Cons of mandating
One topic that just can’t seem to stay out of the news lately is the debate over mandatory GMO labeling. Is it a bad idea for manufacturers that use GMOs in their products? And with popular ingredients derived from GM crops like corn, sugar beet, cotton, soybean and canola, it’s hard to find a processed food item that doesn’t use GMOs.
To help provide some facts around the topic, we’ve listed a few of the pros and cons to mandatory GMO labeling below. Currently, the FDA does not require the labeling of GM foods, with the exception of foods that contain something one would not necessarily expect to be found in that food item.
Opponents claim that this violates a women's right to make decisions regarding their own bodies unmolested by the state.
They see women as fully capable of understanding the implications of abortions and that these laws insult their intelligence by imagining the government has something to teach them.
This is where programs like the Non-GMO Project come into play, which currently provides a verification process to allow manufacturers to make non-GMO claims in compliance with current federal regulations.
There’s a significant difference when it comes to mandatory versus voluntary GMO labeling.
By mandating students to attend PE in order to graduate, students have to engage in healthy physical activity that they otherwise might have avoided.
Currently, despite the recommended 60 minutes a day of healthy physical activity, only about half of children meet it.
For decades, states and districts have weighed in on whether to require physical education as part of a school's curriculum.
They argue that abortions are an unfortunate outcome and that lowering the number of abortions through these kinds of methods is, therefore, a good thing.