The Technological Innovation I was Reluctant to Feature in Dust
March 24, 2012 Leave a comment
Part of the premise of Dust is that the human race has grown beyond its means and as a result many colonies across the Republic are struggling to adequately feed their populations. When Nick, our protagonist, travels to Dust, he expects to find a local population filled with the emaciated and destitute, with people begging for scraps and the whole of the colony struggling to survive.
Much to his surprise, that’s not what he finds. Instead he finds a population that is having no trouble supporting itself. He finds his plate is filled everyday with strange but scrumptious meals that leave him more than satisfied. This delicious bounty is the result of Dust’s top mind, the old geneticist Doctor Aldous Sinclair. Doctor Sinclair used his scientific gifts to modify crops so that they could thrive in the harsh environment of Dust, thereby guaranteeing the colony’s survival.
The people of Dust rely on genetically-modified foods for survival.
My reluctance to include genetically-modified food in Dust doesn’t stem from any fear of genetic modification itself. There is nothing inherently wrong with something that is genetically modified. In fact, human-made modifications can potentially be very beneficial, but that doesn’t excuse the shameful way genetically-modified foods have been handled in the United States.
Just under a year ago, I stumbled across this TEDx talk from Robyn O’Brien. Robyn does an excellent job laying out the case against the dangers and risks that have been introduced into the U.S. food supply through the introduction of unregulated genetically-modified foods. In the presentation, she reviews the data that shows an increase in food allergies, cancer rates, and other issues that have occurred since genetically-modified foods started showing up in our food supply. She does note that correlation does not equal causation. There are times though, when better safe than sorry or caveat emptor should be our underlying approach.
As I sat at my kitchen table with my three little girls, I realized just how much I agreed with Robyn’s approach. We’ve made wholesale changes to our food buying habits, buying as many organic, natural, and chemical-free food products as we can. These days, you’re much more apt to find foods from Cascadian Farms, Annie’s, Kashi, or Mom’s Best then you are to find Kellogg’s, Nabisco, or Kraft. That’s not to say we’re perfect as the need for quick snacks and fast meals with our little girls sometimes makes processed foods necessary. However, we have made substantial changes.
Frankly, I think it’s fairly shameful how governments in other developed countries around the world have seen fit to protect their citizens from the inherent dangers that could be resulting from their foods and yet the government “by the people, for the people’ has not. I find the mindset that many people seem to have, that food or chemicals are okay until they are proven harmful, to be perplexing.
When a new medication is introduced to the public, it is required to be tested to ensure that it is reasonably safe (there are problems with biased studies here, but the approach is reasonable). Side effects must be identified and if a medication proves to be too detrimental, it is not approved. Yet, medication is not required for consumption everyday by every person in this country.
Everyone, man, woman, or child has to eat. Yet for the food we put on our plates, we seem to have put the bottom-line of corporations ahead of the safety of the people.
Until this situation is rectified, grocery shopping truly requires a ‘buyer beware’ approach. I know too many people with cancer to want to put my family at risk by eating food that is ultimately unsafe.
So, as I said, I was reluctant to include this technological innovation in Dust. I considered adding an exchange that would show how Sinclair tested his modifications to ensure that they were safe, but I couldn’t find any way to naturally blend it in with the story. I considered not having genetically-modified organisms, but they were important to establishing Sinclair’s abilities. In the end, I left them in the book with the rationalization that genetic modification is not inherently bad, but I knew I’d be writing a post to express my reservations with the approach the United States has taken.
You can follow Robyn on twitter @unhealthytruth.






