The Guardian During 1999, anti-GM demos replaced road protests as the direct action of choice. Headlines about Frankenstein foods, and crop-stomping peers of the realm and soap opera characters, have reflected a popular backlash against the application of genetic technology. Human genetics, as currently practised, seems as publicly acceptable as plant genetics is controversial.
Most prospective parents are happy to use pre-natal testing to screen out congenital abnormality.
If it were to happen, the media response to such actions would surely be very different to the current half-approving coverage of GM crop damage. Perhaps the first difference is that much of the opposition to GM food is based on a distrust of big business. But the public face of human genetics tends to be doctors in white coats dangling healthy babies. Whereas the GM food debate has revolved around the need to empower consumers and provide information so they can choose not to buy new products, the rationale for genetic intervention in reproduction has been parental demand for access to new tests and procedures. Secondly, most people can't see the point of GM food.