RE: [pf] Risks, imposed or chosen

by tully

17 December 2000 21:31 UTC

At 12:27 PM 12/17/00 -0800, David A wrote:
>There's a fallacy right there--producing GM-free food via a completely
>separate, parallel processing line adds significantly to its cost. Just
>off the top of my head I think I've seen figures from about 7% to 20%
>higher. Maybe you or I could afford that, but not everyone could.

I must be misunderstanding you.  I can see how gmos could be more expensive 
as they are still recovering development costs, but not the other way 
around, since those non-gm processes have been done for far 
longer.  Illiterate farmers all over the world have been growing the stuff 
for centuries...

> > 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?
>
>I have no problem with the first two categories. The last four concern
>me much more. I don't see your point.

OK, lets just consider irradiated and gm, then.  For the sake of argument, 
you are in the grocery store and before you are two products, both costing 
the same, but one label says it has gm and irradiated ingredients within it 
and the other says it does not have gm or irradiated products.  Otherwise 
the labels are identical.  Which would you choose?