Fred Thompson with another contribution:
Rather, this looks to me like a free speech issue, which,
perhaps, first of all comprehends the right to be silent. Now, I am a
reasonable guy. I am willing to restrict first amendment rights to protect the
public health and safety. But that willingness is grudging. You must show (provide
plausible scientific evidence) that the restriction really would promote public
health and safety, which opponents of GMOs cannot do. This is the
Constitutional law doctrine of strict scrutiny, which the standard test the courts
invoke when the rights enumerated in the first eight amendments to the
Constitution are infringed.
OK, you say, but you have a right to be informed about what
you buy. The Uniform Commercial Code grants you that right, which ought to
override mere commercial speech protections. Not a bad argument, say I. But,
then, the question arises, is there a less intrusive (in the sense of
encroaching on speech rights) way to satisfy your need to know? And, in this
case there is. Sellers of GMO-free foodstuffs can satisfy your need for
information by voluntarily labeling their products GMO-free.
Of course, I have some sympathy for the organic farmer who
notes that they were there first – that their ilk have been producing GMO-free
foods for thousands of years. It’s not their fault that the need for labeling
has arisen. Presumably, however, it’s their customers who want this
information, not the GMO indifferent, let alone the GMO lovers. Besides, as
those who advocate mandatory labeling in this instance, almost certainly,
correctly argue, the costs of labeling are trivial. I have heard some advocates
of mandatory labeling claim that it is very hard (costly?) to prove a negative,
but those who would want an exemption from the labeling requirement under
mandatory labeling would probably still bear the cost burden (not the GMO
users/producers). The only difference is that, under mandatory labeling, if the
labeling regulations were effectively enforced, it’s likely that the GMO-free
farmers (and their customers) would also bear the cost of the governmental
regulatory apparatus.
No comments:
Post a Comment