Ironically enough, it was recently determined that the long-term effect of excess intake of antioxidants are not effective at preventing cancer and in some instances may actually increase the risk of cancer. And in many cases to compensate for the ‘toxins’ we consume and are exposed to, we turn to excess in-take of anti-oxidants in the form of synthetic vitamins. The same school of thought also goes for chemicals we tend to get riled up around the word ‘chemical’ though in reality a naturally occurring chemical is not inherently safer than a man-made chemical. One of the researchers involved with the project made the point that “in comparison to ‘natural’ gmos, that are beyond our control, human-made gmos have the advantage that we know exactly which characteristic we add to the plant.” So does this make human-developed GMOs more natural or sweet potatoes less natural? The answer I’d predict the majority of people to pick speaks volumes about how deeply we are governed by the intuitive thinking mentioned previously. These genetic sequences were detected in 291 different sweet potato varieties, and were also determined to be active in the sweet potato, demonstrating that genetic modification can happen without human intervention. The topic become even more convoluted a few weeks ago when, in a boon to food scientists and biotechnologists everywhere, it was announced that sweet potatoes are a ‘ natural GMO,’ due to the fact that they are found to contain certain genes from the Agrobacterium bacterium. Titled ‘ Fatal Attraction: the Intuitive Appeal of GMO Opposition,’ the paper found that intuitive and intentional thinking on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) often causes elevating the status of nature and ‘naturally’ grown foods while denigrating GMOs to an ‘unnatural’ level that should be eschewed. So why are modern GE foods shunned for doing the same thing, only more effectively? Much of the fear stems from intuitive reasons, as discussed in a new Trends in Plant Science paper. But a recent comparison between GE food and the currently popular Paleo diet shows how difficult it is to make the distinction between ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural.’ Natural genetic mixing and selective breeding have been used for the past 10,000 years. Genetically engineered (GE) food has been Public Enemy No. 1 for quite some time now, with many people likening it to ‘ Frankenfood’ and decrying it as unnatural and unsafe. One of the clearer examples of this dilemma is through food.
How do we define natural in a world where nearly everything is processed, synthetic, or modified? And more importantly, why do we feel the need to gravitate towards anything labeled as natural?
I’ve addressed the point before from the angle of an anti-chemophobic, but I’m starting to realize that now it may be a more philosophical and psychological question and less of an issue of mere logic. Do-it-yourself (DIY) creations are becoming increasingly popular, and many websites and books that offer DIY solutions emphasize how ‘natural’ homemade soaps and face washes are, as opposed to the chemically laden commercial products. Pollan spoke about the word ‘natural’ in context of the food industry, but the argument has much wider applications, especially when it comes to labeling other consumer goods such as cosmetics and cleaning supplies. I don’t always agree with Pollan’s views, but this piece resonated, as this idea has been tossed around quite frequently.
Michael Pollan recently wrote a piece in The New York Times discussing why nothing is truly natural anymore.
0 kommentar(er)
