There is basic information on GMO foods that should be much more readily
accessible to people -- consumers, food processors, buyers, researchers,
health care people. Both simple, lay person versions and technical
versions should be made available including the nature of the gene
construct, where new genes came from, what is known about their function,
marker genes, promoter(s) used, what is known about placement in the genome
of the transformed crop. Most of this information is publicly available in
various places -- EPA documents, USDA or FDA applications -- but it is hard
to get at and often hard to interpret. Regardless of how labeling unfolds,
the use of "Material Safety" data sheets for GMOs is a good idea.
Government should work to define common formats and get caught up with
foods already in commerce. Over time, the content and formats will evolve.
Providing information such as the above should be seen as an essential
component of an overall consumer education program on GMO foods, of which
labeling is another core component. Non-commercial, non-spun Information
readily accessible to consumers is a key component of effective labeling
because it heightens the chance the concerned consumer will become better
able to make their own informed choices. It seems most everyone accepts
this as a valid goal. Having learned more, some will decide there is no
reason to shun GMO foods and some will decide otherwise. That is how open
markets are supposed to work.
Solutions will seem harder to reach and will, in the end prove more costly
in lots of ways if the biotech industry and government continue to argue
that there is nothing risky or different with GMO foods -- a position that
most members of the public reject for a variety of reasons, including
several valid ones. Those who think education or PR campaigns can convince
people that moving genes around and changing their expression as now done
with biotechnology is "normal" have some rough years ahead.
Information and choice and openness are the only ways for the ag biotech
industry to move forward now. If they continue as they have in the past,
the multiple costs of doing business will go up and will more than erode
any potential commercial advantage, rendering the technologies
uneconomical, and doing things like eroding stock value.
chuck
Charles Benbrook CU FQPA site www.ecologic-ipm.com
Benbrook Consulting Services Ag BioTech InfoNet www.biotech-info.net
5085 Upper Pack River Road IPM site www.pmac.net
Sandpoint, Idaho 83864
208-263-5236 (Voice) 208-263-7342 (Fax)
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail