How well did the presumptive shoppers in that survey understand what
they were doing? How well did Zeneca et al. understand the risk that
they were putting their clients to? Is the adamant refusal of
Monsanto (in particular) to label as GE their products explicitly to
avoid accountability for adverse human health effects - which
admittedly will be diffuse because not many humans would fare any
better than those Rowett Institute rats if they ate nothing but
potatoes, let alone GE potatoes. So, whatever effects GE would have
would necessarily be blurred in a normal human diet, but would be
blurred into unaccountability if the GE food was not even labelled.
OR, is it simply a reasonable business tactic to avoid frivolous
lawsuits? Given all the people with a vested interest in the failure
of GE, if foodstuffs were labelled as such, it is not rocket science
to imagine a whole bunch of people would claim injury from eating a
McD hamburger (bad example), say a biggie order of GE french fries.
It is noteworthy that Novartis, a company with a very large stake in
GE technology, has not supported the anti-labelling stance of
Monsanto and the governments of the US, Canada, and the UK. Does
that tell us anything? Ann
ACLARK@plant.uoguelph.ca
Dr. E. Ann Clark
Associate Professor
Crop Science
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
FAX: 519 763-8933
http://www.oac.uoguelph.ca/www/CRSC/faculty/eac.htm
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
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