Suddenly, When It Comes To GMO Labeling, NY Times Editorial Board Loves States Rights

The NY Times is typically very much pro-federal government dominance, and against any State using their 10th Amendment Right. Remember, the Times, both in the news section and the opinion pages, was totally against California’s Prop 8 (gay marriage ban) and Arizona’s illegal alien crackdown law, among others. They’ve been very supportive of the food labeling component of Obamacare, and utterly against the 27 States who are suing the Obama administration and the EPA over the power plant rule. But, finally, finally, the NY Times Editorial Board finds a State Right they can agree with

A Bad Effort in Congress to Thwart States on Food Labels

The Senate could soon join the House to try to make it harder for consumers to know what is in their food by prohibiting state governments from requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods. This is a bad idea that lawmakers and the Obama administration should oppose.

In July, Vermont will become the first state to require the labeling of genetically modified food. Many food companies and farm groups say such laws are problematic because they could dissuade consumers from buying foods that federal regulators and many scientists say pose no risk to human health. But that is an unfounded fear and states should be free to require labels if they want to.

The Senate Agriculture Committee is considering a bill by its chairman, Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, that would prohibit state labeling laws. The committee is likely to approve it, primarily with Republican votes. The House passed a similar bill last summer along party lines.

I wonder if the NYTEB would be OK if the GOP run House and Senate were considering bill’s that would allow States to opt out of the Ocare food labeling requirement, or the contraception mandate. I’m thinking the answer would be a collective freak out from the EB.

Usually, Republicans in Congress are eager to give states more power to set policy in areas like environmental protection, health care and social services when they think that legislatures and governors will weaken regulations or cut spending to help the poor. In this case, however, they want to take power away from states that want to impose new rules that their residents support. The only thing these lawmakers seem to favor consistently is protecting corporate interests.

Usually, leading Leftists like the NYTEB are eager to remove power from the States and give it to the federal government. Why the sudden change of heart in this one instance? Most likely it is due to the collective freakout from Leftists over genetically modified foods. You can bet the ranch on the EB taking the side of the federal government if a Democrat Congress or the Obama administration was attempting to force companies nationwide to provide GMO labeling and States were attempting to block this.

Just too be clear, States should have the ability to require GMO labeling if they want, in my opinion. But, I’m consistent in my belief in the 10th Amendment.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!