From: Brian D Williams (talon57@well.com)
Date: Thu Aug 26 1999 - 13:51:42 MDT
From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@www.aeiveos.com>
>Exactly! If we assume that most of the fears and naysaying is
>unjustified (because the people don't understand the relative
>risks), then your "right" to have free and complete access to
>information is conflicting with my "right" to buy the cheapest
>food products. If some people have and *misinterpret* the
>information, then companies fail to develop markets that would
>otherwise be benificial to everyone. [You don't have to buy it if
>its engineered, but you shouldn't be able to force me into not
>being able to buy it as well.] Furthermore, if you look at the
>agenda of the anti-Ag-Bio people, they not only want to take away
>my right to buy cheaper food, they want to take away *your* right
>to grow such food. So it would appear that you have a logical
>conflict between your desire for full disclosure and your desire
>to grow whatever crop you feel like on your property. [I'm
>assuming that you would argue fairly strongly that if you want to
>grow *any* crop you should be able to do so.]
Yep, sounds like a court issue, which takes precedence, my right to
know or your (their) right to spray massive quantities of roundup.
As long as I get the right to sue for damages....
You don't have to tell me about anti's, I'm NRA remember... ;)
>Now, I suspect that companies would still develop the products
>because there are people who can interpret the relative risks
>properly. They might do some educational advertising or fund PBS
>specials, etc. It would all take longer though because the ROI
>would be slower.
Yes, this would be a good idea, actually a smart company could do
both, you could have your Campell's "cream of genetically
engineered "FlavvrSavr" tomato" for 50 cents, or your Cambell's
"cream of organically grown Brandywine tomato" for 2 bucks.
>The real *sticky* point is going to revolve around the
>cross-pollination and "natural crop" contamination issues. Who
>should have to bear the burden enclosing their crops in "safe
>zones" (miles from other crops, greenhouses, etc.), the
>Gene-Engineers or the Naturalists?
Court time again.... I think it depends on venue....contaminating
an organic crop in California for example might get you the death
penalty.... ;)
Actually from a marketing standpoint it depends on each product. I
see micronutrient rice as getting considerably less opposition than
our favorite whipping boy "Roundup corn".
Brian
Member, Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
Life Extension Foundation, www.lef.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
Mars Society, www.marssociety.org
Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:54 MST