Skip

California genetic food vote is no victory for science
November 15, 2012 9:28 AM   Subscribe

The argument against Prop 37 really boiled down to something more disturbing: "If we tell people what's in their food, they will make the wrong choice, so we shouldn't give them one."

Why is the US of all places protecting GM foods rather than letting them sink or swim in a free market? Companies should instead persuade people that their new products are better than the alternative.

If all countries insisted on GM labelling, corporations would be forced to convince consumers of the benefits. As it stands, in California the companies who have helped engender such rabid distrust of GM foods have been let off the hook. Prop 37 could have been a catalyst for change. Instead the status quo remains - and we'll all be the losers in the end.
posted by Strass (5 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: needs less soapbox more "this is something neat I found on the web" -- jessamyn



 
If you want to stand on your soapbox in the FPP itself get a blog.
posted by Talez at 9:32 AM on November 15, 2012 [3 favorites]


I think GM foods should be labeled, and I voted against Prop 37. It wasn't the best-written proposition, and should not have been a proposition in the first place.

I would happily support legislative action in CA that tried to achieve the same ends, and that we could easily modify as we learned more about the best way to label GM foods.

I'm actually in agreement with the main thrust of this piece, which is that folks who think GM foods are both inevitable and potentially of huge benefit should be in favor of labeling. It's just that "in favor of labeling" != in favor of Prop 37.
posted by feckless at 9:34 AM on November 15, 2012 [3 favorites]


The two paragraphs in the FPP are the final two paragraphs of the article, not the poster's words. Perhaps that could be more clear with a block quote.
posted by aaronbeekay at 9:34 AM on November 15, 2012 [1 favorite]


I have no objections to eating GM food.

However, I do have strident objections to how genetic engineering is being abused to give foods properties that serve to increase costs to consumers, stifle competition, and increase the amount of pesticides used in the environment. All things that are the exact opposite of the promise that genetic engineering held.

Because of that, I stridently object to GM foods, period.
posted by Xoebe at 9:34 AM on November 15, 2012 [3 favorites]


I really wish this post could stay, because corporate control of the food supply is an important issue. Unfortunately, you ruined it with editorializing.
posted by DU at 9:35 AM on November 15, 2012


« Older Medieval Writing   |   Jingle Cats, Crawling in my Skin Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post