In his made up example, a new and obvious sticker is placed on supermarket apples notifying the presence of a chemical that Eric believes harmless. Sales of the stickered apples are likely to fall because not everyone will be as clever as Eric. Many doofuses (doofi?) will take fright at the multi-syllabic chemical and not buy those apples. The chemical really is harmless, so there would end up being "too few" sold. We wise policy analysts should obviously protect those doofi from themselves by not requiring disclosure of the chemical.
The situation for GMOs is very different though. Instead of one harmless chemical on an apple, we have thousands of potential applications of lots of different GM techniques. The number of potential side effects from consuming GMOs is unknown. There aren’t nearly enough genes to do all of the things we know are done within the human body, so its pretty obvious that interactions between genes matter But there are only so many of this vast multiplicity of risks that can be tested, and any test has some probability of type I and II errors, not to mention the whole broken science system and lots of crap published problem.
Put it this way: if there was any peer-reviewed scientific literature establishing that GMO crops in general have no unintended negative impacts then I think we'd have heard about it by now. The vague generalisations and opinions Eric is quoting fall well short of actual scientific proof, which is pretty ironic given the "bad science" slur that kicked off this discussion.
Let's face it: there is risk involved in eating GMOs and it's value is subjective. I am apparently more risk averse than Eric, and there must be others like each of us.
Feed that back into Eric's apple example and what do you get? Well, the doofi are me and other relatively risk averse people, and suddenly we're on the receiving end of the paternalism. Eric wants to stop us knowing where the GMOs are. Because he
This all seems very strange. Eric is not usually a meddlesome guy, yet here he is arguing against allowing people access to information that they want and that doesn't seem costly to provide. As far as I can tell, his sole motivation is to stop other people acting in accordance with their own preferences over what they eat.