Like most environmental issues, the growing supply of genetically modified

organisms (GMOs) in food raises many concerns. Although GMO crops can feed
more people, they also put people’s health at risk and degrade the environment.
Small farmers can make more money growing and selling more crops, but buying
GMO seeds gives corporations a lot of power over these small farmers. Along with
these ethical concerns, religious groups must also wrestle with the theological
issues GMOs raise.

When religion tries to apply ancient texts to modern technology there is rarely a
clear answer. Application of Jewish laws and ethical traditions has burdened the
GMO debate with numerous contradictions. In figuring out Jewish beliefs on GMOs
we may be left with only one theological question: Can humans make God’s creation
more perfect?

Jewish Law as it Applies to GMOs

Consistent with the principle that anything not expressly prohibited by God is
permitted, Jewish law, or halacha, generally takes a permissive position on GMO
food. But just because halacha doesn’t expressly prohibit GMO food, doesn’t mean
it’s entirely silent on the issue.

The kashrut laws dictate what foods are kosher and what foods are not. While all
plants are considered kosher, genetic material from non-kosher animals can be
mixed with kosher foods. If this happens, most rabbinic authorities still consider
GMO food kosher. Rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron, Chief Sephardic Rabbi of Israel points
out that genetic material that is transferred from non-kosher species is not
considered “food,” has no taste, and exists in such a small amount as to make it
negligible.

Perhaps Bakshi-Doron’s thinking makes sense if the GMO food is already a kosher
food. For example, genetically modified salmon (kosher) contains the gene of an eel
(non-kosher), so that it can grow to market weight quickly. In this case, the eel’s
genes would not affect salmon’s kosher status because the genes have no taste and
exist in a small amount. But what if the genes of a pig (non-kosher) contain the
genes of a cow (kosher), so that the pig has cloven hooves suitable for a Jewish
market? Where do you draw the line?

On the prohibition of kilayim, or mixing of different species of animals and plants,

described in Leviticus 19:19, Deuteronomy 22:9-11, and the midrash, the
permissibility of GMOs is even more muddled. Most rabbinic authorities rule that the
prohibition is restricted to interbreeding. It is permitted to engage in the non-sexual
transfer of genetic material between different species of animals or between
animals and plants.

But even without the sexual transfer of genetic material, genetic engineering of
plants may be kilayim. Some halacha authorities say that genetic engineering of
plants does not pose a problem unless the material transferred has the ability, if the
plant is in the ground, to grow a complete plant on its own, which is seldom the
case with GMO crops. But according to Rabbi Karelitz, a major halacha authority of
the 20th century, transferring plant juices from one plant species to another can be
considered kilayim if the juices have the ability to cause new growth of the donor
species in the receptor.

The current interpretation of halacha does not expressly prohibit GMOs. But this
could change as the field of genetic engineering expands and new species are
developed.

Do GMOs Violate Jewish Ethics?

Although Jewish law may not expressly prohibit GMO food, that does not mean that
it is ethically permissible. In Judaism, humans must work to bring the world closer to
perfection and not further away. While GMO food may increase the quality and
quantity of the world’s food supply — a benefit — it also could cause negative
health and environmental impacts — a risk. Rabbi Tsvi Freeman urges Jews to
scrutinize GMO foods closely to determine whether they are actually beneficial or
detrimental to the environment and humankind.

Do GMOs Make the World More Perfect?

God created a world that was “good,” not “perfect.” Jewish tradition posits that
humans were created in the image of God to be partner with God in perfecting
themselves and the natural world. In a midrashic story, Rabbi Akiva is challenged by
a Roman general to defend the Jewish practice of circumcision, the apparent
mutilation of the Creator. Rabbi Akiva points to the conversion of wheat to bread to
show that, sometimes, the work of God is unfinished and humans can, and should,
provide the final touches.

But this doesn’t mean that all final touches are perfect. In the midrash, when God
showed Adam the Garden of Eden, God warned Adam not to spoil or destroy the
world, for if he does, there will be nobody after him to repair it. Religious laws, such
as bal tashkhit the prohibition against needless waste or destruction, are supposed
to prevent needless destruction.

Do GMO crops create a more perfect world? Did God want us to make wheat short
and stubby so that it could support more fertilizer? Do the genes of an eel make
salmon more perfect? There is no clear answer to these questions. Without clear
guidance from God, Jews are left to exercise their own free will to determine
whether GMO crops make the world a better place.

EWS, JUDAISM AND GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS

Credit: USDA
 Genetically modified (“GM”) crops are plant products which
have been genetically altered for certain traits. Such traits include
resistance to viruses, bacteria, fungi, nematodes, insects,
herbicides and drought, as well as aspects of product quality like
improved yield, nutritional value and longer shelf life.
(See here and here.)
The characterization is somewhat of a misnomer. Modification
of biological organisms is not a new process. It has been occurring
in nature for billions of years. Indeed, the natural selection of
some traits over others is the driving force of biological evolution,
the process by which a species over time secures a competitive
advantage in its environment. Today, though, the label of GM
foods is meant to identify those products that have been modified
or engineered by human means.
And yet, the intervention of humans in an otherwise natural
process is not new either. Humans have been actively engaged in
plant breeding for up to ten thousand years. An Assyrian relief,
dated to 870 BCE, illustrates pollination of date palms by man.
Similarly, the Torah tells of Jacob manipulating his flocks of
goats and lambs so that he would increase his herd with the
fittest among them. (See Gen. 30:31-31:13.)That the author
ambiguously attributed Jacob’s success to both magical sticks and
God’s miraculous power is irrelevant, for present purposes. What
is important is that the story is testament to the reality that at
least since the text was written some twenty-five centuries ago,
humans have recognized the desirability of and have sought to
guide the alteration of existing species in ways thought beneficial.
This guided intervention has produced a host of useful and now
common food products, but it is, or was, slow, unpredictable,
unreliable, costly and inefficient.
Conscious and more cost-effective breeding activity accelerated
in the twentieth century of the common era with the use of
nuclear technologies, tissue cultures, haploid breeding and, most
recently, transgenic technology. The latter technology
encompasses the placing genetic material of one species into
another resulting in an organism described as transgenic. In this
light, GM crops are really genetically engineered (“GE”) crops or
biotech crops. The terms will be used interchangeably here.
 Genetically engineered crops were introduced on a commercial
level in the United States in 1996. Since then, corn, soybean and
cotton farmers have adopted GM crops rapidly and robustly.
(SeeUSDA Economic Research Report 162 (February, 2014)
(15/60).) According to the USDA Economic Research Service, as of
2015, the percentage of acreage in the United States utilizing GM
seeds has reached 92% for corn and 94% for cotton and
soybeans. Farmers in the United States like GM seeds primarily
because they increase the crop yield, and also because their use
reduces management time and decreases the cost of pesticides.
(See USDA Report 162 at 18, 47/60.)
The United States is far from the only country which has
adopted GM seeds. According to the International Service for the
Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (“ISAAA”), by 2014 GM
crops were being produced in twenty-eight countries, some
developed, but many not. More than thirty other
countries import biotech crops.
The rapid and robust rise of GM crops has not come without
controversy. Two broad categories of claims have been advanced
against GM crops. The first is that they are neither safe nor fit for
consumption because they are unnatural and untested and will
introduce toxins and allergens and otherwise harm consumers.
The second is that the corporate purveyors of GM crop seed are
improperly seeking to control the crop market to their financial
advantage and the economic detriment of farmers and the
general population.
According to the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (“AAAS”), the charges related to food safety are
unfounded. In the United States, the largest producer of GM crops,
“each new GM crop must be subjected to rigorous analysis and
testing in order to receive regulatory approval.” The seed
producer has the burden of demonstrating both the integrity of
any new crop and that any proposed new protein trait is “neither
toxic nor allergenic.” Consequently, the overwhelming consensus
in the reputable scientific community is that GM crops which have
been subjected to national government analysis, testing and
approval are safe. More precisely, as the AAAS Board of Directors
has put it: “consuming foods containing ingredients derived from
GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing
ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant
improvement techniques.” The American Medical
Association concurs, as does the World Health
Organization (see here).
The arguments concerning market control arise from political
and economic philosophy, but seem equally dubious. In the
United States, the seed market for soybeans and corn is
clearly dominated by two companies, Monsanto and DuPont
Pioneer, which split about 70% of each market. Rather than
demonstrating control by either, however, market analysis
therefore shows that each company has a very strong competitor
and numerous smaller competitors. Neither Monsanto nor DuPont
Pioneer appears to have the market power, much less the legal
authority, to force any farmer to do anything.
What does all this have to do with Jews and Judaism?
At its crassest level, GM crops provide one more lightening rod
for anti-Semites. In one such diatribe, the author not only
criticizes Monsanto for its Jewish officers and investors, it accuses
the company of conspiring with Jews in the United States Food
and Drug Adminstration, and (former) “Senator Jew
(sic) Lieberman” to secure the “right to shut down farmers who
refuse to purchase Jewsanto’s (sic) GMO seeds” and to obtain a
“global monopoly . . . forcing the populace to consume this
poison.” As the pop star Taylor Swiftteaches, though, the “haters
gonna hate, hate, hate . . .”, and we just need to “shake,
shake . . . shake it off . . . .”
There are also Jews who oppose GM crops, and who purport to
do so based on Jewish beliefs and values. One such opponent
is Rabbi Arthur Waskow, a leader of the Jewish
Renewal movement, advocate of Eco-Judaism and a prolific
writer. A few years ago, Waskow published a Tu B’Shvat Seder to
Heal a Wounded Earth. Part of it is premised on the charge that
Monsanto is “imposing” GM crops on increasing numbers of
farmers, and that Monsanto “threatens the sustainability of
agriculture . . . .” No factual support is offered for either of those
or related accusations. The first is false as market statistics
demonstrate, and the second would be financially suicidal for
Monsanto and therefore an extraordinarily improbable effort on its
part. There may be a Jewish rationale for opposing GM crops, but
what is offered here is, to be charitable, analytically weak, and
more a negative, almost Pavlovian reflex to big business, in this
case personified by big agri-business giant, Monsanto.
One can almost hear a contemporary Isaiah asking rhetorically,
to those comfortable enough to celebrate: “Is this the seder I
desire, one that curses a producer of crop seed? Isn’t the seder I
desire one that supports the expansion of agricultural resources,
that increases the amount of grain available to the poor, that
feeds more so that less are hungry?” (Cf. Isa. 58:3-7.)The hard
truth, however uncomfortable it may be for some who operate on
a more mystical plane, is that in the real world the GM seeds
produced by Monsanto and others, sown in hundreds of millions of
acres around the globe from Spain to South Africa, from Paraguay
to Pakistan, and from China to the Czech Republic put more
nutritious food in more mouths than do all the Tu B’Shvat
sederim ever held.
Another opponent of GM crops is Raphael Bratman, who has
argued that such foods ought not be considered kosher. He also
claims that the mixing of species violates a Jewish prohibition
known as kilayim. Readers of this site may be familiar with
Bratman. He has argued against vaccinations on the grounds that
they are unsafe and not kosher, and we have criticized those
arguments as not being well grounded either in science or on
principles of kashrut. Bratman’s arguments as to GM crops will
fare no better.
Bratman’s discussion begins appropriately enough with
reference to a statement by the Orthodox Union (“OU”)
concerning whether the introduction of non-kosher genetic
material into an otherwise kosher product renders the altered
product as non-kosher. Bratman reports that OU’s position is that
genetic engineering does not alter the kosher status of the
recipient organism for two reasons. First, the amount of
transferred genetic material is microscopic and insignificant.
Second, the descendants of the altered item were not themselves
recipients of non-kosher genetic material. Having found an
answer he does not like, and from an authority he selected,
instead of reconsidering his position, Bratman expresses his
admitted frustration with “OU’s ignorance of the issue” and
rejects OU’s statement as “miss(ing) the point completely.” This is
not surprising. He took essentially the same tack when his
argument that injectable vaccines were not kosher was
universally rejected by leading kashrutauthorities around the
world.
Oddly, the OU statement to which Bratman refers seems to
have been deleted (as of this writing) from the OU website. But
Chabad Rabbi Tzvi Freeman concurs. Addressing the issue of
genetically modified foods, he says: “Although there are instance
of genetic material of non-kosher animals being used in kosher
food, to date, no one has succeeded in demonstrating that this
renders the food non-kosher.”
Bratman’s second objection, based on the doctrine of kilayim, is
more problematic, but he spends little time addressing the
problems. At its biblical root, kilayim is based on two verses in
the Torah, one in the Holiness Code in Leviticus and the other in
Deuteronomy. The first bars the mating of two kinds of animals,
the sowing of two kinds of seeds in a field and the wearing of
clothing made from two kinds of cloth. (See Lev. 19:19.) The
provision in Deuteronomy is similar, but not identical. It prohibits
seeding a vineyard with two kinds of seeds, plowing with an ox
and ass together, and the wearing of wool and linen together.
(See Deut. 22:9-11.) The prohibitions are consistent with a
worldview that sees a certain order in the universe, believes that
such order should be maintained, and emphasizes separation of
like from unlike and the preservation of boundaries as defining
features of holiness. At the same time, the intent of the authors
expressing these rules is neither stated nor clear.
Not surprisingly, renowned rabbis across centuries have
disagreed about the interpretation of these phrases. Rabbi Moshe
ben Nachman(also known as Ramban, or Nachmanides) (c. 1194-
1270) argued that these rules teach that humankind should not
disturb the fundamental nature of God’s creation. Centuries
later, Rabbi Yehuda Lowe (The Maharal of Prague) (c. 1525-1609)
took a different tack. As summarized by Rabbi Freeman, the
Maharal contended that “any change that human beings
introduce into the world already existed in potential when the
world was created. All that humans do is bring that potential into
actuality.”
 Within the last few years, committees of both the Reform and
Conservative rabbinic associations have addressed the issue of
genetically engineered foods. The Responsa Committee of the
(Reform) Central Conference of American Rabbis (“CCAR”)
focused on a narrow question, the permissibility of using a specific
modified food known as Golden Rice to save the vision and lives
of children. In November, 2015, the Committee on Jewish Law and
Standards of the (Conservative) Rabbinical Assembly (“RA”)
approved a lengthy and detailed study by Rabbi Daniel
Nevins regarding the interpretation and application of Jewish law
with respect to host of issues related to genetically modified
organisms.
CCAR Responsa no. 5774.5 is, unfortunately, not generally
accessible on the internet, but its findings can be summarized
here. The Responsa Committee recognized that the primary legal
question was whether Golden Rice, being a product of the
injection into conventional rice of foreign genetic material
designed to provide Vitamin A, was prohibited by kilayim. It
concluded that it was not for three reasons: 1) the prohibition only
applied to a natural mixing, not to synthetic engineering, 2)
having been transformed in a laboratory, the transferred gene
segment was not from a different species of plant, but was a
“different substance altogether (davar chadash),” and 3) the
resulting product was not a new species, but “a member of the
same species bearing with new characteristics.”
While finding that “the prohibition of kilayim does not apply to
contemporary techniques of genetic modification,” the Committee
could not reach a consensus on the effects of GM crops generally
or Golden Rice specifically on the ecosystem, another and historic
matter of Jewish concern. (See, e.g., Deut. 20:19-20.) It then
suggested that those who could make educated judgments about
such matters, whether for or against Golden Rice, would stand “on
good Jewish grounds.”
For the record, Vitamin A deficiency adversely affects the health
of tens of millions around the globe, especially pregnant women
and children. By some accounts, it is responsible for 500,000
cases of juvenile blindness and up to two million deaths annually.
Since the CCAR Responsa was issued, President Obama’s White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy has announced
that Golden Rice has received a Patents for Humanity Award,
given for its contribution to improving global health and raising
the living standards of underserved populations. Apparently, Pope
Francis has also blessed Golden Rice.
The RA study addressed considerably more issues than did the
CCAR Committee. Like the latter group, RA spent no meaningful
time discussing kashrut. It began with a brief review of evolution
and a more detailed one concerning recent developments in
genetic engineering. In the course of the review, the Committee
made several crucial observations.
Initially, the RA recognized that the traditional notion of an
initial creation of fully formed species, and “the stability of these
species across time,” has become “untenable in the past two
centuries.” (At 3-4/49; see also, 21-24/49.) The RA also noted that
current life forms not only share common parents, sometimes one
species acquires genes from another. The Committee accepted
data showing that “as many as 145 genes (from among 20,000 in
the human genome) have been picked up from other species.” (At
8/49.) Further, while acknowledging that continued study is
warranted, the RA held that “(g)enetic engineering is a field of
great promise in combating hunger and disease,” and “we are
obligated to feed the hungry, heal the ill and to preserve human
health.” (At 5, 12/49.)
The RA then proceeded to discuss two methods
of halakhikanalysis, one based on legal formalism and the other
on values-informed interpretation, as they may relate to the field
of transgenics. Noting with approval the Talmudic principle that
“stringent positions in halakhah bear the burden of proof,” the RA
recognized that one could limit forbidden activities to those
precisely prohibited in Torah. (See30-31/49.)
By contrast, a values-informed analysis looks to the purposes of
the laws. (See 33/49.) Here the RA noted that the sages were
concerned about blending species out of “respect for the
creation.” (At 35/49.) At the same time, while those sages would
clearly forbid the act of forming a new hybrid species, it was not
clear to the Committee that the sages would prohibit other than
full blending, that is, “the transfer of (limited) sequences of DNA
from one organism to another.” (At 37/49.) In any event, as the
Committee observed, the sages “were also clear in permitting the
produce of (any) such forbidden efforts.” (At 36/49.)
The RA concluded that the Torah’s ban on kilayim “does not
extend formally to the modification of gene sequences via the
introduction of foreign DNA in order to convey a specific capability
in the new organism.” Cautioning that the “health implications of
genetically modified foods must be examined on an individual
basis,” it further recognized that “Jews may benefit from the fruits
of hybridized plants . . . .” (At 44/49.)
So, there seems to be as much of a consensus as there might
ever be when it comes to an understanding of Jewish law as
applied to new technology. GM crops, to date, do not raise any
serious kashrut issues, nor does the principle
of kilayim necessarily preclude either the production or the
consumption of GM crops. The only serious issue is whether such
foods are safe and beneficial or not, matters best left to scientists
than rabbis.
Do new technologies of genetic engineering raise concerns?
Sure. Does the application of any new technology to the
production and consumption of food products warrant heightened
scrutiny? Of course. But after twenty years of increased
commercialization, subject to government protocols and reviews,
with hundreds of millions of acres of genetically modified crops
being produced and consumed, with all the data that has been
accumulated and dissected, with all the studies that have been
generated, it would seem that the initial reasonable concerns of
the past have been addressed and the originally feared scenarios
have not materialized.
This conclusion is buttressed by a report published online in
2013 in the Critical Review of Biotechnology. The report
concerned a survey of 1,783 research papers and other
documents published in the previous decade regarding various
aspects of GM crop safety. Such a meta-survey is important
because it avoids problems inherent in cherry-picked data and
puts an anomalous result from any single study in proper
perspective. The main findings were quite instructive: 1) no
significant hazard was detected in connection with the use of GM
crops, 2) not a single credible example of a detrimental effect
from the consumption of such crops was identified, 3) there was
no evidence that GM crops were uniquely allergenic, much less
toxic, 4) genetic segments of DNA from GM crops have not been
and cannot be integrated into our cells, 5) there was little to no
evidence of damage to the environment from biotech crops, and
6) usage of GM crops was less likely to reduce biodiversity than
non-GM crops. (See also, here.)
The haters gonna hate and the science deniers gonna deny.
Whether the denial of science comes from one end of the political
spectrum or the other is irrelevant. It is, by definition, non-
rational, and often irrational. It is also counter-productive to the
work our tradition teaches we need to do. With the important
caveats that new data might warrant different conclusions, and
that vigilance is always warranted when our bodies, our food and
our environment are involved, reality based Judaism supports the
introduction and usage of tested and approved GM crops that help
people. It does so because reality based Judaism seeks to address
the world as it is, not as it might have been in some ancient
mythical garden, nor as it might be in some medieval mystical
construct of ten sefirot, nor even as it is experienced in the
comfortable confines of academia or similar social bubble, nor, for
that matter, as we might like it to be. It does so, not to the
exclusion of organic or non-GM crops, but as a useful means to
achieve a desired end.
Given the overwhelming consensus on what Judaism permits,
the data should drive us, that is, good data from reputable,
independent sources, rigorously applying the scientific method
(discussed here). And evidence should trump anecdote and
ideology every time, whether the issue
is abortion, vaccinations or something else.
The writers of the Torah and the ancient sages can be forgiven
for some of their assumptions of the nature of our world. They did
not have the benefit of our scientific methods or tools. But today,
there is no excuse for ignorance, and, when people are hungry or
seek relief from disease, there ought not be much room for those
who would close the door to the possibility of better health by
bending or ignoring the facts in order to conform to some pre-
existing political or economic bias. We can do better. We can heed
the lesson from another, more traditional seder. Does not the
Passover Haggadah call on us to open the door? Does it not read:
“Let all who are hungry, come and eat!”?

Jewish Perspectives on Genetic Engineering

Akiva Wolf

Man's Relationship with the Natural World / Jewish Legal Perspectives /

Genetic Engineering of Humans / Genetic Engineering of Animals and Plants /
Jewish Ethical Perspectives / Conclusions

One of the technological marvels of the modern age is genetic engineering --

the manipulation of genetic material, and the transference of genetic
material between different types of organisms, to create transgenic or
genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) with modified traits. The use of
genetic engineering is advancing and expanding rapidly in many traditional
fields including medicine and agriculture, as well as new fields such as
biotechnology. Along with the rapid advances and expansion, there is a
growing discussion and debate over the benefits and risks of genetic
engineering and the difficult ethical questions raised by this new technology.

Among the real and expected benefits from genetic engineering are new
medicines and medical procedures that can save and extend human lives,
prevent or cure diseases, and repair cellular damage. Genetic engineering
also promises to enable greater and more efficient agricultural production
that can feed more people while using less pesticides and under more
adverse conditions. Proponents of genetic engineering also speak of creating
GMOs that will improve the quality of the environment through cleanup of oil
spills and toxic wastes. Among the potential risks of genetic engineering are
the creation of new disease organisms to which there is no natural resistance
and no available cure, new food substances that create allergic or toxic
reactions, and irreversible damage to natural ecosystems and the
environment. Genetic engineering may be, according to its proponents, one
of the greatest scientific advances in the history of mankind, or, according to
its detractors, one of the greatest threats to the existence of life on the
planet.

Man's Relationship with the Natural World

How does the Jewish tradition relate to the modern phenomenon of genetic
engineering? To answer this question, we need to first understand how Jewish
tradition views nature and man's interactions with the natural world. Jewish
tradition takes a very positivistic view of the natural world, stressing how
each progressive step in the creation of the natural world was "good" in the
eyes of G-d the Creator. After the creation of man, with his free will and his
1

ability to alter the creation, the Bible states that it was all "very good" in the
eyes of G-d. Jewish tradition posits that man was created in the "image of G-
2

d" to be a partner with G-d in mastering and perfecting himself and the
3

natural world, as the following sources indicate:

 The Bible commands man to "replenish the earth and subdue it and
have dominion over the fish of the seas and over the birds of the air
and over every living thing that moves on the earth," indicating that
4

man is commanded to have mastery over the natural world. The

twelfth century commentator Nachmanides writes that God gave man
the ability and the rulership over the earth to do according to man's
will with (all of the) animals, plants, and inanimate matter.
5

 In a midrashic story, Rabbi Akiva is challenged by the Roman general,

Turnus Rufus, to defend the Jewish practice of circumcision, the
apparent mutilation of a work of the Creator. Rabbi Akiva demonstrates
to Turnus Rufus through the comparison of kernels of "natural" wheat
with man-made bread, that the works of man, as finishing touches to
nature, are better than the unfinished works of the Creator. Man is
6

permitted, and sometimes commanded, to alter nature in order to

perfect the works of the Creator.

While Jewish tradition assigns man the G-d-given right and even obligation to
manipulate nature in order to bring benefit to man and the world, it also
recognizes that man, through inappropriate use of his free will, can
negatively interfere with the creation to the point of destroying himself and
the natural world, as is expressed in the following midrash:

When G-d created the first Man he took him and showed him all the trees of
the Garden of Eden and said to him "See my works, how beautiful and
praiseworthy they are. And everything that I created, I created it for you. Be
careful not to spoil or destroy my world -- for if you do, there will be nobody
after you to repair it. 7

G-d placed limits on man's activities to prevent man from negatively

interfering with or destroying the creation. These limitations are both in the
form of natural laws and in the form of religious laws. Examples of religious
laws are the seven Noahide laws for all of mankind and the additional
commandments to the Jewish people, such as "bal tashkhit" the prohibition
against needless waste or destruction.
Therefore, we see that from a Jewish perspective, the natural world as
created by G-d started out intrinsically "good." Man was created by G-d and
given the role of utilizing and perfecting the natural world, but within limits
that would prevent him from destroying it.

Jewish Legal Perspectives

Where does genetic engineering fit in with the Jewish perspective on man
and the natural world? Only recently has man learned how to circumvent the
natural laws in order to manipulate and transfer genetic material between
different species. The ethical implications of this newfound "freedom" will be
discussed later. First, we will discuss the Jewish religious laws that are
relevant to genetic engineering.

Genetic engineering can be divided into three main categories:

1. Genetic engineering of humans -- medical procedures which can save

and prolong human life, enhance the quality of human life, or
otherwise modify human characteristics.

2. Genetic engineering of animals -- procedures which can modify the

characteristics of animals to allow greater productivity, improved
nutrient content, increased disease resistance, and enhanced aesthetic
qualities.

3. Genetic engineering of plants -- procedures which can modify the

characteristics of plants to allow greater productivity, improved
nutrient content, increased resistance to diseases, pests, or pesticides,
and enhanced aesthetic qualities.

Genetic Engineering of Humans

Jewish law (halakhah) places supreme importance on pikuakh nefesh -- the

preservation of human life -- which overrides all other commandments in the
Torah except for murder, idolatry, or adultery. Therefore, the utilization of
8

genetic engineering on humans in order to save or prolong human life is

certainly permitted and may be required as long as the likely effectiveness of
the procedure would justify the risks involved. Examples of this include
procedures to remove, repair, or deactivate genetic defects; and procedures
to increase resistance to disease or other stress. The usage of genetic
engineering and, moreover, the usage of cloning on humans raises many
ethical issues, particularly when this is done for non-life-preserving motives.
These issues are very complex and are beyond the scope of this essay. 9

Genetic Engineering of Animals and Plants

Genetic engineering of animals and plants in order to save or prolong human

life would certainly be permitted, if not required, by halakhah. Examples of
this may include genetically modified foods that increase the quality and
quantity of the food supply, and genetically modified organisms that can
clean up spills of hazardous wastes. On the other hand, some expressions of
genetic engineering may threaten human life and health. Procedures which
create a significant risk to human life and health -- either directly or indirectly
through their effect on the environment -- may be prohibited by halakhah.

Aside from the above considerations, the two areas of halakhah most
relevant to genetic engineering of animals and plants are kashrut (prohibited
foods) and kilayim (prohibition of mixing different species of animals and
plants). Relative to genetic engineering, these laws are only concerned with
the transference of genetic material across species boundaries, not within
the same species.

Kashrut

The kashrut laws delineate between species of animals which Jews are
permitted to eat and those which are not permitted (all plants are
10

considered kosher). When genetic material from non-kosher species of

animals are mixed with kosher species of animals or with plants, does this
render the receptor non-kosher? Most rabbinic authorities consider genetic
material that is separated from or synthesized from the parent organism to
be essentially "inert," in other words, independent of the defining
characteristics of the parent organism. Rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron, Chief
Sephardic Rabbi of Israel, points out that, generally speaking, the genetic
material that is transferred from non-kosher species is not considered "food,"
has no taste, and is of negligible quantity relative to the permitted host
species -- all important factors negating the effects of the transferred
11

material. According to most authorities, genetic material from non-kosher

species is not itself non-kosher and does not render the new host organism
non-kosher.

Another aspect of genetic engineering that relates to the kashrut laws

involves changes to physical characteristics that are used to indicate the
kosher status of certain mammals and marine animals. For example, only
mammals that have split hooves and chew their cuds and only marine
animals possessing both fins and scales are kosher. What if a non-kosher
mammal such as a pig, which has split hooves, is genetically engineered to
chew its cud? What if a catfish, which has no scales, is genetically
engineered to grow scales? Both Rabbi S.R. Auerbach and Rabbi Bakshi-
Doron discuss these complicated issues in their halakhic responsa. 12

Kilayim

The biblical prohibition of kilayim, which forbids the mixing of different

species of animals and plants, appears in Leviticus 19:19: "You shall keep my
statutes. You shall not let your animal mate with a different species; you
shall not sow your field with different species of plants." The prohibition of
kilayim, in general, applies only to the act of mixing different species and
does not forbid deriving benefit from the products of this mixing (except for
the prohibition on intermixing grapes with certain plant species where it is
forbidden to derive benefit from the product as well). Furthermore, according
to almost all rabbinic authorities, the prohibition of kilayim applies only to
Jews and not to non-Jews.

Most rabbinic authorities rule that the prohibition of kilayim is restricted to

the specific acts of interbreeding spelled out in Leviticus 19:19. Therefore,
the non-sexual transfer of genetic material between different species of
animals or between animals and plants is not within the legal bounds of the
prohibition. The transfer of genetic material between different species of
plants is less clear, and there is some disagreement among rabbinic
authorities as to the permissibility of performing certain types of genetic
engineering on plants. Many halakhic authorities take the position that there
is no prohibition of kilayim in the genetic engineering of plants unless the
material being transferred from one species to another has the ability, if
planted in the ground, to grow a complete plant on its own -- and this is
seldom the case with genetic engineering.

E. Goldshmidt and A. Maoz, on the other hand, state that whereas in

13

interbreeding of animals only the procreative act itself is forbidden, and

therefore the non-sexual transfer of genetic material is permitted, some
forms of transgenic engineering of plants may present a halakhic problem.
Goldshmidt and Maoz cite Rabbi Avraham Karelitz and Rabbi S.Z. Auerbach,
two major halakhic authorities of the twentieth century. According to Rabbi
Karelitz, the transference of plant juices from one species of plant to another
can be considered kilayim if the juices have the ability to cause new growth
of the donor species in the receptor. Rabbi Auerbach similarly writes,
14
Whereas (genetic engineering) in animals...does not involve any prohibition
of interbreeding, since the mixing is done only by means of the transfer of
"material" from one species into another species of animal, regarding the
grafting of trees it appears to be forbidden even if the mixing is done only by
means of the injection of plant juices, which if planted in the ground would
not sprout on its own; nevertheless, in the end the field is sown with two
species.15

It should be noted that the genetic material from a donor species can be
synthesized in the laboratory, which would probably avoid
any halakhicproblems cited above.

Another halakhic factor often introduced into the discussion on genetic

engineering is the general principle that a prohibited substance has
no halakhic consequence unless it can be seen with the unaided human eye
or it causes a discernable effect. Since the transferred genetic material is
only visible on a microscopic level, and since the effects are often not visible,
some claim that this removes it from legal prohibition. Here, again, we find
rabbinic disagreement. Rabbi S.Z. Auerbach writes that this exclusion does
not apply in the case of genetic engineering since it is specifically this
genetic material, however small, that we are interested in working with. 16

In general, the Jewish legal decisors take a lenient position on genetic

engineering. This is consistent with the general principle that anything not
explicitly prohibited in the Bible and Talmud is assumed to be permitted. In
the words of the early nineteenth century commentator Rabbi Yisrael
Lifshutz, "Anything which we have no reason to prohibit is permitted, without
having to find a reason for its permissibility. For the Torah does not mention
every permissible thing, but rather only those things which are
forbidden." Rabbi Dr. Avraham Steinberg likewise writes, "As long as the act
17

of perfecting the world does not violate halakhic prohibitions, or lead to

results which would be halakhically prohibited, then we are given a mandate
to use science and technology to improve the world." 18

Jewish Ethical Perspectives

Jewish ethical perspectives on genetic engineering are less clear than the
legal perspectives. Genetic engineering crosses G-d-created boundaries that
were until recently closed to mankind. Judaism gives man the ethical right to
manipulate and change the natural world, but all of man's actions must bring
the world closer to perfection and not further away. There is still a great deal
of uncertainty as to the effects (spiritual as well as physical) of genetic
engineering on man and his environment, particularly in the long term. The
extreme importance placed on the preservation of human life may require us
to cross these boundaries. The ethical permissibility of genetic engineering
for non-human-life-preserving (NHLP) purposes is less clear.

Does genetic engineering in NHLP situations violate the "spirit of the law"
against mixing different species even if it does not violate the letter of the
law? There is disagreement among the sages as to whether the rationale
behind the laws against interbreeding are within the realm of human
comprehension or not. The classical commentator Rashi writes that
as hukim, these laws are "decrees of the King" and are beyond any human
19

comprehension. If we cannot understand the reasons for these prohibitions,

then perhaps the ethical scope of these laws can be limited to the specific
cases given in the Torah, just as the legal scope was limited in the discussion
above. Nachmanides, on the other hand, believes that humans are capable
of understanding, at least partially, the reasons for these laws. Nachmanides
writes that one who mixes two different species is "changing and denying the
Divine Creation of the world," a sin that may well go beyond the scope of
20

the halakhic prohibition given in the Torah.

Supporters of Nachmanides' position include the thirteenth century author

of Sefer HaHinukh who writes on the prohibition of mixing species: "and all
that G-d did is intended for the perfection of that which is needed in His
world...and the species should not be mixed, lest it detract from the
perfection and there will not be (G-d's) blessing." The eighteenth century
21

German Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch writes in his commentary on the Bible:

[T]he Torah must consider this law (against mixing different species) which
G-d implanted in the organic world of nature to be of the very highest
importance for our human and Jewish calling, for it has interwoven
consideration of it (the prohibition of mixing different species) in the whole of
our life. Not only does it forbid us actual interference with this law by the
prohibition of interbreeding animals and grafting trees, the unnatural
crossing of species of plants and animals which are of different species in
nature, but in our whole association with the organic world -- in sowing and
planting, in the use of animals for work, in using materials obtained from
animal and vegetable sources for our clothes, and in the food we eat....It
teaches us to keep such order that brings to our minds again and again the
great law of "keeping species separate," and its greater Lawgiver. 22

Rabbi Levi Yitzchak Halperin, a contemporary rabbinic judge and Director of

the Institute for Sci- ence and Halakhah, believes that, aside from cases
where the Torah would clearly permit genetic engineering -- for the
preservation of human life and for enabling human procreation (for example,
fertility treatments) -- we should refrain from genetic engineering. While
acknowledging that NHLP genetic engineering is permitted by Jewish law,
Rabbi Halperin is concerned that we do not sufficiently understand what we
are doing when we mix genetic material of different species and we could be
causing unforeseeable damage to the good world that God created for us. 23

Most contemporary Jewish authorities (rabbinic and otherwise) take a

permissive but cautious position on NHLP genetic engineering. None of the
major Jewish authorities have expressed blanket opposition to NHLP genetic
engineering on either legal or ethical grounds. Rabbi Dr. Avraham Steinberg,
an expert in Jewish medical ethics, believes that we should proceed with
NHLP genetic engineering as long as we believe that the benefits to man
outweigh the risks. 24

Aside from the question of violating the spirit of the law against mixing
different species, NHLP genetic engineering raises many other ethical
and halakhic issues which require further research and discussion. For
example:

 How are we to determine which purposes justify the potential risks of

genetic engineering, and what degree of certainty regarding the
benefits and risks of genetic engineering are required in order to
permit it on an ethical basis?

 What if there is a reasonable certainty that a new genetically-modified

(GM) food will harm a small number of people, but that it will also
benefit a greater number of people? Related to this is the question of
whether food manufacturers should be required to list all GM
ingredients on their products -- as is currently done in Europe but not in
the U.S.

 What if a new product may cause irreparable damage to certain plants

or animals in the ecosystem in which it is released, but will also
produce less expensive food, which will benefit consumers?

Conclusions

Judaism posits that the natural world, as created by G-d, started out as
intrinsically good. Man was given the mandate to perfect himself and the
natural world as a partner with the Creator. To fulfill his task, man may
manipulate the creation, but only within certain limitations -- these being
defined by the natural and religious laws given by the Creator. The defining
ethical criteria is that all of the legally permitted actions must bring the world
closer to perfection and not further away. Genetic engineering is still a new
technology with great promise and, some claim, significant risk to mankind.
For the sake of preserving and enhancing human life, genetic engineering is
generally encouraged by Jewish authorities, although there are reservations,
and there are ethical issues in the genetic engineering of humans which are
not covered in this article. Aside from situations where human life or health is
at stake, the majority of rabbinic authorities rule that most forms of genetic
engineering on animals and plants do not violate Jewish religious laws. There
is disagreement as to the ethical permissibility of NHLP genetic engineering,
although there seems to be little or no official objection. As genetic
engineering continues to advance and spread, there is a great need for
further research and discussion among Jewish authorities in order to address
the halakhic and ethical issues.

Author's Note: This article presents some general principles of Jewish law and
ethics. For specific questions and direct application, please consult a
qualified expert.

Israeli law permits the development and growth of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for research purposes in
accordance with requirements established by subsidiary legislation. Although GMO growth is not permitted for
commercial purposes, GMO products may be imported, sold, and used in the production of food and
pharmaceuticals in Israel. While Israeli scientists usually support the development of GMOs, environmental
activists have expressed concerns regarding what they see as potential harm resulting from their use. Israel’s
religious kashrut authority has determined that the use of GMO ingredients in food does not affect its kosher status
because GMOs are only used in “microscopic” proportions. This determination has been contested by some Jewish
groups in Israel and the United States. All new food, including food that was genetically engineered, goes through
a risk assessment process before being approved. Such assessment includes an evaluation of aspects related to its
safety, nutrition, and consumption. To date, legislation specifically regulating the labeling of GMO components in
food does not appear to have been passed.
I. Introduction
Israel is considered “an international center for studying genetically modified organisms.”[1] Research involving
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) concentrates on the development of seeds and is conducted in Israeli
universities, in government research institutions,[2] and by the private sector.[3] Funding for GMO research and
testing in Israel derives from Israeli and foreign sources, including the United States.[4]
Israeli subsidiary legislation defines a GMO as “[a]n organism, including a microorganism, virus, viroid, and any
single-celled or multi-celled entity, that has undergone a modification by genetic engineering and is involved with
plants in any way during its life cycle.”[5] A commentator has noted that while GMO research in Israel has focused
on “developing and improving plants’ resistance to pests, diseases, and herbicides[,] . . . the research can only
reach the ‘proof of concept’ stage, because of regulations.”[6]
Accordingly, although the growth of GMOs is generally permitted in Israel for research purposes, subject to
conditions enumerated by law, it is not authorized for commercial purposes.[7] Ingredients derived from GMOs
may, however, be imported, sold, and used in the production of food in Israel. [8] GMO products are also “widely
used in the pharmaceutical industry”[9] in Israel. There are currently no requirements for the labeling of GMOs in
Israel.[10]
Back to Top
II. Public and Scholarly Opinion
A. Government Policies
In a December 2011 hearing of the 18th Knesset (Israel’s Parliament) Science and Technology Committee, experts
testified in favor of research and development (R&D) involving genetic engineering in agriculture. Projecting a rise
in global population and food shortages, Professor Yoram Kapolnik, head of agricultural research at the Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), testified on the need for Israel to prepare for 2050, by which time he
expects central food components to be depleted.[11] Professor Amnon Lars, a researcher at the Agriculture
Research Organization’s Volcani Center,[12] also testified that genetic engineering proposed alternatives to the use
of pesticides by developing vegetables that would be resistant to various viruses.[13]
The hearing concluded with a call by Ronit Tirosh, the Committee’s Chair, to remove “the stigmas regarding the low
level of safety [associated with] genetically engineered products; because it was proved that they are
unjustified.”[14] Calling on MARD to allocate funding “for marketing and for educating the public” on this issue, Ms.
Tirosh stressed the need for closer cooperation between the Ministry of Health and MARD’s research institutions.
Such cooperation is necessary, she stated, “so that regulations and directives that are issued by the Ministry of
Health will be considered in connection with every research project that is conducted, when the goal at the
completion of the research is to open the products for wide distribution and trade.” [15] Ms. Tirosh called for the
introduction of a bill that would regulate the labeling of genetically engineered products and increase the number of
inspectors to ensure compliance with quality standards.[16]
A search for legislative developments since the December 2011 hearing has disclosed an amendment delaying the
enforcement date of the Public Health (Food) (Nutritional Labeling) (Amendment) 5771-2011 Regulations to January
31, 2014. The text of these regulations, however, does not include reference to the labeling of GMO products.[17]
The absence of labeling requirements for GMO food components was criticized at a hearing conducted by the
Knesset Committee for Labor, Welfare and Health on July 3, 2013.[18]
B. Public Environmental Concerns
Environmental activists have expressed concerns regarding the quality and the potential harm that they believe
would result from the use of GMOs. Activists argue that “GM seeds produce sterile crops, so cross-pollination with
wild plants could bring rapid extinction to those wild varieties. . . . GM plants are very weak and ‘spoiled’.”[19]
They have also expressed concerns about the long-term ecological effects of GMOs breeding with other plants.[20]
Israeli scientists, however, have generally support the development of GMOs.[21] According to Professor Gad Galili
of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, the development of genetically engineered crops can address “the
global shortage of staple foods.” In response to concerns regarding the long-term impact of GMO use he opined
that
[a]lthough scientists do not know the long-term effects of genetically modified organisms’ consumption . . . they
were safer than conventionally interbred ones because scientists had full control over all the variables in the gene
transfer. As for the risk of contamination . . . [i]f you put a virus into GMO, it will spread. But we safeguard it, there
are expert committees that approve GMO, and one thing is certain: If someone wanted to insert a virus genome, or
there was a contamination risk, it would not be approved.[22]
C. Religious Concerns
Concerns have been raised both in Israel and among Jewish communities around the world[23] regarding whether
products that include GMO components are Kosher and thus fulfill strict Jewish dietary standards. The Epoch
Times has reported that
[t]he religious kashrut authority [which certifies products as Kosher] in Israel had ruled that genetic engineering
“does not affect kosher status” because genetic material is “microscopic.” But there are Jewish groups that dispute
this decision and consider GMOs a violation of the biblical prohibition against “kilayim,” mixed breeding both in
crops and in livestock. Those believing GM products cannot be labeled kosher quote the well-respected 13th
century Kabbalist Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman (known as “the Ramban”), who said mankind should not disturb the
fundamental nature of creation.[24]
In the United States, the Natural Food Certifiers (NFC) Organization, announced that its Apple K Kosher Certification
Program would no longer accept applications for products that contain GMOs.[25]
According to a press release issued by the NFC:

While according to the strict letter of Kosher food law a GMO food ingredient is not prohibited, in our view it is not
natural. Additionally, there is a Torah (religious)-based law to ‘guard your health’. GMOs are the number-one
growing concern among health-conscious consumers and for businesses in the natural and organic food market, as
well as in the conventional food industry. . . .”[26]
Back to Top
III. Structure of Pertinent Legislation
Israeli law currently does not include any primary legislation on GMOs. Responsibilities for GMO research,
development, and use are shared by MARD and the Ministry of Health in accordance with regulations established by
these ministries based on their respective authorities.

A. Regulation of GMO Research

The Seed Regulations (Genetically Modified Plants and Organisms) 5765– 2005[27] were issued in 2005 by the
Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development based on general authorities provided under the Seeds Law, 5716-
1956,[28] and the Plant Protection Law, 5716-1956.[29]
MARD oversees all experimentation with transgenic plants and organisms that are involved in the life cycle of plants
in accordance with the regulations. In addition, MARD handles the importation and exportation, handling and
commercialization of genetically modified propagation material.[30]
MARD’s activities in these areas are managed by the following bodies:

1. The Plant Protection and Inspection Service (PPIS);

2. The National Committee for Transgenic Plants (NCTP); and

3. The Authorized Institutional Representative.[31]

B. Regulation of GMO Use in Food
According to information posted on the Ministry of Health website,
 [l]egislation regulating the rules regarding new food, including genetically engineered food and its labeling, is going
through the final legislative steps. Every new food (including food that was genetically engineered) before being
approved goes through risk assessment that includes aspects related to its safety, nutrition and consumption …
With the entry into force of the new food regulations a labeling requirement will apply to genetically engineered
food components, in addition to the safety assessment that has been done until now.[32]
Legislation specifically regulating labeling of GMO components in food does not appear to have been passed to
date.

Back to Top
IV. Restrictions on Research, Production, and Marketing
A. Rules for Authorizing Research and for Research Laboratories
The Seed Regulations prohibit any experimentation with plants that have undergone a change by means of genetic
modification without a permit issued by the Director of the PPIS.[33] The regulations authorize the Director to grant
experiment permits and to stipulate conditions and restrictions for their issue; including conditions for destroying
plant material, organisms or regulated articles used during the experiment and requiring that testing be conducted
in laboratories that have been approved by the Director. The Director may refuse to issue a permit for experiments
that are to be carried out in a

 (1) Containment facility, unless the applicant had proven that the containment facility is appropriate
for its function and that all necessary means have been taken to prevent all risk to humans, animals and
to plants; and to prevent unacceptable negative impacts on the environment;

 (2) Field trial only, after consultation with the National Committee for Transgenic Plants.[34]
The regulations authorize the Director to exempt applicants from needing to obtain an experiment permit if he or
she is satisfied that the experiment will be conducted in a laboratory equipped with an autoclave facility and its
operator and safety officer have ensured that “all experiment residues are destroyed in an incinerator or sterilized
with material that the Director has approved.”[35]
B. Marketing Rules
The sale of transgenic plants requires permission from the Director in consultation with the NCTP and compliance
with all the conditions enumerated in the experiment permit.[36] The sale or export of transgenic propagation
material or organism similarly requires a valid registration certificate or an approved label.[37]
The regulations require an applicant who requests authorization to sell transgenic propagation material or
transgenic organisms to submit a registration application that includes the following information:

 (1) A description of the genetic modification and its characteristics, including complete data pertaining to
the effects and potential effects on humans, animals, plants and the environment;
 (2) Scientific publications on the results of experiments with the transgenic propagation material or the
transgenic organism and their international use, including approved labels and translations to Hebrew (excluding
English);
 (3) A report of the results of experiments with transgenic propagation material or the transgenic organism
under local conditions and the proposed utilization of the material;
 (4) Examples of proposed labels for transgenic propagation material as regulated for in the Seed Law, with
the addition of the words “Genetically Modified Material”;
 (5) For transgenic organisms – the words “Genetically Modified Material” must appear on the label;
 (6) Imported transgenic propagation material or imported transgenic organisms – Import permit;
 (7) Additional information as may be required by the Director, including a testing laboratory approved by
him.[38]
The Director is authorized to reject, restrict, or cancel a registration of transgenic propagation material or organisms
for sale based on evidence that the plant material or organism may endanger plants, humans, or animals or have
unacceptable negative impacts on the environment, or based on noncompliance with labeling requirements that
have been authorized by the Director or deviation from the trait description that has been supplied at the time of
registration application.[39]
C. Labeling Requirements for Distributed Products
As discussed above, labeling requirements apply to the marketing of transgenic plants, propagation material, and
organisms. Labeling requirements for distribution of processed food products containing GMO components do not
apply at this time.

D. Agencies Involved in Implementation

 According to the regulations, the role of the NCTP is to advise the Director, in accordance with the instructions
prescribed by the regulations, and “to determine if genetically modified plants or organisms or their sale, pose any
risk to humans or animals or have unacceptable negative impacts on the environment.”[40]
The thirteen committee members are appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and include
the following persons:

 (1) Two representatives from the Ministry; one of whom will act as chairman of the committee, and the
second as deputy chairman;
 (2) One representative from a list submitted by the Minister of the Environment;
 (3) One representative from a list submitted by the Minister of Health;
 (4) One representative from a list submitted by the Minister for Science, Culture and Sport;
 (5) Eight representatives of the public from among the scientific and research community who have
backgrounds in life sciences, nature or environmental protection, and from seed producers and variety
breeders. [41