RE: [pf] Risks, imposed or chosen

by tully

17 December 2000 19:52 UTC

At 04:42 AM 12/17/00 -0800, David A wrote:
>tully wrote:
> > To me the reason is even simpler.  The companies know that if
> > the stuff was labelled, no one would buy it.
>
>As I alluded to earlier
>(http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pfvs/2000/msg06055.html), this assumption
>is not necessarily a good one.

Perhaps, but consider what you might choose when presented with a choice 
between two comparably priced foods:  one that had some sort of controversy 
concerning its development/processing and one that did not.  For example, 
consider each of the following controversial groups:

irradiated
genetically-modified
hormone-fed
antibiotic-fed
chemically fertilized
chemically pesticided

If you could choose between comparably priced versions, one with the above 
"attributes" and one without, which would you choose?