I was particularly interested in
the “Get to know GMOs” presentation. Knowledge is important, especially when it
helps you make decisions that are part of everyday life. Should I spend more for the non-GMO cookie at
Trader Joes? Or just go with the Double Stuffed OREO (or even the new Triple
stuffed variety)? While no one will deny
that it is a personal choice if the stigmatized GMOs are present in your diet, I
agree with the 7 Deadlies that more balanced, and less consumer-oriented,
information needs to be presented to the public. When reading the Omnivore’s Dilemma, I was
struck with how people shape their identities with what they consume. Being a vegetarian, vegan or meat eater
somehow completely defines your values.
So why not be defined by being more natural and GMO-free?
What worries me is that this stigma
will continue unnecessarily, and eventually public opinion could change how
genetic modification in science is conducted. The more strong feelings there are against
GMOs the more science is limited in solving the problems they set out to
accomplish. GMO technology is actually
making some headway in treating genetic diseases in humans, called gene
therapy. In gene therapy, a gene is inserted
into the genome of a human by using our current knowledge of viruses, essentially
creating a Genetically Modified Human. (The idea is kind of similar to an organ transplant;
only you insert genes instead of an entire organ). Sure there are many kinks that need to be
dealt with in the meantime, but in the next decade or two, this could be a
recommended procedure for those with genetic diseases such as DMD or PKU. I think that there is a definite possibility
that how GMOs are represented in the media, and therefore perceived by the
public, could have an effect on how people view this future of treatment. If people have such a strong reaction to the
concept of a modified tomato being on their lunch sandwich, how do you think
they will respond to the suggestion of changing their very cells?
As a scientist, I value the “keep the science
separate to everything else” idea. However, I also know that without intervention,
this won’t happen, which is why I really liked the poster presented by the 7
Deadlies. Whenever I hear about GMOs outside of the laboratory, it is almost always
presented negatively. I think that we
should all hear the other side of GMOs, and if they still feel negatively, then
it’s their choice. I just think that
this technology should be given a chance in the public especially in case of
future medical implications, and not reduced to manipulate consumers with
anti-GMO sentiments. In the future,
results of such consumer bias could have incredible health implications instead
of just monetary ones.
One thing that struck me after reading your post is I realized that much of the public opinion on GMOs is only formed from the "GMOs are scary" attitude formed by the biotech companies by not being transparent about their food. Like you say, the stigmas people have regarding GMFs are being translated to how people view Genetic modification in science, cloning, and in vitro fertilization. Gene therapy has the ability to revolutionize medicine (and potentially society if unregulated) and the public needs to be educated on other genetic modification uses besides just creating frankenfood.
ReplyDeleteI'm guilty of letting the media and opinions of my peers and friends influence what I think. That said, I think that GMOs definitely have a bad effect on foods... although they also have the potential to be really great. Plus, in terms of what you're talking about- using GMO technology to directly help a human being stay alive- I think that's really cool (beyond my un-scientfic brain, but cool nonetheless).
ReplyDeleteThis class as well as the presentations this past week have really made me aware of how "identity" plays into everything that's said and done, especially in the media. In terms of GMOs I don't think that the "GMOs are scary!" message is THAT prevalent because I don't even hear about it that often... but it is there and all the information isn't being presented.
What I liked about the presentation is that it just presented the information about GMOs and didn't try too hard to sway public opinion- it was the facts and that was it. Which was nice. :)
I enjoyed learning about GMO's in the Getting to know GMO presentation. I am also guilty of letting media effect and influence what I think about GMO's and this has played a huge role in why I think of them in a negative light. I spoke of how I didnt know that GMO's could be used as a life saving tool for diabetics. I am glad I learned this because my sister has battled Diabetes her whole life and I should know where her insulin comes from. I think we still need to fully understand some of the complications genetically modified foods has on the body, but the use for medicinal purposes is neat and useful.
ReplyDelete