On 25 Aug 2003 10:57:38 GMT, (bogus address)
posted:


The company wants to make money, [...]
But it also means they may not bother to be too careful about
helping their customers to attend to the proper choices, the
refuges if it means selling less GM seed, or herbicide or
pesticide if it frightens the customer off to draw their
attention to the instructions.
That's the job of the regulator you elected. Please get the job
designations right, or you will be ever disappointed.

I doubt there is any country in the world where people get to elect
agribiz regulators (certainly not New Zealand, where Brian's posting
from).

I thought NZ was even more democratic than Oz. We elect the regulator
who appoints executive officers to carry out their policy. Also
unappoints them.

They're appointees, the appointments being made by governments
that are uniformly in the pockets of agribiz.

Not here, but as you guys have "vote if you feel like it", then I
suppose you get what you deserve. Beau Blair, frinstance.

In this situation you
can't expect them to take any decision that might affect their de
facto employers' profits.

Speak for yourself. If that's what you lot voted for....

The regulatory system is designed neither to work nor to be responsive
to democratic control, so there is no realistic alternative to direct
action in this instance.

If that's what you believe about your country. It is not the case in
mine, and I suspect many others.