in terms of the all-or-nothing nature of that assertion. Someone might argue that, because of the Jewish mandate to take care of our health, we should never have a piece of cake, or because of the Jewish mandate to preserve the environment, we should never use a car except in cases of emergency or absolute necessity. In an ideal world with ideal people, we can perhaps advocate such absolutes. But in our real world, it is best to advocate that people be aware of modern realities and apply Jewish values in a conscientious but reasonable way.
In view of these considerations, rather than stating that committed Jews are obligated to be vegetarians, I believe that it is best to advocate that they are obligated to be aware of how realities related to the production and consumption of meat sharply diverge from Jewish mandates to preserve human health, treat animals with compassion, protect the environment, conserve resources, share with hungry people, and seek and pursue peace, and then to make a decision with regard to their diets that they believe is consistent with that awareness. A consideration of these issues should become an important part of the curriculum of Jewish schools, and rabbis and other Jewish leaders should see that it becomes part of an ongoing dialogue at synagogues and Jewish centres and in the Jewish media.
It would also be extremely helpful if a commission composed of rabbinic, health, scientific, and agricultural experts were set up to study the many issues related to animal-centred diets and how they impinge on halacha and basic Jewish values, in order to assess whether Jews today should reduce their consumption of animal products. The future of Judaism and of our precious, but imperiled, planet is at stake.
Nowadays, in our lives, we have much to be grateful for. In a world, where many people are starving, ill and suffering, if we have enough clean air to breathe, fresh food to eat, shelter, and special people in our lives, then we are very, very lucky. But do we really take time to value what we have? Do we ever feel that we indeed have enough? Do we truly honour the concept of dayenu?
Advertisers target us all the time, whether it is to encourage us to book expensive holidays, buy the latest fashions or purchase new cars. We only need to take a visit to the January sales to see people fighting over bargains, for more and more acquisitions. This need for material things is also being inculcated into our children at a very early age. We are becoming accustomed to the annual December frenzies where fashionable toys suddenly become available in such short supply that, in order not to disappoint their children, normally sensible parents are prepared to queue outside shops overnight in order to secure the necessary doll/robot/cuddly toy. Pure folly, when not only will many of these toys be broken or forgotten by their owners in a very short time, but by the next time the giving season comes around, last year's favourites will be left piled high on shelves in favour of the products of the next craze.
Yes, many of us do feel the need for material comforts in our lives and certainly as vegetarians there is no requirement to live an austere kind of life in any respect. One of the verses in dayenu celebrates that, "If He had given us their wealth, and not divided the sea for us, it would have sufficed." Why should this be? Of what use could wealth have been in the desert? Surely our wealth was rather that we escaped with our families from Egypt whereas the Egyptians had to endure the slaying of their first-born sons? But no, it does seem apparent that wealth in terms of material riches is being quoted here. This concession to wealth or the need for material possessions is perhaps just a way of acknowledging one of the more basic aspects of human nature.
The experience of being in the desert gives a very clear example of what happens when we do not give thanks to G-d for the abundance Hc has provided but instead view His provisions as being insufficient. We see how although the Israelites were fed on heaven-sent vegetarian manna, they and the mixed multitude who travelled with them were not content with this and rather longed for the meat that they had eaten in Egypt. Numbers Ch 11, v 4-6 states: "Would that we were given flesh to eat! We remember the fish, which we severe wont to eat in Egypt for nought; the cucumbers, and the melons and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic; but now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have nought save this manna to look to."
The Israelites paid the price for their ingratitude. Their complaints were not well received as we learn in Numbers Ch 1l, v 10, "And Moses heard the people weeping, family by family, every man at the door of his tent; and the anger of the L-rd was kindled greatly; and Moses was displeased:' However, the L-rd agreed to give them meat to eat: Numbers Ch 11, v 19- 20, "Y shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days; but a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you; because that ye have rejected the L-rd who is among you, and have troubled Him with weeping, saying: Why, now, came we forth out of Egypt`?"
However, there was a very great penalty to pay for the greed of the people: Numbers Ch 11, v 33, 34, "While the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the anger of the L-rd was kindled against the people, and the L-rd smote the people with a very great plague. And the name of that place was called Kibroth-hattaavah, because there they buried the people that lusted."
The ingratitude of the children of Israel towards the vegetarian manna, an ideal food perfect for satisfying all their nutritional requirements, is particularly shameful when we consider today that 15-20 million people on our planet die annually due to hunger and its effects whilst many people still eat meat. It takes 16 pounds of grain to produce one edible pound of beef, by feeding the grains direct to the people we could feed many more people.
On Pesach, we are given restrictions on what we may eat. We do not eat bread or anything containing chametz, and, unless we are Sephardim, we do not eat grains or beans. This could also seem as being very difficult and limiting - especially for those of us who are vegetarians and vegans. But no, we are still able to make good, tasty nutritious fare from fruits, vegetables, and nuts. The food we may eat at Pesach is not only sufficient but there is still enough to share with anyone who needs to: "Let all who are hungry come and eat,"
This Pesach let us consider what sort of world we will have left if as consumers we do not say dayenu - enough - and instead carry on thc perpetual cycle of buying without care and discarding without thought'?
We need to act - the world's natural resources are fast running out. The tropical rain forests are being bulldozed at a rate of 100 acres per minute, half of them are gone forever and if we keep up thc current trend, the rest will have gone by the middle of the next century.
It is sobering to note that twenty per cent of the world's population, particularly Western countries such as the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Australia and Japan consume over seventy per cent of its material resources. This same "consumer class" is responsible for producing over 50% of its `greenhouse effect' atmospheric pollutants, 90% of its ozone depleting CFC gases, and 96% of its radioactive waste.
The seriousness of this situation was addressed by The Kyoto Protocol, passed last December, where the nations of the world were compelled to introduce a 5.2 per cent cut in annual emissions of greenhouse gases from the developed world by 2012, thereby beginning to tackle the threat of manmade climate change.
Gandhi said: "There is enough in the world for man's need but not for man's greed."
We need to return to a more modest, humble lifestyle and there are a number of ways in which we can slow down our own over-consumption of products. Some suggestions include:
This Passover, let us remember and be thankful for our abundance as we say, "Blessed art thou, O Eternal, our L-rd, King of the universe, who feedeth the whole world with His goodness, and with grace, mercy and compassion, He giveth food to every creature, for His mercy endureth for ever. His abundant goodness has never been deficient towards us and may we never be in want of sustenance for ever and ever."
Surely then this Pesach we have much to be grateful for - let it be sufficient! We wish all our readers a happy, healthy and peaceful Passover. Next year in Jerusalem!
Those of us planning our vegetarian sederim this year would be well advised to look at Robert and Roberta Kalechofsky's Haggadah for the Vegetarian Family. This haggadah follows on from an earlier work, Haggadah for the Liberated Lamb, available in two versions.
The Haggadah for the Vegetarian Family is available by mail order from Micah Publications Inc., 255 Humphrey Street, Marblehead, MA 01945, USA. Price $9.95 plus postage & packing.
Jewish worshippers chant every Sabbath morning, "The soul of every
living being shall praise G-d's name" (Nishmat kol chai tva'rech
et shim'chah). Yet, some come to synagogue during the winter months
wearing coats that required the cruel treatment of some of those living
beings whose souls praise G-d.
To decide whether the use of fur is a significant Jewish issue, we should consider several related questions:
1. What does the Jewish tradition say about the treatment of animals?
2. How much suffering do animals raised or trapped for their fur experience?
3. Does the wearing of fur coats have redeeming factors that would
over-ride Jewish teachings related to the proper treatment of animals?
JUDAISM AND ANIMALS
Judaism has beautiful and powerful teachings with regard to showing compassion to animals. The following are a few examples: Moses and King David were considered worthy to be leaders of the Jewish people because of their compassionate treatment of animals, when they were shepherds. Rebecca was judged suitable to be a wife of the patriarch Isaac because of her kindness in watering the ten camels of Eliezer, Abraham's servant. Rabbi Yehuda the Prince, the redactor of the Mishna, was punished for many years at the hand of Heaven for speaking callously to a calf being led to slaughter who sought refuge beside him
Many Torah laws mandate proper treatment of animals. One may not muzzle an ox while it is working in the field nor yoke a strong and a weak animal together. Animals, as well as their masters, are meant to rest on the Sabbath day. The importance of this concept is indicated by the fact that it is mentioned in the Ten Commandments and on every Sabbath morning as part of the kiddush ceremony.
The psalmist indicates G-d's concern for animals, stating that "His
compassion is over all of His creatures" (Psalm 145:9). And there
is a mitzvah (precept) in the Torah to emulate the Divine compassion, as
it is written: "And you shall walk in His ways" (Deuteronomy 28:9). Perhaps
the Jewish attitude toward animals is best expressed by Proverbs 12:10:
"The righteous person considers the soul (life) of his or her animal."
The Torah prohibits Jews from causing tsa'ar ba'alei chayim, any unnecessary
pain, including psychological pain, to living creatures.
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, an outstanding 19th century philosopher,
author, and Torah commentator, eloquently summarizes the Jewish view on
treatment of animals: Here you are faced with G-d's teaching, which obliges
you not only to refrain from inflicting unnecessary pain on any animal,
but to help and, when you can, to lessen the pain whenever you see an animal
suffering, even through no fault of yours. (Horeb, Chapter
60, #416)
THE PAIN OF FUR-BEARING ANIMALS
Fur is obtained from animals who are either trapped or raised on ranches. Both involve treatment of animals that appears to be far from the Jewish teachings that have been previously discussed.
Animals caught in steel-jaw leghold traps suffer slow, agonizing deaths. Some are attacked by predators, freeze to death, or chew off their own legs to escape. It has been said that one can get a "feel for fur" by slamming your fingers in a car door. A Canadian Wildlife Service report gives an idea of the terror that trapped animals face and their desperate efforts to escape:
"The stomachs of [trapped]
arctic foxes . . . often contain
parts of their own
bodies. They may swallow fragments of
their teeth broken
off in biting the trap, and sometimes part
of
a mangled foot; almost every stomach contains some fox
fur, and a considerable
number contain pieces of skin, claws,
or bits of bone."
Over 100 million wild animals are killed for their pelts every year. Many species of animals killed for their furs have become endangered or have disappeared completely from some localities. Millions of animals not wanted by trappers, including dogs, cats, and birds, die in traps annually and are discarded as "trash animals." Many trapped animals leave behind dependent offspring who are doomed to starvation.
Treatment of animals raised on "fur ranches" is also extremely cruel. Confined to lifelong confinement, millions of foxes, beavers, minks, ocelots, rabbits, chinchillas, and other animals await extinction with nothing to do, little room to move, and all their natural instincts thwarted. The animals are simply a means to the maximizing of production and profit, and there is no regard for their physical, mental, or emotional well being. Because of the enforced confinement and lack of privacy, naturally wild animals often exhibit neurotic behaviours such as compulsive movements and self-mutilation. The animals finally suffer hideous deaths by electrocution by rods thrust up their anuses, by suffocation, by poisoning, which causes painful muscle cramping, or by having their necks broken.
According to the International Society for Animal Rights, Inc., to make one fur garment requires 400 squirrels; 240 ermine; 200 chinchillas; 120 muskrats; 80 sables; 50 martens; 30 racoons; 22 bobcats; 12 lynx; or 5 wolves.
IS FUR NECESSARY?
Judaism puts human beings on a higher level than animals and indicates that animals may be harmed and even killed if an essential human need is met. However, is the wearing of fur truly necessary for people to stay warm during wintry weather? There are many non-fur coats and hats, available in a variety of styles, which provide much warmth. Imitation fur is produced at such a high level of quality that even among Chasidim there is a small but growing trend to wear synthetic "shtreimlach" (fur-trimmed hats).
Based on the prohibition of tsa'ar ba'alei chayim, Rabbi Chaim
Dovid Halevy, Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv issued a p'sak (rabbinic
ruling) in March, 1992, indicating that Jews should not wear fur.
Rabbi Halevy asked: "Why should people be allowed to kill animals if it
is not necessary, simply because they desire the pleasure of having the
beauty and warmth of fur coats? Is it not possible to achieve the
same degree of warmth without fur?"
In his book, The Jewish Encyclopedia of Moral and Ethical Issues, Rabbi
Nachum Amsel, a modern Israeli educator, states: "If the only reason a
person wears the fur coat is to "show off" one's wealth or to be a mere
fashion statement, that would be considered to be a frivolous and not a
legitimate need. Rabbi Amsel also points out that hunting for sport
is prohibited because it is not considered a legitimate need. (Avodah Zarah
18b).
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The Talmud teaches that Jews are "rachamanim b'nei rachamanim,"
compassionate children of compassionate ancestors (Beitza 32b).
One has to wonder if the wearing of fur is consistent with that challenging
mandate.
Are the words of Isaiah valid today if we fail to show compassion to animals?
"Even though you make
many prayers,
I will not listen.
Your hands are full
of blood." (Isaiah 1:12-15)
What kind of lesson in Jewish values are young people getting when they see worshippers coming to synagogue in fur coats on the Sabbath day?
Not only do animals benefit from our compassion and concern - we, too, benefit by becoming more sensitive and more humane, as Jews and civilized human beings.
Richard H. Schwartz, Ph. D., is the author of Judaism and Vegetarianism (Micah: 1988) and Judaism and Global Survival (Atara: 1987). He has approximately 60 articles on the internet.
Dovid Sears is the author of The Path of the Baal Shem Tov: Early
Chasidic Teachings and Customs (Jason Aronson: 1997) and Compassion
for Humanity in the Jewish Tradition: A Sourcebook (Jason Aronson: Forthcoming).
John Elkington, co-author of a new book Manual 2000 which addresses many green issues, introduced the debate. He said that choice was a vital aspect of democracy and that consumers needed to be able to make informed decisions when it came to considering whether or not to buy GM food.
John Durant, Assistant Director of the Science Museum, speaking in favour of GM crops, felt that there was no conflict between science and the environment. "To look after the environment well," he said, "We need all the science we can get". He said that scientific methods should be carried out in agriculture but that they should be carried out cautiously and wisely. He said that today's agricultural systems were a result of centuries of haphazard experiments. The last 20 years had seen classic genetics being used to produce specific characteristics in animals for selective breeding. Today there was more detailed knowledge available about the mechanisms of inheritance. "I have no reason to suppose we should freeze agricultural practices if we can find ways of improving and making agriculture more environmentally friendly unless we can see very good reasons why that would be unwise". He felt that by using biotechnology, the effects on agriculture would be more predictable than they had been in the past and easier to control.
Peter Melchett, Executive Director of Greenpeace, was very much against
the use of genetic engineering in agriculture and questioned the motive
for current day scientists.
"Is science being directed by the power and money behind the genetic
industry?"
He questioned US biotechnology company Monsanto's assertions that birds
and bees loved genetic crops particularly sugar beets. He said that research
in this area was difficult to do and controls were not easy to set up.
He said that there had been no published data to confirm the claims about
beneficial insects liking genetically-modified sugar beet.
He deplored the use of propaganda to promote genetically-modified produce. "The future health of science is intertwined with the future health of the genetic engineering industry." He felt that genetic engineering was a great risk to the future integrity of science and the confidence of the public in scientific institutions.
Ann Foster, Director of Public and Government Affairs for Monsanto, was next to take the floor. She said that historically, 40-50 years ago, agriculture was becoming increasingly dependent on chemical technology to increase yield, control pests and diseases in large-scale commodity crops. Many people agreed, she said, that this was not the best way to go. Using chemicals for non-renewable resources was not effective and gave rise to questions on safety. She claimed that using the new technology to grow plants would help to maintain and increase yields and that hybridisation was the way forward.
She said that in the UK the organic market only accounted for less than 1% whereas it was necessary to think of large-scale commodity crops. She said that by genetically modifying cotton, as Monsanto had done to protect it against the beetle, this had meant that 1 million gallons of insecticide normally used had been saved over the last three years.
She said that she understood people's concerns about biotechnology and the need for regulation: "We need a robust regulatory system - the tougher the better."
She said that she understood people's concerns about labelling and the need for choice. However, she said, farmers had choices too. If farmers did not get the result they wanted, they would go elsewhere. There were, she said, 38 other varieties of genetically-modified soya, and 1,000 non-genetically modified ones.
She denied the claims that the sugar beet trial had not been properly documented. She said that it had been peer reviewed and would be published in the future.
Dr Mae Won Hoe, author of the book "Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare?" spoke out passionately against the whole process of genetic engineering. She said that science had to satisfy certain criteria - it had to be accountable and work for the public good.
She said that Victorian high society had held a shared vision of the world including selfish genes and individuals instead of societies, communities and eco systems. There was no limit as to what could be exploited. "Nature is organically interconnected. What we do has effects which spread far and wide." She said that the global economy was near to collapse.
Genetic determinism, she said, failed on scientific grounds and was discredited by scientific theories. The technology was a misguided one with governments being taken in by it. Ownership of life was now in the hands of corporations with people and natural resources being exploited.
Corporate scientists on committees said that everything was safe, cleaner, faster, more precise. Using processes which by-passed reproduction, species which would never have been inter-bred in nature were now coming into being.
She expressed concern that genes could interact and create new toxins. The technology was a hit and miss one and was not precise.
Nowadays there were four different TB bacteria which were resistant to all antibiotics. Resistant genes could pass horizontally into bacteria and linger in the soil.
She said that genetic engineering was a dangerous diversion. Far from feeding the world, it would intensify the corporate control of food. It would obstruct implementation of sustainable agriculture which was the key to long-term food sensitivity.
Bad science and big business would ruin the resources of the earth, she said, resilience and fertility of life may be the only chance to renew the earth.
Professor Alan Malcolm, Director of the Institute of Food Research, then addressed the audience. He had worked in the field of genetically-engineered crops since 1985. He said that although he could not be absolutely certain of the safety of such crops he thought some hazards might be exaggerated. He said that much food had not been genetically modified but had been identical to certain foods for many years. A genetically-modified enzyme in tomato paste was the same as a non-genetically modified enzyme. He said that the question of choice was difficult as it was hard to choose between two identical plants. He cited as an example electricity which was produced in many different ways but said that the electricity itself was still the same - dangerous and useful irrespective of how it was produced.
He said that producing GM tomato paste used less water and that ecologically this was a small benefit. He regretted the "hysterical approach" of people who were calling for genetic engineering to be stopped now.
Helena Browning, Chair of The Soil Association, said that humanity was close to disaster. Scientists now had control of the very stuff of life. Evolution was at a point where future evolution could be controlled. Mankind had clear responsibilities in this increased power over the natural world and man's genetic make up. A framework was needed as to how to use this staggering potential.
She expressed concern over the commercial and safety aspects of biotechnology saying she had found no evidence to convince her that such applications were really necessary. She was sceptical of "the pseudo-humanitarian propaganda being put out by people with products to sell."
Adopting biotechnology in agriculture meant going down a reductionist road, whereas a biological procedure was more holistic. The choice as to which road to take would not remain open for very long. Ultimately, biotechnology would offer no choice for the consumer as segregation between genetically-modified and non-genetically modified products was not an option in the long-term. Genetic pollution would mean that organic produce would not be completely free of genetically-modified matter.
She outlined her vision as to what would happen if GM foods were not adopted. There would still be challenges and a need to clarify the way ahead. The organic sector had, she said, shown the way forward. There was a need to think more creatively about the development of agriculture in the future.
The members of the panel were then invited to sum up their responses. Those in favour of GM produce said that the technology was not so new and that the fact that it was a way of making money was no different from any other practices.
Dr Mae Won Hoe pointed out that a large proportion of taxpayers' money was spent supporting GM in grants paid to academic institutions for patent genes and private profit.
Peter Melchett said that Greenpeace wanted to see all releases of GM material stopped - once they were in the environment they could not be recalled. He expressed regret that GM soya had been forced onto the market and praised those supermarkets and manufacturers who had refused to use it.
The debate was then opened out to the audience with the vast majority of those present being opposed to the use of GM crops. Speaking out against the practice were representatives of organisations such as the Women's Environmental Network and Friends of the Earth. Despite the opposition of those present, and one questioner who asked whether with over 70% of the UK population declaring themselves to be against GM crops if the biotechnology companies would respect that and go away, the response sadly was that GM crops were here to stay.
Many thanks to all those who organised this valuable debate at the Science Museum. It is hoped that the comments of the audience will be taken seriously by the biotechnology companies.
Manual 2000 by John Elkington and Julia Hailes addresses the full spectrum of issues which we face in the new millennium and reminds us of our power as citizens and consumers. It is published by Hodder and Stoughton at a cost of £9.99.
Taking care to use only 'Supervised for Passover' ingredients during Passover.
1 large ripe tomato, skinned and chopped; 2 carrots, grated /shredded; 1 small onion, chopped;1 leek, chopped; 2 sticks celery/celery stalks, chopped;1 small parsnip, chopped;1 potato, chopped; 6-8 cups water; 2 tbsp chopped fresh parsley; sea salt and freshly ground black pepper;1 vegetable stock/bouillon cube (optional);1 tbsp tomato puree/paste.
METHOD
Simmer the vegetables gently in the water for approximately 1-1'/z hours or until the vegetables are soft. Add the parsley season to taste with sea salt and freshly ground black pepper. Add the cube at this point if using.
1/2 lb (225g) fresh or frozen spinach; 2 medium onions, grated/ shredded or chopped; 1 small green pepper, deseeded and chopped; 1 clove garlic, crushed/minced; vegetable oil, for frying;1 stick celery/celery stalk chopped; 3-4 medium carrots, grated/shredded; sea salt and freshly ground black pepper; pinch ground ginger;1 tbsp tomato puree/paste; 2 oz (55g) ground mixed nuts; 2 oz (55g) matzo meal; 3 fl oz (90ml) vegetable stock.
METHOD
Wash the spinach well, cook it in a little water and then chop it finely.
(Cook frozen spinach until soft.) Sauté the onion, green pepper
and garlic in a little oil until they have softened. Pre-heat the oven
to 350oF/180oC/gas mark 4. Add the celery and carrot and cook for about
10 minutes, stirring frequently. Mix all the vegetables together, season
to taste with sea salt and freshly ground black pepper, add the ginger,
tomato puree, nuts and the matzo meal, mixing all the ingredients together
well. Spoon the mixture into a greased ovenproof casserole dish and pour
the hot stock over. Bake in the preheated oven for about 30 minutes until
the top has browned.