But What If There Are Animal Genes In My Plants?

The Sceptical Vegan takes a look at the issue.

An issue in relation to genetic engineering of crops often brought up by other vegans and vegetarians is, “What about inserting animal genes into plants, doesn’t that make them no longer vegan/vegetarian?” The short answer is, no, absolutely not, and as pointed out before, the fear of consuming “animal genes” in plants is only theoretical because there are no such products on the market. But in light of the irrational stances taken by groups such as the Vegan Society and the International Vegetarian Union I feel this issue could use further exploration.

You can explore it too by visiting the link. Short version? Without a brain and the ability to move independently a plant is still a plant. Genes are still genes. And one other thing. Plants and animals use the same genetic code. Which is why they can exchange genes.

OK. But there are flies in the ointment. Or why poisons (pesticides) are better than animal genes.

In the town of Harpenden the worlds oldest agricultural research center, Rothamsted Research, is conducting a trial of a new genetically engineered wheat that repels aphids and will drastically reduce wheat farmers’ need for pesticides. Unfortunately, a group calling themselves Take The Flour Back have been spreading misinformation and fear about this trial and have even threatened to destroy it on May 27th 2012 in a public “decontamination”. Ive written previously about the specific claims Take The Flour Back make in their propaganda video and in the end the video is little but distortions, falsehoods, and tired myths. A central scare tactic of the Take The Flour Back campaign is that this wheat has been modified to contain “an artificial gene ‘most similar to a cow’” and they have even whipped up a little graphic (seen above) to really bring it home.


Read the comments at the post. They are especially good.

I wonder if “Genetically Modified” is a scare dreamed up by companies who stand to lose if this sort of thing gains ground. It wouldn’t surprise me since Qatar likes to fund anti-fracking propaganda. After all they stand to lose if you can drill for oil just about anywhere.

GMO scares are as irrational as fracking scares. These same tactics were used to make certain drugs illegal. It can take decades to quell the fears. Which is not to say that care isn’t required. It is just that prudence has given way to paranoia.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

4 responses to “But What If There Are Animal Genes In My Plants?”

  1. Neil Avatar
    Neil

    I doubt there’s any corporations involved–I can’t think of anybody who would benefit.

    I have to suspect it’s just the usual impulse to keep the little guy in his place–hungry and dependent on his “betters”. Not that folks like the Qatari and certain African dictators aren’t capable of making good use of that impulse from time to time…

  2. Simon Avatar

    No pesticide required? I can think of who might benefit.

    Matt Damon fracking film backed by big OPEC member
    http://economy.money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/matt-damon-fracking/

  3. Randy Avatar
    Randy

    It certainly wouldn’t be shocking to me if it were proven that a company that stood to lose revenues from this would provide financial support to these Luddites. As we’ve seen in the area of drug law reform, alcoholic beverage businesses and trade groups are known to have provided financial support to groups and organizations that support maintaining existing drug prohibitions.

    I blame the campy sci-fi of the 50’s for the chicken little attitudes some display toward certain areas of scientific inquiry and advancement. They perpetuated the notion that we are just one discovery away from annihilating the human race. With that said, there are certainly some areas of research that pose great risks to us all, such as germ and virus research and the like. But modifying wheat in order to make it more insect resistant doesn’t seem to fit into that category of concern.

  4. Neil Avatar
    Neil

    It’s a risk/benefit analysis. Most of the companies that make pesticides also make other agricultural chemicals (like fertilizers) or, like Monsanto, develop GMO strains themselves. If they get caught funding protests, the customer backlash would be problematic.

    Incidentally, Monsanto has the best marketing plan. A GMO, which they sell, that is resistant to broad-spectrum Roundup, which they also sell. So you spray the whole field and only the Roundup Ready(r) crops survive. Cuts down on the amount of chemicals required, the chemicals are safer to handle and has less downstream environmental effect, and Monsanto locks in their herbicide customers.