Skip to main content
healthfactsandfears.com: When the media attempt to be "balanced" and present "both sides" on such an issue — even though one side has no demonstrated competence — it is understandable that the public errs on the side of avoiding what they see as a small possibility of harm. Modern techniques of genetic engineering sound a bit daring and even "unnatural" (whatever that means), so the anti-biotechnology zealots have been able to play on fears of unknown and unknowable future harm. Since no reputable scientist can give a 100% certain guarantee against all unforeseen harm, the ideologue is free to sow the seeds of fear with little substantive challenge.

Rather than lecturing people about the technology that has made their food crops possible, and how easily old technologies, too, could be made to sound scary were we not all by now familiar with it, I am trying an alternate strategy: asking people twenty questions — some of which may sound scary — that I hope will make them think more rationally about food safety. Try to answer honestly, as you would without looking at the answers:

Q1 - Would you favor mutation breeding using carcinogenic chemicals or gamma rays, or techniques such as altering the ploidy or chromosomal structure that allows the crossing of diploids and haploids?

A1 - Well, this practice has been carried out in agricultural breeding since the 1920s.

Q2 - Would you favor plant breeding tissue culture or somoclonal variation, creating a plant from a cell in a cultured medium?

A2 - It has been possible to do so since the late 1930s and has become increasingly important in plant breeding, particularly for disease resistance, since the late 1970s.

Q3 - If a breeding technique is used that produces sterile crosses for plants that would otherwise not be able to produce a viable embryo, would you favor a procedure called embryo rescue to remove an embryo before it would naturally abort and then growing it in a cultured medium?

A3 - It has been done for decades.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

New York Post Online Edition

news : "December 29, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - Startling new Army statistics show that strife-torn Baghdad - considered the most dangerous city in the world - now has a lower murder rate than New York. The newest numbers, released by the Army's 1st Infantry Division, reveal that over the past three months, murders and other crimes in Baghdad are decreasing dramatically and that in the month of October, there were fewer murders per capita there than the Big Apple, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. The Bush administration and outside experts are touting these new figures as a sign that, eight months after the fall of Saddam Hussein, major progress is starting to be made in the oft-criticized effort by the United States and coalition partners to restore order and rebuild Iraq. 'If these numbers are accurate, they show that the systems we put in place four months ago to develop a police force based on the principles of a free and democratic society are starting to
Forum: The fish that threatened national security : "At La Guardia we proceeded to security and the X-ray inspection point run by the Transportation Security Administration. I have learned by now that, post-9/11, a traveler is better off safe than sorry when proceeding through security. I wasn't prepared, however, for the TSA to stop me right at the entrance, proclaiming that no small pets, including fish, were permitted through security. I had, however, just received the blessing of the ticket agents at US Airways and pre-assured MJ's travels with Pittsburgh International Airport security weeks before our travel date. I tried to explain this to the screener who stood between me and the gates, but she would have none of it. I was led back to the US Airways ticket counter, stocking-footed and alone, where the agents reasserted that they did not see a problem for me to have a fish on board, properly packaged in plastic fish bag and secured with a rubber band as MJ was.