> Dale: labelling is not the issue. Informed decision making is what
> is missing.
When I say "Labelling" as an issue I mean to include consumer
decision-making as part of the issue.
> So, in the absence of meaningful evidence on risk (and recall,
> please, that absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence -
> it just means the research hasn't been done), labelling that
> something is GMO will be a pointless exercise for the vast majority
> of citizens.
The GMO issue is another example of miniscule, immeasurably small risk (as
far as we can tell) being trotted out as an inflammatory red herring to push
a very comprehensive political (anthropocentric) agenda. I think that
worrying about GMO's truly is a "pointless exercise." Almost everyone in
the public research community, the industry, the regulatory community, the
political center (at least in the US) believes the risks are very small.
Sure, studies on safety should continue but the crisis atmosphere is
Sanet energy would be better spent on figuring out how to ameliorate the
devastating effects six billion people are having on wild nature, than on
bureaucratic boutique food regulation for rich people who have nothing
better to worry about.
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: