Comment: A lot of black-and-white thinking in this movement, especially..

.from anarchists. Always quick to throw around trigger words like "communism". They're this movement's version of the SPLC throwing out "racist" everywhere.

All this is is a debate over what fraud is:

A (GMO Corn): You stack ears of corn on a shelf. There is no real way for me to know whether the ears of corn are GMO or not, especially if I don't even know what GMO is. You are representing your product as the same corn everyone is used to, even though that is not true. To the consumer, maybe the unmarked corn IS non-GMO and just not advertised as such? After all, there's no duty to disclose ingredients.

B (non-GMO Corn): One way to know whether corn is GMO or not is for non-GMO corn to advertise itself as such. This puts an extra burden on non-GMO corn sellers to show that they are not GMO while the GMO corn gets to free-ride by implication.

All the law is doing is defining A as fraud and thereby shifting the disclosure costs from B to A. It makes sense as a matter of law to do this, since the non-GMO corn is actually doing the right thing via full disclosure. Laws should reward good-faith efforts.