1. MICE will not surrender
2. Report on The Poll that Asked about Surrender
---
1. MICE will not surrender
thanks to Rowan Tilly for forwarding this
X-Sender: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 18:28:41 +0100 To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. From: Ricarda Steinbrecher <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Subject: Mice will not surrender
Once upon a time there were two little mice (not onco-mice) who were running around in the cow barn, balancing along ropes and daringly dancing on the beams. And then it happened that they slipped and fell. Down, down they went - their descent ending in a big splash, well, as big a splash as two mice can make that fall into a bucket full of rBGH cream. Once recovered from the shock they started paddling, desperate not to drown or swallow any. Until the futility of this paddling overwhelmed one of the little mice. For how long could they keep on swimming? The edge of the bucket was too high for them to reach in any case. So why keep swimming, why not just give up and drown now rather than another hour and another hour of agonising about drowning? "Keep swimming, friend, keep swimming!"the other mouse shouted across the cream lake. "Even though we can't think of a way out, never - NEVER give up as long as you can still draw a breath!" But the first little mouse just could not see any meaning in this. It was obvious they were going to drown eventually. So it stopped swimming, gave up the battle and surrendered. The other mouse grew very quiet, trying not to think too much about the death of its friend but rather holding on to the memory of the world beyond the bucket, the great feeling of swinging on the ropes, digging through the straw. So it kept paddling, and when the morning came, the bucket full of cream had turned into butter. With one final effort the little mouse took a jump to the rim of the bucket - and off she ran.
---
2. Report on The Poll that Asked about Surrender
[originated Beth Burrows, Edmonds Institute]
Dear ALL:
Recently the Edmonds Institute conducted a poll. Due to the many requests we have had for the results of the poll, we are distributing our report long before the date we had announced. We hope this does not cause anyone any inconvenience.
We send our thanks to all who participated and note that members of the board of directors, advisors, staff, funders, and volunteers of the Edmonds Institute and their families were not invited or eligible to participate in this poll.
Sincerely,
Beth Burrows
Director
The Edmonds Institute ____________________________________________________________
The Poll that Asked about Surrender
by Beth Burrows and Freida Morris
Summary:
On January 9, 2001, the Edmonds Institute, a small, public interest, non-profit organization, sent out an electronic poll to a group of email addresses, asking that the poll be posted. Setting forth rules and a deadline for voting, the poll - a copy of which appears in Appendix A - asked recipients to vote whether or not they would "surrender" - a word taken from the article and quotation that occasioned the poll - to genetically modified (GM) crops.
Of those email votes that arrived before the poll ended, 93.03% indicated the senders "will not surrender" to genetically modified crops, 6.21% indicated they "will surrender" and a fraction of one percent were not clear in their intentions.
The poll and its results are discussed below.
The Poll:
The occasion for the Edmonds Institute poll, as the poll itself explained, was an article in the Toronto Star in which the vice-president of an international consulting firm whose client list included all the world's major food businesses -- Kellogg Co., ConAgra Foods, Inc., Unilever NV, and Aventis SA, to mention a few -- was quoted as saying that GM crops may soon be so prevalent that there may be no turning back, despite the cost. "The hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded that there's nothing you can do about it," he said. "You just sort of surrender."
Subsequent to publication of the Toronto Star article, the Institute decided to conduct a poll to see if people believe that they will "just sort of surrender" to GM (genetically modified) crops. We asked poll recipients:
"If you think you are likely to surrender to GM crops, send an email ....saying in the subject line "I surrender". . .and. . ."If you think you are unlikely to surrender to GM crops, send an email ...saying in the subject line "I will not surrender".
How Many Voted and How They Were Counted:
When the Edmonds Institute decided to conduct a poll, it expected a very modest response, particularly from an unscientific e-poll sent to a very limited number of recipients who were given less than a week to respond and could only respond by email.
We were surprised to receive more than two thousand responses, about five times as many as we had anticipated. Apparently, the original recipients did forward the poll to others, as we had requested. The responses we received came from all over the world and the vast majority came from email addresses and people unfamiliar to the Institute.
The poll officially ended midnight January 15. Although votes continue to trickle in after the deadline, latecomers' votes are not included in the poll results. However, to check that by excluding late votes the Institute was not skewing the results, we did open late arriving emails, and, to date, have found them to contain 117 "will not surrender" votes and one vote to "surrender". Again, those numbers are NOT included in the poll results.
Contrary to poll instructions, some email addresses sent in more than one vote. If the votes from one address all voted the same way, we counted them all - depending on what they said - as either one "will not surrender" or "one "will surrender" vote. If the votes from the same email address were votes on both sides of the question - some emails voting one way and some voting another - they were all counted as a total of one "unclear" vote. We also counted as "unclear" those votes that did not include the words "I will not surrender" or "I will surrender" either on the subject line of the email or in the body of the email. Where, in the body of the email, it was indicated that the vote represented a whole family or a group of individuals or an entire organization, we still counted the vote as only one vote.
Who voted:
Most voters did not describe themselves or make any remarks in the body of the emails they sent. We can make no statement about the representativeness of the votes they cast.
Among those who did identify themselves, there were few occupational differences between voters who refused to surrender to genetically modified crops and those who chose to surrender. There were self-described farmers, scientists, legislators, educators and people from industry on both sides of the vote.
There was some information gleanable from the email addresses of the voters. Votes on both sides of the question came from addresses ending in ".com". There were even votes from "Monsanto.com" on both sides of the vote. Only one vote came from a ".org" address and said the sender "will surrender" to genetically modified crops; the ".org"s -- of which there were more than a thousand -- were almost entirely "will not surrender" voters. The votes identifiable as being sent from labor organization addresses all voted "will not surrender". The votes identifiable as coming from the military all voted "will surrender".
Many votes were identifiable as coming from places outside the United States. ".ca" suggested the sender was using a Canadian address; ".au" indicated an Australian address, and so on. Of those addresses identifiable as emanating from outside the US, votes on both sides of the issue came from Canadian, Australian, and various European addresses. On the other hand, all the emails that came to us and were apparently from South American, Asian, or African addresses voted "will not surrender".
Results:
1852 different email addresses sent votes that arrived before the poll ended. Of those, 1723 said they will not surrender to genetically modified crops, 115 said they will surrender, and 14 sent us votes that were not clear about their intentions.
For reasons other than "unscientific polling", we choose not to emphasize the numbers in the poll. We do not deny that the poll results were hugely lopsided, but noting that 93.03% said "I will not surrender" to genetically modified crops and 6.21% said "I will surrender", or estimating that fifteen times as many emailers said "I will not surrender" as said "I will surrender", does not begin to capture the meaning or intensity of the responses we received.
In the body of many (but not most) of the emails we received, we found all kinds of messages. It was from those messages that we gained what we consider "better" insight into people's responses to the poll, their feelings about genetic engineering, and their intentions about the future. It is those messages which we discuss below.
How they responded to the poll itself:
The surrenderers:
The voters who said they will surrender to genetically modified crops (and wrote us messages in the body of their emails) were divided as to the reasons for their surrender. Those reasons are associated with their response to the poll.
Those who felt they could not avoid surrendering ( e.g., "I surrender, but not willingly. "), if they mentioned the poll itself, expressed gratitude to the Institute, saying such things as " Thank you for giving me this opportunity to vent."
Those who "surrendered" because they "approve" or "admire" genetic engineering or genetically modified foods were by far the larger group of "surrenderers" and if they mentioned the poll, it was usually to say they disliked it. Some disliked it intensely, finding the poll a "cheap propaganda trick", "unclear", an "unsophisticated polling technique...obviously designed to obtain the result you want". Several in this group resented the wording of the poll and specifically objected to use of the word that occasioned the poll -- "surrender". They told us that they "preferred" to say they "welcomed","eagerly awaited", "supported", or "accepted" genetically modified food. Many said they "rather embrace" GM crops.
The non-surrenders:
Among those who" will not surrender" to GM crops and who mentioned the poll itself, there was almost uniform appreciation of the poll. They thanked us for "asking what we think", "for giving us the chance to vote," and "for doing this poll". More than one saw the poll as an "intriguing idea."
Only two non-surrenders were skeptical about the poll, one writing "I really, really hope this is not a stupid hoax" and the other writing "The theme of your poll is absurd. I am from South Asia where...the farmers have the capacity to feed themselves and millions of non-food producers in the urban areas around them. The option of surrendering to GM food for them will be a joke."
Whereas the surrenderers might have objected to "surrender" as not the right word, many non-surrenderers apparently found the phrase "will not surrender" to be too weak. They told us they "will never surrender", "no way" will they surrender, they "will ABSOLUTELY never surrender", they "never intend to surrender", and they " will ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM EVER EVER SURRENDER".
Interesting to us, the non-surrenderers divided as to who they thought was taking the poll, i.e. ,who the Edmonds Institute was. Some apparently thought we were Industry, addressing us as, for example, "You corporate bastards!" and telling us, for example, "If you think I will surrender, you are wrong," and "If you think you can control people, obliging them to buy genetically modified food, you are out of your senses!" and "You have to be kidding...talk about bullying! We don't want your GE foods!"and "Please. Be responsible...!" and "What type of conscience do you have? " and "Either take your crap away or you will go under" and "Let's not do REALLY stupid things; regular stupid things like clearcutting is enough."
Some thought we were the opposition to GM crops. Referring to "those corporate bastards", or "the industry" or "these corporations", a few blessed us and many enjoined us to keep up the resistance, one voter adding "more power to your elbow."
Most made no apparent judgments about us, beginning their messages with no salutation or writing simply to "Dear Sir/Madam" or "To Whom it May Concern".
How they expressed themselves:
The look of the message:
Among those voters who included messages in the body of their email, on the average, those who "will surrender" tended to write much longer messages than those who "will not surrender" (although there were very long and very short messages from both sides.)
Few of those who thought they "will surrender" used visual devices to emphasize their words. Usually - as with the one who wrote us to "Get some sense!" - if surrenderers used exclamation points at all, they used only one or two.
In very marked contrast, many, many of those who "will not surrender" used multiple - sometimes dozens of - exclamation points to emphasize their words, as, for example, those who answered the question "Will you surrender?" with "Never, never, never!!!" or "No Bloody Way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" or "Hell no!!!!!" Many non-surrenderers also used extensive capitalization, huge font sizes, underlining, and, sometimes all three, as was the case of the voter who wrote us in 18 point bold Helvetica underlined to say, "HelveticaI will not surrender".
Several non-surrenderers repeated their messages many times. One voter sent us two very long emails that contained the words "I will not surrender" typed over and over and over again; the second long message ended with, "Get it!?"
What they said in their messages:
The surrenderers:
In all the messages of those who "will surrender" because they think it unavoidable were explanations of why they will have to "surrender". E.g.:
"Here...people don't know if they are eating GM foods..."
"I don't know enough to know what to avoid."
"I know I have/will surrender because I live...where I do not have much access to organic food... And only by eating organic food can I be sure to avoid GMOs."
In the messages of those who think they "will surrender" because they "embrace" genetically modified foods, there were not always explanations of why they "embrace" GM. But where there were explanations, they tended to be expressions of praise and justification for genetic engineering. In general, they argued that the "(anti-GM)hysteria generated by a few persons" was insensitive to the needs of "millions of people out there...who do not have enough to eat", that genetic engineering was but another step in a long line of biotechnologies, that the technology had already benefitted agriculture, that the technology had already been demonstrated as safe or soon would be, that it would benefit the environment and human health ("I want my kids to have access to corn flakes with lower levels of mycotoxins."), and that it was "the future". Many of their messages were polite, lengthy expositions of their point of view but most argued by disparaging those who disagree with them, calling them "the anti-GMO crowd", "Luddites", "false prophets", "scaremongers", "buncome (bunkum) artists", "cruel", and "socialist, anti-human, anti-science" "idiots". Where these surrenderers mentioned organic food, they tended to disparage it, one voter telling us to, "Stick the overpriced organic crap where the sun don't shine!"
Four voters who "will surrender" to GM food used quotations in their messages. Here are all of them (Note: where the sender did not attribute the quotation to anyone, we do not either.):
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason." (Thomas Jefferson)
"All the time that Man does not spend Warring, Exploring or INVENTING is just filler."
"Death before dishonour." (Twista)
"Resistance is futile."
The non-surrenderers:
The non-surrenders tended to address two things in their messages: why they would not surrender to genetically modified crops and what they were going to do to resist.
In general, to quote parts of their messages, the non-surrenderers find that, "In the face of considerable uncertainty about the short and long-term effects of genetically engineered foods, both upon human and animal health and the environment," and in terms of "potential allergenicity and toxicity to humans and others species, development of antibiotic resistant organisms, potential genetic drift, (changes in) soil microbiology and biochemistry", "displacement of native species" and "social, ethical, and economic" considerations, "it is unconscionable in a democracy that consumers might be forced to buy genetically manipulated foods or starve". They add that, "This is fascism" and note that, "It's not just the quality and health of the product" they worry about, or even "unresponsive regulatory agencies" that "cower to the corporations" and "do not do their job" -- it's the fact that "at the same time, ...(genetic engineering) puts millions of people around the world out of work" and forces "the rest of the world population (to) rely... on the corporate giants to feed " them. Describing themselves as "appalled", "horrified", "worried" and "outraged" , they resent "the efforts of large corporations like Dupont and Monsanto"to "flood the market with genetically engineered food". They find "the message that GM...will provide more food in a starving world" to be a "false message" of those whose "monstrous arrogance" reflects an "agenda for domination of the global food chain" and "the desire for financial gain".
The non-surrenderers warn, for example, that "Someone has a screw loose if they believe the public is going to just stop caring about what foods go into their bodies." They say to "expect lawsuits" -- from "farmers whose crops are tainted", from "consumers" whose health problems can be traced to...allergies and worse" - three wrote they have had allergic reactions to GM food - and from"food producers whose product has been contaminated".
Some of the non-surrenderers look for "correction" of "a lot of regulatory problems". Others "plead for more testing and consultation", or "science with peer review". Some demand a "permanent ban" or a "moratorium", while others want "FULL DISCLOSURE LABELLING". Some expect that, "Sooner or later, legislation will protect the public." Others look for "an informed public (to) decide".
Almost all the non-surrenderers who sent messages "deny" that acceptance of genetically engineering of food is "inevitable". They "expect" consumers "to wake up" soon; only two of the non-surrenders would agree that "It may be impossible to stop the river flowing."
Whether or not they thought GM food can be "stopped", all of the message-sending non-surrenderers intended to "resist it". They were adamant about resistance. In describing their own personal plans for resistance, they said, to quote just a very small sample excerpted from 28 single-spaced pages of 7-point type:
"I will continue to demand to know from the supermarkets and shops I use whether their produce is GM free."
"People can vote with their pocketbooks by refusing to buy food produced by mainstream companies who favor and use GM."
" I will continue to buy organic produce from my local food coops and I will continue to grow my own organic vegetables and herbs."
"I consume more and more organic products despite the increased cost and my limited income."
"I have stopped going to all restaurants..."
"I am expanding my garden this year and hope to never put a piece of genetically altered food in my mouth."
"I will grow my own...real food...enough for my friends/family".
"I'll grow my own garden and figure out how to make cornflakes if necessary."
"I'm growing my own in large part and getting seed from the 'cleanest' sources possible. The land I'm growing on has been owned by the same family for 200 years and farmed organically the entire time!"
"We have conservatories and other places to store historical seed. We have methods of detecting and labelling mutants."
"I am now actively donating money, time and brainpower to see that GMO food doesn't take over the world."
"I will pay more every time.
I will go out of my way every time.
I will take more energy every time
To support organizations who produce organic foods.
I will not surrender.
And I will rally those around me not to surrender."
"These are subjects we can mobilize against."
"GM crops are not inevitable. The Third World farmers will put up a fight, and they will ensure that they will not lose control over their agriculture."
"It's up to us to fight the domination of our lives..."
" I will fight until I am dead against them."
"The more I hear about ...the possible consequences to our planet and its inhabitants from this arrogant and greed driven technology, the more I am willing to work against it."
"Whatever it takes."
"So do give my very best wishes to Monsanto and Novartis and tell their head honchos we are waiting to ambush them at every turn, and will do so because we love our life and that of our planet."
Finally, we note that several surrenderers sent us historical stories and animal fables about resistance. And, like the surrenderers, many non-surrenderers used quotations to make their points. The length and number of the quotations they sent us are too great for us to reproduce all of them here. Below is a small sample (with the attributions that were sent to us):
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power.
We have guided missiles and misguided men." (Martin Luther King, Jr.)
"Don't adjust your mind - reality is at fault." (Anonymous)
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed people can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has." (Margaret Mead)
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win." (Gandhi)
"Whatever you think you can do or believe you can do, begin it. Action has magic, grace, and power in it." (Goethe)
"Resistance is fertile."
"Resistance is fundamental." _______________________________________________ Appendix A: The Poll
Helvetica
*******************************************************
WILL YOU SURRENDER TO THE HOPE OF INDUSTRY?
-- a poll from The Edmonds Institute
*******************************************************
An article from the Toronto Star (see below) was circulated recently by several listservers. In the article, the vice-president of an international consulting firm whose client list features all the world's major food businesses -- including Kellogg Co., ConAgra Foods Inc., Unilever NV and Aventis SA -- was quoted as saying that GM crops may soon be so prevalent that there may no turning back, despite the cost:
"The hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded that there's nothing you can do about it," he said. "You just sort of surrender."
****************************************************
The Edmonds Institute, a small, non-profit, public interest group, is conducting a poll to see if people believe that they will "just sort of surrender" to GM (genetically modified) crops.
****************************************************
If you think you are likely to surrender to GM crops, send an email to: saying in the subject line "I surrender".
****************************************************
If you think you are unlikely to surrender to GM crops, send an email to: saying in the subject line "I will not surrender".
******************************************************
Only one vote will be counted from any one e-mail address. Incomplete messages in the subject line will NOT count.
Feel free to make comments in the body of the message. Feel free to forward this message to your friends and colleagues. BUT REMEMBER THAT THE VOTE WHICH IS COUNTED IS YOUR STATEMENT IN THE SUBJECT LINE.
Voting in the poll ends January 16, 2001. TO BE COUNTED, VOTES MUST BE RECEIVED BY midnight Pacific Standard Time, January 15, 2001.
Poll results will be announced in Chicago in mid-February and sent to all voters shortly after that.
*********************************************************************
STARLINK FALLOUT COULD COST BILLIONS
By Stuart Laidlaw
The Toronto Star
January 9, 2001, Tuesday, Edition 1
The StarLink controversy in the United States could cost the food industry billions of dollars and has thrown the future of genetically modified foods into doubt, a report by a food industry consultant says.
The mix-up will lead to dozens of lawsuits over the costs of cleaning up the mess, while giving consumers more reasons to worry about the safety of genetically modified foods, the co-author of the 74-page report said.
"This is going to come back to haunt the regulators and the food industry," said Don Westfall, vice-president of Promar International, a consulting company based in a Washington, D.C., suburb.
Corn mix-up could haunt regulators Hundreds of brands of taco shells and tortillas were recalled last fall after StarLink corn, which is approved in the United States as animal feed only, got into the food chain.
Westfall would not release a copy of his report, which is being sold to food companies at $5,000 (U.S.) a copy. Sample pages and a table of contents are available at the firm's Web site, www.promarinternational.com.
The company's client list includes all the world's major food businesses such as Kellogg Co., ConAgra Foods Inc., Unilever NV and Aventis SA, the company that made StarLink.
Westfall, who supports the development of genetically modified, or GM, foods, warns that the future of such crops may well depend on how the StarLink situation is handled.
If it is handled badly, he said, consumer resistance to GM foods is likely to grow.
"In the future, we will have this problem of newer products with more novel proteins where you can't really say whether there are allergies," he said in a telephone interview.
Such products will fulfill a long-standing industry promise to grow drugs in plants. Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief has often cited the potential of growing cancer drugs in tomatoes and other crops as the future of farming.
But such advances will also introduce potential toxins to farmers' fields that the industry will have to keep out of the food chain, Westfall said.
"Basically, the companies and the government will be placing a bet that it is not an allergen," he said.
But consumers will not accept drugs in plants if they are not convinced the government or the industry are able to keep them out of the food supply, he warned.
Already, 70 per cent of Americans told a Reuters poll last year that GM foods should be treated with caution.
"These polls were taken prior to the StarLink controversy, which, almost certainly, has increased over-all concern and confusion about the safety of foods containing transgenic crops," the study reads in sample pages released on the Internet.
A wheat researcher at Washington State University also warned this week that StarLink may slow development of GM grains expected by 2003.
"StarLink was a wake-up call for us," James Cook said during a panel discussion at the American Farm Bureau Federation convention Sunday.
"Because of StarLink, science has really had to clean up its act."
Ellen Terpstra, president of the USA Rice Institute, told the same meeting that Aventis may hold off on the release planned for 2003 of its genetically modified rice.
"In the wake of StarLink, Aventis has assured the industry it would not release (the rice) if the market was not ready for it," she said.
StarLink, made by drug and agriculture giant Aventis and engineered to repel pests, was not approved for human consumption because regulators feared the corn could cause allergic reactions.
But traces of StarLink corn were discovered in grocery-store products last fall, setting off a massive recall of more than 300 brands of taco shells, chips, cornmeal and other foods. Shells containing
StarLink, which has not been approved in Canada for any use, were also sold here, though they were quickly recalled.
The controversy forced Kellogg and ConAgra to shut down production lines for almost two weeks to make sure there was no StarLink in their systems. Tyson Foods Inc., the world's largest poultry producer, even refused to buy StarLink as feed as the controversy grew.
France-based Aventis said it would spend $100 million (U.S.) buying back the corn from farmers and food companies.
So far, that is the only dollar figure put on the cost of the controversy, though Aventis has extended its buyback to include non-StarLink corn grown within 200 metres of a StarLink field, saying pollen blowing from the StarLink may have contaminated neighbouring crops.
As well, lawsuits have begun to spring up from farmers who say the value of their crops has been hurt by the controversy. More lawsuits are expected from companies that have incurred huge costs to test for StarLink, shut down production lines, recall products and pay higher prices for corn proven to be StarLink free.
There have also been sales to Japan lost after shipments to the top U.S. market there tested positive for StarLink.
The companies involved in such fallout from the StarLink controversy will be looking to recoup their costs, Westfall said.
"The litigation has only just begun."
While reluctant to put a precise figure on the total cost of the StarLink controversy, Westfall said it could be "potentially" more than $1 billion (U. S) once all the lawsuits are settled.
He said food companies have not wanted to put a dollar figure on their own costs, since that could restrict how much they sue for later.
"If you file a suit for $100 million, you don't want a published report out there quoting an executive saying your costs are $10 million."
Ann Clark, a plant researcher at the University of Guelph and a fierce opponent of genetically modified foods, said StarLink could prove to be the beginning of the end for GM crops if food companies decide the costs outweigh the benefits.
"The food companies are not going to bite the bullet on this one for the industry," she said.
Calling the StarLink controversy "a blessing" for exposing weaknesses in the food industry, Clark said the problem will grow once more GM products hit the market, bringing with them even more chances of contaminating the food supply.
"Imagine that instead of just one food product, you've got dozens."
Aventis, which until the StarLink controversy had refused to follow the industry trend of separating drug and agricultural operations, cut its farm unit loose soon after the StarLink controversy, leaving it as a separate company to face the mounting lawsuits alone.
But for Westfall, the real impact of StarLink is not likely to be the cost of the mistake itself, but the public relations damage caused by the controversy and the cost of making sure it doesn't happen again.
Aventis has asked the U.S. government to approve StarLink for human consumption, relieving it of the need to buy back the trace amounts of the corn still in the food supply.
The company has sent new scientific evidence to Washington arguing that StarLink presents no health threat.
But approving the corn now, after such strident efforts to get it out of the food supply, would be a public relations disaster, no matter how sound the scientific reasoning, Westfall said.
"What the public will hear is, 'We thought this was a problem, but now we don't think it is because the companies told us it wasn't.'"
People would stop trusting government assurances of safety, just as European shoppers stopped trusting regulators after the mad cow crisis there, he said.
"You end up with this European attitude that if the government can't figure out what's right, we should just ban it all."
He said the food supply should be tightened to keep out unapproved crops. As well, food should be tested every step of the way from the farm to the grocery store to ensure its safety.
After StarLink, such measures will be needed, he said, before the public is likely to accept potentially toxic drugs being grown in farmers' fields. " It's going to be complicated and expensive, and it'll affect food prices."
Clark at the University of Guelph said consumers will not accept GM crops if the make food both potentially unsafe and more expensive.
"The writing is on the wall. It's just not going to work."
Westfall, however, said GM crops may soon be so prevalent that there may no turning back, despite the cost. "The hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded that there's nothing you can do about it," he said. "You just sort of surrender."
*******************
The above article and the announcement of the poll are circulated for educational purposes only.
*******************
Remember:
Voting closes midnight Pacific Standard Time, January 15, 2001. All votes MUST BE RECEIVED by then.
Send votes to: <
In the subject line of the email,vote either: "I surrender" or "I will not surrender".
*******************************************
The Edmonds Institute 20319-92nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98020 USA phone: 425-775-5383 email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.