Originally posted in edited form at Law & Liberty
Fascism is the political triumph of fashion-sense; etymologically, the words even share a distant ancestor. The reason is this: when the “in” crowd wrests the levers of power from the “out” crowd, once-trendy slogans become administrative fiat. Authoritarian policies, like fashions everywhere, rely upon poor reasoning and an even poorer respect for individual autonomy.
Look no further than the intensifying push for genetically modified labeling in Colorado’s Proposition 105, which like California’s failed Prop 37, asks Colorado voters to mandate labeling on all products containing genetically modified ingredients. GMOs are definitely “out” for Colorado’s blisterati. Since Colorado’s state motto seems to have become “We’re Cooler than California,” I’ll wager Coloradans will outdo those Pacific Beach pikers on this, just as they did on marijuana.
Weed is hip. Genetically modifying food? “That’s just not cool, man…”
Here lies a central contradiction: after removing overstepping authority on recreational, reasonably harmless psychoactive drugs, the “in” crowd immediately turns an about-face and asks the state to regulate its food. You cannot, if you love freedom and trust the individual, have it both ways…
Proponents of Proposition 105 argue (somewhat correctly), that they aren’t being exactly illiberal about all this, “it’s just a label” after all. True enough, but that label must be applied at the point of a bureaucrat’s pen; if the proponents have their way, any company found in violation of the new requirement will suffer the force of the law: “and rightfully so,” sniff the vocal foes of GMOs…
The irony here is that as a food producer, I share some of their cautious distrust for laboratory-altered products, yet while I am no cheerleader for GMOs, I find the calm, rational argument in favor of them vastly outstrips the hazy and illogical arguments against. Billions of meals have been consumed without a single documented negative side effect. The environmental benefits (reduced pesticide use, reduced acreage demands) are indisputable. Moreover, the same scientific consensus that tells us humans play a role in climate range also tells us that genetically modified foods are safe. Why accept near unanimity in one domain but ignore it in another?
The real danger–appropriating regulatory coercion–far exceeds the supposed dangers posed by GMOs. Turning Voltaire inside out: “Prop 105 proponents, I agree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death to keep you from using the State to say it.”
In addition to the very real erosion of principle, authoritarian rules invariably create unintended consequences. Two that we can already foresee are 1) misleading people, and 2) putting small, organic farmers out of business.
Misleading? The Colorado law will not require a GMO label on any meat products, even if the animals were raised exclusively on genetically modified grain. Realisitically, shoppers will quickly scan label panels for indication of GMOs and assume that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Small Producers? This law only discomfits large, “mean” companies that will bear the labeling burden, right? Wrong. In practice, if a company submits a GMO-free ingredient panel for approval, authorities will require the producer to “prove” he or she is not using genetically modified ingredients. This added burden (believe me) is not light or cheap, and will fall disproportionately on the backs of folks we most want to see in business.
Isn’t there a better way? Is there no system to get the labeling that proponents want without relying on the same ridiculous technocrats that tell us we can’t buy raw milk for our families?
Of course there is.
The Non-GMO Project, a private non-profit, has been actively vetting brands for almost a decade, and has over 20,000 products stamped with its distinctive rainbow-hued butterfly. The project works, and works well; can we imagine a state agency doing nearly half as well? Even the most devoutly abstinent Colorado foodie, I’m sure, can manage an organic lifestyle with 20,000 products (add one more if we get our beef jerky approved!).
Compare the slogan of Prop105 supporters: “We have the right to know what’s in our food!” to the vision of the Non-GMO Project: “…everyone deserves an informed choice about whether or not to consume genetically modified organisms.” The sentiment is precisely the same, yet the former relies on force and submission while the latter quietly, effectively, and voluntarily gets the job done.
In the end, the campaign to label GMOs is not really about letting the “customer decide,” it’s about forcing businesses to respond to the anxiété du jour. I have no doubt that GMO labeling is in our future; but let’s allow companies to respond to consumer demand without dragging in the nanny state.