Imagine a law for a mandatory disclaimer for organic food that read: For a product to be certified as organic, it means at least 95% of chemicals used in its production are non-synthetic. Up to 5% of chemicals used may be synthetic. Organic produce is not pesticide-free and does contain applied pesticides and that on all imported Organic products or ingredients, the disclaimer additionally read: Imported organic produce may not meet USDA organic standards. This is all accurate and informative. Would organic industry interests oppose? Likely. Why? Theyd fear itd hurt their profits. They know their consumers are chemophobic. There isnt any scientific evidence that the up to 5% synthetic chemicals (if domestic) or maybe higher (if imported) nor the applied pesticides on organic produce are anything to worry about when it comes to health and safety. Even so, organic industry interests would oppose such mandatory disclaimers. And if people argued that if the organic industry were so proud of their product, they wouldnt oppose it, such an argument would still be fallacious argument that those things pose a health risk to people. And if people argued that if the organic industry didnt have anything bad to hide, they wouldnt oppose such mandatory disclaimers, it would still be a fallacious argument that those things pose a health risk to people. So, maybe now you might understand why Monsanto opposes mandatory labeling. The same reason why organic industry interests would oppose an informative and accurate mandatory disclaimer. The reason is simple: some consumers are chemophobic and/or otherwise make fear-based choices based on scientifically illiterate concepts. And companies often cater to consumers perceptions rather than risk losing profits.
Posted on: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 00:16:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015