Valerie McClain's opinion is that the words synthetic and novel are current
euphemisms for genetically modified or engineered, so as not to adversely
affect sales. I can't say because I don't see a lot of puffery for GM
foods. In the European Economic Community it is not legal to sell
foodstuffs made from genetically modified organisms, at least not formula.
It would not be legal to sell them no matter how they are labeled.
I am assuming, possibly incorrectly, that there is some kind of requirement
for the labeling of foods in the US, so that the consumer may see whether
they are genetically modified or engineered. The words 'novel' and
'synthetic' are not specific enough to designate GM products and I would be
surprised to learn that they were being used in this way. If there is
evidence of advertising of specific products using such language to
camouflage the nature of the product, it should probably be reported to
whoever monitors truth in advertising and compliance with federal law on the
marketing of foodstuffs.
In fact, 'novel' simply means 'new', and along with 'old fashioned' this has
been one of the longest lasting selling words we know of. Go figure -
either something is new and wonderful, or is it just like Grandma made, and
wonderful.
Synthesis means composition in Greek. Synthetic, in the sense of 'made
artificially by chemical synthesis' dates from 1874. If a foodstuff is
genetically engineered, it may be they don't even have to call it synthetic,
because it would not have been made artificially by chemical synthesis, but
by biologic activity.
Back to science now: I find that a lot of women are uncomfortable defining
their own thought processes as scientific; I am not among them, and I
consider myself a scientist. (Actually, I consider myself a third
generation scientist on both sides of my family.) To me, the word science
has a noble ring, though in my head I know that science is neither good nor
evil. It is a way of looking at the world, and it can be used for great
good, or for great evil, but it has none of those qualities itself, any more
than the sense of vision or hearing or touch has innate good or evil.
Most companies who develop patentable things have clauses in the contracts
between the company and the scientists who actually do the science work, to
assure that the scientist's share of the profits from a given product are
limited, while the company ends up as patent holder and holder of the rights
to the income ensuing from the product. While we are all aware of products
that have been marketed and have harmed the health of consumers who use
them, in the current legal climate, especially in the US, there is strong
motivation for companies to refrain from marketing products that damage
health, because in the long run it is more expensive, when you get sued. If
a product really is bad but the producer doesn't want to stop selling it
because it is too temptingly lucrative, they will do what they can to
prevent consumers from finding out about its bad qualities. Sometimes this
takes the form of lobbying to avoid regulatory laws, and sometimes it takes
the form of smearing the opposition, usually in those cases when the
lobbying has failed.
Rachel Myr
Kristiansand, Norway
***********************************************
To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
