In a blog post
on Forbes.com, Glenn Lammi, general counsel for the right-wing,
pro-business think tank the Washington Legal Foundation, goes on the
attack against Mark Bittman’s recent

New York Times op-ed column calling for the labeling of genetically engineered food. Lammi, aside from indulging in

ad hominem attacks
mocking Bittman’s “modestly named iPhone/iPad application, How to Cook
Everything,” not to mention “the foodie elites and Luddite activists”
who oppose genetically engineered food, also indulged in just about
every pro-GMO trope in the books.

Lammi extols the supposed virtues of genetically engineered food:
how their safety is beyond question, how they increase agricultural
productivity and lead to lower prices, etc. As Grist’s coverage has explained time and again, none of this is so clear cut. But my favorite bit had to be this:

Biotechnology allows crops to grow larger, faster, with fewer or no pesticides, and in otherwise intolerable climates.

Yes, well, that’s only true in Monsanto’s marketing materials. As of
yet, despite much hype, we haven’t a GMO crop that can be grown in
“otherwise intolerable climates.” The single element in that list with
a grain of truth is the “fewer or no pesticides” argument — though
with the rise of superweeds and superbugs, even that “quality” is under
threat.

Lammi went on to claim that there is no legal basis for
government-mandated GMO labeling. He maintains that legal precedent has
established corporations’ right

not to speak assuming there’s
no compelling basis for requiring it. In other words, forcing companies
to identify genetically engineered ingredients would violate their
First Amendment rights!