10-08-2013, 04:55 PM
Mandatory labeling of GMO foods would almost certainly be ruled invalid on constitutional grounds, as an intrusion on the food producers freedom of speech, just as it was the last time this issue hit the courts.
That was in Vermont, in the 90s, when the state required dairies to label milk from cows treated with rBGH hormones. The law was overturned in the courts because there was no compelling evidence that the hormone was unsafe, and the term had become so demonized that those milk producers would suffer economic loss, needlessly.
The court went on to say that there is no end of things the public might like to know about about the food they buy at one time or another, but unless there is a compelling, proven need to know for health or safety reasons, the government cannot force such labeling, and consumers are advised to seek foods which voluntarily advertise they are gluten-free or MSG-free or whatever else they to avoid.
Since there is no credible research showing that GMOs are unsafe, and since the term has been thoroughly demonized in the public's minds anyway, this previous decision shows why mandatory labeling is a non-starter.
That was in Vermont, in the 90s, when the state required dairies to label milk from cows treated with rBGH hormones. The law was overturned in the courts because there was no compelling evidence that the hormone was unsafe, and the term had become so demonized that those milk producers would suffer economic loss, needlessly.
The court went on to say that there is no end of things the public might like to know about about the food they buy at one time or another, but unless there is a compelling, proven need to know for health or safety reasons, the government cannot force such labeling, and consumers are advised to seek foods which voluntarily advertise they are gluten-free or MSG-free or whatever else they to avoid.
Since there is no credible research showing that GMOs are unsafe, and since the term has been thoroughly demonized in the public's minds anyway, this previous decision shows why mandatory labeling is a non-starter.