I don`t actually have a stance on the whole genetic modification (GM) debate. I`m pleased that, in the UK, products that contain GM foods have to carry a warning, but having been alerted to the fact, I`m not sure in which direction this information should send me. Would I be inclined to avoid the GM foods, or would I eat them, gauging their texture and shape for subtle improvements over their non-modified cousins? Would I then be plunged into paranoia as I assessed my body for strange growths, passed on in some way from the fiddled lentils I had been imbibing?
I thought that humans, like fruit, just kind of withered and sagged after too many years of exposure to the elements.
Georgina Guedes, Journalist, ITWeb
While there is no concrete proof so far that GM foods are bad for you, I know there are lots of arguments against making farmers dependent on American-produced seed to remain competitive in a global market. I also think that "organically grown" has a nice ring to it, and psychological conditioning has definitely got me believing that it is in my best interests to serve lasagne made from vegetables from my own back yard.
But, at the same time, I can see the benefit in creating maize and wheat that can grow in adverse conditions and feed a starving continent. And if the ears of wheat have been altered to contain more nutrients and to mature in two months instead of six, all the better.
However, genetically modifying vegetables hasn`t quite got the same sense of hocus-pocus to it as do the recent announcements from a couple of laboratories. The first is that some lady scientist somewhere has managed to isolate the gene for aging. When I read that on New Scientist, my first reaction was to be astonished that there was a gene for such a thing. I thought that humans, like fruit, just kind of withered and sagged after too many years of exposure to the elements. That seemed to make sense to me.
Apparently not. The slow release of an enzyme or hormone or some such thing actually causes deterioration at a cellular level. What was significant about this finding was that the woman who did all the research was doing it in the face of much scepticism from the scientific community, which tended to think the same way I did.
Trust a woman to find the cause of aging and then devote her life to finding a way to reverse it. By cropping the gene in lab rats, she has managed to double their lifespan. I must confess to being pleased about the possibilities that this opens up.
The second announcement, and one that has conservationists up in arms, is that zebra fish that have been genetically modified to glow red in the presence of water pollutants are now for sale at Taiwan pet shops. While the fish served a purpose as detectors of pollution, conservationists are worried that as novelty pets, they may be released into the wild, where they will wreak havoc with the natural order they are so hell-bent on upholding. What I want to know is, as the owner of a pet glowfish, would I be required to pump gloopy pollutants into my tropical tank in an effort to keep the little guys radiating?
While the debate rages on, I have to confess that I don`t think that I will be able to eschew the potential benefits that GM technology will bring in the future. If all goes well, I know where I`ll be in 150 years. I`ll be 175 years old, feeding pollutants to my glowing red fish.
Share
