Re: [pf] Risks, imposed or chosen

by Vicki Madden

17 December 2000 13:47 UTC

Betsy Barnum wrote:
>
>WRT to GMOs, the thing that bugs me the most is that so-called science keeps
>being thrown in the face of people who object to GMOs. "People are hysterical.
>They just don't understand that the science says it's entirely ok, nothing to
>worry about. We have to convince them that their fears are unfounded." What
>bugs me about this is that people's stated preference not to eat GMOs is
>disrespected and viewed as hysteria, ignorance, unfounded fear, something that
>needs to be "fixed" or "corrected," rather than as a legitimate stance that is
>deserving of respect.

"Science" is a human endeavor and therefore not perfect. When GMO-advocates
wave science around and imply that those who believe that food as nature
created it is the best kind are just hysterical, it is absurd. Their track
record is not that great. "Science"/corporations created baby formula,
remember? Women who continued to breastfeed were called "lazy" (didn't want
to get up in the night and boil stuff for their babies), poor and ignorant
(didn't want to spend what is now thousands of dollars to feed their
babies). But...guess what? Science has turned out to be really really wrong
on this one.

In terms of risk assessment, I don't consider corporate profits to be part
of the equation *I* use to calculate what risks I am going to take.

Vicki Madden
(back on this list after a few years of absence)