Gozmo, you said that
Printing a label specifying the contents of a package is no more expensive than printing a description such as "Baked Beans" . Informative labelling may well be the elusive free lunch.
Printing a label is inexpensive, but informative labelling isn't. For that, you have to monitor all your suppliers. And because there is no test telling you if a specific breed of potato has been created through direct DNA-manipulation or old-fashioned breeding, this monitoring can require a significant amount of paperwork. Just because you (or I) don't see the cost, that doesn't mean it isn't there.
labelling of food products is already mandatory, it has nothing to do with profit margins. It is strictly about information.
It may not have been about profit margins as far as Congress's intentions are concerned, but it's definitely about them as far as the consequences of the law are concerned. My point is that the law reduces producers' profit margins more than it increases consumer benefit, or else GMF labelling would already be profitable in the the free market. Why impose legislation that infers a net cost on society? And yes, I do see the parallel to the peanut labelling law -- this was just as pointless.
Mistrust = no sale.
I agree. That's why I think the volume of sales is strong evidence that most consumers do trust the food industry even though they produce GM food. Finally, I don't see the merit of your point that
GM foods are and an unproven technology that is being forced upon us.
You repeat this point several times so I presume it's very important to you. But that doesn't make it any truer. GMF is a technology that has been thoroughly tested for adverse effects, and none have been found that can't also be found in conventional food. If you don't trust me, feel free to research the medical literature in the the Pub Med database. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
I find the anti-GMF arguments more compelling, because that lobby has far less to lose than the producers of these products.
Are you arguing that if you're rich, you're probably wrong about any given issue? Sure sounds like it. I find the anti-GMF arguments less compelling because they are contradicted by consumers' preferences, as revealed by their buying decisions. As Winston Churchill said, "If two people agree, one of them is superfluous." I'm glad none of us is superfluous.