From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Thu Jun 28 2001 - 13:19:21 MDT
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Max More wrote:
> -- I'm surprised not to have seen the great study by Sam Peltzman mentioned
> in recent stories on the Precautionary Principle. Peltzman showed the costs
> of delaying approval of life-saving drugs.
Max, do you have a pointer to this?
> A decently-functioning legal liability system will make
> companies balance these two considerations.]
I agree... What is needed is a "light-weight" agent-based way for individuals
to sue and collect the "real" damages (not some lawyer inflated perception
of damages from a sympathetic jury...).
In a system where people could effectively sue and collect damages for
bad food products, there would be no need for labeling.
> On labeling GM foods only -- I find this highly dubious. If you're going to
> compel labeling, at least it should be applied consistently.
Its interesting to note the history of labeling
a) No requirements for a list of ingredients at all.
b) A list of ingredients required.
c) A list of ingredients in order from greatest to least.
d) A breakdown of proteins, carbohydrates and fats.
e) A list of percentages of the RDA for proteins, carbohydrates and fats
and perhaps even vitamins now.
The trend is towards giving the consumer more information with which
to make decisions. While (b&c) were probably done to eliminate
deceptive marketing practices (consumer protection), (d&e) were
added from a paternalistic standpoint (to try and encourage
consumers to eat healthier). The problem is that in our modern
food-abundant society, our short term "self-interest" (what tastes
good) works against our long term "self-interest" (staying healthy).
The food manufacturers discovered that and were happy to take
advantage of it and the trend in labeling is a long history
of trying to balance the scales.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:20 MST