From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Sat Jul 06 2002 - 14:39:39 MDT
Alfio Puglisi wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> >Free markets require that the consumer make the effort to keep
> >themselves informed. They do not require that producers of said produces
> >be the informers. If a producer uses a process, method, or ingredient
> >which the consumer does not like or want, it is the consumer's 'caveat
> >emptor' responsibility to divine that fact, either by the honest
> >voluntary disclosures of the producer, or via trusted third parties who
> >do product testing (i.e. Consumer Reports, etc). Caveat Emptor, as you
> >are likely aware, means 'buyer beware', thus implying that it is the
> >consumers responsibility to do due diligence to become and remain
> >informed.
>
> I agree, but I don't see why it should be so difficult to be informed. A
> company selling a new variety of GM apples, calling them simply "apples"
> and dumping them in the market together with the classic ones, is
> effectively lying about its product. A little label is not a great effort
> on their part.
How is a company lying by selling apples as 'apples'? If it looks like
an apple, and tastes like an apple, then it's an apple. While you can
determine by DNA testing whether an apple has been genetically modified,
this is only if you are aware of a) the entire broad genome of various
apple subspecies, b) the GM apples have genes which are not common to
that species.
A product that grows on a plant and is brought to market without any
additives, preservatives, etc is as much an 'apple' as one that is
unmodified.
Now, all this fear is rather misplaced, IMHO, since produce DNA which
are modified from natural genomes would only be sold if the resulting
product offers some additional benefit to the consumer. Less spoilage,
increased nutrient content, disease vaccines, etc are all benefits that
should make a consumer want to buy a GM product more than the original
product.
> Or maybe you think that Ford should market a V8 Explorer and a
> mono-cylinder one, without telling the customer the difference. And that
> said customer should buy the appropriate Consumer Report issue and check
> the serial number of the engine, and trust that the information leaked to
> CR is accurate, and so on.
CR members are rather good about reporting product defects, it is a
large part of how CR does business. Ford sells their vehicles with
warranties, as you should be aware, and as such defective products would
be covered under warranty. If you are buying a car and are stupid enough
to willingly buy a single cylinder one, you get what you pay for, and
deserve it.
>
> >If GM content is so important to consumers, then they will not buy
> >products which do not promote themselves as GM free
>
> This is already happening. A lot of food is labelling itself as
> "biologic", which stands for GM-free plus a bunch of other things. Lots of
> people increasingly buy this kind of food
>
Good for them. I am personally and vehemently opposed to such ludicrous
labelling, since in a double blind test, you couldn't prove to me what
apple was 'biologic' and what one was genetically engineered. Unless you
can do this, the 'biologic' label has absolutely no meaning or 'logic',
to it.
> >such by a third party testing agency. Any consumer who claims to not
> >want GM but doesn't take the responsibility to do their own due
> >diligence is an idiot who deserves to munch on GM.
>
> As I said before, it's a matter of balancing things. If discovering the
> GM status of my food requires an effort comparable to the OJ Simpson
> investigations, I feel that the rules should be shifted to benefit the
> consumer a little bit more.
The consumer is a lazy selfish idiot who fails to obey caveat emptor,
and deserves what they get.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:11 MST