Bill of Rights 14.4.2003

Some people think that Bill Gates looks like me.

2003-04-14

Genetic Engineering

I wondered why anyone would be against labeling foods that are genetically engineered. It seems to me that any consumer ought to be able to make an informed choice about the foods [s]he eats. Then I read the remainder of the article:

The full text of the bill reads:

  1. A local government may not impose a requirement for the disclosure or display of information on a food label.
  2. If a food is subject to a federal requirement for disclosing or displaying information on the label, a state agency may not impose a labeling requirement regarding the same information that is more stringent than the federal requirement.

Now it's looking like a states rights issue, where the state is voluntarily bowing to the national government.

In the Commonwealth of Virginia, we have the Dillon Rule (or rule of statutory construction). It limits the powers of the counties and cities to all and only those delegated to them by the General Assembly. Clause 1 appears to be the Oregon legislature asserting its right in that regard.

The Dillon Rule might prevent counties, cities, and towns from inflicting tyranny on their citizens but it doesn't prevent the Commonwealth from doing the same. For example, no municipality in Virginia may extend domestic partner benefits to the same-sex couples. Arlington County passed a law permitting it in 2002 only to have the court strike it under the Dillon Rule.

I think I'd rather take my chances with local tyranny than have the Dillon Rule remain the law of Virginia. There are ways such as local elections and the court system to combat local tyranny. Those avenues are open at the state level, to be sure, but it's harder to work because of the greater inertia of the state system.

For more about the Dillon Rule, see or http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/gov/omb/fcpos/Middle_School/11_dillon.pdf.

Regarding clause 2, why would a state voluntarily deny itself the right to require more stringent laws than the federal government? Is it an issue of commerce in the case of food? Would fewer companies ship their products to Oregon if they had to label in accordance with Oregon's stricter-than-national law? Or is it to avoid a morass of state laws, no two alike, that could lead to more label than product if taken to its logical extreme?

Source: Global Indymedia Newswire
posted at 14:12:16    #    comment []    trackback []
April 2003
MoTuWeThFrSaSu
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    
Mar
2003
 May
2003

It's about your right to be left alone, to follow your conscience in a responsible manner, to air your unpopular political views, to practice your obscure religion, to exercise the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights without fear of persecution.

Linkage

www.onespeeddave.com

Independent Media

Independent Media in the District of Columbia

Del Ray Artisans

Freenet

Zeitgeist

Technorati Profile

XML-Image Letterimage

© 2003-2005, David Talmage