Permission to reproduce is granted provided that authorship is properly acknowledged.

In recent years, the biotechnology industry has launched a massive enterprise to genetically reconfigure a large portion of the world's food supply. Hundreds of genetically altered crops and animals are being developed in laboratories, and already several varieties of such foods are on grocery shelves (unlabeled). In most cases, biotechnicians transpose a gene from one species into organisms of another to endow them with a trait they do not ordinarily possess (e.g. human growth gene into salmon to increase their size; flounder gene into beets to make them cold resistant; bacterial gene into corn and potatoes to make them pesticidal). Because this technology is growing so rapidly, because it could in many respects be irreversible, and because an increasing number of Jews (including many rabbis) are concerned that its products are unkosher, it is important there be a comprehensive examination of genetically engineered food in relation to Halakha so that, if necessary, prompt action can be taken to secure labeling and protect Jews from being unknowingly subjected to a broad influx of these altered foods.

From the perspective of Jewish law, there are two basic questions regarding genetically reconfigured foods, the second more general than the first.

Question #1: Do foods that are ordinarily kosher become unkosher when implanted with genes from unkosher animals?

Question #2: In the context of food production, does the artificial transfer of genetic material between species that are naturally prevented from crossbreeding constitute a violation of Halakha (even if both species are kosher)?

Although these are separate questions involving separate sets of considerations, analysis reveals that each case involves significant violations of halakhic principles and that the most reasonable conclusions are:

1. . Organisms implanted with genes from non-kosher species are themselves non-kosher and must be avoided.

2. For purposes of food production, transposing genes between species that are naturally prevented from cross-breeding is a high-risk venture that is halakhically unsound (even when both species are kosher). We Jews should speak out against this practice, and we have strong reason to reject its products on religious grounds.

The following paragraphs systematically present the analysis that leads to these conclusions. (It is important to note that this analysis is specifically concerned with genetic engineering in the production of food. It does not deal with genetic engineering in fields such as medicine, which, as will be discussed, is a distinct topic with different considerations.)

Question 1 : What Is the Effect of Genetic Transfers from Non-Kosher Species?

This question involves six important issues (or sub-questions).

1. Is it significant that the substances produced by transposed genes generally comprise less than one part in sixty of the resultant food?

2. B. Is it significant that the transplanted genes are merely copies of the animal's genes and do not constitute direct transfers of tissue?

3. C. Is it significant that the transfers involve submicroscopic quantities of matter?

4. D. Is it significant that these substances are produced within an otherwise kosher organism?

5. E. Are the medical transplant rulings relevant to transgenic foods?

6. F. Are there either special benefits or especially high risks that need to be considered?

Discussion:

1. Does the "One in Sixty" Exemption Apply?

   In some cases, Halakha excuses a non-kosher additive that amounts to less than one part in sixty of the resultant mixture. However, this exemption only covers instances in which the non-kosher ingredient was added accidentally. Further, it is inapplicable when the minute ingredient induces a perceptible effect. Accordingly, the exemption does not apply to the case of genetically engineered food, where the questionable substances are intentionally transferred and produce effects that are clearly observable (as will be discussed).[1]

2. Is There a Difference Between Animal Genes and Their Laboratory Copies?

   Some rabbis have argued that because the DNA implanted within the target organism was not itself directly extracted from non-kosher animals but is merely a laboratory copy of an animal gene, there is no tissue transfer and no halakhic problem. This argument, though initially appealing, loses its force in light of the fact that genes are continually being copied within every living organism. Organisms grow through cell division, and each time a cell divides (becoming two cells), all of its genes are copied. Since the new copies function in the same way as do the genes from which they were replicated, there is no essential difference between them. That is how the organism's integrity is maintained as new cells augment and replace the old. In an adult animal, every gene is a copy derived from one original set, and most are products of many generations of copies.

   Further, genes are important not in terms of the amount of matter they contain but in terms of the information they encode. Genes comprise a minuscule fraction of an organism's matter. They are sequences of information that direct the development of the organism's structure and bulk, but in themselves they contribute little to either. Gene replication is primarily the replication of an informational code, not the accumulation of bodily mass. Moreover, this code is operative within any cellular medium -- whatever the species. As long as a laboratory copy fully replicates the structure of a particular gene, that copy can produce the same substances as its counterpart, whether implanted back within its native species or transplanted into a foreign one.

   Therefore, the key consideration regarding transplanted genes is not the extent to which they themselves constitute the substance of non-kosher animals, but the extent to which they create it. This will become more evident in the following discussion.

3. Does the Exemption for Microscopic Phenomena Apply? In modern times, Halakha has developed a rule that microscopic phenomena need not be considered in determining the kosher status of foods. Since genes are submicroscopic entities, it might seem (at first impression) that embedding genes from a non-kosher animal in a fruit or vegetable is halakhically irrelevant. However, analysis indicates otherwise.

   In the typical case of admixture, microscopic ingredients cause no discernible effects. For instance, if a microscopic amount of pig tissue is blended into potato soup, both its presence and its effects remain microscopic. The tissue is inert. It does not itself grow, nor does it induce the growth of other porcine substances.

   In contrast, a gene that is engineered into a living organism remains dynamically lively. It is present within every cell, and it replicates with every instance of cell division. Moreover, these foreign genes continually induce the synthesis of proteins (and frequently other substances) that are typical of their native species, not the host organism.

   Such foreign materials are present in macroscopic quantities. For instance, when soybeans are engineered with a gene from a brazil nut to endow them with a specific protein, that protein is present at the same levels as each of the various soy proteins. If we were to isolate all the nut protein from a pot of engineered beans, we could see it with the naked eye. Further, the protein's effects are also readily observable, even in a sample of a few beans. Individuals allergic to brazil nuts suffer reactions when they eat the modified soy.

   In addition to their sometimes allergenic or toxic effects, the products of transposed genes often cause clearly visible changes within their host. For example, tobacco leaves engineered with a particular gene from a firefly actually glow in the dark. In principle, every transgenic food could likewise be engineered to exhibit a novel, readily visible physiological feature characteristic of a foreign species. In practice, unless such a feature is economically desirable, genes that yield less conspicuous attributes will be employed. Yet, these attributes are still observable, whether the allergic response of humans to nut protein in soybeans or the fatal response of worms to corn with a pesticide-producing bacterial gene.

   It therefore seems unreasonable to condone the implantation of non-kosher genes as a purely microscopic phenomenon while ignoring both the macroscopic substances they produce and their clearly observable effects. After all, if a microscopic dose of a particular chemical was lethal, Halakha would forbid the consumption of any food containing such a dose (under the rule that life-endangering substances are not to be eaten). Just as Halakha acknowledges the relevance of any such microscopic dose due to its significant effect, so it should recognize the relevance of the transposed genes. In fact, the case of transposed genes is even more compelling, since they not only induce a significant effect (like the lethal dose of chemical) but they do so by producing visible quantities of non-kosher substances (which the chemical does not).

   A hypothetical example more fully illustrates the logical inconsistencies that arise from attempting to apply the microscopic exemption to transgenic organisms. Suppose we create a strain of lentils containing (in every cell) a pig gene that synthesizes a structural porcine protein. We cook a pot of these lentils, and then we extract all the pig protein. This yields a visible quantity. Then we take an equal portion of lentils, grown without a pig gene, and cook them in a second pot. We next isolate an equal amount of the same protein from pig tissue, sprinkle it into the pot, and stir the contents thoroughly. This renders the second pot of porridge unkosher, since we've mixed a visible quantity of pig protein into it. But this seems to entail that the first pot of the porridge (prior to the extraction) was also unkosher. The first pot contained the same amount of pig protein as the second pot. Further, in the first pot, as in the second, the pig protein was an added ingredient. The only difference is that initially, it was added via genetic transplant and subsequently appeared inside each lentil as part of its make-up, while in the final state, it was added in the manner of a spice.

   Moreover, it seems there is no basis to exempt the protein on the grounds it is merely an isolated chemical compound. Halakha holds that if either lactose (a milk sugar) or casein (a milk protein) is present (in isolated form) in an otherwise non-dairy mixture, they retain their dairy character and the mixture cannot be served with meat. This entails that isolated pig protein retains its porcine character.

4. Does It matter that the host organism belongs to a kosher species?

   So if proteins from non-kosher animals in transgenic fruits and vegetables are to be condoned, it will have to be on the grounds that they were generated within an otherwise kosher organism. But such grounds are shaky. For instance, if a fertilized pig ovum were implanted within a cow's uterus and the resultant piglet successfully brought to term, it's doubtful Halakha would deem it kosher, even though it was produced within a kosher animal and the initial transfer from a non-kosher species was at the microscopic level. Further, in light of the rulings on lactose and casein, generating the isolated proteins of a non-kosher animal instead of the entire animal does not in itself preclude halakhic concern.

   It seems the only way to exempt transgenic foods is to argue that when foreign genes have become embedded in the host organism's cellular nuclei to the extent that their products are synthesized by its cellular machinery, these products effectively belong to and are characteristic of that organism rather than their source species. (This argument has been advanced by biotech proponents and largely accepted by the authorities at both the Orthodox Union and OK Labs.) However, attempting to conceptually sever the link between a species and its transplanted genes runs afoul of the facts. Consider a virus, a strand of DNA that has no surrounding cell of its own and is dormant until it invades the nuclei of another organism's cells and appropriates the cellular mechanisms. Many viruses even insert themselves into the host's DNA strand. Only within and by virtue of the host's cells can a virus synthesize its proteins. Yet, it would strain the bounds of logic to argue that these proteins are those of the host organism. Although they are produced by genes operating within the organism's cellular nuclei and making use of its cellular resources, they do not belong to it. They are debilitating and often life-endangering to the host, and its immune system recognizes them as a foreign threat and strongly counteracts them. [2]

   Therefore, we can only deny the connection between a species and the products of its transplanted genes if we are also prepared to deny the concept of viral infection. If we treat proteins from pig genes implanted in apples as those of an apple and not of a pig, we must also declare that a virus-infected apple is merely undergoing an adverse reaction to its own proteins. We would further have to say that when NIH researchers spliced the AIDS virus into the genome of mice, the subsequent suffering of their offspring was entirely due to a hereditary defect in mouse genes.

   Moreover, not only can the products of implanted genes be perceived as foreign by their host, they continue to be recognized by members of the source species as their own. That is why pigs whose organs are destined for transplant in humans are engineered with human genes that cause their organs to be coated with molecules characteristic of humans. This reduces the likelihood that the human physiology will reject the organ as a foreign intrusion.

   Finally, repudiating the relationship between products of transposed genes and their source species would negate the possibility of effective labeling. For instance, the FDA has determined that known allergens, like brazil nut protein, must be labeled when they occur within a transgenic food. But if a pig protein in engineered soy beans is classified as soy-sourced rather than porcine, then brazil nut protein would have to be treated the same. This would entail the paradox that although soy beans with brazil nut genes provoke allergic response in people sensitive to brazil nut protein, identifying them as containing this protein would be a case of mislabeling.

   Thus, if Halakha is to do justice to biological reality, it cannot conceptually disassociate proteins from the genes that produce them and genes from the species that naturally harbor them. The products of genes transposed into foods continue to express essential attributes of their native species and are clearly distinguishable from those of their host -- as is amply indicated by the examples of glowing tobacco, pesticide-producing corn, and beans that aggravate brazil nut allergies. Only by ignoring such facts can kinship be contrived between an organism and a distinctly foreign gene that's forcibly inserted within it.

5. Are the Medical Transplant Rulings Relevant to Transgenic Foods?

   The halakhic rulings that have permitted transplant of tissue from non-kosher species into humans do not readily apply to genetically engineered food. For one thing, such transplants can be justified on the basis that death or serious impairment would otherwise result. Accordingly, the ruling that a transplanted organ becomes part of the host must be seen in this light and should be limited to such extreme circumstances. Classifications of kosher versus unkosher food cannot be properly made in such a context, since when life is clearly at stake (e.g. one is starving), eating non-kosher food is permissible. Therefore, just because Halakha treats a pig intestine transplanted into a critically ill human being as part of that person's physiology does not entail that it should treat pig proteins engineered into apples as fruit protein.

   Further, even though transplanted organs can, for some medical purposes, be viewed as part of the host organism, there are other contexts in which Halakha would probably treat them as representative of their source. For instance, if a pig liver were transplanted into a cow, which a month later was slaughtered, it's doubtful the liver could rightly be sold as kosher.

6. Are There Special Benefits or Especially High Risks?

   Do genetically engineered foods have such life-saving potential that they can be accepted on the same basis as transplanted organs? While there are some medical applications of genetic engineering that might well be condoned under this principle, it's difficult to make the case that genetically altered food products should be as well. Although proponents of the process claim it can avert famines and significantly improve the general level of nutrition in the Third World, many scientific experts (several of them from the Third World) disagree with the projected level of benefits and instead emphasize the high level of risks associated with this new and relatively untested technology. Some of these risks are unique to genetic engineering, such as the irreversibility of many of its effects. The potential scale of this irreversibility has been termed "awesome" by Erwin Chargaff, often referred to as the father of molecular biology.[3]

   In the next section, which more thoroughly examines risks and benefits, it will become clear that the use of genetic engineering in food production is a far different matter than its use in medicine and cannot at this stage of our knowledge be categorized as a necessary health measure. Accordingly, the non-kosher admixtures it produces cannot be exempted on such a basis.