Right I mean the chocolate one is illegal. The chicken one, honestly not fully sure since Purdue keeps getting exposed but idk if they actually have had legal issues? But my point with both of those is, as bad as those would be they don't have an impact on your health eating the product.

Regardless, I don't disagree that we should have some labeling on business practices behind the food that we eat as long as it is actually communicating what needs to be communicated instead of just fear mongering.

"GMO Free" (or requiring it to say it has GMO) tells the consumer absolutely nothing. Its meaningless. All it does is try to sow fear about a thing that its existence itself is not the problem.

"Forbids farmers from using last years seeds", "Uses increased herbicide" like the example the other person mentioned, or whatever that actually communicates what the business concern is to the consumer would be great.

But that is not what we are doing here with labeling GMO.