I think that perhaps this issue of labeling has been very much overstated--the requirement for over and above what already exists--as Mr. Mussar has pointed out. The concern about carcinogenic products and other things that are hazardous to our health are covered under the general prohibition. Once it is known that these products do exist or might contain them, products can be banned, taken off the shelves, or whatever.
I think we need to consider labeling in the case of issues that are well known to the public and on which the jury is basically out on whether the item or product or component is or is not harmful. I'm thinking, in particular, of genetically modified foods, a topic I have been involved with. There are many people who believe that GM foods are harmful. There's a lot of other evidence on the other side that it isn't. Nobody really knows for sure. That is a situation in which consumers will very definitely benefit from a label that says that this product is or is not genetically modified, which would give them the information so they can choose what side they want to err on. That's where it is useful.
I think we could run into a situation in which we have too much labeling or we have labeling that's put on by suppliers as a preventative rather than as a necessity. It would be like having a “dry clean only” label when a garment can be washed. Dry cleaning gives them the safety net. It can go overboard and have an undesired result.