GENTECH archive 8.96-97
Boycott australian rabbits. (retrospective campaign idea No1)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Boycott australian rabbits. (retrospective campaign idea No1)
- From: "sdef!" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:04:08 +0000
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- Organization: earth first!
- Reply-To: email@example.com
Not personal so name not quoted
> Based on numerous consumer surveys, food labelled as genetically engineered
> will not be purchased if there is an alternative. Thus, labelling is a
> tactical politic. But it is based on the fundamental values of consumer
> soverignty, right to know, free speech.
Our civil rights have already been violated. Forceful and unmandated
(and illegal) direct action has already been taken against us. The
democratic process has failed. I know it isn't a nice thing to have to
face up to, but we must.
This is not a reply to my argument, it is merely a (very) breif
reiteration of the poorly reasoned position my article was challenging.
I have had a number of similar replies. Not one of them has taken into
account any of what I said, or even considered it enough to disagree
intelligently... all were dismissive in a way reminiscint of my
Am I on my own? Would someone else please point out the flaws in this
(particularly the butterfly mindedness of the 'consumer' and how wording
in surveys can get any response you want - eg how many people read the
labels anyway? how many people use condoms? how many people are still
eating beef? and that this is a new market emerging so a 5% boycott -
which was not achieved with Nestle, will not have the same effect as it
is not making a hole in an existing market, but slowing the growth of a
And how much money do you have available to counter the multi-
billion dollar marketing campaign the corps will inevitably introduce if
you succeed in getting labelling. And none of this takes into account
the _fact_ that we won't be able to boycott gm foods anyway. See
those that aren't already in the article, which I take the liberty of
attaching to go along with the emerging tradition of repeating oneself.
(no I changed my mind, it isn't fair on the people who did read it.)
And it isn't just about food either. If you lot don't try to stop it
no-one will, so you are my only hope. Look beyond the dogma at what I
have written. By all means argue about that.
If this case is not self evident from the article, please tell me what
is missing, I already _know_ the case for labelling. Please give good
reasons for the abandonment of the campaign to stop the release of all
genetically modified organisms until such time as they can be shown to
be safe. It is my life you are gambling with as well. People say that we
wouldn't be able to get a ban - this is merely an opinion and is in any
case irrelevant as nothing short of a ban will stop this. We aren't even
getting a boycott.
A boycott won't stop the stuff from escaping from millions of acres of
fields. Australians could have boycotted rabbits, but the rabbits
wouldn't have cared. Even if they were labelled.
Once upon a time
Science opened up the door
we'd feed the hungry fields
'till they couldn't take no more
But the potions that they made
touched the creatures down below
and they grew up in a way
that we'd never seen before
South Downs EF!, Prior House
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY, UK