Food Labeling

Shouldn't the government force private businesses to label what is done to food they sell, such as if the food is genetically altered?

In the present "organic" food movement (no "unnatural" chemicals) the organic growers have to lobby the government to define what the term "organic" means (I've read of complaints that the government is redefining it to something different from which those who market such foods intended). 

However, in most supermarkets if you want "organic" we don't label all "non-organic" foods as "non-organic"; we simply label the organic foods as "organic".

This same principles governs the label of other kinds of foods.

The proper response to the genetically altered food issue is not to force anyone to label anything, but for some private label to label their foods "non-genetically altered", and to define the rules that allow other food companies to use this term (and then to trademark the brand name so the government cannot takeover the term). 

This private certification system will satisfy those who only wish to buy "non-genetically altered" foods, without placing a burden on those who wish to sell genetically altered foods. It will be up to the private label company to enforce the use of their "non-genetically altered" label/brand. This is sort of like the "Good Housekeeping" seal.

Those who are concerned about the "genetically-altered" issue can purchase these private label brands -- those who don't think it is a valid issue can purchase everything else (which will more then likely be cheaper). Anyone who sells genetically altered foods will not be able to use the "non-genetically altered" approval logo.

What we do not need, is the situation we have now: where the government decides by initiating force via mandatory labeling -- as opposed to having consumers choose.


Suggested Reading:
See Alan Greenspan's article "The Assault on Integrity" published in Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.