I have just read the article, Would You Like Fish Oil With That? [Science News, 05/02/2004, at www.abc.net.au/health/healthnews]. Farm animals could be genetically modified to produce heart friendly fish oils, according to a controversial suggestion published today. U.S. researchers led by Associate Professor Jing Kang of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School inserted a roundworm gene that converted omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids into experimental mice and published their results in this month’s issue of the journal Nature.

It would seem to me that land based animals have primarily omega-6 fats that are firm at body temperature because either an Intelligent Being designed them that way (the creationist perspective http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/) or in evolutionary terms they are descendents of the fittest who survived (the evolutionist perspective www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/). Certainly the fats that land animals have don't work in the icy waters of the ocean depths where salmon, my favourite source of omega-3 fatty acids live. Deep-sea fish have the most polyunsaturated of all the polyunsaturated oils that are fluid at very low temperatures. Flaxseed is a convenient and traditional (land-based) source of omega-3 oils.

It seems to me there is a certain measure of arrogance in scientists who take evolution or creation into their hands in this way. Do we really need these genetically modified animals? Flaxseed oil adds a pleasant nutty taste to a salad. Salmon is delicious either cooked or smoked. Why do you need to meddle with the food chain in this way Prof. Kang? What scientific proof do you have that these animals will have the same resistance to infections? What proof do you have that these animals will not be responsible for the inter-species leap of a virus?

Dr Bruce A. J. Dewe MD NZRK
12 February 2004