The rallying cry for supporters of this proposition has been “The Right To Know.” It sounds so simple: why shouldn’t people know if their food is genetically modified? What does Monsanto have to hide? But couching the issue in terms of knowledge assumes one thing: that labeling will be in any way informative. In the case of Prop 37, it simply wouldn’t have been. Michael Eisen put it perfectly: This language reflects the belief of its backers that GMOs are intrinsically bad and deserve to be labeled – and avoided – en masse, no matter what modification they contain or towards what end they were produced. This is not a quest for knowledge – it is a an attempt to reify ignorance.

mk:

I'm of two minds on this. As the author pointed out, it would be helpful to know what type of GM was performed. However, I doubt the public would differentiate the information much, anyway.

I suppose as long as a manufacturer can label their product as non-GMO, then people can find the product they want, even if the reasoning is shaky.

I recall Monsanto going after Ben & Jerry's for labelling their ice cream as 'hormone free' or something to the effect. Monsanto argued that since the hormones they used were deemed safe, then B&J shouldn't be able to differentiate. I don't agree with that position, and I wouldn't agree with it in the case of GMO either.

Otherwise, if you could demonstrate that there wasn't any difference between Kosher and non-Kosher...

posted 4186 days ago