|
Why, MagiK, the Texas Cattle Grower's should hire you -- you sound just like them.
Here's the problem. Back in the WTO Beef-Hormone case, the EU came forward and presented SOME evidence that the beef could possibly be harmful.
The US on the other hand, submitted NONE -- yes, NO EVIDENCE -- regarding the safety of hormone beef. The cited Trade Secrets of US companies (can you smell the BS yet?). Oddly enough, the DSB found for the US. The one that presented NO evidence.
The problem? Well, the SPS Agreement (Sanitary and Phytosanitary) under the GATT, which expands on a one-line exemption in Article XX of GATT, and which was the provision the EU relied on in treating hormone beef different, was interpreted to require SOLID PROOF before excluding a product based on a health concern.
THAT IS THE OPPOSITE BURDEN OF PROOF THAN SHOULD BE REQUIRED. Where health is concerned, shouldn't we require the party asserting something is safe to have the higher burden of proof. We have to know for certain it will harm us -- not just suspect -- before banning it? That flies in the face of the Precautionary Principle and sound scientific thought, doesn't it?
So, what I'm saying to MagiK and those with his argument is: Where my FOOD, MY body, not yours, is concerned, you've got to PROVE IT IS SAFE before forcing it down my gullet -- not the other way around. So, you go get me some proof, okay?
Or, is science a technology more concerned with "can we do it?" rather than "should we?" [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] Perhaps this is a fight I need to pick with scientists the world over.
[ 10-16-2003, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]
__________________
 
|