I was asked in the first big NdT thread on GMOs to state clearly why I oppose mandatory GMO labeling. This was my reply: 1. I do think that Central Hudson provides a common sense framework not just for judging whether the state HAS the right to compel speech, but whether it SHOULD. A mandatory GMO label, as you seem to agree, fails the Central Hudson test. Therefore, a mandatory label is not a legitimate use of state authority. If people have a right to know, then a voluntary label is the correct venue to mediate that right. Just as it is with gluten, kosher, halal and fairtrade. 2. As a lefty I want government to do a number of things really well. What I dont want is for government to try to very poorly do every single thing that the citizenry can dream up. Since the certified organic label and the Non-GMO label are already fulfilling the demand for information about GE ingredients, I dont see any reason to further stretch an already overextended state apparatus. 3. Since a mandatory GMO label would convey no meaningful nutritional or safety information or in fact ANY information about the properties of the ingredients, I find it pointless. And pointlessness offends me personally. 4. Since government has traditionally mandated only useful and important information, a mandatory GMO label could potentially mislead some consumers into thinking that a GMO label contains useful and important information. 5. A mandatory GMO label would likely lead to an increase in the use of non-GE crops in conventional agriculture. This would lead to a large increase in the use soil applied insecticides and an increase in the environmental impact of herbicides used as well as a decrease in no-till cultivation leading to a loss of carbon sequestration, erosion and decreased soil fertility. That would be a very bad thing for the environment.
Posted on: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 04:06:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015