From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Fri Jul 05 2002 - 23:00:30 MDT
On Friday, July 5, 2002, at 02:30 pm, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> 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.
What are you talking about? I don't see anybody asking for false
labeling of food.
> Ahha -- but should their freedom to make bad choices infringe on
> my freedom to make good choices?
Not at all. That's why the food should be labeled so everybody can make
their own choice. By not labeling food, nobody has a choice except to
trust the companies to decide what should go into your food or not.
> 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.
There is no problem with companies that want to share the information.
What about companies that don't want anybody to know. There is no way
for the consumer to get the information. Such companies deliberately
hide information because they know consumers don't want to buy GM
foods. It seems dishonest to sell something to someone that you know
they don't want, but you hide the information so they don't realize that
the product contains something they don't want to buy.
> 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".
I don't want the government to decide for me what is safe and what is
not. I want to have full disclosure so I can decide for myself.
>> 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.
As long as the information is available, that's fine. I don't care if
it is literally on the label or available elsewhere. My only objection
is when the information is deliberately hidden and not available
anywhere to trick customers into buying it. This would be like hiding
pork products in food so kosher people will eat them, or hiding meat in
foods so vegetarians will eat them. This is dishonest. If people don't
want to eat something, it is coercive to trick them into eating it with
disinformation or incomplete information.
> 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!
This sounds wonderful. Why do you argue against food labeling if this
is what you want? This sounds like a perfect argument for labeling.
>
>> 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.
This is exactly why labeling is important. There is no single truth.
If the contents are simply labeled, then every consumer can follow their
own version of "truth" or "safety". Hiding this information and simply
having government or corporations telling people what is good and what
is bad is not acceptable. They may not make the same choices I desire.
> 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.
You are now talking about people refusing a cancer cure and asking you
to pay their hospital bills. This is a far stretch from wanting truth
in advertising on food labels.
> 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.
I don't see how full labeling prevents you from making a good decision.
If you like GM foods, wouldn't food labeling help you eat more GM foods
and less non-GM foods?
-- 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 - 09:15:11 MST