Re: [pf] Risks, imposed or chosen

by Betsy Barnum

18 December 2000 16:02 UTC

David A wrote:

> Why is anyone else required to offer you food on your terms? Jews don't
> require that food be labeled kosher, or Muslims that it be labeled
> Halal--they certify their own food.

There is food offered to me on my terms--organic food. It's certified and
labeled. It doesn't contain things I don't want in my food (well, it does,
because the entire environment contains pollutants, including our own
bodies, but it doesn't have any of these things added to it) and right now,
I can still count, pretty much, on organic food being non-GMO.

The market for organic food is growing at about 20% per year, as more people
become concerned about agricultural chemicals *and* GMOs. I don't think a
person has to understand or be able to explain what a gene is or what a
molecule is to have a reliable gut feeling that mixing genes from different
kinds of creatures is a bad idea and comes with unknown risk, and to decide
based on that gut feeling, or emotion, or reason, or religion, or for any
other reason, that they do not want this to be forced on them.

There are two reasons why I am not satisfied with knowing I can avoid GMOs
by buying organic. One is that this doesn't make it available to people who
can't afford to buy organic. And two is that the absence of labeling makes
everyone nonconsensual participants in an experiment with unknown risk and
unknown impact on their or their children's health. This is unfair and puts
economic benefit ahead of human and community concerns.

And a third reason is that it has been shown that GMO pollen can fertilize
nonGMO varieties of seed,  and can even transfer from the eaten into the
eater, so the genie is indeed getting out of the bottle. Unless this is
stopped, eventually there will be no way of avoiding GMOs, no possibility of
certifying anything GMO-free.

And I continue to maintain that anyone who wants to avoid eating GMOs should
have that option. I perceive we will only maintain that as an option by
labeling and/or, my preference, banning genetic engineering altogether until
there can be long-term tests validating that it is safe enough to be put
into use. *Not* through risk assessment, by testing on the population at
large and waiting to see what the results are, as in DDT, thalidomide, and
so on, but through the precautionary principle, with the burden being on the
companies that want to make money on GMOs to prove them acceptable.

Betsy

--
Betsy Barnum