From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Fri Jul 05 2002 - 12:30:07 MDT
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> I don't see how proponents of the free market can oppose labeling.
As I recall when we discussed this last, I think I came to the
conclusion that the consumer should have access to the information
on the web. That way they could do the required investigation
to determine something was not GM if they were really concerned
about it, as the "green" brain-washed Europeans are.
So the "label" should be a URL to a complete (and expanding)
list of the contents and nutritional values. Alternatively
you could have a palm-type computer capable of reading the
bar codes equipped with the same information.
For example, I'd like to know foods with a high sulphorophane
content but right now don't know that information in anything
but a general way for some vegetables.
> I don't see why we would want to use secrecy and misdirection to trick
> people into buying something they don't want. It seems dishonest and
> fraudulent to me to deliberately hide information from a buyer because
> one knows that they would turn down a deal if they knew the truth.
But there is already a ton of "hidden" information. Many vegetables
contain relatively high amounts of carcinogens but consumers don't
know that. Unless you know precisely what strain of brussels sprouts
you are eating you don't know whether you are getting the high
carcinogen content strain or the low carcinogen content strain.
Most consumers let their governments certify their food is safe
because government specialists are the ones qualified to do that.
What the consumers are asking for is a government mandated "suggestion"
that the food may be "harmful" to them. Why else would they be willing
to pay more for non-GM food? The problem is, that in the opinion
of the scientists qualified to judge the situation, that food
is not harmful for them, and in fact may be better for them
(because in some cases GM-foods are likely to have lower
pesticide residues).
So you are asking the government to in effect allow some
food producers to spread information that is likely to
be untrue. Follow this logic through and pretty soon
we are at the point where the government is paying for
textbooks that contain the "creationist" view because,
after all, thats "information" too.
> Dictatorships are not a good answer to enforce rational thought. A free
> society means people are free to make bad choices.
Ahha -- but should their freedom to make bad choices infringe on
my freedom to make good choices?
> This is too close to Jim Crow laws. People can only vote if they are
> smart enough to vote correctly.
One of the major reasons we have a elected "government" is to enact
policies protect our common interests (when to go to war, to require
disclosure statements for IPOs, etc.).
Not labeling GM foods doesn't prevent consumers from getting the
information. Food companies are free to advertise that their
food products are GM free.
> Easier than I can explain why they should be forced to ingest substances
> into their body against their will because the big corporations have a
> more rational say over their bodies than they do.
But if the government certifies that GM food is safe, perhaps safer
than non-GM food, the common interest would seem to be best served
by not requiring labels. Why? Because then "green" consumers
wouldn't be able to inflict their misperceptions on the "public".
Its the same problem with the "under god" phrase in the pledge
of alliegiance only we weren't watching carefully enough when
that got added.
> I don't see forcing corporations to tell the truth about their products
> as being coercive.
As I point out above -- let them have access to the information
if they really want it but in a creative way that allows them
to become better educated about the topic. Then when they
scan the ingredient list to "GM-food" they can click through
to "What the National Academy of Sciences says about GM-food"
or even Google on GM-food if they want. We do have the technology
to educate people in the grocery aisles now!
> It seems that hiding the truth or misleading the customer into
> making choices they don't want is the coercive action.
But there is no *single* "truth". Taking a heavily loaded term
like "GM" and sticking it onto food is going to create a generation
of consumers who will not consume it because they've been brainwashed
by the greens into thinking its bad. So when more robust genetic
engineering comes along and I can hand you bacteria that can be
grown in solar ponds (so they are very inexpensive) that have been
engineered to produce lots of antioxidants, sulphorophane and
lots of other good stuff and they end up getting marketed as
strawberry flavored green popsicles with that GM label on them
and the "green" public doesn't consume them your health/tax dollars
mine are going to be paying the medical bills of all the "green"
consumers that come down with cancer.
So not only are you asking me to allow people to make stupid
decisions that *prevent* me from making good decisions you are
asking me to subsidize those decisions as well.
Blech phooey!
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:10 MST