Is there something I don't know?
Yes. Always. (What kind of fertilizer? What type of bees? What tilling method? What moon cycle was planting and harvesting done in? Did the farmer wear goatskin or cotton gloves?)
It is impossible, not to mention impractical, to require that a label should include all the information I might not know. What is possible and reasonable is to require labeling to give me information that I do need to know and make rules and laws against things that are known to be harmful.
With that background, the goal I expect from legislation is to both ensure that necessary information is included and exclude requirements to add unnecessary information.
So if I believe that GMOs are potentially dangerous, I'll take the time to find and buy foods labeled Non-GMO (still legal) or that I have researched enough to be confident I'm sure meet my personal preference.
The real issue here, as in so many recent issues, is the philosophy behind deciding: what is the purpose of law?
- Law is to make society better? Legal requirements to require GMO labeling is fine. Laws to prevent labeling GMO is fine. Laws to make dogs wear sweaters is fine. Anything that makes society better, according to widely varying definitions of "better" is fine. All taxes are based on this philosophy, and generally accepted because the a lot of people have similar ideas of "better."
- Law is to prevent harm? Legal requirements to require GMO labeling is fine. Laws to prevent GMO labeling is fine. People have varying ideas of what harm might might be.
- Law is to maximize freedom? That's sort of all about making the best society possible for people to be maximally free, while still being about preventing harm which inhibits freedom. Freedom is individual but every freedom you give one person (freedom to kill) inhibits the freedom of another (lack of life is complete loss of freedom.) Everything is a compromise. Freedom to ensure knowledge about GMOs inhibits freedom to present products the way you prefer.
Freedom?
Yeah. Life isn't black and white. Making choices to determine what other people must or must not do, can or cannot do; that's complex but life is complex.
I've brought up a lot of potential nuance to add to the simple question of whether it should be legal to require GMO labeling or not. Given that nuance, I don't expect you, dear reader, to change your opinion since everything I've contributed can also be used to support your preconceived notions of what's appropriate. Are you asking what I think? Are you asking what someone who has both sides consideration thinks? You won't be satisfied with the answer.
I don't really know for sure. I want freedom, and I want to ensure freedom for others. I don't know which side does the best job of either. In these situations, I generally go for the approach of not legislating, but this is about a law to prevent legislating. If I don't like unnecessary laws, is it better to prevent laws using law or skip the law at all? I think the best choice is to allow legislation to happen at the most local levels, which is to say no, I don't think this is a good law, even though I don't think the idea that legislating a requirement for GMO labeling is a good idea either.
So even though I sorta have a stance, t's not strong. If you'd like me and people like me to see your side, or even support it, please give me a good reason to support your perspective. Despite everything I've read (most of the discussion so far,) I still haven't seen that.