Wetlands, GMOs and Rogation Day Prayers
Last week on Earth Day, we spoke of Nature's Fortune and how
businesses are prospering by making investments that enhance Nature and the
environment instead of eroding them. At
the end, we made casual mention of two items that are worth more attention: built
wetlands and GMOs. There is actually a
suitable church-calendar occasion for this further commentary on Nature, the
upcoming Rogation Sunday and Rogation Days.
The Sunday is observed on the 6th Sunday of Easter in the
Episcopal Church calendar and the Days are the following Monday, Tuesday and
Wednesday immediately before Ascension Thursday; the petition is for blessing
of crops as they are planted and for the stewardship of creation.
Ways of the World has offered prayers before at this time of
year, especially since our current Prayer Book commemorates industry as well as
agriculture in the prayers it presents.
This year, as we googled a bit on "Rogation" – it means "asking",
as in "interrogation" – we came across commentaries from priests in rural
settings in Alabama and in Wyoming who worry about this shift in emphasis away
from agriculture and nature, fearing that it will lure people away from their
role as stewards of Nature.
Perhaps. But as our own current lessons
are teaching, we now see that we can use this occasion as a catalyst for talking
about both wetlands and GMOs as they clearly represent the meeting of industry
and Nature.
Why Would a Company
Build a Wetland?
In 1996, Dow Chemical was pressured by regulators to do
something about water pollution at its Seadrift, Texas, plant; a new wastewater-treatment
facility was clearly necessary.[1] The
company's engineers began the design work for a big concrete system they
estimated would cost about $40 million.
But one of them had a different idea: "build" a wetland. This would work because as wastewater flows
through such a wetland, as the EPA's website explains, "it slows down and
many of the suspended solids become trapped by vegetation and settle out. Other
pollutants are transformed to less soluble forms taken up by plants or become
inactive. Wetland plants also foster
[the development of microorganisms, which] transform and remove pollutants from
the water."[2] The Dow version at
Seadrift occupies 110 acres and treats 5 million gallons of water a day. This "green infrastructure" cost
$1.4 million, a tiny fraction of the much more involved "gray"
installation. Wildlife also like these
places, so here is one instance in which man has helped Nature along in at
least a couple of ways.
You've read and heard plenty about how big companies,
especially chemical companies like Dow, hurt the environment. This is an example of how they are evidently
coming around on this issue. The EPA
reports[3] that there are more than 1,000 constructed wetlands in the US and
5,000 altogether around the world. Dow
also has a one at Pittsburg, California, and their enormous plant at Freeport,
Texas, is becoming an experimental center for a huge project with The Nature
Conservancy. Sustainability officers at many
companies are now part of the main operational management, not just offshoots
of P.R. or public affairs departments.
As seen in the Seadrift example, the company's bottom line got big help
from the built wetland innovation, and such cost considerations are part and
parcel of these decisions. The lower
cost way was the better way.
What Good Are GMOs?
The GMO issue is trickier, since not all the science on GMOs
agrees about their safety. They have
also not been handled in the most helpful way by the companies that produce
them. Here's some of what we do
know. Genetically modified plants are
meant to help food production in three ways.
They are intended to make the plants more resistant to insects so less
insecticide is needed, they are meant to increase resistance to viruses so
plant yields are greater and they are meant to make plants more resistant to
herbicides so weeds can be killed without killing the plants themselves.[4] These are all good things. But the chemical formulas to achieve these
characteristics must be varied for each growing region according to the soil
content and the weed situation in each locale.
So GMO production and distribution are more customized, leaving farmers
and consumers more dependent on the individual companies making the seeds. This has generated a kind of monopoly
situation, with public emphasis often focused on the profits made by the
companies over and above the benefits of the GMO plants.
There is also concern over what the genetic modifications
might do to the soil and whether people might have a greater tendency to be
allergic to GMOs than to un-modified plants or to have other reactions to the
genes in the modified plants.
Information from the World Health Organization (WHO) assures that for
GMOs traded in world markets, no additional "allergenicity" is
present; they do urge caution in the use of antibiotic-resistant products in
which the modified genes might get transferred to those who consume the foods,
though WHO says chances of this are small.
In the main, the WHO experts inform us[5], plants sold in international
markets have been found safe.
So why use these if they are questionable? Because plant yields are indeed greater, and
less chemical application, such as insect-killers and weed-killers, is needed
in their production. Being able to
produce more food with less raw material will be absolutely necessary in coming
decades as the world population grows, Mark Tercek of The Nature Conservancy
points out, and all the more as people are lifted up out of poverty into more active
lives; that's one of the main reasons he wrote the book Nature's Fortune. Business and industry must invest in and be
stewards of agriculture and nature for all of us, all 7 billion of us, to grow
and prosper together.[6]
Indeed,
Almighty God, Lord of heaven and
earth: We humbly pray that your gracious providence may give and preserve to
our use the harvests of the land and of the seas, and may prosper all who labor
to gather them, that we, who are constantly receiving good things from your
hand, may always give you thanks; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and
reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
And
O merciful Creator, your hand is
open wide to satisfy the needs of every living creature: Make us always
thankful for your loving providence; and grant that we, remembering the account
that we must one day give, may be faithful stewards of your good gifts; through
Jesus Christ our Lord, who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one
God, for ever and ever. Amen.
------------------------------------------------
[1] Mark R. Tercek and Jonathan S. Adams. Nature's Fortune: How Business and Society
Thrive by Investing in Nature.
New York: Basic Books. 2013. Pp.
168ff and various Dow Chemical Company reports.
See www.dow.com.
[2] Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Constructed Treatment Wetlands". http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/ConstructedW.pdf
. August 2004. Accessed April 30, 2013.
[3] Ibid. Some of the
constructed wetlands are associated with farms as well as industrial uses.
[4] World Health Organization. "20 Questions on
Genetically Modified (GM) Foods". http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.html
. Accessed April 30, 2013.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Tercek and Adams. Page 3.
Labels: Environment, Episcopal Church, Industry, Science and Evolution
1 Comments:
A friend, Carolyn Daurio, writes to express concern that GMOs have been associated with a marked decline in beehives. These are clearly important in plant pollination, so it is no small matter.
I did some looking at evidence on this and see the issue she raises. Among other comments, there's a report of a simple parallel experiment in which bees in hives near GMO crops failed to start making honey, while bees in hives some distance away did just fine. The Tercek book I discuss in the articles argues that the reduced insecticide is good for limiting water pollution. In addition, I know that insecticides carry carcinogens. So an engineered plant that takes less insecticide sounds good to me for more than one reason. Carolyn also provided a recent New York Times article reporting a new study that the beehive issue has a number of causes, in addition to GM plants.
What can be done here is that such plant engineering can continue and develop. For example, Tercek describes a project of the nonprofit Danforth Plant Science Center, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to produce a GM cassava plant resistant to the virus that often harms it; this is important because cassava is a staple for some 750 million people in tropical regions. The nonprofit funding means the focus can be on the food and not whether the seed producer is taking money unduly from customers.
So there are many ways genetic engineering can be applied. Thanks to Carolyn for asking.
Post a Comment
<< Home