It’s Okay to Engineer Genes. Just not okay to release them into the food supply.
I noticed the FDA had a post on their site about how great it was that they approved the world’s first recombinant DNA product 25 years ago. It was human insulin. The FDA points out that artificial human insulin, created by genetic engineering, has proven to be identical to real human insulin, and has saved many lives.
The FDA points out that scientists were at first concerned about this intervention into nature, but have studied the question intently, concluding scientifically that there is no difference between genetically engineered products and the products of nature. The FDA emphasized how seriously they and all the scientists convened took this question. However, the FDA says, after very intense scrutiny, the question of whether genetic engineering is safe was put to rest. And, says FDA’s Division Director Dr. Sol Sobel, he “can’t imagine producing a new therapeutic protein by any other means.”
So the FDA has weighed in. Genetic engineering is a fine way to produce . . . anything. Fish, for example. Insulin, replacement organs, corn, soy, canola, alfalfa, beets. All good.
But here’s the difference, in my mind. The food supply is not like the organs of a human body in a number of important ways.
- Human beings don’t reproduce as quickly as plants.
- Nobody eats human beings.
- Weeds don’t concern themselves with people. Although viruses do, so if we all got a genetically engineered organ, it could become a problem.
- Being exactly like plant mutations, genetically modified plants behave exactly like plants. That means: they interact with the ecosystem in a big way.
Plants speedily adapt, mutate, and evolve. People are a lot slower with that.
So when Monsanto’s GMO corn loses its ability to kill worms, we get super-worms. But nature didn’t make Monsanto’s GMO corn, so the ecosystem isn’t well on its way to compensate for this. What happens? Monsanto makes Super-Super-GMO corn. The farmers all have to buy new seeds, and the chemical agriculture has to “stay ahead” of evolution.
This means farming stops existing without a great big pile of scientific research, funded by a company that has a history of introducing chemicals that turn out to be detrimental to human health. But all the chemicals introduced are at first heralded as great innovations, until 30, 40, and 50 years later, when we discover they kill and sicken people.
Doesn’t it sound like there is something wrong with this basic premise: that it’s okay to risk the future of farming and food on the domination of a chemical company?
So you see, it’s not just the worry about the science of genetic engineering. Human insulin is okay with me. Artificial human organs sound reasonable to me. Drugs that save children sound good to me. Even Golden Rice might be okay, if there are no strings attached.
But turning the future of farming over to a chemical company with the history of introducing DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange, rBGH, saccharin, and aspartame?
That sounds outright nuts. And Howard Buffett, son of Warren, seems to recognize that all is not well in the land of GMO.
http://www.kenyaimagine.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&task=tag&category=Howard+Buffett&Itemid=115
