Genetically Modified Food: Bad; Genetically Modified Humans: Good

*subhead*Colossal disconnect.*subhead*
As the United Kingdom, and possibly the United States, are poised to move forward in creating genetically modified children with the genetic material of three people, the world is becoming more aware, and more suspicious, of genetically modified organisms in our food supply.

Recently there have been a few states that have voted on mandatory labeling of foods with GMOs. The vote is usually close to 50% in favor, meaning that half of the voting public wants to know about genetically modified food in their diets.

At the same time, only 255 people signed the Center for Genetics and Society's letter to the FDA urging them not to allow the three-parent embryo technique to advance to clinical trials.

So it seems we as a society are suspicious about genetically modified food but are indifferent to genetically modified children.

I tackle this disconnect in my latest commentary at the National Catholic Register, "Genetically Modified Food: Bad; Genetically Modified Humans: Good."

Read it. Pass it on. 

If GMOs in our food make us uneasy, then genetically modifying our offspring should be unthinkable.

Rebecca Taylor blogs at Mary Meets Dolly


  1. Could the lack of interest be that while ALL of us have to eat, almost NONE of us plan to GMO our kids?

    And while I don't have an issue with GMO foods per se, I still would like to know if the food is GMO or not (all things being equal). So even people who don't care about GMO food would probably vote yes if given the chance.

  2. The petition may have been a trap set by Obamacare and the IRS. I trust them not. To genetically modify the sovereign person would require owning the person or enslavement of the person. Mosanto has patented its GMO. Human body parts may not be patented because human body parts as small as DNA may not owned by any one but the person to Whom God gave that human body part. Informed consent of the sovereign person must be got to manipulate his human body, as any procedure. Emancipation is required to have informed consent of the sovereign person about to be manipulated.

  3. The petition says this, "preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is proving to be effective for screening
    embryos resulting from in vitro fertilization to identify those with low risk."

    In other words, it advocates for screening embroys and selecting only the ones that have lower risk...and killing the rest. I'm not sure I can sign my name onto something advocating for this.

  4. If the genetically modified human being produces offspring, and this is his right, the modification will become part of our genetic heritage, a genetic heritage not owned by any company but by the whole of mankind.
    Rebecca Taylor is to be appreciated for bringing this information to the public

  5. @ladycygnus I understand Catholics and other pro-lifers being hesitant in signing the petition. (I mentioned that objection before.) I was just surprised that since Center for Genetics and Society is a progressive organization that it did not have more support.

    @Robert Harrison It is true it seems that many people believe that genetically modifying children would be isolated to those with mitochondrial disease. Unfortunately, if this moves forward that will not be the case for long. Once we start modifying, soon it will be the norm and expected of all because those that are unenhanced or "diseased" will be second class citizens. Environmentalist Bill McKibben calls it a "biological arms race" that we should never start. I guess I am disappointed that the public does not comprehend the line we are about to cross.


Post a Comment