In the recent Presidential election there was an initiative in California to label GMO foods which was voted down. There are those that say that the initiative was “wrong headed” and a reasonable case is made in Scientific American for just why this is. The argument in essence is as follows:
“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.”
Good or bad GMOs, the public lacks faith because of what occured with tobacco products in the past. The auther also points out that in fact there are, in his opinion, good and bad GMOs :
“Adding Bt toxin to corn is different than adding Vitamin A to rice or vaccines to potatoes or heart-protective peptides to tomatoes. ……. I’ve already come out strong against RoundUp Ready crops.”
It appears as more of an argument for accuracy of information, but no, a total blackout is preferred over educating consumers in their “ignorance.
It ultimately does not address what anyone would reasonably assume is the “right” of a consumer to have information about the contents of what is being consumed. We know fat content, sugar content, vitamins etc. Why NOT GMO. Whether GMO is benign or not why cannot the consumer decide for him/herself to consume it. In fact GMO is almost impossible to escape in any case