Maybe we can't eliminate factory farms, but if animals can be genetically engineered to feel no pain, who cares? So argues Adam Shriver in the New York Times.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A blog about the intersection of medicine and business, produced by the members of the Medical Consumerism seminar at the University of Minnesota.
2 comments:
I tend to think that seeking alternative social solutions for such problems as animal factory farms should be considered before genetically engineering animals so they can't feel pain.
I think this article raises questions about why the author assumes that animal factory farms cannot be avoided. In addition, there are many other problems with animal factory farms besides just the fact that animals aren't treated humanely. For one, there is a high risk of contamination and disease amongst animals placed in such close quarters, which affects the safety of the meat. I am also skeptical about the claim that there is no reason to think taking a gene out will not affect the safety of the meat. While I'm not an expert on the topic, it seems like you can't really make any sweeping statement like that until you see the outcome.
Finally, perhaps lessening the amount of factory farm animals can encourage an increased number of smaller farms which can provide employment and lessen the need for such conditions. While it would certainly be difficult to reverse the trend of massive factory farms, it is not inevitable that things have to be this way. In fact, the new public interest in organic food and humane treatment of animals signals a desire to enact some such changes.
I heard that some scientists are looking for alternatives so that we feel no pain. I think it is a great idea
Post a Comment