Do genetically modified foods in general violate any particular Paleo principle? I recognized that there is an enormous potential for genetic technology to be abused and cause enormous harm, but on the other hand it also seems that this technology offers much hope if properly managed. Though they might be too dangerous to mess with despite their potential benefits, I can't help but viewing GMO's in general as ethically and nutritionally neutral. Is this a very un-paleo perspective?
There are plenty examples of the way in which this technology is being mishandled (e.g. Montesanto), but what if this happened:
Scientists succeed in resurrecting the woolly mammoth by impregnating elephants with Mammoth DNA found frozen in the tundra. The resulting offspring is viable and hardy enough to live off of previously underutilized land in the Yukon. Several years later, mammoth becomes widely available in local supermarkets and is a favorite of budget conscious paleo eaters everywhere. The remarkable health benefits of the mammoth meat then sparks a string of 'recovered' animals all chosen because of their influence on human evolution.
asked byDan_9 (122)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on March 28, 2011
at 05:52 PM
I'm all for food that has been modified by natural means - crossbred apples (my favorite - Honey crisp for example), selectively bred cows, etc.
The issue comes when they use a laboratory to artificially create something nature never could, such as roundup resistant plants, simply so they can spray the hell out of them with poison and the plants don't die.
Monsanto is not only evil for the abominations they create but for their policy and anti-farmer stance.
on March 28, 2011
at 06:07 PM
One problem I see is that those with the power to create GMO's do not have our health in mind. And even if they did, based on CW, they would get it wrong.
I don't want beef with less saturated fat or vegetables with more fiber!
We have food today that is appropriate for our needs. I don't see why we need to "improve" upon it. (Guess that makes me a Neo-Luddite as well as a geezer!)
If they could bring back the wooly mammoth or cave bear, I might change my mind.
on March 29, 2011
at 06:49 AM
One of the big problems I see with GMO's is the ability to patent them and then sue farmers for cross-contamination from the patented GMO crops to nearby non GMO fields.
How they would do that with animals I'm not sure. Can the GMO bull get to the other side of the fence to breed with the non GMO heifer next door? Maybe. One thing I'm sure of is that Monsanto will continue to try for world domination. The big M has figured out ways to make other countries use only GMO seeds. For instance they were able to get it written into Iraq's new constitution that farmers there could only use GMO seeds and none that they had saved themselves!
So to me no matter whether GMO food is safe or healthy, I as usual have to come down on the side of personal freedom to grow food and save seeds, and to cross breed animals from the same species if we want improvements etc.
If Monsanto's motivations were as altruistic as they claim then they would not object to clear labeling of GMO products, and they wouldn't sue, out of existence, farmers whose crops get contaminated by pollen blowing across the road.