Re: [pf] Risks, imposed or chosen

by Betsy Barnum

18 December 2000 18:05 UTC

David A wrote:

> This is exactly the problem with this debate -- it quickly degenerates
> to polemics. You're acting as if I said I'm in favor of all this, like
> I'm some kind of...conservative, fat capitalist, Rush Limbaugh
> Republican.

You were advocating that GMOs are needed by poor countries to feed their
populations. I'm just saying they don't, and my opinion as to why.

> If the people in other countries don't want corporations meddling there,
> then they should tell them to get the hell out.

Now I think you are being naive, David. How can a poor country do this? Do you
know much about the WTO, the IMF and World Bank, and their agenda for poor
countries? I can suggest some reading if you're interested. I won't go into
the arguments here, but the reality is that poor countries do *not* have a
choice about the global economy. The only way to stop its meddling in their
own decisions is for us here, where the whole thing started and is based, to
stop it here. It's also the only way we'll ever have a system that works on
behalf of people rather than on behalf of capital.

> If Americans don't want
> corporations force-feeding them GM foods at gunpoint, then they should
> avoid regular stores and buy organic or grow their own food.

That's fine for people who can afford organic food, but you can't seriously be
suggesting this as an answer to the large numbers of people who say they don't
want to eat GMO food! Without labeling, people who want to choose can't
because they don't have the information.

I do think people growing some of their own food is a great idea, and I favor
the growth of community gardens and direct-to-eater farm production. But to
suggest that people who don't want GMOs in their food should just grow it
themselves right now is not a solution, as I'm sure you know. It's fairly easy
to grow some vegetables, maybe fruits, but we can't all raise grains, cooking
oil seeds, dairy products and meat in our 1/5-acre city lots. Folks in
apartments can do even less. Community gardens aren't available to the vast
majority of people.

> Take some
> personal responsibility and don't expect the rest of the world to dance
> to your tune. No one owes anybody anything. There are a lot of *real*
> problems we're quite sure are causing suffering that we should address
> before throwing money at imagined ones.

It shouldn't cost any money to put proper labeling on food. The organic
industry has been doing it for decades. I'm not asking for the world to dance
to my tune. Tom Hoban may say his studies show lots of people don't mind GMOs,
but as the other article pointed out, his methods have been pretty heavily
critiqued. I think it's much more likely that the polls I've seen are
true--that upwards of 80 percent of people want GMO food labeled so they can
choose. Shouldn't industry be expected to "dance" to a tune being played by
such a huge majority of the people? Shouldn't our regulatory agencies be
responding to *this*, rather than to the pressure from Monsanto et al to avoid
labeling so people can't make an informed choice?

Betsy

--
Betsy Barnum
bbarnum@wavetech.net
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1624

**************************************
The Constitution was designed to ensure that the majority of
citizens (without property) would not have a real voice in
political affairs and it is no coincidence that that is the case
today. And the Constitution was designed to ensure that real
political power in this country would always be held by the
handful of very large property owners and it is no coincidence
that that is the case today.

--Jerry Fresia, Toward An American Revolution