The future of GM (not the car company)... Tinkered-with table-fare terrifies Some of my readers have been surprised at my tentative endorsement of . They say it doesn't fit my "old-school" band of medicine... And although I am in many ways a traditionalist, I go where the truth takes me. It just so happens that it often takes me to more time-tested ways and natural solutions proven by the ages. That's not due to any over-arching medical philosophy of mine - but rather because of the corrupt farce mainstream medicine has become. Believe me, if all the chemicals and drugs and surgery and lasers really worked, I'd be all about them! That's why I'm by and large a fan of SOME genetic modifications of foods. In the last few years, I've reported to you about a few such things - including an attempt by scientists to combine animal genes to produce more Omega-3 rich steaks, pork, and other meats (Daily Dose, 4/27/04). This will be especially important in the future, as cold-water fish (typically the best source of Omega-3s) become increasingly laced with mercury and other heavy metals... And it may not be too far off. Back on June 17th of last year, I reported on a study that showed meat from cloned animals (cloning is a form of genetic engineering) to be virtually identical to meat from the parent animal. According to my source for that Dose, the FDA will soon release guidelines on the sale and production of such meats, which means they may be on the market soon. And if that parent animal is a "new, improved" version we've tinkered with to make healthier, we may all soon be living longer by eating species we've developed ourselves... However, it seems not everyone is as open-minded as myself (there's a surprise!)... According to some recent Cornell University research, the general public's opinion about GM (genetically modified) foods may be less than enthusiastic - and trending downward. The study, summarized at the recent gathering of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, reported the results of 3 different annual surveys of over 500 New York residents between 2003 and 2005. Among their conclusions:
38% of respondents perceived GM foods as "high risk" in 2005-up from just 27% in 2003
On average, women are more leery of GM foods than men, and minorities tend to lend less support to GM foods than Caucasians Many respondents reported feeling that biotechnology like genetic modification has negative effects on the environment, and on health
Keep reading... Assuming these surveys of New Yorkers echo the sentiments of America as a whole (it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they didn't, though), the future success of GM may face some challenges... However, this perception might change - or it might NOT - if people knew just how much of what they're already eating is genetically modified. According to a FoodNavigator article summarizing this research, it's estimated that as much as two-thirds of the food in the U.S. (mostly corn, soybean, and canola products) contains at least an element of some genetically engineered crop. Look, taking off my doctor hat, I can personally understand some folks' leeriness about GM foods. The "creep factor" and the specter of technology run amuck looms large for them - and for me, too. If we open the Pandora's box of genetic engineering, we have to make sure we don't end up on a continent of Dr. Moreau! We also have to know where to draw the line - like with our KIDS. The temptation to start genetically modifying humans already beckons some, I'm certain of it. In my opinion, the potential for abuse of the awesome power of science needs to be kept closely in check, especially with gene-tech... And maybe just kept in the grocery store. Not engineered, just a-feared, William Campbell Douglass II, MD
| 
