The reason no one has been able to state a rational justification for mandatory labeling of GM foods is because there is no rational justification. The only rational (and constitutional) reason for such mandatory labeling would be if GM foods pose a greater health or safety risk than conventionally bred, hybridized and radiated foods. Yet the evidence is clear that GM foods are not per se more risky to consume than non-GM foods. Indeed, in some cases, just the opposite--as noted above, Bt corn is less contaminated with the deadly fungal toxin fumonisin than conventional and even organic corn. A couple of GM foods have been developed specifically to and do provide greater nutrition than the conventionally bred counterparts can possibly provide. GM crops have been specifically developed to and do produce higher yields than their conventionally bred counterparts, and therefore require less land, consume less water, and have a smaller GHG footprint. GM crops have resulted in the reduction of spraying of more toxic pesticides and herbicides. Such advantages of GM crops can be continued and increased--unless the industry is crippled by people's irrational fears.
The claim that there exists a "right" or an innocent desire to know every little step in the production of a seed that grows into a crop plant is nothing more than a false excuse for the fact that there is no rational reason for mandatory labeling of GM products. There are two facts that lead to this conclusion.
(1) There is no "right to know" that negates the First Amendment protection against compelled speech in the absence of a substantial governmental interest such as an increased health or safety risk of a food. If it were otherwise, as the court explained in International Dairy, then Congress or state legislatures could require all manner of unimportant labeling of products, and thereby readily destroy any company.
The amount of pesticides sprayed onto a food plant, or that the food product carries, including those pesticides used on organic crops, might indeed be important information for consumers to have. Further, there can be and are environmental reasons to limit the spraying particular pesticides in particular quantities into the environment, including those pesticides liberally sprayed on organic crops. Yet there no push for mandatory labeling of these foods; it's only the irrational fears about GM foods that inspire the hankering for mandatory labeling.
(2) No one has been able to cite a single item of information that anyone has been deprived of due to the current labeling laws that exist in the US. If there were a "right" or innocent desire to "know" about whether or not a food had been genetically modified, then the current voluntary labeling obviously does not violate it.
The claim that there exists a "right" or an innocent desire to know every little step in the production of a seed that grows into a crop plant is nothing more than a false excuse for the fact that there is no rational reason for mandatory labeling of GM products. There are two facts that lead to this conclusion.
(1) There is no "right to know" that negates the First Amendment protection against compelled speech in the absence of a substantial governmental interest such as an increased health or safety risk of a food. If it were otherwise, as the court explained in International Dairy, then Congress or state legislatures could require all manner of unimportant labeling of products, and thereby readily destroy any company.
The amount of pesticides sprayed onto a food plant, or that the food product carries, including those pesticides used on organic crops, might indeed be important information for consumers to have. Further, there can be and are environmental reasons to limit the spraying particular pesticides in particular quantities into the environment, including those pesticides liberally sprayed on organic crops. Yet there no push for mandatory labeling of these foods; it's only the irrational fears about GM foods that inspire the hankering for mandatory labeling.
(2) No one has been able to cite a single item of information that anyone has been deprived of due to the current labeling laws that exist in the US. If there were a "right" or innocent desire to "know" about whether or not a food had been genetically modified, then the current voluntary labeling obviously does not violate it.
