The Right To Know

We all have the right to know. “Transparency” is the key word of the times. We want to know everything that might affect us. Except, of course, whatever we don't want to know or recognize that we shouldn't. For example, we want our government to operate in such a way that we'll always know what's going on.ⁱ We concede the need for secrecy in some circumstances, however, and we may permit it, but we also expect to be informed at some future time of what transpired. How else can we decide if matters are being managed according to the standards that we consider appropriate?

Knowledge makes it possible for us to choose. Some examples: a woman can choose to have an abortion in a clean and safe facility; parents can choose not to have their children vaccinated in order to prevent autism; voters can choose the most moral of the candidates and the ones most likely to represent their views. If only that were the case.

But sometimes we have too much information – including information that might be embarrassing, or “facts” that are just plain wrong.ⁱⁱ No relationship between immunizations and autism has ever been proved, and the paper that first asserted this relationship has been retracted. Moreover, some of those whom, based on available knowledge, we viewed as models, have been shown to be hiding information that might change our views of them or lessen their vote totals. And others have no compunctions about making promises they don't intend to keep, because those promises may help them get elected.

So, while we demand privacy for ourselves, we demand information of others. Preferably true or useful, but that's not always the case. One of the principal targets nowadays is GMF – genetically modified food. To understand the issue it's worthwhile to review how we got here. The evolution of living forms has been going on here on earth for billions of years. By trial and error Nature has “improved” the various species – experimenting with their DNA, keeping what works and disposing of the failures. But it's a slow process.

In fact it's too slow for humans who have, themselves, evolved from lower forms. But over the millennia we have found ways of speeding things up. Until recently, the most important of these was cross breeding. The method was a way of introducing sought after characteristics into species that had some desirable characteristics, but lacked particular traits, like resistance to disease, that would improve them. This kind of selective breeding has been going on for about ten thousand years. It's resulted in more healthful food crops, more beautiful flowers, resistance of crops to pests and diseases, faster growth and larger size and yields, and similar improvements. It's a form of accelerated evolution.

The latest advance is known as “genetic modification.” This method, made possible by advances in genetic engineering, involves the transfer of specific genes from one organism to another in order to achieve the same goals. But it's a lot faster and more precise, an even more rapid acceleration of evolution. In a world in which starvation results in hunger among hundreds of millions of people each yearⁱⁱⁱ and millions of deaths,^iv methods of maximizing food crop production would seem to be among the most desirable of accomplishments. So it would seem to be a matter of pride that scientists have “'improved' the various species by experimenting with their DNA, keeping what works and disposing of the failures.”^v

Not everyone sees it that way, however. There is concern that there may be unintended side effects of the practice – perhaps not to be discovered until generations after the fact. Many view the practice as one that is not natural since the species did not develop on their own.^vi Others are convinced that the companies that produce such crops are only interested in profits irrespective of any harm they cause.^vii There are also protests that we are acting as if we were G-d and trying to create new species of living things, but it is hard to deny that we don't hesitate to destroy living things as well. Not only do we use abortion as a form of family planning and population control,^viii but we permit capital punishment in many of our jurisdictions. Whether these are right or wrong, they weaken any arguments against genetic modification of foods. Perhaps we're just building a better mousetrap; providing a tool that will, in the end, help far more people than those it is shown to hurt.^ix

But that's only the background.

In terms of the current debate, there are demands that all foods that are genetically modified be labeled as such. The contention of those who hold this view is that they are entitled to know about this. How else, they argue, can they make the informed choice not to ingest what they consider potentially harmful. I'm not sure that I agree with that position any more than I'd require a warning label on every Epic Hybrid eggplant in the supermarket. But I'd be willing to accept it if, along with the warning, there were a statement regarding actual, not hypothesized, problems associated with about the product being labeled. I have a right to know this, too.

You'd be well advised, though, not to hold your breath.^x

Next episode: “Its Weakest Members” – Achieving utopia.

I        That will give us the opportunity to determine if our leaders are operating in our best interests, and to inform them of their mistakes in “real time.” And it will allow us to vote them out of office if they do not change their positions to align better with ours.

ii       Not that such knowledge will always convince a “believer” to abandon a disproved idea.

iii      According to the FAO's State of Food Insecurity in the World, published in 2013, 842 million people “do not have enough to eat.”

iv     The Lancet, in 2013, informed us that 3.1 million children under five die of starvation each year. (Series on Maternal and Child Nutrition) According to UN statistics, there are over eight and a half million total starvation deaths annually.

v       In fact, the progression from the “natural” development of species to cross breeding to genetic modification is a form of evolution. In this case regarding science itself.

vi      But, of course, neither are so many tea and tree roses and other flowers, most fruits and vegetables we eat, and most of the medications we take – including those for fatal diseases – since they're synthesized. And it is certainly not “natural” to select fetuses for abortion by DNA, or even by ultrasound.

vii     The same can be said of tobacco companies, those that produce alcohol products, automobile manufacturers, and makers of a host of other consumer goods, as well as those that build bridges, tunnels, and skyscrapers. We are of (at least) two minds on the idea of labeling of the risks involved in all of them. I've never seen warnings of the risks on automobiles, or heard of any demand for such labels.

viii    Some see in the right to choose, the “right” to choose sex or other characteristics, or to choose not to give birth at all. Are they acting as if they were G-d?

ix      If any.

x       By the way, breath-holding, apart from causing you to turn blue, may be harmful to your health, leading to loss of consciousness and, in some cases, death.