COMMENTARY
12, 2004
T he C lackamas P rint • 3
Senetics gives food for thought
, kinder, gentler hamburger
irough genetic modification
Robb Egan;
T he C lackamàs P rint
Senetic engineering and modification
food; sources in its current implcmen-
m may be misguided and even dan-
>us, but that doesn’t mean we should
:go the practice completely.
I'hcl genetic modification of food
rceij such as plants, and genetic engi-
ring in general, is an important and
calInext step in human scientific
elopment. Modern genetic science is
de at best, using bacterium or the
ro engineering of DNA segments to
oduce genes from one species into
ther. I Because of the still limited
>ugh vast) nature of genetic testing,
the; accompanying research and
ly of the effects these modifications
duceJ modern scientists are often
lpletcly clueless as to how an organ
will I react to the introduction of
;e foreign genes. Because of our lack
>uch understanding, and due to a fair
)unj|of negative campaigning on the
: ofBelf-serving multinational corpo-
mSte Greenpeace and a few organ-'
igricultural concerns, genetic engi-
ring has caught a bad rap with the
cral populace.
‘Thdfp’s a vast body of data and
erieriic, accompanied and preceded
i vastfbody of analysis, which shows
the frisks of crops and foods and
s (^Biotechnology are not different
:ind from those we are experienced
) from traditional foods. If there are
s associated with these new foods
crops, the data ¿nd experience seems
ndicatc that they are equal to or less
i what we’ve seen in the past,” said
Giddings, genetic scientist and Vice
ddent of the Biotechnology Industry
anization.
jen^tic modification of crops has its
1 siBccss stories, too. For example,
ionsjbf acres of bio-modified cotton
grown throughout China. This has
to mjuch higher crop yields and the
(ificantly reduced application of pes-
les.
Vith the continuing population
vth, if we ever hope to rid the world
amine and hunger, something needs
to* be done . to drastically increase the
yields of food crops. While modern agri
cultural techniques may technically be
sufficient to provide everyone with just
enough to survive and be healthy, the
lack of any Sort of agricultural surplus
would be disastrous, as one bad season;
one drought or even just a slightly;cold
er winter could result in ; shortages.'
Consequently food costs would escalate,
pretty much
putting
us
back to square^
one again, with \
the rich being
overfed while; the \
poor are left- to; \
starve.
. Genetic engineer
ing of food sources
may not be some
magical answer to ¡.
the problem of world
hunger, but it’s* defi
nitely a step in thè right
direction. If nothing else, it may ser w
as a temporary measure until a more
permanent and natural solution can be
found.
And genetic research of any
kind can’t help but further
the advancement of
other
scientific
fields. Even if
genetic engineer
ing doesn’t cure
the
world’s
hunger prob
lem, it will
almost certain- i
ly
be, the,
answer to rid-;
ding ourselves’
of disease. In
terms of med
ical
science <
alone, there is a W
lot that can be IB l
learned
from 'M
researching how
organisms will react
to gene splicing and
such. Who knows, a cure
for AIDS or cancer could very well lie
dormant within the subtly altered
genes of those fish-apples (see oppos
ing article).
Altered steaks: Frankenfood
may not be the right answer
Joel Gaynor
T he C lackamas P rint
The advent of genetic engineering
offered an exciting potential to increase
and; improve food sources, but its -shoddy
implementation and numerous health,
risks, heavily outweigh the prospective
upsides.
Genetic 'engineering is, by definition,
an unnatural process. As detailed in an
article
by
Dr.
Ricarda
Steinbrecher of the Women’s
•Environmental Network, the
process of genetic engi
neering is to remove seg
ments of DNA from one
species (such as a fish) and put
them. into a second
species (such as a
jflKyi tomato) in an effort
alter the genetic
Jk behavior of the second
species. The aforemen-
ioned example of putting
fish genes into a tomato is
xuJne to lower the freezing
point of the engineered toma
toes to aid their ability to
grow in cooler climates.
Unfortunately,
fish
genes
aren’t
designed to work in
tomatoes, and cater
pillar genes weren’t
intended to be
found in apple
trees, and to rem
edy. nature’s unco
operative
rules,
scientists place a
gene
extracted
rrom one species
ito a sort of viral
¡ing and inject that
composed virus into a
different species. The
r result is an oft-unpre-
dictablc infection of the
newly modified gene recipi
ent. If all goes well, the desired
effect occurs and the procedure is a suc
cess. Frequently, however, the new gene
either doesn’t work correctly, doesn’t
WorE at all, or will work for a period of
time and then inexplicably stop working.
Assuming a gene is successfully ported
from one organism to another, there are a
plethora of other possible negative impli
cations.
Consumption of genetically engi
neered products cant strengthen the abili
ty of a bacterium to resist antibiotic treat
ment. According to John E. Peck, execu
tive director of Family Farm Defenders, in
Madison, Wise., many dairies regularly
inject their cows with Recombinant
Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). Along
with boosting milk production by 10 to
25 percent, cows recurrently injected are
50 percent more likely to suffer udder
infection. Farmers then administer high
levels of antibiotics that in turn are pres
ent in the cows’ milk and fast-food ham
burgers made from dairy cows. Many sci
entists have warned against this practice,
as strains of bacteria that can survive the
implemented antibiotics multiply and
become harder to kill with conventional
medicines.
In addition to the problems passed via
their milk and beef, cows treated with
rBGH experience shortened . life spans
and an increased rate of birth defects, per
a report published by Americans for Safe
Food.
Genetically engineered foods are also
likely to contain nonnative allergens. Tests
performed by scientists at the University
of Nebraska at Lincoln found that soy
beans—modified by genes from Brazil
nuts for the purpose of providing certain
nutrients the soybean naturally lacks——
acquired proteins that could trigger
potentially deadly allergic reactions in
people who are. allergic to Brazil nuts.
Given the ability t(> transfer p()tentiajly
fatal genes from food to food, and the
average consumer’s naivety concerning
the ingredients of what he or she choos
es to-ingest, someone allergic to Brazil
nuts but not soybeans could easily
become seriously impaired as a conse
quence of simple midday munchies.
The fact is, as a science, genetic engi
neering has not evolved far enough to
have its altered products available on the
consumer market. Perhaps, if safer meth
ods werè developed and then thoroughly
tested, there would be no reason to object
to the practice. Until then, there is no
reason not to.
most modern road warriors show more dollars than sense
Jeff Sorensen
C lackamas P rint
a
People spend too much
money trying to make, their cheap
cars look, feel, or sound faster
than they are, but it’s' all a point
less and offensive waste of time.
So many of these cars have
popped up as a resort of bad. rac-.
ing
movies
[that
I llustration
by JESSE LAMOND
they’ve become a nuisance for
people who just want to enjoy the
benefit of driving a small, fuel
conscious vehicle. This is why
I’ve compiled a short list of traits
to watch for when figuring out
whether that small import
deserves the respect of any con
siderate motorist or a dirty look
and a noise complaint. After all,
the things these cars go through
should often be considered a
crime*.
The first offensive trait is a
sound system that empha
sizes the subwoofer(s)
over any other speaker
in the car. These, are
the fools who think
louder is better. The
problem
is
the
sound frequencies
produced by sub
woofers are omni
directional, or can be
heard from all direc
tions. Acoustically, this can
create a phenomenon where the
music from the jerk with the sub-
wo/)fer reaches the ears of
passersby on the sidewalk before
the rest of the frequencies. This
makes the music sound like it’s
coming from two really expensive
stereos that had the play button
pushed at separate times. In my
professional opinion,- these
stereos simply sound like trash.
Turn it down.
There are also a lot of people
who will spend almost $2000 for
a set of nice, shiny rims that
don’t do anything at all. The
only thing new rims do (other
than look hideous on a car that’s
otherwise stock) is make the
speedometer lie and force the
transmission to work harder
than it should thanks to the
extra weight and larger circum
ference of the tire. My solution:
these drivers should take them
back and hire someone to re
teach them one of the high
school physics lessons they fell
asleep in.
Finally there are the cars with
the cheap “Autozone” mufflers
that sound like my old 2-cycle
chainsaw. These cars, like the
sound system ones, are heard
long before they are seen, and
usually trick their owners into
believing the
“coffee
can
upgrade” makes their car faster.
That’s okay; I’m sure the extra
horsepower and lower fuel econ
omy will impress somebody.
I recently pulled up next to
one of these high school punks
that wanted to race at a stop light.
Maybe he wanted to race because
my $1,400 Hyundai came with a
cheap spoiler, or maybe he was
trying to impress his little girl
(RD =1.6 Liters
C lackamas P rint
friend. Sure enough, the light
turned green and off he went.
According to Maddox, author
of
www.thebestpageintheuni-
verse.com, this guy proved one of
four .things:
A) His car is so fast and pow
erful that he can even beat people
who aren’t racing him.
B) He’s a wise investor for buy
ing those rims, because the ones
he had just weren’t
cutting it.
C) Those stripes on his car
look sharp and hide the fact that
it’s still just a Civic.
D) That he’s a [dipstick].
Everyone else has had to put
up with this for far too long, and
someone needs to explain to these
kids that it’s time to grow up. No
matter how loud or low a guy
made his “ride” in high school,
it’s still a cheap car.
= 2 Liters?
I llustration
by JEFF SORENSEN
C lackamas P rint
T he
C lackamas P rint
1%()() S Molalla Ave.
Oregon City, OR 97045
(503) 657-6958 ext. 2309
fre Clackamas Print is a weekly student
publication and is distributed every
Wednesday except during finals week.
Co Editors-in-Chief:
Cyridee Mady and Cory Price
Ext. 2576 (Mady) or ext. 2447 (Price)
Copy Editor: Katie Funk
News Editor: Karlin Johnson
Opinion Editor: Ben Maras
Feature Editor: Karen Hill
A&E Editor: Isaiah Creel
Sports Editor: Nie Delzell
Photo Editor: J esse Lamond
Sports Copy Editor:
Frank Jordan
Staff Writers: Robb Egan, Joel
Gaynor, Hilliary Ferguson, Jessica
LeClaire, Bethany Monroe, Jeff
Sorensen, Jennifer Trank
Production: assistants:
Michaele Cooper, Brian Hill, Sharon
James, James Tombe
Photographers: Truman
Anderson, Angela Gerhart
Adviser: Linda Vogt
Department assistant:
Lauren Vuylsteke
Goals: The Clackamas Print aims to
report the news^aft boncs^ unbiased,
professional manner. |The opinions
expressed do not necessarily reflect those
of the student|iiody, |i>llegc administration,
its faculty or Tw Print. I’^Tpail comments
to chiefed@clackamas.edu.
77%? Clackamas Print © 2004