Slashdot Mirror
Would You Like Drugs in Your Rice?
Digitus1337 writes "Wired has the scoop on a new type of rice that was just approved for production by a narrow vote. 'Ventria believes growing drugs that produce proteins like lactoferrin and lysozyme in rice could be a cheaper way to develop drugs than building and maintaining expensive manufacturing plants... Opponents say growing the crops in open fields endangers organic and conventional crops, as well as human health...'" Update: 03/30 23:15 GMT by T : That should probably read "growing rice that produces proteins like lactoferrin and lysozyme."
of cross pollenization should be important in determining what plants and drugs should be used. While protein enhancements spreading to other plants or fields could be beneficial, other drugs such as the human growth hormone would have a definite risk.
The story sounds humorous, but it also raises serious issues. Is it really a good idea to start growing lactoferrin-enriched rice in the open?
Anyone who has bought bulk rice is familiar with the fact that harvested rice is contaminated with bits of debris and wild rice. Speaking in a practical sense, it is clearly inevitable that this GM rice will get mixed in with the food supply.
Even eating organic rice will not save you, since small amounts of rice seeds will surely drift on the winds and contaminate all crops. Do we really want to risk our young daughters eating abnormal quantities of lactoferrin and risking a higher rate of gigantomastia and breast cancer?
First, you ask: Maybe I'm really naive, but why can't they grow this sort of crop indoors?
Then you say: I know that it would probably cost a lot more
Ding! That's it in one. After all, if one company is growing it the expensive way, and another one (in another country if necessary) is doing it the cheap one... guess who wins? Especially in the current environment of trying to get drug prices as low as possible... Yup, its the cheap one. Go figure. So as long as growing it the cheap way is possible, that's the way that commercial entities will do it.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Nobody could adequately test the consequences for genetically modified crops in a time frame that would suit the corporate farming interests like Monsanto that push this stuff.
The consequences of growing these types of crops and the impact on their surroundings may not be measureable or manifest themselves for years.
This is why genetically modified crops are such a gamble. Scientists just *don't* know what will really happen, they are hoping for the best based on a shallow dataset of information.
The thing is, there really is no reason to modify foods genetically in this manner. It's one thing to cross one tomato with another tomato strain to get a redder, juicier tomato, it's quite another to put drugs in them, or make them glow in the dark, or somesuch nonsense.
If one needs drugs, they should take a pill. Leave the drugs out of the food supply for those of us who don't want it them in our food.
I hate to bring up the "slippery slope" but given the current state of environmental policy in this country (and worldwide) I choose to *always* default to caution. Destroying, modifying, genetic diversity should be undertaken with *extreme* caution.
The problem is that it is large corporations with no regard for the environment, or even the best interests of other people, who are railroading this stuff through in the court of public opinion and in government hearings. Anyone who dissents is "against science" or a "luddite" according to them.
These corporations will tell you that they are doing it to feed poor people in starving nations. This is crap. There is *no* food shortage. There are food distribution problems caused by political or economical concerns.
If these companies were really concerned about creating nutritious and helpful foods they would learn soil conservation techniques. By and large the vegetables that you eat today are not nearly as good for you as the ones that your grandparents ate because soil depletion and crappy farming techniques have robbed them of their minerals and nutrients.
I am not a luddite, I am an environmentalist. There is lots of room for scientists to come up with clever plans to increase crop yields and preserve soil *without* putting manmade chemicals and drugs in them.
Using technology to simply coverup and put a bandaid over mismanaged farming policies is a bad use of said technology and a cheap grab for a buck by people that have no concern what happens to your children.
Even eating organic rice will not save you, since small amounts of rice seeds will surely drift on the winds and contaminate all crops. Do we really want to risk our young daughters eating abnormal quantities of lactoferrin and risking a higher rate of gigantomastia and breast cancer?
..
Just a couple of questions of the kind that often get overlooked
Since when was rice eaten raw?
Since when did cooked (i.e., denatured) proteins retain the hormonal/enzyme activities of the native protein?
There's a whole lot of wild imagination going into the stories of these so-called risks.
-wb-