Prevor and oxymoronic 'modest' proposal; GMO comments roll in

07/25/2012 01:57:00 PM
Tom Karst

National Editor Tom KarstJust saw Jim Prevor's "modest" proposal to solve the PMA-United Fresh conundrum. I've got to say that he has chutzpah and no lack of self-assurance. Perhaps I envy that in him.

Who has the chops to finally decide this thing, after 18 months of fruitless negotiations between leaders of PMA and United Fresh? Of course, it is Prevor himself, along with two members from the boards of United Fresh and PMA, along with Ed McLaughlin of Cornell and an unspecified "neutral party" to chair the group. To save effort, why not let Prevor make the call all by himself?

As Hall and Oates sang, I can't go for that, no can do.

Even if the fair-mindedness and objectivity of the non-association folk could be assured (what's up with this unnamed "neutral party"?), I don't think PMA and United Fresh would want to cede their "fiduciary responsibilities" to three outsiders. If the best efforts of United Fresh and PMA boards fell short, let the record speak for itself. There is no need for a hastily constructed backroom solution.

Plus, I don't think there is an immediate and great appetite for another ill-fated and secretive run at the merger. Next time make it more inclusive and public; that is, if there is a "next time."

--

Comments are starting to roll in for the Arctic GMO apple, and they are as you suspect. Mostly doubtful. Wary. And against.

Check out the rulemaking page here, which already has recorded more than 640 comments.

 

Here is a quick sampling:

From Kevin:

NO MORE GMOS. Do you understand that? I will be voting in CA to make labeling of GMO food mandatory. Also, why is there even an option to be making suggestions and statements to the US Govt from any country or citizen outside the US? Your world government isn't here yet, fellas.

From Matt:

Stop this insanity! Let an apple be an apple, not an untested science experiment.

From Marie:

USDA should NOT approve GMO apples. In fact, ALL GMOs need to be labeled as such. If we have to know what's in our mattresses and pillows, surely to God we can know what is in our food. Thank you.

From Sherrill:


Prev 1 2 Next All


Comments (3) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

Jack Bricker    
Kansas City, Missouri  |  July, 27, 2012 at 01:43 PM

Tom, Hilarious headline regarding The Pundificator's "modest" proposal. Have been in this business for 40 years and have never seen a writer refer to their self as "a highly respected journalist", followed by a listing of their awards. Wow. Jack Bricker President The Produce News

veronia    
james  |  July, 29, 2012 at 01:27 AM

I like that you both were interested but not surprised

Jeff Jones    
Vermont  |  July, 31, 2012 at 11:24 AM

OK folks, here we go with the GMO debate and of "throwing the baby out with the bath water" approach. Genetically Modified Organisms are absolutely essential for this planet and for its projected 10Billion with a B human beings populating it in the next 15 years. Climate Change and its repercussions on our growing regions are already wreaking havoc with strong drought/flood cycles and are projected to get much worse in the coming years. Having a Drought resistant high vitamin A strain of rice or a Flood tolerant high omega-3 wheat crop is essential to the very survival of millions of souls on this planet. For a bunch of over-educated "foodies" who jump on every bandwagon that comes along to proclaim the entire process of engineering food crops to be tolerable to our rapidly changing climate (partly because of their giant SUV's they drive to their Co-ops) do not do us any good. There are bad ideas when it comes to GMO and there are very good ones. Do not make the mistake of lumping everything together in one bad word... GMO. IT is essential for our future going forward.

Feedback Form
Leads to Insight