Submitted by Peter Denison

The science of genetics has been growing so rapidly that it must be hard for even a scientist in the field to keep up.  Both animal and plant breeders have been modifying various plants and animals for several millennia.  The standard way had been to grow a crop of, say, wheat, and then select the seeds of those which seemed the best in desired qualities.  Gradually the wheat crop would give better wheat, and after a sufficient length of time, the wheat crop would have little resemblance to the original wild wheat.  If there is such a thing as “intelligent design,” this is it.  The fresh fruit we eat often bears little or no resemblance to its wild ancestors.  Break open the pit of a peach and one will find a nut resembling an almond,  but not one which is edible.  All dogs have evolved from one breed of wild wolves, although many fashionable breeds nowadays hardly resemble a wolf.

It is only recently that geneticists have been able to change a species by actually removing a defective gene and replacing it with a better mutation.  This technique shows promise in medicine as well as in agriculture.  Plants can be made more nutritious, hardier,  resistant to pests, etc.  There is much promise that farmers can raise more and better food, improving living standards and health, really for everyone, but especially in the Third World.   Now scientists have found they can successfully add a gene from a different species.  Perhaps an ear of corn could have a gene taken from an insect that will improve the corn in some way.

This type of genetic experimentation may contain much promise, but what about the side effects?  Many people questioning these practices have coined the term “frankenfoods,” implying that there is a great danger of deleterious side effects.  That is certainly a possibility which should not be ignored.  Nor, on the other hand should we ignore the great promise that genetic modifications also offer.

There are many calls for transparency in this area of business as in others.  All foods that have been genetically modified should be labeled as such.  Unfortunately, business interests such as Monsanto have objected having to label GMO foods.  This resistance has been a tactical mistake on the part of business interests. They should have originally agreed to, or even promoted GMO labeling.  If their products are so much better,  they should proudly display the fact in their labeling behavior.

But they did not; they stonewalled instead.  This is typical of business leaders.  When citizens’ groups try to get laws passed which will help the consumer to make a more informed choice,  they fight back.  Often when they lose the battle, they find that the change has actually improved their profits.  Business interests seem so protective of their authority that they habitually and irrationally fight changes which would actually be beneficial to them as well as to the consumer.  (Economists should team up with psychologists to figure out why CEO’s often irrationally fight changes which can actually be beneficial to their bottom line.  But that issue is for a different essay.)

Any genetic modification, no matter how promising, can be accompanied by deleterious side effects.  Sometimes the side effects can be acceptable as a price of progress, but sometimes not.  Some promising drugs have had to be taken off the market.  One thinks of thalidomide. But many drugs have improved life for millions. There is no perfection.  We should keep watch for side effects, but make no blanket rulings.

We as humanists know that humans are not always rational.  Far from it.  It is easy to see the irrationality in others, much harder to see it in ourselves. Everyone is liable to fall for certain rumors.  Many people, both liberals and conservatives, have fallen for various ones — the rumor about vaccinations causing autism has done a lot of damage. So-called “frankenfoods” do carry great promise as well as risks.  We should treat the issue more rationally than many of us have.  Unfortunately the opposition to GMOs has induced corporations to fight any labeling.  Once people perceive critics as enemies they have a hard time being rational.