OK, but how does that relate to the dilemma posed above?

Chris

If you make a public assertion through your branding that “artificial sweeteners are always wrong but sugar is fine if you want it,” you had better be able to back that up with a clear understanding of the science and societal implications.

If it’s “we don’t like artificial sweeteners or the colour teal” or “our artificial sweetener of choice is stevia because we prefer dealing with smaller companies” that’s one kind of statement. Alternatively, if it’s “we don’t have any chemicals because GMOs kill babies” that’s a very different kind of statement that carries a heavier ethical load. The problem comes when the statement is so open that people interpret it with their own biases and the received message may be quite different from the one intended and it would be disingenuous to claim otherwise.

Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
You’re may be right that Pollan doesn’t think Prop 37 is a bad law — but it’s interesting how little he has to say in its favour! If he thinks it is good in ways OTHER than sticking it to Big Ag, he isn’t saying.

As for your final point, my wording could probably use some tweaking. But basically there’s a strong public interest argument in favour of knowing what’s in the can or box you’re buying. A return to the bad old days when a cake could easily contain sawdust is not in the public interest. It is simply too easy for manufacturers to adulterate foodstuffs in ways that would be a) impossible to tell before purchasing and b) difficult to determine even after.

First, I don’t think Pollan’s really telling people to support a bad law in the interest of showing Big Food who is boss. He’s telling people to support a law that you (and I) think is bad. However, I think Pollan would say it’s a good law. In the “food movement” view, informing consumers is an important part of making change happen, which is why Pollan writes favorably about things like farmer’s markets and glass slaughterhouses. More information on a label is consistent with this view.

I tend to think it’s naive to expect political change to happen this way, particularly when the connection between the label language and the related problems is so tenuous. Moreover, I’m annoyed by the speciousness of the “right to know” rhetoric.

That said, I’m not sure I agree with you when you write, “In a free society, you don’t pass laws requiring other people to change their behaviour unless their current behaviour is doing some harm or violating some right.” Do all of our existing labels pass that test? I’d say allergen-labeling probably does, but what about ingredient labeling? As I see it ingredient labeling might be justified by disclosure of less common allergens or perhaps some kind of public health considerations. I don’t think I like either reason very much, though they might both be better than the case for labeling GM foods. Do you have any thoughts on this?