Re: [pf] Risks, imposed or chosen

by Sharon Flesher

18 December 2000 22:19 UTC

> Sharon Flesher wrote:
> > David wrote:
> >> How can we trust so many people being against GM food if they
> >> don't even know what it is?
> >
> > Professor Hoban seems to be counting on such ignorance to SELL
> > biotech products. In other words, he with the best propaganda wins.
>
> Then whose fault is that? There are unscrupulous people on both sides;
> it's everyone's responsibility to decide for themselves who they can
> trust and what they believe. But I don't see how your reply answers the
> question -- most people don't have, or seem to care to acquire, enough
> of the most basic information, such as what is a gene, to make an
> informed decision on GMOs. *That's* what the Greenpeace's of the world
> are counting on.

I apologize for not answering your question more precisely. My answer: if an
understanding of gene splicing and DNA is necessary to validate one's
acceptance or rejection of GM food, and the vast majority of people in this
country lack that understanding, then we can assume that such opinions --
pro or con -- are based on something other than science. But what does that
mean
for public policy? Probably what it means in just about every other realm --
public policy decisions will be based on politics. Whichever side can win
the most adherents to its cause -- either through truth or fiction -- will
have the upper hand. And fiction will likely be a more powerful tool since
it can include all sorts of inflammatory claims that these same ill-educated
people will not have the ability to evaluate.

In asking your question, David, are you implying that an uninformed opinion
is one we shouldn't credit? I'm fairly confident that you are not, but it
would be interesting to see where such a discussion would take us! By some
measures, the election of a president might be one of the most important
mass tallies of opinion we take. Yet the majority of those who get to
register their votes (which, in most states, do count) are poorly informed
on the relative merits of their choices. Personal examples: I was astonished
to learn a week before the election that one of my neighbors, a 30-year-old
mother of two, did not know that Dubya's daddy had been president. After the
election, another friend (who I had not seen in a while) told me she had
voted for Bush, but was unaware that he supported drilling in the ANWR. She
regretted her vote. Both of these women are college-educated (the latter
used to be an attorney for the U.S. Dept. of Transportation).

My personal opinion regarding GMOs is that well-informed people can disagree
on this issue. I believe it was on this list a year or two ago that someone
posted an article from a natural foods manufacturer in support of GMOs. In
50 years, we may have put to rest any uncertainty, and our
great-grandchildren will either hate us for destroying the ecosystem or love
us for eradicating hunger.

Sharon