| Home | Help | Search/Archive | Feedback | Table of Contents |
|
|
Brian J Ford
Thames and Hudson, £6.95, pp 120
ISBN 0 500 28075 4
 115_files/mdash.gif)
 115_files/mdash.gif)
 115_files/mdash.gif)
 115_files/mdash.gif)
 115_files/mdash.gif)
 115_files/mdash.gif)
Rating:  115_files/star.gif)
 115_files/star.gif)
Had it appeared earlier, this monograph on the future of food In determining the credibility of any information on the subject, we should
remember four things. Every new technology creates winners and
losers, and has advocators and detractors. In any head to head
confrontation, we can bet that emotion will trump science. Segments
of society (the Luddites) will oppose change before it even occurs.
Finally, groups, such as the organic food industry, will exploit the
public's perceived fears for the purpose of marketing their own
products. The introduction of genetically modified foods was badly bungled. Firstly,
they were introduced surreptitiously to an unprepared and uninformed
audience. Secondly, this first wave of genetically modified foods
benefited producers, not consumers. Added to this were concerns in
Europe over "mad cow disease," flawed experiments reported to the
press about rats made ill by genetically modified potatoes (rats hate
all potatoes) and about pollen from genetically modified corn killing
monarch butterflies (under unnatural laboratory conditions), and fear
that vast fields might be taken over by superweeds created by
genetically modified pollen fertilising "wild" weeds. The public's
response was predictable. The backlash was further fuelled by
transparent commercial interests, concerned farmers who feared being
disadvantaged by the cost and availability of genetically modified
seeds, and by environmentalists with legitimate yet theoretical
concerns about environmental damage. The second wave of genetics based technology is on the horizon Brian Ford is highly qualified to opine on the future of food, and his
objectivity in this book is refreshing. Early on, he points out that
"natural food" is an unsustainable notion because few of our crop
plants and farm animals are natural I agree with his prediction that meals in the future will be chosen because
they are quick and easy, and that particular foods will be selected
because of their power to improve health, prevent disease, boost our
brain, and delay senility. We will be able to choose snacks that will
do such marvellous things as boost our mood. As Ford concludes, "genetic modification, like electric power, road transport
and computers is inevitable and the public will gain little by
campaigning to ban it, yet a laissez-faire attitude could threaten
the environment." He also gives a useful framework for the
future.
one
of a series entitled "Prospects for Tomorrow"
would have evoked little interest. However, in the space of
a year, fuelled by publicity surrounding genetically modified foods
and genetic predisposition to human disease, accounts of food-related
health benefits and risks have reached unprecedented levels of
visibility and audibility. So what's all the fuss about?
genetic testing of well individuals for susceptibility to diseases
such as heart disease; breast, colon, and prostate cancer; obesity;
and diabetes. This will be an essential precondition for initiating
individualised preventive measures, such as behavioural and
nutritional modification. A wealth of information on the preventive
value of specific phytochemicals and other micronutrients in food
has been amassed. An example of the preventive potential of
genetically modified food was the recent announcement that a
genetically modified tomato created at the University of London
contains 3.5 times a normal tomato's level of
carotene, a precursor of vitamin A (headline:
"GM Tomatoes Fight Cancer"). For millions whose principal source of
nutrition is rice, genetically modified rice enriched with vitamin A,
iodine, and iron could change lives now impaired by anaemia,
malnutrition, mental retardation, and blindness.
all
are the consequence of unnatural selection for human use. Citing the
destruction of rain forests and the surprisingly large consumption of
grain for raising beef cattle as egregiously wasteful of
resources, he provides an insightful consideration of the relation
between food and world population.
Charles Wilson Institute for the Future, Menlo Park, USA
|
|
This article has been cited by other articles:
| Home | Help | Search/Archive | Feedback | Table of Contents |