That's true, Idealist, and European protection of their big farmers at the expense of both US big farmers and small farmers on both sides of the Atlantic has been a significant motivator in the GM food controversy.
My response would be that the answer is more speech, not less. That is, instead of being able to ban the accurate labelling of food products, US producers and exporters should have to try to convince the public that the scientific evidence is scant and they have little or nothing to fear from GM foods.
I agree that it's difficult sometimes to draw the line between commercial and non-commercial speech, and I don't recall the courts having articulated a good test to distinguish the two, beyond a primary purpose test (is the primary purpose of the speech to sell a product) or a solicitation to purchase test.
But difficulty in distinguishing the two, and the existence of ambiguous cases, doesn't mean that all commercial speech would be difficult to identify. The vast majority of commercial speech is easily identifiable as such.
Imho, the First Amendment was intended to protect political speech, and perhaps other forms of personal and important expression (literary, artistic, etc). But intended to protect the ability of a business to attract customers? Eh...
I wasn't sure if there was a fancier name whence the acronym originated
Bovine Somatotropin (BST)? I'm pretty sure that's BGH in a lab coat.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 9-06 1:07 PM
That's true, Idealist, and European protection of their big farmers at the expense of both US big farmers and small farmers on both sides of the Atlantic has been a significant motivator in the GM food controversy.
My response would be that the answer is more speech, not less. That is, instead of being able to ban the accurate labelling of food products, US producers and exporters should have to try to convince the public that the scientific evidence is scant and they have little or nothing to fear from GM foods.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05- 9-06 1:11 PM
I agree that it's difficult sometimes to draw the line between commercial and non-commercial speech, and I don't recall the courts having articulated a good test to distinguish the two, beyond a primary purpose test (is the primary purpose of the speech to sell a product) or a solicitation to purchase test.
But difficulty in distinguishing the two, and the existence of ambiguous cases, doesn't mean that all commercial speech would be difficult to identify. The vast majority of commercial speech is easily identifiable as such.
Imho, the First Amendment was intended to protect political speech, and perhaps other forms of personal and important expression (literary, artistic, etc). But intended to protect the ability of a business to attract customers? Eh...
Posted by The Nose-Bleed Section | Link to this comment | 05- 9-06 1:12 PM