Re: Protesters swarm Calif. biotech meeting

From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Mon Jun 23 2003 - 06:53:08 MDT

  • Next message: Harvey Newstrom: "RE: Digital code of the Incas"

    Alfio Puglisi write:

    > On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Damien Broderick wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >>Chanting, banging drums and carrying signs that read
    > >>"We Don't Want to Eat Their Corporate Creations,"
    > >
    > >Why don't they fuck off and eat something else, then?
    >
    > The problem is that it's very difficult to know if some
    > packaged food you found in the supermarket is made
    > with GM food or not. I'm totally in favor of clear
    > labels and such. This way I can skip the "natural"
    > ones and go for an all-GM diet :-))
    >
    > Here's a real-world example from a similar problem:
    > in the EU, different countries produce (and consume)
    > different kinds of chocolate. The percentage of cocoa
    > varies between 20% and 60%, with most products
    > averaging 25%. In most of the EU, a small fraction
    > of the product (say 5%) is replaced with "filler"
    > additives that have different tastes too. As you can
    > imagine, here in Italy we DON'T use additives, and
    > there's a minimum cocoa percentage before something
    > can be (legally) called "chocolate".
    >
    > Now, the EU is trying to bring the different food
    > standards in a common one. For chocolate, they
    > ruled that up to 5% of the total weight can be
    > replaced with filler additives with different taste.
    > Something that no one here wants to eat.
    >
    > What's the problem, you'll ask? Just don't buy them.
    > But, the problem is that, up to the 5% limit, the
    > producer is not required to write it on the label,
    > and the consumer has NO way to know. And a
    > big collective "fuck you" came from the entire
    > country, addressed to Bruxelles. I don't know
    > the final result yet :-)
    >
    > What will happen? Pure-cocoa brands will have
    > to invent their new denomination (e.g. "pure
    > chocolate" and so on), probably raising prices,
    > and causing great confusion on the market. All
    > because someone up there does not want to tell
    > people what they are eating.
    >
    > I'm a GM supporter, but I can understand very
    > well people protesting the "smuggling" of GM
    > products without proper labels and such. Shouldn't
    > consumers be informed for a free market to work?

    Some very good points made here. Chocolate clearly
    should not be messed with.

    Producers *should* respect the informational needs of
    their targeted consumer group.

    Perhaps:
      
    "Genes in this product are less randomly modified
        by nature. Contains fewer weevil derivatives.
                  For best results: Ingest orally "

    - Brett Paatsch



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 23 2003 - 07:00:38 MDT