It’s hard to oppose technology and scientific advancements when I relish in so many of their benefits. Progression in medicine, food production and lifestyles (most notably, the Internet) have all contributed to the betterment of society, and lengthened our life spans.
But how much further can we go? When you’re out to dinner and your server brings you a hearty plate of cloned beef, with a side of potatoes injected with wax moth genes and tomatoes crossed with flounder genes, do you ever question how far is too far? This situation may soon be reality as the concept of Genetically Modified Foods is taking prevalence.
The newest experiment scientists in GMF is cloned beef. Scientists take the DNA from a prized bull or dairy cow, send it to a lab, insert it into a hollowed-out egg and after electrical shock prompts the egg to grow, (slightly reminiscent of Frankenstein, anyone?). All offspring will now carry the same “superstar” DNA.
The motivation behind this experiment is to increase beef consumption. According to Business-Week.com, the past three decades have shown a 27 percent decrease in beef consumption, due perhaps to a mistrust in beef among consumers. Unless people know they’re getting a good piece of beef, they’re hesitant to buy it. Therefore, only cloning beef with the most desirable traits guarantees consumers a gorgeous piece of meat. They will have successfully cloned a superior cow race and met the demands of the consumers – cows with top quality beef.
It seems a little freaky and unnecessary. Cloned beef only addresses the issue that perhaps all cows don’t taste “gorgeous” because they’re pumped full of hormones and drugs, and lived in shoddy, revolting environments. However, that’s somehow overlooked.
But the explanation for this beef cloning, and for GMFs alike is to impede the heavy reliance on Earth’s already exhausted resources. We have become so “advanced,” yet so far from natural that we no longer depend on Mother Nature to produce our necessities – for creation can occur in a lab. And there’s the justification that when our food supply can’t sustain our ever-exploding population, panic will be unnecessary. We’ll have the technology to manage.
Now this sounds good in theory, but I feel money is the only driving force behind it. None of the experiments conducted have been for anything more than increasing sales. I’m not opposed to progress, but I find it wrong for scientists to genetically manipulate our food for economic profit.
Scientists are crossing wax moth genes with potatoes to minimize potato bruising. Pigs are being crossed with human genes to create leaner meat and tomatoes are being injected with flounder genes to increase their tolerance to cold weather, thus increasing yields and bringing in more dinero.
Yes, it may have good intentions, but it comes at the cost of our view of humanity. Treating animals and nature as nothing more than “patented inventions” shows a complete arrogance for the beauty and wonder of the natural order. We’re treating nature as a base ground for us to come in and perfect – like we can simply rearrange nature to our proclivity. We can take imperfect species, and by a little alteration here, and a little gene adjustment there, we can create perfection. Gone will be the days of diversity and variety.
And moral issues aside, is this even safe? Despite the Dec. 28 FDA report saying cloned beef was safe for consumption, people are still hesitant to take the plunge. And why shouldn’t they? It took years before the Surgeon General informed us that cigarette smoking was harmful, and we used to believe that DDT and Vioxx were safe! Bottom line: Despite FDA approval, it’s still too early to tell. Only a few years have passed since the dawn of GMFs, and to assess its safety in such a short period is unreliable. Essentially, this is a new experiment, and we are the test subjects, which leads me to another frightened aspect, the alarming secrecy behind it all: Big producers of GMF’s don’t want FDA to mandate special labeling, for fear that consumers might prefer a non-modified alternatives. Viola, no special labeling required. So who knows what you’ll be eating today and for years to come? I think at the very least, the public should have a say in deciding to be part of the experiment.
Why do we think we can reduce animals and nature to franchised creations? For generations to come, the psychology will be that animals and life forms alike should be manipulated for a profit. We’ll have no respect for the natural order of the world, the way hundreds and hundreds of years of evolution has planned it. Nature will be thought of as a starting point for what we can improve, so we can create superior alternatives.
I guess the idea of a natural life has vanished, dissipated into a world where our meat is cloned and grown in a lab, and fruits and vegetables have been designed into a perfected blueprint. Life will have been reduced to alterations of genetic codes and our food will owe more to Father Science than to Mother Nature.
Celine Dilfer is a senior communications major.
