Posted 18 June 2012 - 07:07 PM
They can put whatever damn thing they want in the food they sell, maybe to make it taste better or whatever their motive is, without violating your rights.
A company can voluntarily choose to list ingredients, perhaps to gain a market advantage over a rival company that does not list ingredients.
Perhaps some consumer journalist service will find some dirt on a company and then customers might not trust that company and down it goes in the market. So there might be some free market pressure on companies to list their ingredients fully and in detail and without a trace of deception.
In this article Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, disagrees with Objectivism and presents:
The case for mandatory GMO labeling - even if you believe in limited government and the free market
The title of the article looks like maybe it is directed to Objectivist/Libertarian types.
The term GMO is confusing. Better would be GEO (Genetically Engineered Organisms). The reason why GMO is confusing is if you take that term literally, it leads you to think that Monsanto is not doing anything different from natural selection and artificial selection. What they are doing is very different. There is no way you could get a cross between a goat and a spider by selection (natural or artificial), or a cross between corn and a bacteria, or a tomato and a fish.
Contrary to what Peikoff thinks and what most Objectivists think, the case against GEO (as I will call it instead of GMO) is not based on philosophy. It is based on peer reviewed science.
Keep in mind that there are 2 kinds of science. There is real science, aimed at truth. Then there is phony science, also known as corporate science, aimed at marketing a product. In both kinds of science there is a peer review process.
In the case of corporate science the peer review process is corrupt and is aimed at marketing the product and they will fudge the experiments and data as necessary to support the bottom line and it can't pass corporate science peer review unless it supports the bottom line. For proof of this, search the history of how aspartame was approved.
The case against GEOs has nothing to do with "nature is better than man-made" or "natural is better than artificial" as Peikoff ignorantly assumes.
But the topic under discussion in Mike's article is not the merits and demerits of GEOs but the ethical and political principles involved in mandatory labelling.
As a somewhat side point, I think mostly likely if labelling of GEOs becomes mandatory, there will be a problem keeping the labelling honest. I base this prediction on what we see now with mandatory labelling. Often the labelling is so cleverly dishonest (while complying with the law) that it is worse than useless. One example of many examples is most people do not know what ingredient is deliberately hidden while still complying with the law by "hydrolyzed ... [whatever]". Anything with the word 'hydrolyzed' is a clever disguise that fools most people but at the same time it complies with the law.
Posted 18 June 2012 - 10:30 PM
Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--Libertarian
Posted 18 June 2012 - 11:06 PM
You are not talking with us; you are talking at us.
What did I say that you found offensive?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users