animals die making it. Unlike all that other meat right....?
^
In addition, she lists absolutely no health risks whatsoever from eating it, but demands it is regulated. Yes, so she cares about lots of animals dying, but is she right about what she is saying? What farmer would rationally undertake a practice that will see more animals die than be sold? oops i forgot the Greens aren't too good on economic rationalism...
^
So here we go:
^
- Name one independently verifiable example of a person harmed by cloned food.
while we're at it...
- Name one independently verifiable example of a person harmed by food containing genetically modified ingredients.
3 comments:
it should certainly be labeled ("cloned" and "organic" and "genetically modified") so the consumer has a choice whether to buy it or not, as you surely would advocate too, no?
The consumer always has a choice, nobody is forced to buy anything.
Labelling shouldn't be forced. Many producers have been explicitly claiming organic and not GM on labels because they believe it increases sales. If there is no label on this, you can choose not to buy it.
There is no right to force someone producing something to tell you about the product, there is every right to turn your back and not buy it as a result.
Let the market decide what the best label is to sell product: "Cloned Meat" or "Real Meat" (i.e. non-cloned meat) as should happen with "organic" and "battery-farmed" too. Farmers and food producers should be proud of their products and try to convince the customer theirs is the best (or have those GM and clone producers something to hide?)
"Labeling shouldn't be forced"
It's not a question of forcing labeling, just truthfully describing what you are selling. How else are you going to get a perfect market where all market participants have perfect market knowledge?
Post a Comment