A good friend sent me an article about the Frankenstein Foods genetically modified with human liver genes designed to digest pesticides and industrial chemicals. Some said that it was equivalent to a form of cannibalism, another version, I guess, of eating a body and drinking the blood, but more removed from the source.

This is an issue that has always raised a question in my mind: The commercial foods now currently grown (wheat, corn, rice among them)are varieties not found in nature. Over the millenia, mankind had bred and interbred them to create Frankenfoods, which have served us well and fed us in our billions. The original emmer wheat and tiny proto corn ears were not large enough to feed a village, let alone a city.

So where and how do we draw the line? Well, clearly, the line has to be drawn at anything that would immediately harm people or entail long term harm to the environment, to innocent little bystander plants who never did harm to anyone becoming 'particularly vicious superweeds'.

Therefore, testing is required. Or is it that we only accept genetically modified foods that have been modified by farmers and agricultural scientists, but not by laboratory scientists. Or do we adopt foods only when they have been gradually adapted over a period of time, season
after season, ripening in the sun and cooked on the hearth, but not when bumped by a major genetic change all at once?

I really don't know. All I have are my fears and suspicions of major agriculture companies in a hurry to make big bucks.

Or maybe I'm just averse to liver.