Gambling with your food?
The GM food debate
By Katy Peplinskie

OTTAWA — The Flavr Savr tomato burst on the scene in 1994, but it turned out to be a bust. The genetically modified tomato, complete with a flounder's anti-freeze gene, was designed by Calgene to ripen on the vine and still travel to far away supermarkets without spoiling.

But though the magic of transgenics worked to give the fruit a longer shelf life, the tomato failed to appetize. The public loudly voiced its dissent, refusing to buy any sort of “Frankenfood.”

As biologist, Lee Silver, says, “Many scientists take the Luddite stance that genetic technology can only be harmful, and refuse to see the obvious benefits they bring.”

Silver also makes reference to a non-scientific camp which has been especially vocal in its opposition to modified foods – the left-leaning, spiritually-minded intellectuals. “As the left’s argument goes, to play with nature is to try and play God,” Silver says.

“It’s a strange situation,” says Rod Phillips, a professor of food history at Carleton University. “People say they want to make the right choices, but this desire is questionable.”

“There are a lot of confused people out there,” Phillips concludes.

» Full Story