Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
If they had to swear or affirm safety, it comes with liability.
|
Problem: most of us only reason using soundbytes. So is salt safe or a killer? Both. But that requires numbers. Most of us do not want and cannot make judgements using perspective. Most want a soundbyte answer often found in extremism.
In a world where extremist soundbytes have more credibility than long technical reality, then anyone can appreciate why Monsanto (and so many others) desperately want a low profile.
Perfect example - Keystone pipeline. Opposition only exists due to extremist half truths and outright lies. Where is one hard fact (with numbers) that says that pipeline is bad? None exist. So why do so many have opinions? Again, many adults still think like children. Their emotions (not facts) created by soundbytes justify their opinions.
If we must label foods as genetically modified, then we should label all foods. Since virtually all are genetically modified.
Or do what does not exist in health food stores and should be required. A full sheet describing every ingredient with numbers that say how much AND numbers that say what the recommended daily amount is. In this case, wackos in government will oppose that because honesty would bankrupt the health food (ie GNC) industry that buy politicians.
How many foods have probiotics and bifidus regularis? Magic ingredients that improve digestion? Of course. All foods improve digestion because even more junk food increases the amount digestion. But Dannon sales increased more than 20% due to a soundbyte lie. So many can be scammed by 'magic' expressions that are only 'good' or 'evil'. In an extremist's world (or a world of adults who are still children), only those two conditions exist.
Define affirmed safety.