The New York Times Science section has an interesting article on gene splicing in foods. I'm conflicted on where to stand on the issue of genetically modified foods. On the one hand, ya gotta hate Monsanto for creating suicide seeds that die after one generation and force farmers into serfdom with the big agribusiness companies. On the other hand, gene spliced foods are progress and progress always scares people.
In Lords of the Harvest, the biotech scientists working in genetic modification said they felt like they were the ecological good guys, trying to save our crops and soil from chemical pollution using innovative genetic techniques. And sure, it's creepy to think that some Dr. Frankenstein is splicing bug genes into a plant as a form of internalized pesticide, but let's think about agriculture here.
People are always touchy when it comes to the food they eat, and they should be, but I used to get these customers at the Greenmarket who would be like, "Is this corn GENETICALLY MODIFIED? You don't know?! How dare you ask me to feed this to my BABY!" But agriculture in and of itself is an act that messes with nature. Hybridization, a form of manual genetic selection, brought us the orange carrot -- the first carrot humans learned to eat were actually purple. Citrus trees don't grow from seed -- they require grafting onto a scion which would otherwise produce inedible fruit.
So what is the difference between agricultural techniques we've developed over centuries and genetic splicing? Technology. When it's a little farmer planting his white corn and his blue corn on opposite ends of the quaint little field so the kernels all come out one color per cob, it's charming. When it's a Ph.D scientist in a white lab coat with microscopes and genome sequences, it's Frankenstein. But let's not kid ourselves people: both the farmer and the scientist are "playing God" -- that is, creating what would otherwise not naturally exist.
The question is, where do we draw the line? Is it acceptable to have animal genes in food products? That still creeps me out and it doesn't really seem like a good idea because, as they point out in the article, natural fertilization produces far freakier genetic combos and a mutated mosquito corn just doesn't seem like something I want to have to deal with at a Saturday afternoon barbecue.
Of course I don't believe all progress is good progress. But I'm not totally convinced that genetic modification is the completely big bad evil people make it out to be. I believe the big bad evil in our society, not just in food but in EVERYTHING, is big business. And to combat big agribusiness and the phasing out of variety in our food supply, I believe in paying premium prices to support small farmers who can produce small batches of heirloom crops which require more care but just taste better. As long as the demand exists and grows, so will those precious plants.
I want to read the book they reference, The Frankenfood Myth. When I get around to it, we shall return to the subject.
Leave a comment