Honesty is exactly why I oppose requiring mandatory labeling. There are many aspects of food I could demand be labeled. for example, is something produced via hybridization, induced polyploidy, mutagenesis, bud sport, grafting, tissue culture, somaclonal variation, embryo rescue, ect.? They're not labeled. Why not? If they're so safe, why are they hidden? Of course that's ridiculous. They're not labeled because the are ultimately not different. But if I were to, say, single out one of these things (while a movement existed that opposed this thing and had no problem spreading unscientific FUD on the topic) it would make that one thing look like it was wrong somehow, would it not? I mean, hey, it is labeled, that must mean it is bad, right? Granted, its a no win for GE crops since many folks also say that if they are not labeled, they must be hiding something from you and therefore it must be bad (damned either way).
The thing is that there is no reason to label something that does not affect the end product. What if I demand, say, that the variety of parsnip or species of blueberry (yes, species, there is more than one cultivated) I find in the store be labeled? What if I demand that the specific bud sport of apple (do you think the last Gala or Fuji you had was the original? I'll be it wasn't!) be labeled, or that citrus produced with radiation a few decades ago carry a radiation symbol, or if squash produced via doubled haploid hybridization carry l label saying 'produced with toxic chemicals'? It would all be true, but I don't deserve that and more than a Jew deserves mandatory Kosher labeling or a Muslim deserves mandatory Halal labeling because, ultimately, that information is not relevant to the product and they are equivalent to items produced without those things. It's the same with GE crops. Okay, they are GE. That doesn't mean anything to the nutritional properties of the end product, and while some may think so, some might think certain beef might send you to hell, but that doesn't mean they deserve a law catering to them. And speaking of individual genes, simply labeling things as GMO without providing more details is meaningless and you know it. It is as informative as saying I modified my can. Can you tell me what I did to it based on that information alone? No, so how would that be informative for food? And if you do include the individual genes, why do all other genes get a free pass? What if I want rice with the sd-1 gene labeled, or raspberries with the A1 gene labeled, or tomatoes with the Ph-3 gene labeled (all conventionally bred by the way)?
Besides, there are already free market solutions, such as organic and Non-GMO Project certified foods, and you can also just educate yourself on the topic to know for sure. Anything with corn, soy, canola, cotton, sugar beet, alfalfa, summer squash, and papaya is likely GE unless market otherwise. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, quite frankly that's your own problem. And sure, you could just say that people want it, but I'm sure that most people would like a pony too, but that doesn't mean they should get one. Just because someone wants a law doesn't mean the law should be passed (see Prop 8 and cannabis prohibition for reference).
Basically, I'm opposed to requiring mandatory labeling for the same reason I'm opposed to those warning labels on textbooks stating that evolution is 'just' a theory. That, as we know, was a political move to single out a single theory and mislead those who do not know what the term actually means. The movement to label GE crops is a political movement that seeks to single out one aspect of crop genetic alteration to confuse and mislead consumers who are not educated on the subject. I've yet to hear a convincing, scientifically and morally consistent argument that takes into account the full scope of crop genetic alteration.