dredge, you still haven't answered what about food labeling makes it more effectively done by government. Your selectively edited picture didn't even answer that question. While you work on that, let's consider this from another angle. You have said that there is no universally agreed upon definition of GMO. If we leave food labeling up to government, we must then use their definition. What happens if that definition is too narrow? If they include some foods as non-GMO that you consider to be GMO, suddenly that label is useless. You are either back to doing your own research, or you're back to fighting for a change in the labeling. In the free market, if someone comes up with an overly narrow definition, and there are people who would like a broader definition, a competing company can come in and offer that service. Once again, it won't take anywhere near 50% of the population for this to occur. As soon as enough demand is out there for a more broad definition of GMO, business will move to capitalize on it.
This would indicate to me that even if you believe in government food labeling for some things, such as fat content and whether gluten is present, you could still think we should leave GMO up to the market. These other metrics are very easy to define. Either a food will trigger a reaction in a celiac or it won't. GMO is not as readily defined, and so requires a more flexible apparatus to regulate. The government simply moves too slowly to keep up with the demands of the people in this area. Businesses can, and have, reacted to this issue much more swiftly.
|