Against the Right to Know: GMOs and Mandatory Labelling

The "Right to Know" movement in the United States has waged a sustained campaign in recent years to require manufacturers and retailers to label food products which contain ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The primary argument in this debate has been that the right to know - and therefore mandatory labelling of GMO products - is justified by the value of consumer autonomy. In this paper, I draw on recent theoretical work on the nature of autonomy, to critically evaluate this argument. In particular, I identify three distinct "regimes" of autonomy - neo-liberal, solidarist and perfectionist - and articulate the circumstances under which they would support requiring the provision of information to consumers. I argue that none of these understandings of autonomy support the mandatory labelling of GMO products, even as they require the provision of other information about food products.