Re: Food labels and consumer information (was Re: Protesters swarm Calif. biotech meeting)

From: Alfio Puglisi (puglisi@arcetri.astro.it)
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 02:02:47 MDT

  • Next message: Alfio Puglisi: "Re: Ownership of information and truthfulness was RE: Food labels and consumer information"

    On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, John K Clark wrote:

    > "Alfio Puglisi" <puglisi@arcetri.astro.it>
    >
    > > I'm advocating for more information for the consumer
    >
    >Right. I'm for motherhood and apple pie too.

    What about orange juice? :-)

    > >What i think is that, without proper information, people often make
    > >the WRONG choice.
    >
    >Without relevant information people could make the wrong choice, I think
    >GM information is more relevant than the astrological sign of the farmer who
    >grew the food, but not by much. Many would disagree with me however,
    >they'd say nothing is more important than astrology.

    OK, so we are down again to the information and education problem. Words
    like "frankenfood" reflect a basic misunderstanding of GM, protests
    against GM are usually groundless, but the feeling of not knowing what we
    eat is an entirely legitimate concern IMHO.

    >
    > > it just feels wasteful to go to such great lengths just to
    > > see if that red fluid in a bottle is orange juice or colored water.
    >
    >But what reason is there to think that laws and the bloated government
    >departments that always grow around them like a cancer will stop somebody
    >selling colored water as orange juice better than the market can?

    I am somewhat uneasy at applying market logic to issues regarding basic
    human needs. Even assuming that the market will adjust perfectly, it will
    do at the public expense (at first): for example, if a producer sells some
    poisoned food, the market will not correct it before some people die. Or,
    if very unsafe cars are sold, again they will continue to be sold until
    they are demonstrated unsafe on the market, e.g. when people die because
    of them (come to think of it, the FDA is doing a better job than
    automobile regulations...)

    > >If the free market of ideas brings billions of $ to football
    > >players and nothing to cryonics research, well, that's just
    > >free market at work. Judging from what I read in your post,
    > >you should approve those choices.
    >
    >It's not perfect, is that a surprise?

    Of course not, but it seems that many people think it is....

    >I've said this before and people
    >think I'm joking but I am not; the free market is only the second
    >best system, without a doubt the best way to organize society is
    >just to have everybody do exactly what John K Clark tells them to do.

    No,no, the best one is to do what Alfio Puglisi says. You know, it's just
    for the benefit of myse.. of the people. On things I am uninterested with,
    I can let John say something. And where we are both uninterested, that
    free market thing can exercise its rights.

    >Unfortunately for some reason I've had a bit of difficulty convincing
    >others of the wisdom of this approach so I have to settle for second best.

    I don't see why it's so difficult :-) Many political leaders were able to
    do that.

    Ciao,
    Alfio



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 02:13:32 MDT