Re: Mandatory labeling

From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Tue Jul 09 2002 - 19:24:54 MDT


Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 02:04 am, John K Clark wrote:
> >
> > You said yourself the rice looks different so there is no big secret
> > that
> > it's not the same as regular rice, but if you force people to brand the
> > label with some sort of a scarlet letter saying the product was made
> > with
> > Frankenstein technology then the golden rice project will fail, it's as
> > simple as that. And then millions will continue to die and go blind
> > who need not have.
> >
>
> What are you talking about? I don't want to label it as "Frankenstein"
> technology. I want to label it as "golden rice" so people can tell the
> difference from regular rice. Why would anybody want to force people to
> buy opaque bags or boxes of rice and have to guess which kind they are
> getting? Why not label them so people can choose?

Any product forced to be labeled "GMO" or "Contains GMO Ingredients" is
a dead product from the get go, due only to the demonization and lies of
the luddite community. The luddites make sure the public views "GMO" as
"frankenfood".

>
> Your only argument is that people will choose wrong, so you want to take
> away their ability to choose. Hiding information or taking away choice
> is an unextropian way to force product success. A free-market approach
> would be full disclosure and letting the customer decide.

In that case, all food made from plants or animals bred by hybridization
techniques should be as equally 'inorganic' or un-'biologic' as those
whose genes have been spliced and diced by design, or whos genes have
been evolved in computer simulations. The only truly organic food is
that which people hunt and gather themselves from the wild.

>
> I am appalled that so-called free market people are willing to throw
> away freedoms and competition when it comes to their pet products. If
> you products can't gain customer support, then they deserve to fail. If
> people don't want your product, then that's they way the free market
> chooses. There are lots of products that "should" have prevailed, yet
> customers chose otherwise. Too bad, so sad. But tampering with the
> free-market, removing choice, or deceiving customers is not the way to
> force uncompetitive products to prevail over people's old-time
> favorites. Clearly, the benefits of GM food aren't good enough to get
> the consumer public to switch. They need better advertising, education,
> and better products. This is basic free-market stuff. How could any
> extropian be against that?

I am appalled that you want to confiscate the first amendment rights of
food producers so willynilly. I am appalled that you think your 'right
to know' should force a financial burden on somebody else. I am appalled
that you think that any domesticated plant or animal is any less
intentionally bred away from its wild progenitors than those whose
genomes have been cut and spliced.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:16 MST