posted on May, 22 2013 @ 03:06 PM
reply to post by Swills
This statement gets me.
Paul Pescatello, a board member of Connecticut United for Research Excellence, an industry-supported group, said not enough of the science has
been absorbed by those critical of GMOs.
"I think there's a lot of emotion surrounding this bill right now," said Pescatello, who also said the bill could violate constitutional rights
for free commercial speech.
For one, what science?... Not enough science has been absorbed by critics? Was that some sort of Roundup pun? Is there scientific evidence that would
prove GMO's safe or are they claiming that the lack of science proving harm is evidence of its safety?
Besides, as pheonix358
correctly put it, the onus is on the company to
prove to us
that their products are safe not
the other way around!
The last part of that statement I find offensive. Since corporations have constitutional rights just like citizens now they get to make odd claims
like this one. Violation of free speech by being forced to disclose their product’s contents?! This claim has been used on this issue before.
Washington State has an Initiative (I-522)
that had a hearing recently and this was one of the anti-labeling GMO
comments. The company’s right to free speech would potentially be violated by the act of mandatory labeling. What about my right to choose. In order
to make an informed decision I need information so whose rights are being violated now. Are a corporation's rights to hide information to protect
their interests above my right to choose to protect my health?