The Rural Voice, 1987-06, Page 10.nLIlIl1111Y1 •. IL\L. nn1L,Y11rtIMM.14111. N1W1Y .-InIM•.YIYW.,
COMPLETE LINE OF
ANIMAL FEED
– Hog
– Veal
– Dairy
– Beef
– Poultry
– Pet
treleaven's
feed mill ltd.
box 182, lucknow, ont. NOG 2H0
519-528-3000
1.800.265-3006
SLUMSKIE BROS.
CONTRACTING
17I#ii44,
MnMNrL PrM c
•
Grain Bins
Steel Buildings
Bunk Silo Walls
Fence Line Feeders
Yards & Floors
BUILDS EVERYTHING
BETTER FOR BARNS
519-363-6062
519-363-5374
R.R. 2, Dobbinton NOH 1L0
10 THE RURAL VOICE
BIOTECHNOLOGY:
ETHICS AND ECONOMICS
For years I have kept a close eye
on the development of biotechnology
as reported in the press, especially
when the subject touched on agricul-
ture. Genetic engineering, in fact, has
been used for centuries by farmers;
only the term is new. Farmers have
used genetic engineering to develop the
various cereal grains from grasses, to
breed our com varieties from Indian
corn (which in tum was bred from
primitive corn found in the Andes
mountains), to breed our modem ani-
mals from wild creatures, and so on.
What is new is the speed with
which we can now change plants and
animals through recombinant DNA in
the laboratory.
Farmers have never hesitated to use
selective genetic engineering, by what-
ever name it has been known. They
use corn varieties with the highest
yield, the newest wheat strains, high
yielding dairy cows, and fast-growing
pigs that provide large litters. And
they will use animals and plants
developed through new biotechnology.
They really have no choice.
But a controversy about biotech-
nology has been raging, especially in
the U.S., triggered by requests for
patents by laboratories that have
found, through genetic manipulation
in the lab, even better plants and even
higher -producing animals.
Environmentalists are now asking
where this will lead. How far can man
go without violating ecological ethics,
without producing bacteria that cause
irreparable damage? And when, they
ask, will such technology be used to
produce "superior" humans?
These questions are valid. In the
case of genetically altered animals, the
animal welfare movement has joined
hands with ethical philosophers in
opposing patent rights for companies
that have spent many millions of dol-
lars to produce high -yielding animals.
Strange as it may sound, animal
welfarists, albeit for different reasons,
are in league with farmers who fear for
their livelihood when productivity per
man hour doubles and triples. Strange
bedfellows, indeed.
Consider three categories of animal
life as defined by the Christian Science
Monitor. In the first are the wild ani-
mals that still live naturally. In the
second are the farm animals that have
been engineered to live only in an
artificial life system. Third is the
human being.
Defenders of biotechnology in
animal development say that since
we have already created artificial life
forms in our farm animals, we have
no choice but to go on with further
improvements to farm animals on
behalf of humanity. But critics main-
tain that there is no guarantee that
biotechnology will stop with farm
animals, that it may be extended to
wild animals and humans.
Farmers' concerns are often based
on economic grounds. They are also
worried about "where it will stop."
We already have hormones for dairy
cattle and to promote pig and beef
growth, plants engineered to resist
pests and weed growth around them
(thereby decreasing or eliminating the
need for pesticides and herbicides),
males of a harmful insect species
produced en mass, sterilized, and let
loose on unsuspecting females, and
research into meat analogues and now
into milk analogues that could elim-
inate or greatly decrease the need for
farm animals.
No wonder farmers are uneasy.
Can they stop new developments on
the drawing board? I doubt it. The
surface benefits are too great for
society to resist.
Are those in opposition the new
Luddites, fighting change simply in
defense of their livelihood? Or are the
concems of the moralists and philo-
sophers — and the farmers — justified
on ethical grounds?0
Adrian Vos, from Huron County,
has contributed to The Rural
Voice since its inception in 1975.