The following analysis of GM foods from the point of view of Islamic Sharia law is from attorney Steven Druker.
–-
–-
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS AND SHARIA 
Why There are Good Reasons to Decide They Are Incompatible

Steven M. Druker, J.D.
Executive Director
Alliance for BioIntegrity
      
In assessing whether genetically engineered (GE) foods are compatible with the dietary laws of Sharia, there are two basic considerations: 

  Do fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, and animals that are ordinarily halal (permitted) become haram (forbidden) if they are implanted with genes derived from animals that are themselves haram? 

  More generally, is genetic engineering (recombinant DNA technology) so disruptive of the integrity of the organisms it alters, so risky to the health of the people who eat them, and so disrespectful of the divine plan, that all of its products should be classified as haram, even if the implanted genes are derived from halal organisms?    

As will be seen, there are sound reasons for answering both questions in the affirmative.  

A. Are Foods Containing Genes from Haram Animals Haram?  

The proponents of GE foods have consistently tried to allay religious concerns about transferring genes from prohibited organisms into those that are ordinarily permitted. For instance, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which acknowledges it has an agenda "to foster" biotechnology, claims that once an animal gene has been implanted in the genome of a vegetable, it in effect becomes a vegetable gene.[1] However, careful analysis of the facts demonstrates that this claim does not deserve respect.    

1. If an organism's genome is altered with a gene from a haram species, every one of its cells will contain that gene and will therefore produce substantial amounts of proteins that are characteristic of that species.  

2. The fact that the implanted genes are laboratory copies and are not direct extractions from haram animals does not mitigate the problem. Genes are continually being copied within every living organism, and the new copies function in the same way as do the genes from which they were replicated. Thus, there is no essential difference between them. In an adult animal, every gene is a copy derived from one original set, and most are products of many generations of copies.  

3. 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 haram animals, but the extent to which they create it.
  
4. Experience shows that when an organism's DNA is implanted with copies of genes from a foreign species, the substances produced by the foreign genes are characteristic of its source species, not of the host. For instance, when soybeans were engineered with a gene from a brazil nut, the proteins synthesized by these foreign genes induced reactions in people who are allergic to brazil nuts (but are not allergic to normal soy beans). Further, plants engineered with a particular gene from a firefly actually glow in the dark. 

5. Moreover, in order to conceptually sever the link between a species and its transplanted genes, one has to deny the concept of viral infection. A virus is 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 (called retroviruses) 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. But 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. Therefore, 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 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.

6. The striking degree to which genes retain the characteristics of the organism from which they were derived, even after multiple transfers, is highlighted by the fact that 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. In this way, the human physiology will more readily accept the organ as part of itself instead of rejecting it as a foreign intrusion. 

7. Accordingly, both fact and logic indicate that it's most reasonable to classify substances produced by genes that are copied from haram animals as themselves haram, regardless of the cellular medium into which the genes have been placed.  

This leads to the broader question:  

B. Should all GE foods be considered haram, whatever the source of the implanted genes?  

1. Any Muslim is justified in having serious concerns about the suitability of every food-yielding organism that's altered through recombinant DNA technology. 

2. Foremost, it's important to keep in mind that Almighty God is the creator of life, the author of its genetic code, and the designer of its myriad species. While human beings may rightfully improve the world through many types of technologies, the enterprise to restructure the genetic blueprints of earth's plants and animals is so unprecedented, so invasive of the realm of the Creator, and potentially so irreversible, that it warrants the most careful consideration and the exercise of great reverential restraint. Limited human intelligence should not undertake such a venture without sincere acknowledgement of its own limitations and full appreciation of the complexity and majesty of God's design. As the Executive Director of the American Muslim Council stated at a press conference in 1995: "New developments in genetic science are beginning to blur the lines between the realm of the Divine and human activity. One of the 'Ninety-Nine Names of Allah' is al-Khaliq, meaning 'the
Creator.' It is blasphemous for a Muslim to assume one of the attributes of God and to intrude on activities which are properly reserved to God alone."[2]    

2. Accordingly, it is crucial to recognize the extent to which the enterprise to genetically engineer our food supply exceeds all previous technologies in breaching (and disrupting) natural boundaries. Genetic engineering is a radical departure from traditional breeding techniques and represents an unprecedented break with natural processes. (Nobel laureate biologist George Wald has termed it "the biggest break in nature that has occurred in human history."[3]) Even nuclear technology is substantially more congruent with natural processes, since sustained fusion and fission reactions both exist under natural conditions. In contrast, the systematic transfer of DNA between distant and dissimilar species does not occur through natural pathways but can only be accomplished through invasive and forcible gene splicing techniques.

3. Moreover, in traditional breeding, DNA is conveyed in the form of complete chromosomes.  This means that genes are transferred in groups in which they are positioned according to a fixed sequence that harmonizes with the sequence of genes in the host cell. It is otherwise in genetic engineering, where isolated genes (or conglomerates of fragmented genetic material) are inserted randomly within the DNA strand of the host, thus re-configuring its natural sequence in unpredictable ways.  

4. Further, because the transplanted gene is foreign to its new surroundings, it cannot function without a big artificial boost. Biotechnicians achieve this unnatural boosting by taking the section of DNA that promotes gene expression in a pathogenic virus and fusing it to the gene prior to insertion. This causes the transplanted gene to act independently of the host organism's intricate control system, as does an invading virus, in contrast to the harmonious coordination that exists among the native genes. Consequently, not only does the foreign gene produce substances that have never been in that species, it produces them in an essentially unregulated manner.

5. These unnatural alterations can cause unusual effects: (a) Because the foreign genes enter the host DNA haphazardly and disrupt the region into which they wedge, they can broadly and adversely alter cellular function. (b) The viral boosters (called "promoters") artificially attached to the foreign genes are powerful and can induce erratic expression of native genes or activate biochemical pathways that are ordinarily inactive. (c) The transplanted genes' continual and unregulated production of foreign substances drains energy from the organism's vital functions, which can induce metabolic imbalances. It can also upset complex biochemical feedback loops.

Each of these types of disruption can cause the generation of unpredictable toxins, allergens, and other harmful substances.

6. Regrettably, the proponents of genetic engineering consistently misrepresent its character. Rather than acknowledging how radical it is, they repeatedly claim it is merely an "extension at the molecular level" of traditional selective breeding;[4]  and Dr. Henry I. Miller, who for many years was director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology, asserts that there is "a seamless continuum" between the two processes.[5]    Further, not only do these promoters impute close kinship between forcible gene splicing and sexual reproduction, they claim substantial equivalence between their products.  

7. However, experts who understand the facts, and who are not part of the biotech promotional campaign, have made it clear that these claims are false. For instance, an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada issued a report declaring (a) that it is "scientifically unjustifiable" to presume that GE foods are safe and (b) that the "default presumption" for every GE food should be that the genetic alteration has induced unintended and potentially hazardous side effects.[6]  And the eminent geneticist David Suzuki has stated: "Any scientist who tells you these [genetically engineered] products are safe is either very  stupid or lying." The respected molecular biologist Liebe Cavalieri has spoken along these same lines, declaring that it is "simplistic, if not downright simple-minded" to claim that genetic engineering is substantially the same as traditional breeding and that the people who do so are perpetrating a "sham." 

8. The GE food venture could not survive without this sham, or several others that are equally as gross. For instance, GE foods are only on the market because of a major fraud by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This fraud was exposed when a lawsuit headed by the Alliance for Bio-Integrity forced the FDA to divulge its files. (Key documents from these files are in a numbered list at  www.biointegrity.org  Numbers after the following quotations refer to the corresponding document's place on this list.) These files reveal that the agency's administrators covered up the extensive warnings from their own scientific experts about the unusual risks of GE foods. For example, Dr. Louis Pribyl of the FDA Microbiology Group wrote, "There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering ...." He added that some aspects of gene splicing "...may be more hazardous." (4) Dr. E.J. Matthews of the FDA's Toxicology Group warned that GE plants could contain unexpected toxins that could "...be uniquely different chemicals that are usually expressed in unrelated plants." (2) Citing the potential for such unintended dangers, the Director of FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) called for GE products to be demonstrated safe prior to marketing. He stated:  "... CVM believes that animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns." (10) He explained that residues of unexpected substances could make meat and milk products harmful to humans. Because of the potential for unexpected harmful effects, the FDA experts advised that every GE food should undergo rigorous testing to screen for them.

9. The pervasiveness of the concerns within the scientific staff is attested by a memo from an FDA official stating: "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks." (1) This official protested that the agency was "... trying to fit a square peg into a round hole . . . [by] trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices." (1) 

10. Yet, FDA political appointees ignored their scientists' warnings while publicly professing that they were "not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."[7]  They then allowed GE foods to be marketed without testing by claiming there is an overwhelming consensus among experts that they are safe, despite the concerns of their own experts and the fact that a few months earlier, the FDA's biotechnology coordinator had admitted that no such consensus existed outside the FDA either. In a letter to a Canadian health official commenting on a document about GE foods, he stated: "As I know you are aware, there are a number of specific issues addressed in the document for which a scientific consensus does not exist currently, especially the need for specific toxicology tests." (8) He also acknowledged: "I think the question of the potential for some substances to cause allergenic reactions is particularly difficult to predict."

11. The FDA persists in its false claim of expert consensus, and this falsehood remains the sole purported legal basis for the U.S. marketing of GE foods, despite the fact FDA officials are well aware that substantial disagreement exists in the scientific community.  

12. If the FDA had told the truth, no GE foods would currently be marketed, since no other country would have approved them if the U.S. had not. 

13. Moreover, regulation in other nations ignores GE foods' unique potential for unpredictable problems, fails to employ the kind of tests that the FDA experts called for, and instead relies on tests that do not adequately screen for the potential hazards about which they warned, an approach that an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada has termed "scientifically unjustifiable." 

14. The regulators have also disregarded glaring weaknesses in the way most of the tests were conducted, as documented by the independent investigations of the Public Health Association of Australia and a team of Japanese scientists at Nagoya University. After thoroughly reviewing many data packages manufacturers had submitted to the regulators, the Australian experts reported that all of them lack key information that's routinely provided in scientific research and is required to enable meaningful review by others. They stated that such research could not have qualified for publication in peer-reviewed journals and should not have been accepted by the authorities. Further, the Japanese scientists reviewed Monsanto's tests on its Roundup Ready® soy, the world's most widely planted GE crop, and found so many irregularities they concluded that the studies were "inadequate and incomplete." Their report concludes: "The safety assessment of the Monsanto Roundup Ready soybean needs to be reassessed."[8]    

15. Further, the regulators have either failed to discover (or chosen to disregard) the fact that many GE foods have undergone substantial, and unexpected, alterations in chemical composition. For instance, The Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) analyzed Monsanto's data from controlled studies on three of its GE plants (herbicide resistant corn (maize) and canola, and pesticide-producing corn) and in all three cases discovered several statistically significant differences in chemical composition (including amino acid profiles) between the GE organism and its non-GE counterpart. The PHAA report (October 2000) states that the differences in the amino acids cannot be attributed solely to the known products of the inserted genes and cautions that these plants may contain unexpected, and to date unidentified, new proteins that could be harmful to humans.  And the investigors at Nagoya University discovered that Monsanto's data on its Roundup Ready® soybean reveals important differences between the GE bean and its conventional counterpart. For instance, after heat processing of both the GE and non-GE beans, the concentrations of three harmful substances were significantly higher in the GE samples.[10]  

16. Moreover, regulators have continued to ignore signs of potential problems, even when adverse effects are found in animal feeding studies. For instance, research on a GE tomato revealed deleterious changes in the rats that ate them. Not only was there a peculiar incidence of stomach lesions, seven of the rats fed one variety of the GE tomato died within two weeks (while there was only one death among the rats fed non-GE tomatoes). The FDA experts who saw the data agreed that it raised a safety issue, an issue they thought was never properly resolved. (See FDA memos 14-17 at www.biointegrity.org ) Nonetheless, the FDA allowed the tomato to enter the market. In another case of irresponsible action, EU regulators approved a type of bioengineered corn for marketing despite the fact that during testing there were twice as many deaths among the chickens that ate it than in the control group fed the parental stock. Several experts decried the decision with one scientist declaring that the tests were "not really good enough to base a student project on, let alone a marketing consent for a GM [genetically modified] product."  

17. Testing GE foods on animals has continued to produce unsettling results (list from "GM Crops: Research documenting the limitations, risks, and alternatives," which gives the individual references: http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-crops-research-documenting-the-limitations-risks-and-alternatives) 

 GM peas caused allergic reactions in mice 
 Rats fed GM oilseed rape developed enlarged livers, often a sign of toxicity'
 GM potatoes fed to rats caused excessive growth of the lining of the gut similar to a pre-cancerous condition
 Rats fed insecticide-producing GM maize grew more slowly, suffered problems with liver and kidney function, and showed higher levels of certain fats in their blood'
 Rats fed GM insecticide-producing maize over three generations suffered damage to liver and kidneys and showed alterations in blood biochemistry'
 Old and young mice fed with GM insecticide-producing maize showed a marked disturbance in immune system cell populations and in biochemical activity'
 Mice fed GM insecticide-producing maize over four generations showed a buildup of abnormal structural changes in various organs (liver, spleen, pancreas), major changes in the pattern of gene function in the gut, reflecting disturbances in the chemistry of this organ system (e.g. in cholesterol production, protein production and breakdown), and, most significantly, reduced fertility'
 Mice fed GM soya over their entire lifetime (24 months) showed more acute signs of ageing in their liver 
 Rabbits fed GM soya showed enzyme function disturbances in kidney and heart.
 Liver, pancreas and testes function was disturbed in mice fed GM soya. 

18. In light of the serious potential for harm and the seriously deficient system of testing, a growing number of experts have voiced their concerns and called for stronger measures. For instance, the respected UK medical journal The Lancet declared that "governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health."[11]  (May 29, 1999). And hundreds of scientists have signed an open letter to the world's governments warning of the hazards and calling for a moratorium on all GE foods. Signatories include professors of biology from Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the director of the renowned Woods Hole Research Center. 

19. Moreover, some scientists question the wisdom of having sundered such fundamental boundaries of nature in the first place. One is Erwin Chargoff, an eminent biochemist recognized as one of whose discoveries were instrumental in the development of molecular biology. In contemplating the radical nature of cross-species gene transfer, he stated: "I have the feeling that science has transgressed a barrier that should have remained inviolate." Further, many experts have warned that if molecular biologists do proceed with such radical manipulations, they should do so with a caution born of humility. For instance, scientists representing Consumers Union (a respected U.S. nonprofit organization) submitted written comments to the FDA urging it to recognize that genetic engineering "...represents something that is fundamentally new and, as such, should be approached with caution, care and some humility as well as a healthy respect for how little science still knows about how this technology works."[12] 

20. Consumer Union's plea for humility in the face of mankind's vast ignorance about the intricacies of genetic interactions was made from a secular standpoint. From the standpoint of religion, the need for humility is far greater; and its virtual absence from the thinking of the bioengineers and their governmental promoters is a glaring defect that rightly undermines confidence in their actions. This is especially so for a religion like Islam, which views the myriad forms of life as purposeful creations of a supreme God. Accordingly, Muslims can rightly view the cross-breeding barriers as basic features of the divine plan and believe that limited human intelligence should be wary of disrupting them – and should approach the intricate web of life with great reverence. At minimum, such belief entails that substantial caution should be exercised in any attempt to alter such a complex and delicate system, especially when it involves reconfiguring the genetic structure of     numerous food-yielding organisms. 

21. To presume that both the process and products of piecemeal gene splicing are essentially equivalent to those of sexual reproduction is to significantly discount the existence and importance of a divine plan. From the perspective of any monotheistic religion, it seems deeply disrespectful to trivialize the differences between forcible gene splicing across natural barriers and normal reproduction through God-given pathways, and highly arrogant to sunder these natural barriers without great caution and care. 

22. Accordingly, it would be legitimate for Muslims to regard the GE food venture as an irreverent and unacceptable endeavor, involving disrespect for the Creator of life and an arrogant over-estimation of human capacity to assume His role. From such a perspective, there are grounds to argue that all GE foods should be regarded as haram, especially when their potential health hazards are considered. The Koran makes it clear that all food must be tayyib (wholesome). The Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America states: "Islam forbids its followers from eating foods that are spoiled or impure. ... People are to eat food that is safe."[13] But, as is abundantly clear from the facts in the foregoing paragraphs, no GE food has been proven safe, and there are sound reasons to doubt their safety.  

23. At minimum, such foods should be considered mash-booh (suspected). Pious Muslims avoid things that are suspected, and Islam's recommendation is: "When in doubt, leave it out."[14] 

24. Therefore, as a matter of religious principle, Muslims have strong grounds to reject all GE foods because, not only is their safety seriously in doubt, the arguments advanced in favor of their safety rest on dubious assumptions that, besides being at odds with science, conflict with the belief that the creation of life on earth, and the intricate development of its multitudinous forms, have been directed by a purposeful and all-powerful God.  

  
REFERENCES
[1] "Genetically Engineered Foods," FDA Consumer, Jan.-Feb. 1993.
[2] Abdurahman Alamoudi, Remarks at a press conference, Washington, D.C. May 18, 1995.
[3] Wald, G. quoted in Kimbrell, A., The Human Body Shop: The Engineering and              Marketing of Life, Harper Collins (1994) p. 159. 
[4] Ibid, p.12.  See also 57 Federal Register 22984 May 29, 1992. 
[5] Miller, Henry, I. "Happy Earth Day, Mr.Rifkin," Washington Times, April 22, 1997.
[6] Royal Society of Canada 
[7] FDA Policy Statement, May 29, 1992 in Federal Register vol. 57, No. 104 at 22991
[8] See report cited in note 2 above.  
[9] PHAA's Written Comments to ANZFA, October 2000.
[10] The team was headed by Dr. Masaharu Kawata, an Assistant Professor in the School of Science at Nagoya University.    Their report was published in the Japanese journal Technology and Human Beings, vol.11, Nov. 2000.  pp. 24-33)
[11] Lancet, (May 29, 1999).
[12]  Consumers Union's Comments to U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties, August, 1992, p. 2.  
[13]  Hussaini, Mohammad M., Islamic Dietary Concepts and Practices, The Islamic Food and Nutritional Council of America, Bedford Park, IL (1993) p.64.
[14]  Ibid. p. 63.