105 On Mandated GMO Labeling

How would I vote on the proposed legislation that would make GMO labeling mandatory?  Below is my answer along with the work behind my math.

I oppose GMOs (although not on the basis of scientific evidence that shows health problems caused by them- that evidence doesn't persuasively exist to my knowledge). My opposition to GMOs is more of a common-sense, and systems oriented stance. I think that the companies that push GMOs are simultaneously getting wealthy from a system that is not sustainable in the long run, is not responsible to the world that we are called to steward, and is collateral-damagingly oppressive to our international neighbors (not to mention the bees). On top of all that, common sense would tend to forecast that the unintended consequences of GMOs will have significant health ramifications to the coming generations. Simply put, and in theological terms: GMOs are relationshiply (I just made that word up... and it is different than "relationally") irresponsible, and not in keeping with how God calls us to act toward the world around us. 

All that being said, I believe in free-market capitalism and limited government. Insisting on labeling will have the negative effect of giving minimal standards for large corporations to manipulate, circumvent, and treat with duplicity. Also, another thing to consider is the way "organic," "fat-free," "zero calorie" have all been codified by the federal government and, in terms of legalese, literally mean something different than they originally did, or than we think they do. They are terms that agribusiness uses to, simultaneously, cover their butts and market to the public. Mandatory "non-GMO" labeling will assuredly suffer the same fate. 

Then there is the matter of Government coercing the free-market. Whenever regulation is imposed on industry, the consumer will suffer and the producer's ability to please the consumer becomes limited and more difficult to accomplish. 

Currently, those who care enjoy the benefits of the voluntary labeling that many participating companies who are proud of producing non-GMO foods provide. This seems to be the perfect answer. If a company so chooses, they can earn extra money from consumers by hailing the virtues of their food. And it works. Should one of those companies not be honest about their claims, they would assuredly be exposed and suffer the loss that comes with money-voting. Companies have more to gain/lose when facing the public with their claims, than they do in front of a government who is probably on their side anyway. The loss of public interest and its money is more devasatating, and has greater long-term consequence, than the fines imposed by courts. Think of Chipotle raising their prices and going non-GMO while enjoying record profits. McDonald's, on the other hand, in the same consumer climate, is experiencing a decrease in profits for one of the first times in quite a while... all without governmental regulation.  Or consider Monsanto, who though regulated, does what it wants, pays whatever fines may be imposed, and carries on.

So while it is intuitive to invoke the government to make seemingly good things happen, those good happening are better enacted organically (no pun intended), through awareness and public money-voting. If the public demands its food to come a certain way, the producers will accommodate (given they are not too regulated to be able to).  I feel strongly that legislation is not the only social mechanism with which to bring about positive change in society; it, in all actuality, has proven to not be a very good one. Awareness is the first step; we don't need labels for that.  We just need to keep the conversation alive through word and deed.

My final answer is:
I oppose the legislation. GMOs and their production will prove to not be good in the long run. GMOs and their production are things from which we ought to learn to free ourselves.  That freedom should come as a result of enlightened consumer demand.