Posted by
Andrews on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 5:47:58 PM
One topic that annoys me more than most is the demand by some that food be labeled as "genetically engineered". If they were truly consistent, there would be scarely a single foodstuff that would not bear that label.
Of course, what they mean is "genetically engineered using certain science", not just "genetically engineered". After all, all corn is genetically engineered, it was selectively bred from an inch long predecessor to have larger ears, larger kernels, to survive in various environments, and so on. But selective breeding somehow does not get considered "genetic engineering."
It just makes no sense to me. Whether a scientist uses technology to splice together strands of DNA, or we spend generations selectively breeding for a trait, the result is the same. The DNA of the end product is not identifiable as "genetically engineered" or "selectively bred", it just looks like DNA.*
Of course, this anti-GMO campaign is not based on any actual science. It is simply the neo-luddites cashing in on public ignorance about science. The fears over GMO owe more to science fiction (and trial lawyer fantasies) than any real science. Just because a segment of genes were altered in a laboratory means nothing. It is the same as a change to genetics that results from mutation in nature, the type which are propagated by selective breeding.
We are not going to produce monsters or super germs accidentally by genetic engineering. Ask anyone who works with germs how hard it is to intentionally produce a stable, viable germ. To accidentally produce one while trying to create drought resistant soy is simply impossible. (As is the chance of accidentally producing a toxic foodstuff, rather than that intended.) It is akin to throwing a mass of bricks and having them form St. Peter's Basilica by accident. In genetic engineering, the results are either success or not viable; very, very rarely does a failure even manage to survive, much less produce something harmful. It just is not a realistic worry. At least, it is no more likely than a harmful result accidentally arising from selective breeding. So, if you oppose genetic engineering, you need to logically oppose farmer's managing of seed stocks as well, as they produce new strains with just as much chance of harm.
But, of course, the movements to have GMO food labeled will succeed. The neo-luddites always win on things such as this. We have silly laws labeling food "organic" and we will have labels saying "GMO". The fact that it is meaningless will stop no one. Politicians will do it for the votes, the trial lawyers will back it for the chance to sue those who do not adequately label, and the neo-luddites will win.
And yet another senseless scare will be born, and GMO food will join Alar, DDT, PCBs, and a host of other threats that were destined to kill mankind, yet somehow didn't.**
-----------------------------------------------
* This is akin to the "organic" foolishness that thinks nitrogen from cow urine is somehow different from nitrogen that has been separated from its original source. But elements are elements, and "natural" sources or "chemical" sources provide exactly the same chemicals.
** The fact that GMO foods have the potential to increase our food supply, reduce our use of water and pesticides, and host of other benefits is never mentioned. All we hear is that they are going to kill us all. Of course, this follows the DDT pattern, lots of talk bird populations, no mention of reducing malaria from millions of cases to hundreds.