From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Wed Jul 03 2002 - 16:07:36 MDT
On Wednesday, July 3, 2002, at 04:20 pm, J Corbally wrote:
>> The European Parliament has voted to introduce strict labelling on
>> foods containing genetically modified (GM) ingredients. Under current
>> EU rules, only food with more than 1% of GM ingredients has to be
>> labelled.
Although the controversy surrounding GM ingredients is political and
confusing, I welcome any move to provide more information on the label
so the consumer can decide. If they make bad decisions, well, that's
another discussion.... I know you think no one reads the labels, but
this is obviously not true or their certainly wouldn't be such a heated
battle over labeling. Some people, such as myself, read the labels of
everything we eat.
>> Correspondents say the new rules are likely to cause a trade dispute
>> with the United States, where the export of GM crops is worth billions
>> of dollars.
Yes, but the U.S. industry is definitely opposed to labeling whether
their food contains GM ingredients or not. They argue that it doesn't
matter, so they shouldn't have to label it. They rightfully fear that
sales could drop if people know GM ingredients are in their food.
Although I tend to believe that most GM ingredients are fine, I hesitate
to support any position to hide information from the consumer so they
won't make the wrong choice. Freedom seems to dictate that more
information is good, and consumers should be allowed to make their own
choices.
> On another article on the Beeb regarding how likely cross-contamination
> is, I found this;
>
>> In animals that have been fed GM food, the scenario is slightly
>> different. Here, contamination of meat and dairy produce by foreign
>> DNA is highly unlikely but not impossible.
>
> How can GM material get into the genetic code of animals that eat it?
> Doesn't make sense to me. Since when do plant genes "infect" animals?
> This is total bullshit, right?
I don't think they are talking about cross-pollination, such as in
plants, where the next generation contains some of the DNA. I think
here they are talking about the more basic issue of animals being what
they eat. Meat from animals can contain residues of the foods they
eat. Pesticides, antibiotics and hormones are some examples. I don't
think the DNA itself is the issue.
This whole controversy is an interesting question of individual
freedom. I personally believe that most GM food are fine, but many
people fear them. Should we hide the truth from them because their fear
is unjustified? Do we trick them into making what we consider the
correct decision instead of giving them full disclosure and letting them
make their own decision? I personally side with truth, full disclosure
and personal freedom, although this is certain to slow public
acceptance. No matter how good our intentions are, something definitely
seems unextropian about hiding information from people to trick them
into making better choices because we know they will make worse choices
if they are fully informed. I think the extropian position would be to
try to educate the public, although this is certainly a less efficient
method than just making the decisions for them.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:09 MST