“Yes, and it’s so good for you that it’s important that it never be labeled as such. We wouldn’t want Mr. and Mrs. consumer to get the idea that they can make their own decisions about what to eat, now. Eat up, children.”
This is the liberal left nanny-state view. The view that adds laws and regulations when unnecessary, usually for ulterior reasons, political or economic etc...
Non-GMO food producers can label their food as non-GMO.
If you don’t want to buy GM food, buy food that is not GM.
Problem solved.
“If you don’t want to buy GM food, buy food that is not GM.
Problem solved.”
If GM food genes mix with non-GM food genes (and they have and will), the consumer won’t know it. Problem not solved.
There is a proper role of government in "promoting the general welfare" and since few of us farm our own food these days that's why things like the Pure Food and Drug act were passed in 1906 in the wake of the "free market" abuses common at that time. (So what if your food was laden with toxins. Why should you as a dumb consumer need to know that? That would just cut into our profits.)
Unfortunately in recent decades, the FDA, like so many regulatory bodies originally created to serve the public interest, has become a puppet of lobbyists working to serve their corporate paymasters. Monsanto and the tellingly named "Grocery Manufacturers Association" have spent millions of dollars lobbying and working against any attempts to expand labeling laws, especially when it comes to their GMO creations. Why is that? If the stuff were so demonstrably superior as claimed you'd think they'd be proud to advertise that loudly ("Look for the GMO label. Accept no substitute.") This latest "achievement" is another testament to the cozy relationship between the "regulators" and those they supposedly "regulate".