Is There a Rational Reason for Mandatory Labeling of GM Foods?

[Shadow Wolf]

No one has been deprived of any information about "what is going into their food" by the voluntary labeling of GM and non-GM products such as exists in the US, have they? What information have you been deprived of?

They are being deprived of the ability to make an informed decision. There is a reason companies get into trouble when they mislabel their food and put things into it that are not indicated, such as horse meat.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you disagree with any of the information found on this thread, such as:

I am curious. What do you think of all the scientific journal entries and even medical professionals who all claimed smoking is not hazardous to your health?

 

[Nous]

No one has been deprived of any information about "what is going into their food" by the voluntary labeling of GM and non-GM products such as exists in the US, have they? What information have you been deprived of?

They are being deprived of the ability to make an informed decision.

I'll ask this question again: What information (about "what is going into [your] food") have you been deprived of by the voluntary labeling that exists in the US?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'll ask this question again: What information (about "what is going into [your] food") have you been deprived of by the voluntary labeling that exists in the US?

Voluntary labeling is inadequate, as it means there are things with GMOs that aren't being labeled.

 

[Nous]

I am curious. What do you think of all the scientific journal entries and even medical professionals who all claimed smoking is not hazardous to your health?

I've never seen read "scientific journal entries" that "claimed smoking is not hazardous to your health." Link to the ones you've read.

I am not familiar with any "medical professions" who "claimed that smoking is not hazardous to your health." Quote the ones you know of.

Regardless, what I think about any such persons or journal entries will not help to you answer any question about the safety of GM foods, will it?

 

[Nous]

Voluntary labeling is inadequate, as it means there are things with GMOs that aren't being labeled.

What things? Name them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What things? Name them.

Just about everything not labeled at the grocery store for starters.

 

[Nous]

Just about everything not labeled at the grocery store for starters.

What was it that you didn't understand about the following from International Dairy?

We do not doubt that Vermont's asserted interest, the demand of its citizenry for such information, is genuine;  reluctantly, however, we conclude that it is inadequate. We are aware of no case in which consumer interest alone was sufficient to justify requiring a product's manufacturers to publish the functional equivalent of a warning about a production method that has no discernable impact on a final product. See, e.g., Ibanez, 512 U.S. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 2090 (invalidating state requirement that Certified Financial Planner (“CFP”) disclose in advertisement that CFP status was conferred by unofficial private organization despite unsubstantiated claim that public might otherwise be misled by CFP's advertisement). Cf. Riley, 487 U.S. at 797-98, 108 S.Ct. at 2677-78 (holding unconstitutional state requirement that professional fundraisers disclose to prospective donors factual information concerning the percentage of contributions actually passed on to charities notwithstanding the fact that prospective donors might find the truthful information relevant and persuasive).

Although the Court is sympathetic to the Vermont consumers who wish to know which products may derive from rBST-treated herds, their desire is insufficient to permit the State of Vermont to compel the dairy manufacturers to speak against their will. Were consumer interest alone sufficient, there is no end to the information that states could require manufacturers to disclose about their production methods. For instance, with respect to cattle, consumers might reasonably evince an interest in knowing which grains herds were fed, with which medicines they were treated, or the age at which they were slaughtered. Absent, however, some indication that this information bears on a reasonable concern for human health or safety or some other sufficiently substantial governmental concern, the manufacturers cannot be compelled to disclose it. Instead, those consumers interested in such information should exercise the power of their purses by buying products from manufacturers who voluntarily reveal it.

Accordingly, we hold that consumer curiosity alone is not a strong enough state interest to sustain the compulsion of even an accurate, factual statement, see Riley, 487 U.S. at 797-98, 108 S.Ct. at 2677-78 (compelled disclosure of “fact” is no more acceptable than compelled disclosure of opinion), in a commercial context. See, e.g., United States v. Sullivan, 332 U.S. 689, 693, 68 S.Ct. 331, 334, 92 L.Ed. 297 (1948) (upholding federal law requiring warning labels on “harmful foods, drugs and cosmetics”) (emphasis added);  see also Zauderer, 471 U.S. at 651, 105 S.Ct. at 2282 (disclosure requirements are permissible “as long as [they] are reasonably related to the State's interest in preventing deception of consumers.”);  In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 201, 102 S.Ct. 929, 936, 71 L.Ed.2d 64 (1982) (“warning or disclaimer might be appropriately required ․ in order to dissipate the possibility of consumer confusion or deception.”);  Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 384, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 2709, 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977) (state bar association could not ban advertising that was neither misleading nor deceptive);  Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 771-72, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 1830-31, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1975) (regulation aimed at preventing deceptive or misleading commercial speech would be permissible). Because Vermont has demonstrated no cognizable harms, see Edenfield, 507 U.S. at 770-71, 113 S.Ct. at 1800, its statute is likely to be held unconstitutional.​

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1210635.html

You don't know of any substantial governmental interest (such as health or safety) in labeling GM foods that would justify negating the First Amendment right prohibiting compelled speech, do you?

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think that labels are a good idea. For one thing I want to know who has the patent on the genes I'm buying, because I may have some political objection to the owner of the patent. For another there is an irrational desire to know, which is not irrelevant. Its relevant, because its food. Therefore the term 'Irrational' is a poor choice. Its a relevant desire.

 

[metis]

Does your belief about "a right to know" have any basis in reality? Has this alleged "right" ever been articulated by any court? Obviously no such right is found in the US Constitution.

How does the voluntary labeling of GM and non-GM foods such as exists in the US violate anyone's "right to know"? No one in the US has been deprived of access to the information on the thousands of products voluntarily labeled and listed on this website: http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/ Have they? No one who wants to know about whether a fruit or vegetable is organic has been deprived of that information found in the Price Look-Up code--in which every PLU code that is 5 digits and begins with 9 is organic. Have they?

You know of no right to compel anyone to speak in the absence of a substantial governmental interest. Correct? And you cannot articulate any substantial governmental interest (such as "a reasonable concern for human health or safety or some other sufficiently substantial governmental concern" International Dairy) that would justify compelling any food producer to disclose whether or not his/her food product has been genetically modified by rDNA techniques. Right?

Please quote whatever it is that I've said that you are referring to. I am interested in only rational reasons for mandatory labeling of GM foods. I already know all the irrational reasons.

How have I deprived anyone of any information, or deprived anyone of any choice?

Tell me, do you also try to micro-manage all those in your family as well by telling them why they must remain in ignorance versus their own seeking of information? I taught against ignorance for 36 years (actually more then that if I include other areas that I taught), so I happen not to agree with your "ignorance is bliss" approach based on keeping information from them that they want to know.

fini

 

[Nous]

I think that labels are a good idea. For one thing I want to know who has the patent on the genes I'm buying, because I may have some political objection to the owner of the patent. For another there is an irrational desire to know, which is not irrelevant. Its relevant, because its food. Therefore the term 'Irrational' is a poor choice. Its a relevant desire.

You don't know of any substantial governmental interest (such as health or safety) in mandating labels of GM foods that justifies negating the First Amendment protection against compelled speech, do you?

 

[Nous]

Tell me, do you also try to micro-manage all those in your family as well by telling them why they must remain in ignorance versus their own seeking of information? I taught against ignorance for 36 years (actually more then that if I include other areas that I taught), so I happen not to agree with your "ignorance is bliss" approach based on keeping information from them that they want to know.

If you ever become able to answer the title or any of the questions I've asked you, please do so.

 

[metis]

If you ever become able to answer the title or any of the questions I've asked you, please do so.

Here was your final question: So is there any rational reason for mandatory labeling of foods considered to be "genetically modified" or "genetically engineered"?, and I answered it.

 

[Nous]

Here was your final question: So is there any rational reason for mandatory labeling of foods considered to be "genetically modified" or "genetically engineered"?, and I answered it.

You mean your belief that there exists a "right to know"? You weren't able to show that there is any such right, or that anyone has been deprived of any important information by the existing voluntary labeling laws.

 

[metis]

You mean your belief that there exists a "right to know"? You weren't able to show that there is any such right, or that anyone has been deprived of any important information by the existing voluntary labeling laws.

Maybe some day you'll see why information beats ignorance and that it's better to support the former versus the latter. This is my last post on this.

 

[Nous]

Maybe some day you'll see why information beats ignorance and that it's better to support the former versus the latter. This is my last post on this.

It apparently upsets you that you can't come up with an rational reason to compel food producers to speak. Perhaps you shouldn't post on such topics.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You don't know of any substantial governmental interest (such as health or safety) in mandating labels of GM foods that justifies negating the First Amendment protection against compelled speech, do you?

You are suggesting that food has first amendment rights.

It is the mandatory labeling of GM foods that limits choice, because such a government-required label makes people believe that there must be some issue with the safety or nutritional profile of the food.

I also think its silly for you to argue that the knowledge harms us.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The predicted increase in costs for consumers were calculated as a result of mandatory labeling (presumably due to requirements for record-keeping and analysis of foods, and perhaps the higher costs of raising non-GM foods--e.g., some of which require more water and produce lower yields).

That is only if they choose to grown non-gmo food.

 

[Nous]

You don't know of any substantial governmental interest (such as health or safety) in mandating labels of GM foods that justifies negating the First Amendment protection against compelled speech, do you?

You are suggesting that food has first amendment rights.

It is the mandatory labeling of GM foods that limits choice, because such a government-required label makes people believe that there must be some issue with the safety or nutritional profile of the food.

I also think its silly for you to argue that the knowledge harms us.

Are you unable to read and comprehend what I actually said, or did you intentionally misrepresent what I wrote? Obviously nothing I have written on this thread has even vaguely suggested that "food has First Amendment rights" or that "knowledge harms us."

Why don't you try responding to what I said in the question and statement you quoted?

 

[Nous]

The predicted increase in costs for consumers were calculated as a result of mandatory labeling (presumably due to requirements for record-keeping and analysis of foods, and perhaps the higher costs of raising non-GM foods--e.g., some of which require more water and produce lower yields).

That is only if they choose to grown non-gmo food.

Where did you get that information?