Even Complete Transparency is Short of the Goal:
Where the sense of moral obligation is lacking transparency means nothing. A food business may be fully transparent in declaring what could harm consumers and simply leave the consumers, some of whom may be addicted to whatever is being advertised, to make "wise" choices. This is morally and socially reprehensible. A morally and socially responsible food business (if the desire is genuine) would seek to sell food that does not harm consumers. Such a business would engage in product research and development that renders otherwise harmful food harmless. Given all of the advances in food science, this is not an impossible suggestion. Through good research and product development, foods that are known to be harmful (and often addictive) could at least have their harmful effects minimized.
The real problem with food labelling is not the absence of law; but the lack of (genuine) care for the consumer. Hence calling for new laws is not the most efficient focus for the "Just Label It" advocacy. Companies that do not care will find ways to dodge both the law and the advocates. The " "Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering" declaration on some labels is a very good example of this type of law-dodging with pretentious transparency.
Case Study: GMO Labeling – A Conflicting Dilemma Robert Chon Strong Northeastern University March 26, 2017