Hi Keith,
Wednesday, March 01, 2000, 9:58:23 PM, you wrote:
KJ> When I suggested to Greg Caton of Lumen Foods that I would boycott
KJ> his GMO soy products and urge local stores to do likewise
The only socially and ecologically responsible reaction.
KJ> he had this response:
KJ> "You give yourself too much credit.
KJ> Most of my business is private label or mail order.
In that case it's important to determine who he sells to; i.e. who
sells his products under their own label. Someone who was
"sympathetic" ("on his side") might be able to get that information
from him, just be asking for it (ostensibly to "support" those
products, or to define the coverage a boycott ought to have). The mail
order list would be harder to come by and the only thing that could be
done would be to distribute informative literature to those clients,
so that they could make whatever choice they felt appropriate, in view
of facts not disclosed by Lumen.
KJ> I wouldn't be waging this campaign if I didn't know
KJ> that there isn't anything in this universe that people
KJ> like you could do to affect my business.
"People like you". I wonder what got him to that point? Could you send
me the letter you sent? He's already got you mentally before a firing
squad.
KJ> You're totally wrong on GM foods,
I wonder how he gained access to information no one else seems to have
yet? Such unfounded certainly must feel wonderful now, but he's in for
a hard, cold turkey hangover when the euphoria wears off.
KJ> but since over 80% of all foods will be biotech in the next 5
KJ> years (according to Clinton administration figures) it's all
KJ> academic anyways.
There's no doubt that the insidious factor of the biotech onslaught
was fairly well planned and they did manage to get their foot in the
door. But the race is far from over and there's no pot of gold at the
end of his rainbow, to say the least. Things just don't add up that
way (not the things I both want and come from).
KJ> You people had an opportunity to take a pro-environmental position
KJ> and so something really important for the advancement of biotech
KJ> science.
Interesting how the word biotech got inserted between advancement and
science. Very slick. Pure marketing tactics. His is the "a
pro-environmental position". That's truly incredible. Where do these
people come from, where do they study?
KJ> Lucky for you, you'll ending up enjoying the fruits of
KJ> biotechnology, kicking and screaming every inch of the way.
At this point the last remaining remnants of any show of objectivity
have carelessly been cast aside. The guy is mean and resents anyone
who thinks thinks things out a little more deeply than he does. He
doesn't just disagree, he gloats and insists that you suffer for your
sins: Daring to suggest that business is no longer as usual in his
little world, one that's restricted to the corporate bottom line at
any cost. It's all dependent on keeping things foggy and defuse,
rather than well defined.
KJ> The passage of time will show you how horribly wrong you've been."
Overconfidence. He has no basis for that statement and obviously
ignores much more than he knows. But why has he taken this stance?
What's in it for him? How personally satisfying can the bits and
pieces approach he's bet on really be? It's out of context and out of
focus, and leaves so much out! Is he really satisfied with simply
gloating in the face of those whose concerns run deeper?
The lines will be drawn and few will actually *choose* GMO products
over those that expressly *aren't* GMO. There will be few *committed*
to GMOs on the consumer end, and the contrary will be increasingly
true, as more options that take that stance become available.
By showing his stake (or the fact that he has one, since we don't yet
know what his interest really consists of), he's lost the main
advantage that biotech has enjoyed to date: The insidiousness of it.
It won't hold it's in a battle field where the lines have been clearly
drawn, and that's happening fast. The pervasive aspect of it is due
for a setback - people have been woken up and are taking a second look
at the issue. Much confusing and contradictory information is being
circulated, but it will never the less all get sorted out, soon
enough.
In another but related vein, I just took at the website of the group
Misha is now working with, and see that an attempt is being made to
develop (and promote) a consistent and well defined criteria for
"Value" (my term for what they're looking at). I don't know how for
they've gotten with it but I've powermarked the site and intend to
check it out further as time permits. Inherent value is not something
that lends itself to a bits and pieces approach, since the nature of
anything is founded over time and in a defined and detailed context,
and nothing grows in jerks.
If the people who really want GMOs are those who sell them, just who
are they going to sell them to? (Each other, obviously).
Douglas
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/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 12 2000 - 14:00:32 EST