Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not a marketing scheme, it is customer information just like the usual ingredients labels. As I said in another comment, declaring what is in a product should really be the norm, GMO labeling opponents should justify why it is okay or better to hide this information from customers.
It's very simple. Food ingredients are on the label for safety reasons. There are no measurable safety effects of GMO, Halal, etc. What criteria do you use to determine if a property should be on a label? Should foods with homosexuals or muslims involved in production also get a warning label? If not, why not? Or do you believe every random bias of consumers is something that every possible producer must account for?
Simple, if a substantial fraction of the consumers cares about it.
Should foods with homosexuals or muslims involved in production also get a warning label? If not, why not? Or do you believe every random bias of consumers is something that every possible producer must account for?
People already avoid products from specific companies, countries and whatnot because they disapprove their ethics, labor conditions and so on. If people cared about the race or religion of the people producing the products they buy, then it should be on the label. I would actually almost bet there were products advertising that they were produced by white Americans only or something similar. That it was never a mandatory labeling probably just means that people never cared enough about it, not that it is something totally unimaginable.
If this is really the only argument against GMO labeling, that it would be kind of a random addition amongst many other possible addition to the labels, that seems a pretty weak argument.