Thoughts I've thunk while sippin' at a cup of tea and reading something provoking, often get dropped here for the benefit of humanity and my own hubris.
Except where otherwise noted, all original content is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.
See details.
I'm not sure if you were able to catch the PBS broadcast of Harvest of Fear (a special produced by Nova and FrontLine), but it got me thinking as much as it probably did you.
I'm not going to rehash the entire argument and give all the background details enough for anyone to make an informed decision, however, go to the PBS web site and read the debates both for and against the use of genetically modified organisms, e.g. food.
The concept is simple. You take the desirable genes of one organism and introduce them into the genes of another organism. For instance, rice is eaten the world over, but many of the people that eat rice, do not eat enough Vitamin A. So, one engineer crossed it with the vitamin A producing genes of the daffodil to make a vitamin A enriched rice.
While this seems really strange, keep in mind that we've been doing this for thousands of years ... this is how we have develop timid cows out of wild buffalo (actually Aurochs) as well as strange mutants like Sydney. It is just that now we can join the genes of any two species... for instance, adding the "antifreeze" capabilities from certain fish into strawberries so that they don't freeze in the winter.
This last example shows how weird things can become... and this is where the controversy originates. Adding vitamins and disease-resistant abilities to food sound great, but the long-term effect on our health and the environment is not clear.
Few people realize that they have already been eating GMOs ... they have been released for public consumption for over 5 years. Here lies the root of what many think is the solution ... labeling.
It is well known that I am allergic to dairy products (and granted, this does fit within my moral convictions as well). However, adding a bovine milk gene into corn flakes may not bother most people (hey, it all comes in one package!), it isn't a good blend for me.
Also, biotechnology is a young science, and the tests so far have not conclusively proven their safety. So, while I would like to continue research in this area, I would also like standardized labeling so that I can choose (and track) what I consume. I don't necessarily want a big red flag that states "GMOs Inside" … I want details, but details that I can understand. For instance, if there is fish in the strawberry, just let me know.
I am not sure what the right answer is, but discussion is a start, and caution with openness seems like the only clear answer at this time.
© 2001-2005, Howard Abrams • Except where otherwise noted, all original content is licensed under a Creative Commons License (see details).
But is a fish gene a fish? How far do you have to break things down before they become independent of their source, e.g., a water molecule from a plant vs. a water molecule from a fish? (or Phish, as we all know Howard readily consumes).
On a completely different yet eerily similar tack, most folks aren’t aware that a certain amount of insect (and mammal) parts and feces are permissible in most grains that go into making the food we eat everyday, like those corn flakes and that soy milk. It is simply not realistic to mass produce consumables (consumptables?) without these by-products.
Would anybody eat this stuff if it was labeled as such? Perhaps this is not the point. But I had 2 pints at lunch, and I’m in that kinda mood. Cheers, Kathee
Comment posted on Saturday, 6 July 2002Howard, you need a real job. Not that I have one myself mind you, but this kind of thoughtful, reasoned output just shows that you are not nearly stressed enough.
My favorite GMO trick is cross pollenization. I plant GMO corn in my field and its pollen fertilizes the straight corn in your field. You try to sell your corn as non GMO, but DNA testing shows it to be a lab mutant. Not only can’t you sell it, but Monsanto sues you for patent infringement (or copyright violation?).
Of course, not all of the pollen lands on your neighbors fields. Quite a bit of it flys up into the atmosphere where it circulates around awhile and lands in far away lands to, perhaps, fertilize some Chinese corn crop. (Those damn Chinese. They steal all our patents!)
So, we have already contaminated the biosphere with artificially mutant pollen (that kills butterflys according to one report) that’s going to be around for awhile (remember all those paleobotanists analyzing pollen spores in dino poop?), and its a pretty fair bet that there are mutant viruses loose in the biosphere causing tobacco plants in russia to ooze human growth hormone and what not.
Perhaps if a generalized gene splicing virus gets loose all speciation will collapse. Hey, wasn’t that sci fi plot? Ah yes, the 2nd-4th books in the Ender series by Orson Scott Card. Damn, I never have any original ideas.
Comment posted on Saturday, 6 July 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|