One for the "creepy" file
If some scientists in the field of genetically modified foodstuffs have their way, the foods you eat may soon contain HUMAN GENETIC MATERIAL.
That's right: In the not-too-far-distant future, some of the foods you're chowing down on may already have a little of YOU in them! According to the UK's Independent Digital news service, a group of Japanese researchers (no, none of them are named Frankenstein) have successfully inserted a gene from the human liver into a variety of rice to help it resist the effects of pesticides and industrial chemicals.
The human liver-gene (called CPY2B6) is particularly good at breaking down these toxins within the body. The scientists in charge of the hybridized grain no doubt reason that adding the human gene will make their rice that much more healthy and liver-friendly when eaten. I can't say that they're wrong, but the idea of including human genes in foods still smacks a little of cannibalism to some, the article maintains.
I'm not sure how I feel about it just yet (I see both the upsides and the downsides), but at the very least, it's a bit skin-crawly to think about, at least at first. But I'm first and foremost a clinical thinker, a doctor and scientist - how I FEEL about it is irrelevant. All that matters is "does it help?"
Apparently, it does. Similar American research using rabbit genes shows that plants modified with the gene could cleanse toxins from contaminated land - perhaps so effectively that crops grown on even horribly polluted soil could be fit to eat. Currently, some GM crops contain genes from bacteria and other life forms that help them flourish even when sprayed with weed-killing herbicides, so it's not like this kind of modification is such a radical departure. It's simply the first time HUMAN genes have been the ones spliced in.
The bottom line is this: Ethical concerns aside, if genetic modification of this type can reduce the risk of poisoning from environmental pollutants or agricultural chemicals, it'd be hard not to support, from a purely scientific standpoint.
Whether or not people will buy and eat the stuff, however, is another story altogether. Would I eat it myself? Well…
****************************************************
Practicing what they teach
In the last year, much has been made of schools' new approaches to combating childhood obesity. Why, in this very source, you've read about new, healthier (debatably) cafeteria-fare in some school districts, vending-machine restrictions, bans on soda-pop and candy bars, and even the "grading" of children on their weight.
But what about teachers? If a new Hawaiian initiative takes hold, educators may soon be required to "lead by example" in the war on juvenile obesity.
That's right: There's a new resolution under review in the Aloha State's legislature that may force public school teachers to weigh in every six months. The measure calls for the establishment of standards for teachers' height and weight, along with a scale of punitive actions for those teachers who don't meet the new standards.
Of course, the teacher's union in Hawaii calls the measure "misguided" according to a report on Honolulu's KITV.
And sure, at first glance, such a law seems like a violation of civil liberties - perhaps even an unconstitutional one. However, is it such a bad idea to make those who are educating our children about things like healthy eating habits actually practice what they teach? I don't think it's so wrong-headed, at least in theory - especially since 20% of Hawaii's kids are overweight or at risk of obesity. Desperate times call for desperate measures, right?
But if the teachers in question are required to slim down using the "healthy" techniques they're actually teaching to kids - like vegetarianism and the carb-saturated Food Pyramid - then classrooms in the Aloha State will be teacher-less in very short order.
No one's losing any weight using those things as a guide.
Not (yet) secreting what I'm eating,
William Campbell Douglass II, MD
