Kneen is bang-on about the industry mis-step in its strategy of trying to soft-pedal the separation/labelling issue. The industry, by claiming its GE products are nutritionally indistinguishable from (and equally safe as) conventional products and therefore shouldn't be kept separate is a reasonable stance if this is true. Unfortunately, it is also a reasonable stance if, as the conspiracy-theorists would have it, the Monsantos of the world are trying to foist dangerous, toxic, inferior products onto an unsuspecting populace.
Except for relatively mild claims about the environmentally-benign nature of Bt crops (ie from reduced pesticide use), mostly the GE companies haven't tried to claim their products are superior to conventional soy, cotton, canola, potatoes or whatever. It would be costly to keep separate product streams based on method of production (as organic producers know well). As far as the GE companies are concerned, there is no reason to incur this expense. They saw this as a way to improve production of the crop (ie cut costs to the farmer), not produce a product that had superior characteristics that would fetch a higher market price at the consumer level.
Given public suspicion about the intentions and trustworthiness of these big corporations, I think their strategy has backfired. Many people (like Kneen) see this reluctance to create separate handling streams for GE crops as evidence of a plot to hide something sneaky, harmful, dangerous and downright bad.
I'd be interested to know what proportion of Monsanto employees (or Novartis or Dow or whoever), don't consume their own products because they know or suspect that they are unsafe.
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: