Making a Murderer: Empty threats in Trump’s misdirected opioid war


For more than a year, Donald Trump paid lip service to victims of the opioid crisis. As he grandstanded to his base about the problem, more than 100,000 people died of drug overdoses in what he labeled a “public health emergency” even while he chose not to release any additional funds for this emergency. And even though Congress finally included in its late-February budget deal $6 billion to address the epidemic, the President has adopted a Philippines-style law-and-order approach that he says now includes seeking the death penalty for drug dealers.

Let’s forget for a moment the plainly racist legacy of the failed War on Drugs. Let’s also ignore how costly and ineffective the death penalty is, with 88 percent of criminologists agreeing it does not act as a deterrent. There are a number of other ethical problems with Trump’s opioid approach. His fixation on the supply-side source of the epidemic has routinely included scapegoating Mexico, an obvious target that fits seamlessly with his “build The Wall” movement that’s rallied on all varieties of xenophobia since his early campaign days.

But building a wall or otherwise tightening security between the U.S. and Mexico is likely to have little effect on the continuing trend of overdoses. For one, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly half of opioid deaths in 2016 were the result of prescribed opioids not including those categorized as illicit such as fentanyl or heroin. If Trump wants a scapegoat for these deaths, he’s going to have to target the doctors who are likely practicing patient-centered care to those in pain. That’s not to say prescribing doctors are blameless in this epidemic, but it does highlight the quandary of confounding substances when speaking of opioid deaths using blanket terminology.

Secondly, as a foreign source, Mexico is often just an intermediary, with China producing the majority of fentanyl coming into the U.S. Far from the image of contraband smuggled into the U.S. through a loose Mexican border, the internet and dark web provide easy access to fentanyl that can be shipped directly to U.S. consumers and forego the type of drug dealer Trump has made a target of his opioid war.

Another ethical problem with Trump’s supply-side preoccupation is that it diverts funding that could be better spent on the root of the problem: the biochemical processes that cause dependence, overdose, and death from consumption. Naloxone, a medication that blocks the effects of opioids, was developed over 50 years ago and according to the CDC, tens of thousands of overdoses have been reversed using it. The fact that we are relying on science from 1961 should be evidence enough that developing more advanced pharmacokinetic solutions to opioids should be a priority. From 2014 to 2016, the price for a package of Naloxone increased from $690 to $4,500. If Trump is serious about preventing opioid deaths, addressing access to lifesaving treatments should be his most immediate concern.

Demonizing drug dealers is easy, plays well with the public, and draws a clear “us versus them” dichotomy. But the more nuanced reality is that many street dealers are addicts themselves and dealing is often a last resort to fund unsustainable chemical dependence. By the time many addicts have resorted to selling, it’s because they’ve been unable to maintain jobs, have lost control of their lives, and have reached the near-end of an unmanageable cycle. Threatening them with the death penalty is not a tenable solution and only increases stigma that might prevent them from seeking help. Further, it’s a vacuous warning when so many of the actual “dealers” are just dark-web commerce sites that deliver directly to consumers’ doors through the postal service.

With $6 billion to spend on the opioid problem, the repetitive Band-Aid of law enforcement and execution of drug dealers shouldn’t be the articulated priority of the Trump administration. Only funding science to develop interventions and medications to treat addiction and prevent overdose deaths can stop the opioid epidemic at its root.

– Tyler


Dress codes and the Tipsy Jim Crow


There are few remnants of Jim Crow and institutionalized discrimination as commonly tolerated and accepted as dress codes. Their role as exclusionary gatekeepers is by nature prejudiced and often reflects an attitude of classism, racism, sexism, and sometimes all three.

Let’s look at an example that was recently brought to my attention from an establishment in Des Moines, Iowa called the Tipsy Crow. By compiling an encompassing list of banned articles and styles worn commonly by African-Americans (particularly of lower socioeconomic status), the Tipsy Crow is sending the message that an entire segment of society is unwelcome in their establishment. Whether or not this is discrimination isn’t even the question—it is CLEARLY discrimination based on preferred dress and not-so-subtly discrimination based on race.

The questions worth examining here are, to what extent do private enterprises have the freedom to explicitly discriminate so casually and what are the ethical considerations that comprise this debate?

Dress is generally understood within a cultural context to be an expression of the individual or as a part of society as a whole. It runs the gamut from liberal and unrestricted (think Caribbean carnival attire) to conservative garb meant mostly to cover (a niqab or burka for example). In the United States, our society historically and institutionally values individual liberty and one need look no further than to the First Amendment of the Constitution to see freedom of expression prioritized as a principle emblem of our freedom.

It’s here I’ll explore the first of the four principles of biomedical ethics: respect for autonomy. Defined by Beauchamp and Childress as the right for an individual to make his or her own choice, dress codes violate this principle simply by disallowing the freedom to choose what to wear. This private sector paternalism is egregiously heavy-handed, not simply suggesting a preferred aesthetic but barring from its establishment those who don’t abide by an arbitrary set of discriminatory wardrobe standards.

Justice is the principle of fair distribution of resources and again, this principle is violated by the premise of the dress code. If we evaluate a business such as the Tipsy Crow through the lens of providing the resources of food, services, and space to gather, it’s clear their dress code violates the principle of justice. All else equal, if two people try to enter, but one has baggy jeans and is wearing Timberlands and is thus denied, there is an ethical problem here.

We’ll try not to assume that a black person would have any harder of a time entering than a white person wearing baggy jeans and construction boots, but based on the obviously racially-motivated list of banned attire, you can draw your own conclusions.

There’s also the problem of subjectivity when it comes to some of the items on the list. What constitutes baggy jeans? Do mine need to be clinging to my thighs like Saran wrap in order for me to gain entry? If this is left to the discretion of the doorman, personal biases are liable to play a role and again the principle of justice is at risk.

The principles of beneficence (doing good) and nonmaleficence (doing no harm) go hand in hand and can be applied with elementary ease to this case. Scenario A: You let people dress how they want and let them in to patronize the establishment. No one is discriminated based on how they appear. This is beneficence. Scenario B: You bar certain people from the establishment based on how they dress. They are discriminated. This is maleficence.

In the weeks since the Charlottesville, VA debacle, the question might arise: Is it wrong to limit the freedom of someone wearing a Swastika or confederate flag as part of their attire? This is obviously another topic entirely, but if you have to make a jump in logic from “plain white T-shirt” or “construction boots” in the Tipsy Crow example to a symbol of racism and ethnic genocide, clearly there is a difference. The First Amendment and freedom of expression stops at speech that leads to defamation and imminent violence, both of which were tenets of Nazism.

A dress code as clearly racist as the Tipsy Crow should be classified as outright discrimination and has no place in our society. According to news reports, the sign identifying the dress code was removed after public outcry, though the owner failed to state if the policy was actually changed. Regardless of the specifics for this particular instance, the problematic nature of dress codes is an ethical quandary better erred on the side of the fundamental freedom of choice.

– Tyler

Corporate animals or social welfare

Perdue raises 676 million chickens annually, and for the first time, these chickens are being given the opportunity to enjoy sunlight.

The company is overhauling its animal welfare practices, and the changes have the potential to influence other producers in the country to follow suit. They will be following standards similar to those in Europe that has long been considered unnecessary and overly costly for the poultry industry in the United States. Their large position in the marketplace gives them unmatched power over the food industry. The chickens at Perdue will have windows, additional space in barns, and the company is investigating its breeding practices to potentially decrease the speed of growth in order to avoid the multiple injuries to the animals this practice has caused. Given this influence, is corporate social responsibility the answer to issues in animal welfare?

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a concept that suggests corporations may be held socially and ethically accountable by a variety of stakeholders including customers, employees, governments, communities, NGO’s, investors, unions, regulators and the media.[1]Formal discussion on the merits, effects, and definition of CSR began in the 1950’s.[2] It grew throughout the last half century and has now been adopted as an important part of business practice and an expectation of the public.[3] Social responsibility means that a business is aware and responsive to society. This obligation could translate into reduction of pollution, improvement of the community, better health benefits for employees, or changes in production requirements to improve animal treatment.

Positives of Corporate Social Responsibility in Animal Welfare

            There are many positive aspects to corporate social responsibility in the food industry. At its core, it represents a movement to consider the impact of practices in business that effect animal welfare.

  • Animal welfare can actually improve no matter where the request comes from, be it Perdue, the government, or animal rights activists.
  • Companies can require sweeping changes for their suppliers. In 2007 Burger King began requiring that its pork and eggs come from suppliers who did not confine their animals to cages and crates, and that they would favor suppliers who rendered the animals unconscious before slaughter.[4]
  • Companies influence each other. National restaurant chains including Burger King, Wendy’s, Denny’s, Red Robin, Quiznos, Sonic, Hardees and Carl’s Jr., have all started using cage free eggs.[5]
  • CSR is often proactive. Consumer criticism of perceived CSR deficiencies can be very damaging to a firm’s profitability.[6] CSR may draw attention to the problem and establish greater awareness of the unnecessary suffering of animals. Consumers who may not have paid attention to the production of their food would know more about it because the places they eat or shop were talking about it.
  • Finally, CSR in food production gives people a direct power to influence industry practice. Platforms like Facebook and twitter make a company’s practices more visible and the potential for backlash is significant.[7] It is a way of providing for animal welfare that is not based in government regulation in a time when government regulation is anathema.

Negatives of CSR in Animal Welfare

  • Corporate social responsibility is influenced by a company’s profit. If the mechanics of profitability shift drastically away from animal welfare, the corporation may renege on their policy. CSR gives no guarantee.
  • Corporate social responsibility in scope, method, and motive is entirely controlled by the corporation. The corporation establishes the definition of what is humane treatment. If the corporation, like Perdue, is in control, there is no enforcement mechanism. Relying on the public as a check is limited because animal production is not a very visible industry.
  • Self- regulation by corporations may be a way to avoid regulation by the government. In creating their own policies, these companies can make minimal changes to avoid public scrutiny, and remain free from laws that might require bigger change, more frequent check- ups, or putting the industry in a more public setting.

Current Laws

The Animal Welfare Act and many state animal cruelty laws don’t cover farm animals.[8] Current U.S. laws that cover farming were enacted to protect U.S. family farms from unfair competition, and so there are few regulations.[9]There are a few federal laws that regulate cruelty to farm animals but they fall short of being effective based on enforcement and limited scope. These are the Twenty Eight Hour Law, the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act, and the Animal Welfare Act.

The Twenty Eight Hour Law, first enacted in 1873 and amended in 1994, requires that animals in transit get to stop every 28 hours for water, food, and exercise.[10] There is no private cause of action in the law, meaning the attorney general alone can prosecute.[11] Not only that, but this law has been interpreted not to cover poultry. The advancement from train travel to trucking has not been acknowledged meaning enforcement of this law is rare, leading truck drivers not to adhere to it.[12]

The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act was originally passed in 1958 and requires that animals be stunned to the point of unconsciousness before they are slaughtered.[13] This law is limited in that it entirely excludes birds,[14] which make up 90% of animals slaughtered for food.[15] This law does have a private cause of action and in Jones v. Butz, a plaintiff challenged one of a practice as inhumane because the animal was aware of its pain, but the Court upheld the slaughter method under the Act.[16]

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was passed in 1966 and represented the first legislative effort to regulate the animal research industry.[17] The Act was designed to respond to the large number of dogs and cats that were stolen for use in animal research by requiring research facilities to purchase animals only from authorized dealers.[18] It also provided regulation as to the humane handling, treatment and transportation of animals by dealers and researchers.[19] This Act has been amended over the past 40 years struggling to define “animal,” recognizing further protections for animals, and creating specific guidelines for animal researchers on aspects of research including the use of anesthetics and how many operations a single animal could undergo.[20] The Animal Welfare Act is the broadest animal protection law in the United States and is the primary federal law covering the humane treatment of animals in research and exhibition. Despite the significance of this act, it has enforcement problems and does not cover animals in the food or agriculture industry.

What Should We Do?

Improving regulation in the United States means additional funding, the AWA should be expanded to cover animals in food production, and Congress can create a private cause of action so that private citizens may sue to enforce the AWA. Yet, creating regulation faces challenges. Regulation in Europe of chicken cages is widely viewed as unsuccessful. Twelve years following the date marked to eliminate battery cages in Europe, half of the 27 European Union nations have failed to fully comply.[21] This has created problems for those farmers who have spent a lot of money to comply and face competition from those farmers who still operate factory farms.[22] Dealing with the cost to farmers would be difficult and in that area CSR seems to be the better option because McDonald’s and the like can agree to pay more for a humanely treated production process. Regulation can’t do the same to modify the contract between the farmers and the food industry, but perhaps adequate subsidies would reduce the costs to farmers.

Another way to affect change for animals in food production in the United States is the use of creative litigation. Creative suits have been based on false advertising under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) and plaintiffs have filed suit under the Federal Anti- Trust Laws, environmental protection and nuisance claims. Consumers depend on the producers to be accurate in their labeling practices, but because there is not regulation concerning the meanings and verification of these labels, there is a lot of room for misleading claims on animal products.[23] For example, in 2009 the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) accused the International House of Pancakes (IHOP) of putting false claims concerning their serving “cruelty free food” on their website. HSUS filed claims with the FTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission seeking for IHOP to stop making this claim.[24] IHOP acquiesced, removing the claims from their website and the company began using cage free eggs.[25] In addition, antitrust litigation has played a role. In 2010 plaintiffs filed a class action anti- trust suit against certain shell egg producers including Land O’ Lakes and Rose Acre Farms alleging they fixed prices using a classic supply restriction scheme.[26] Two defendants decided to settle for large amounts[27] but the publicity put the egg industry on watch and gave many consumers a look into production practices. Environmental protection laws, nuisance laws, and some state laws have also been a part of litigation against factory farming. Litigation is limited by the fact that several animal protection laws do not have private rights of action for citizen suits against big food, but creative litigation has been able to take other laws and use them to create positive outcomes for animals in food production.

Corporate social responsibility has developed over the last 60 years into a necessary practice for modern business. It is an exciting opportunity for corporations who want to be involved in their communities and to make real and positive changes for society. In the context of animal welfare there have been several examples of large corporations leading the way to better treatment of animals in food production. CSR is a great way for companies to give back, and despite some reservations about its genuineness, it should not be discouraged.

Supporting CSR though, does not mean that other options for protecting animal welfare should be disregarded. CSR has at times, in the United States, been at the forefront of animal treatment requirements, but because corporations have competing motivations concerning their profits and their shareholders, CSR cannot be the only measure of protection for animal welfare. In addition, the lack of enforcement in CSR is a concern that means other checks on the industry like government regulation or private rights of action should be in place.

It is a bad idea to rely on CSR, but it is a great idea to promote it. The positives are real in that corporations can make sweeping changes and spend their own money to do right by animal welfare, but the limitations on enforcement and the problems of self- regulation mean that corporate social responsibility can’t be the only mechanism for improving animal treatment Mark Bittman said, we can pat them on the back but we must “keep reminding them that there’s a long way to go.[28]



[2] Caroll, Archie B. “Corporate Social Responsibility.” Business & Society, 38. 3 (Sept. 1999): 268- 295.

[3] Id.

[4] Martin, Andrew. “Burger King Shifts Policy on Animals.” New York Times 28 March 2007. Available online at:

[5] Wal- Mart: Private Label Eggs All Cage Free. The Humane Society of the United States, Feb. 18, 2010. Available on the internet at:

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Fox, Nicole. “ The Inadequate Protection of Animals Against Cruel Animal Husbandry Practices Under United States Law.” 17 Whittier Law Review 145. (1995): 145-181.

[10] 9 C.F.R. § 89.3

[11] Fox, Nicole. “ The Inadequate Protection of Animals Against Cruel Animal Husbandry Practices Under United States Law.” 17 Whittier Law Review 145. (1995): 145-181.

[12] “Farmed Animals and the Law.” Animal Legal Defense Fund. n.p., n.d. 22 April, 2012.

[13] 7 U.S.C.A. § 1902

[14] Id. See also Levine v. Conner. 540 F.Supp.2d 1113, 1121 (N.D.Cal. 2008).

[15] “Farmed Animals and the Law.” Animal Legal Defense Fund. n.p., n.d. 22 April, 2012.

[16] Jones v. Butz. 374 F.Supp. 1284, 1290 (S.D.N.Y 1974).

[17] Gardner, Joshua E. “At the Intersection of Constitutional Standing, Congressional Citizen Suits, and the Humane Treatment of Animals: Proposals to Strengthen the Animal Welfare Act.” George Washington Law Review. 68. (February 2000): 330-360. See also, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131- 59.

[18] Gardner, Joshua E. “At the Intersection of Constitutional Standing, Congressional Citizen Suits, and the Humane Treatment of Animals: Proposals to Strengthen the Animal Welfare Act.” George Washington Law Review. 68. (February 2000): 330-360.

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

[21] Casert, Raf. “Illegal Chicken Cages: Lack of Enforcement Indicates Larger European Union Policy Issues.” Huffington Post. 11 Jan. 2012. Web. 22 April 2012.

[22] Id.

[23] Cranston, Sarah. “So Sue Me: How Consumer Fraud, Antitrust Litigatio, and other Kinds of Litigation Can Effect Change in The Treatment of Egg Laying Hens Where Legislation Fails.” Rutgers Journal of Law & Public Policy, 9 (2012): 72- 105.

[24] Id.

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] Id.

[28] Bittman, Mark. “OMG: McDonald’s Does the Right Thing.” The New York Times. 13 Feb. 2012.

Beefing with vegetarians

If you’re an animal-loving herbivore like me, get ready for a double take. Thomas Sittler’s Oxford Uehiro award-winning contrarian essay on vegetarianism and free-range husbandry presents a counterintuitive but nevertheless thorough argument that the natural world might not necessarily be able to provide a better quality of life for animals than those who spend their days on free-range farms. More specifically, Sittler argues that the life of a free-range farm animal prior to slaughter is likely substantially more accommodating and offers a better opportunity for animals to thrive and enjoy life than the natural environment in which animals constantly face the terrifying threat of predators, communicable diseases, natural disasters, and a world without mercy.

In the essay, he points out that we frequently intervene in the natural world to prevent suffering in ways such as rehabilitating injured animals or coordinating and facilitating mating, and that we don’t think twice about these interventions. This is true. However, when a wild animal is rehabilitated by humans or a population is engineered to avoid extinction, it is (I would argue) generally done with the implicit intent to return the animal(s) to a naturally sustainable population for the habitat or environment. When an invasive species threatens a habitat, it is not to wage an intervention against the natural world but rather to preserve the status quo that is often threatened by human transportation of said species.

If one were to argue for constant stewardship over animals as a preferable alternative to the natural world, it is unclear where this distinction would end. Farm animals? Domesticatable animals? Endangered species? Threatened species? Mammals? Animals with a  central nervous system? Animals who can demonstrate preference and suffering? It is clear that humans lack the resources and societal will to take on such a task that would be congruent with Sittler’s premise.

Of course, with the economic engine of capitalist livestock production, you could argue that farm animals might be the only candidate for such a task and that as such, we would at least be doing the greatest possible good for the greatest number. However, we must also consider that the economic pressures of capitalism trend toward a demand for efficiency, and as long as we are relying on capitalism to fund this temporary free-range sanctuary idealism, the industry faces the same threat of a factory farming-style takeover that would make consequentialist arguments against the idea say, “I told you so.”

The paper also fails to take into account the environmental costs of raising livestock, which negatively affects both humans and ecosystems alike. According to the U.N., livestock use 30 percent of the earth’s entire land surface including 33 percent of the global arable land used to produce feed for livestock.” Free-range, pasture-fed animals would require even more land on which to feed. Sittler’s argument rests on the idea that this would be beneficent for the free-range animals and wild animals would effectively be put out of their misery, an idea for which practical implications would mean clearcutting rainforests and habitats rich in biodiversity and which likely sounds appalling to all but the most callous.  Nevertheless, the process would result in more fossil fuels being used for clearing land, more resources devoted to raising animals for human consumption, and an increase in large, methane-producing animals such as cows and pigs. Given the carbon dioxide and methane increase involved in livestock agriculture that is known to contribute to problems of global warming and pollution affect humans and nonhuman animals alike, this hardly seems like a beneficent change.

There is also, in my view, the equally pressing concern of anthropocentricism and the undeniable point that we lack the perspective to know an animal’s preference between the relatively safe but ultimately doomed state of living as a free-range commodity and the uncertain but non-engineered state of the natural world. To this concern, I would use the following (albeit anthropocentric) analogy: You are given the choice between prison and civilian freedom. With prison, you are ensured relative safety, a steady source of food and attention to health concerns as well as a prison yard with which to roam. With civilian freedom, you are ensured relatively nothing, and face the risk (with varying degrees) of untimely death nearly every day. Yet, as appeal records would indicate, most humans would still prefer civilian life, the analog to the natural world. Do animals have an awareness of the difference? Very difficult to say, but anecdotal accounts like those of Inky might indicate they do.

I do commend Sittler (an Oxford undergraduate) for his articulate and challenging position paper, and I have to smile about all the feathers it will ruffle. But for the time being, I remain unconvinced of the moral superiority of an omnivorous diet given the reality of capitalistic forces and the environmental impact of animal agriculture that would adversely affect the planet as a whole.



The regulation of cosmetics by the Food and Drug Administration is near non-existent, and has been since the agency was founded eighty years ago. What can they do? Recall dangerous products with the voluntary consent of the company and require manufacturers to tell consumers about terrifying adverse health effects such as “death, disfigurement, or hospitalization.” There is zero pre-market testing, so what they’re saying is, people have to die or lose a limb before we hear about it. The average woman puts 515 synthetic chemicals on her body in one day, who is looking out for you ladies? 

To start, Senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Susan Collins of Maine, are sponsoring a bipartisan bill that would give the FDA the power to recall products and require companies report health hazards. This bill also mandates that the FDA start looking into the chemicals already on the market by reviewing five chemicals per year. Some of the first we hope may be on the list? Propylparaben, lead acetate, and methylene glycol, which releases formaldehyde

Eighty years ago the FDA declined to regulate this industry. But maybe with Justice RBG on the bench, the widespread protest of the tampon tax, and the whole nation watching a woman aim for the White House, we can have the luxury of knowing what carcinogens look best with our skin tone. 


Is knowledge of genetically-modified organisms more persuasive than fear based on their overall lack of transparency?  That’s the question that seems to be lost on the lobbying coalition working to defeat efforts like those in Vermont to mandate the labeling of genetically modified food. The corporate processed-food lobby led by Monsanto and Kellogg’s claims consumers “may demand companies remove bioengineered ingredients/G.M.O.s from products…lead[ing] to extreme disruptions in the nation’s food supply chain that could take many years to overcome.”

There are so many things wrong with the assertions made by the opponents of the labeling movement it’s hard to know where to start. But let’s begin with the egregious assumptions made by an outfit called “John Dunham and Associates Economic Research Firm” (Dunham being the former senior economist with tobacco conglomerate Philip Morris). Here’s an excerpt of their “research”:

Given consumers’ lack of science-based information on the subject, they may demand companies remove bioengineered ingredients/G.M.O.s from products, according to the study. It is possible 100% of products eventually would be reformulated to be non-bioengineered.

“This would lead to extreme disruptions in the nation’s food supply chain that could take many years to overcome,” the study said.

If only a small percentage of food manufacturers were able to switch to non-bioengineered ingredients, major costs still would be associated with the Vermont law.

“Companies would be forced to segregate G.M.O. and non-G.M.O. grains, for example, and document them as such, leading to higher wholesaling costs,” the study said. “Food manufacturers would be required to produce multiple versions of products, which would increase overall production costs as run-lengths would decrease. Also, a system with smaller volume sales of more product lines would lead to higher wholesaling costs as more trucks and equipment would be required to handle the smaller batches.”

The costs incurred by American food processors could lead to a 1.76% increase in average food prices nationwide in the first year and as much as 1.61% ongoing.

“These costs are incurred by consumers in every state and the District of Columbia and could be as high as $723 per household in the first year and $13,250 per household over the next 20 years, a cost which is highly dependent on the assumption that non-G.M.O. ingredients will continue to be expensive substitutes for G.M.O.-based products.”

 Wait, what? Did you just multiply $723 by 20 years and factor in slightly diminishing costs based on efficiency advancements in non-GMO cultivation? Why on earth would you use a hypothetical figure projected out for 20 years?! What relevance does that have in the 2016 debate? That “assumption” that non-GMO ingredients will continue to be expensive substitutes is—we might as well define it—an assumption that a) necessity will not drive innovation, b) consumer choice will work against companies that use GMOs and c) said companies will be unable to adapt to a business model that requires transparency. How sad of an assumption is that? No wonder they’re fighting against change.

Further opposition to mandated labeling is provided in a paper sponsored by the Corn Refiner’s Association (hmmm) wherein the authors claim “labeling would provide consumers with additional information but higher food prices would make consumers, especially low-income consumers, worse off.” This asserts that a) “worse off” would not include being better informed and b) consumers would not continue to choose genetically modified food. This is an interesting jump in logic, given that most people already eat genetically engineered food, despite that verified non-GMO alternatives are continuing to flourish.

Say you are a consumer (you are); and you really like Twinkies (you probably do); …is a label alerting you to the fact that the cornstarch has been genetically modified really going to change your behavior next time you’re craving that spongy cake-and-creamy goodness? Of course not. And those in favor of labeling have made it easy for food manufacturers to disclose by asking relatively little of them ranging from an asterisk, to a parenthesis to even a catch-all statement. That’s not too much to ask.

Having, I believe, thoroughly made my point about the reasonableness of mandating labeling, I’d like to point out that in my own consumer decisions and as a bioethicist, I am not in any way summarily against genetically modifying food. I believe the fear-based contention to GMOs has arisen largely due to the lack of transparency these labeling laws are striving to change. So, counterpoint food lobby: let people know what’s going on with their food, let them see it’s nothing to be afraid of, and maybe, just maybe, the anti-GMO hysteria will diminish. Win-win.