Since mankind’s very first war, attacking the opponent’s food supply has been an extremely effective tactic. Yet somehow in modern times it is difficult for the public to perceive such a threat beyond the occasional benign production bungling that typically leads to a regional outbreak of disease. Governments and scientists, on the other hand, are much more aware of the true scope of agroterrorism risks and they are struggling to address them – partly through the biosciences and partly through a reorganization of defenses.
In regards to the latter, governments are tilting away from relying on public-private partnerships and are now turning to farmers around the globe as the first line of defense.
Educational efforts aimed at farmers are covering the airwaves from CTV’s coverage of the threat to Saskatchewan farms in Canada to agroterrorism public service advertising campaigns in the U.S. and SMS (texting) alerts in India. Such are the building blocks of a global response system, but what of prevention efforts? The short answer is that there is no consensus yet on how to prevent or thwart a bio-engineered attack on the world’s already short food supply.
The two sides of the debate have very different opinions on how to prevent or curtail such threats. Those that favor organic farming believe that the evolution of natural foods is the best defense. They contend that removing antibiotics, artificial fertilizers, pesticides and aggressive genetic manipulations allows livestock and crops to develop natural defenses against disease while also preserving the effectiveness of antibiotics in the fight against an outbreak in humans.
Those that favor genetic enhancement of both livestock and crops argue that defenses against agroterrorism induced diseases can be thwarted faster and more effectively via the proactive use of the biosciences. Time, they say, is the real enemy because too much of the food supply can be lost to agroterrorism and decades of starvation may elapse before nature can recover on her own.
What the two arguments have in common is the belief that the answer lies in genetics. One side argues for natural evolution, the other for man-aided evolution, but they are both talking about genetics as both the cause and the cure.
Whatever the outcome of these debates, one truth is laid bare: the biosciences are no longer the strict and regulated province of elected governments and formally trained scientists. Biohackers, both those of the benevolent and the malicious ilk, have forever changed the question of manipulating genetics from one of morality to one of mortality.
The question of right versus wrong in regards to genetic manipulation has shifted from man’s “right” to use, to man’s intent of use. The days of considering foregoing its use entirely are long behind us. In the end, agroterrorism is the tie-breaker in the debate.
In regards to the latter, governments are tilting away from relying on public-private partnerships and are now turning to farmers around the globe as the first line of defense.
Educational efforts aimed at farmers are covering the airwaves from CTV’s coverage of the threat to Saskatchewan farms in Canada to agroterrorism public service advertising campaigns in the U.S. and SMS (texting) alerts in India. Such are the building blocks of a global response system, but what of prevention efforts? The short answer is that there is no consensus yet on how to prevent or thwart a bio-engineered attack on the world’s already short food supply.
The two sides of the debate have very different opinions on how to prevent or curtail such threats. Those that favor organic farming believe that the evolution of natural foods is the best defense. They contend that removing antibiotics, artificial fertilizers, pesticides and aggressive genetic manipulations allows livestock and crops to develop natural defenses against disease while also preserving the effectiveness of antibiotics in the fight against an outbreak in humans.
Those that favor genetic enhancement of both livestock and crops argue that defenses against agroterrorism induced diseases can be thwarted faster and more effectively via the proactive use of the biosciences. Time, they say, is the real enemy because too much of the food supply can be lost to agroterrorism and decades of starvation may elapse before nature can recover on her own.
What the two arguments have in common is the belief that the answer lies in genetics. One side argues for natural evolution, the other for man-aided evolution, but they are both talking about genetics as both the cause and the cure.
Whatever the outcome of these debates, one truth is laid bare: the biosciences are no longer the strict and regulated province of elected governments and formally trained scientists. Biohackers, both those of the benevolent and the malicious ilk, have forever changed the question of manipulating genetics from one of morality to one of mortality.
The question of right versus wrong in regards to genetic manipulation has shifted from man’s “right” to use, to man’s intent of use. The days of considering foregoing its use entirely are long behind us. In the end, agroterrorism is the tie-breaker in the debate.