Boycotting would not be a generally affective way to change anything regarding this issue IMO. There may be some small time wins contributed to a boycott, but nothing major will come of it -short of a miracle. At any rate, it would be years in the making. First off mainstream media is not going to let the public masses in on the truth. People are being spoon fed the ideas of how safe and wonderful it all is. When was the last time someone flipped on the ol TV and heard Ms Newsreporter say their food is poisoning them? Not gonna happen. People who try to speak out about it are ridiculed and made to look old-fashioned, uneducated and paranoid ect. The other problem with a boycott is that there are not alternatives. Generally a boycott is effective because there are other alternatives to choose from. Suppose Hamburger Company 1 started contributing money to an organization that the majority of their customers were against. Customers would then simply start eating hamburgers at Hamburger Company 2. Basically the same product, price and service. With the GMO/pesticide issue, that isn't feasible. There is very little organic/safe food available. It is sometimes 2 or 3 times as expensive. The average Joe working minimum wage and supporting 2 kids and a dog cannot afford that. He is most likely on food stamps himself! Generally a boycott would involve *a* company or *a* product. But this issue involves the majority of companies and almost all of the food supply. It's not like simply saying "I will just eat bananas and not buy apples". It's not a single product-it's in everything.
Next, these companies are so large (money speaking) and have government support, so that a boycott would not actually hurt their wallet. Because? A boycott could not last long enough to actually damage them. It's like a little town trying to hold down the fort in a war. Pretty soon the water and food supply is cut off and they either surrender or starve. Same thing here. These big companies know that a boycott could not last long enough to pressure/force them into changing anything. They will simply hold out. This is not just a geographically contained problem. It is global. As I stated in an earlier post there are other countries against it, but then again, that looks good on paper. How long will it actually last. I woudn't put it past some gov to *say* their food is not GMO but just like the issue of the organic produce--who's gonna know? Plenty of other countries have given the stamp of approval. While the boycott is going on, Ms Newsreporter is going to continue educating the public on the newest studies and tests that confirm the boycotters are off their rockers. A team of experts will come in to repair the GMO/big company image and rescue them. The puppets will believe it. Back to square one. In the meantime, there are molehill issues being made into mountain issues, in order to steer unwanted attention away from the real mountains. I don't have the answer, how to fix it. But the bottom line is-change will need to come by boycotting *small* companies/stores, by educating people one at a time using factual information and to continue publishing studies that are legitimately finding fault with the products, and by offering alternatives that are realistically feasible. Offering those alternatives is the key issue. Without alternatives- READ *choices* -not many have any choice but to hope Ms Newsreporter is right.
It is not realistically feasible to promote the idea of the public masses to simply produce their own food in their non-existant back yards or to boycott the only affordable and readily available food sources they have.
With all that said, I'm gonna grow a garden!!!
