Here's a comment I wrote in the post condemning Rand's vote.
Hi, everyone, a few questions on mandated GMO labels:
1. Wouldn't suing whoever sells GMO foods become difficult once GMO labels are put onto foods' packing? (Wouldn't this label legitimize GMO foods, a protection against retribution?)
2. Wouldn't that difficulty be proportional to the number of GMO foods sold, where the more GMO foods there are, the more pervasive the acceptance of GMO food is because the food looks, feels and tastes what they're used to? This acceptance excludes advertising and marketing, both of which would smooth this food's transition into the mainstream.
3. Referring to my comment's title: If GMO food sellers are selling GMO foods how they sold food before they sold GMO foods, that packaging, maketing and so on is without evidence of the change in food constitution, doesn't this nonidentification, this non-notification, beg for lawsuits against these companies? In short, the fraud argument could be used, couldn't it?
If the answers to these questions are yeses and this legislation becomes law, this law would further warp food as we know it and then destroy it by ushering in nano technology in food and its packaging, a topic that is sequential and consequential to (read: result because of) GMO food. This consequence, nano technology in food and its packaging, would be presented as the or a "solution" to GMOs health problems, to me revealing GMOs to be but a precursor, a testing grounds, er, no, a set-up, for nano technology in food.
-repeal laws that attack the individual doing what he wants
-sue GMO food sellers if their packaging, advertising and marketing of GMO food are what they were when they sold (nonGMO, normal, natural) food.
-uphold judicial attack on coercion and fraud
School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me
Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton