|
Well, since I'm generally not in favor of the proposition system in California my default position is no anyway. But being a bill I don't think will accomplish anything does nothing to move me off that default.
I generally hear two arguments from supporters:
1. "I have a right to know if my food contains GMO." Fine, but that is not a right that is being infringed right now. All this label will do is put labels on everything that has not been certified as not containing GMO. Those that have been so certified will presumably wear labels saying "NO GMO!!!!!!" Nothing prevents them from doing that now, without government getting involved and the same level of information is available to you.
2. "If people know their food contains GMO they'll refuse to buy it and this will lead to political and marketplace changes of which I approve." This may be true, but if so it will be because of consumers reacting emotionally to something they don't understand (the vast majority of the populatin will not: a) understand what genetic engineering means, b) have any sense of whether the current scientific consensus says GMO foods are directly unhealthy, or c) if the current scientific consensus does indict a specific GM crop, which one(s)), not because we've given them information on which to make reasoned judgments. Using the law to try and scare a majority onto your side of a policy debate strikes me as a bad idea in general.
Personally, I have no direct issue with consuming GM products as I've seen no particularly strong evidence that they are or would be harmful to me. I have huge problems with the political and regulatory system that makes them a so potentially a profitable thing to develop. I wouldn't mind seeing GM products go away. I just don't think that this proposition would contribute to that happening and if it did I don't think it is a method that is appropriate.
And if it is shown that a specific GM crop (which this labeling law would tell you nothing of, treating all GM crops as a single entity to be bothered by) is harmful when consumed, a labeling law is not the appropriate response anyway.
It is labeling to achieve a political/policy goal. If we're going to support that there are all kinds of political/policy goals I'd like labeling to help me with. A small chart on every bag of potato chips breaking down the political donations of the company that made them going back 5 elections so I can boycott anybody who gave money to Prop 8. The country of origin for every ingredient and packaging component to make it easier to divest my household of imports from countries I disapprove of. The gender breakdown of corporate executives and board of directors so I can support companies that eliminate the glass ceiling.
One thing I don't get is that so many of my friends who apparently feel so strongly that every molecule in a bag of Cheetos but be identified for them, because while no research has really found a negative health impact from GM corn it might one day be found, would just as strongly oppose that we requiring testing and proper labeling of supplements because that would be an allopathic conspiracy against received cultural wisdom.
|