|
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:
- A local government may not impose a requirement for the disclosure or display of information on a food label.
- 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?
|
