Anyway, the FDA does have a point. An overwhelming chunk of the whole GM-foods debate in Europe is based on fear and emotion. And until this past year there was essentially no consumer concern about GM food in the US, not counting consumers who also happen to work for Greenpiece or something. ;) What little was thought about it last year was mainly due to StarLink, and that's already gone away as well.
Did the FDA deregulate vitamins and supplements? I thought they were always deregulated. In any case, whenever something suspicious does turn up in those areas, the FDA clamps down.posted by aaron at 8:00 PM on January 18, 2001
Plenty, so long as the meanings behind the labels are defined by anti-GM activists.
And I still want to know what those acronyms above mean.posted by aaron at 9:47 PM on January 18, 2001
My thought on it is, that the labelling is provided for the benefit of the consumer (rather than the manufacturer) and should therefore be as informative as possible. Like including 'may contain nuts' on foods that have been produced at plants which also process nuts (and yes, I'm aware that nut allergies are far more dangerous than GE foods have so far proved to be). I want to know if my cheese has been pasteurised or not, where the produce has come from, and what else has been added to it. It shouldn't make a big difference to most people, but if you have a problem with eating GE foods, why shouldn't you have the opportunity to choose not to do so?posted by Caffa at 3:12 AM on January 19, 2001
« Older Counting is profoundly political... | Breaking up is hard to do...... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt