Yup that is it.

You are responsible for doing your own research. If a company is not being forthright with information you feel you need to know, then don't buy their stuff until they tell you. That's how rational beings interact. The moment you introduce the use of force you are shutting down reason. Force is the antithesis of reason.

"One concern I have had is that many herbicides are growth regulators"

That is the principle behind Round-up, yes. It forces the plant to accelerate it's maturation and flowering so that the plant produces impotent seeds and then dies. It works better on young growth because it's all based on shortening the plant's life cycle so drastically that it can't reproduce viably.

2-4D specifically attacks the growth cycle of broad-leaf plants (dicotyledons). The reason they curl up is because the herbicide ages them artificially.

"These are all crutches to allow the industrialization of food production."

Bingo. When you're shipping produce from Florida to Montana so that Subway's can put tomatoes on your sandwich in December...

"but you can't wash off anything absorbed via the plant's leaf"

Show me which leaf vegetables and which herbicides this applies to. I think you will find that all modern herbicides have a decidedly small effective lifespan in any case. Then you have to demonstrate that these are being applied within that timespan prior to shipping. EPA rules prohibit the use of any herbicides or pesticides which don't degrade or break down after only a few weeks. I know because we used to use one called chlordane on our cherry trees to treat for borers. It would last all year and was very effective. When it was outlawed because it was persistent (it was applied to the base of the trees - never the fruit BTW), it became a lot more costly and less effective to use the alternatives you had to put on every couple of weeks and which had to be applied to the fruit.

And I'd suggest looking into tomato ripeners if you are concerned about GMO's. They are an artificial chemical sprayed on green tomatoes to turn them red in the stores. Most tomatoes are picked and shipped green (not ripe) and artificially ripened just before hitting the store shelves so they last longer. All the tomatoes used in fast food (especially sandwich shops like Subway's, Blimpie's, and Jommy John's) are artificially ripened, which is why they are so crunchy and frequently a faint red instead of the deep red of a vine-ripened tomato.

You have no "right to know." You have the right to attempt to seek the knowledge, but not to demand someone tells you something. Just like the freedom of speech does not mean someone has to equip you with a stage and microphone, or the right to self defense means someone has to give you a gun, your right to seek knowledge does not mean someone has to give it to you.

Also, what are businesses but made up of people? They aren't magic entities with different, special, or less rights. One cannot gain or lose rights by voluntarily cooperating with others.

An individual absolutely has a right to privacy and to proprietary information. Secret ingredients, software processes, makeup of alloys, and processing procedures are all things that you cannot ethically use force to make someone tel you. If they refuse to tell you, you have the right to choose not to buy their product.

Rights do not conflict. If you think you have a right to something and it requires someone else to take action in order for you to exercise or realize that right, then that is not a right at all. In reality, you would be violating the right to self determination of the person whom you are demanding take action.

Let me say that I don't think GMO's are necessarily safe. Some I'm sure are, some may or my not be. It's not like they are engineered the same way. That's a separate issue for now, but I am in favor or knowing as I myself would probably avoid them.

The issue is that we should be striving for the ideal. The idea that any labeling requirements were ever introduced should have been an affront to the freedoms business have - but were stripped away. In my mind, unconstitutionally on top of Objectively. Where is the Fed Gov ever granted such authority other than the out of context "provide for the general welfare" statement? But the fact remains, the Fed Gov and state have done it anyway. So again in turn - if the producers want to try to get laws passed that put the previous laws in check then so be it. It should have never came to that as the previous laws should not have been passed - but as they were - what other option do the producers have other than fighting fire with fire?

If consumers are not willing to take their own lives in their own hands - that does not create an obligation on the producers to become responsible for it. The DARK act is not stopping companies from labeling - it leaves it as a voluntary decision - which is what it should be. It's just restricting the gov from forcing more restrictions on them.

Articles I've read have also indicated that in other countries where labeling has been mandated to show GMO status, it has not changed to consumers buying habits - in general. Obvious some, like us, would care and pay attention, but most are not. So for a net no change we are going to force them to do it - causing the prices to go up, for them to spend extra money and time to do it, or making it harder for new companies to enter the market due to startup costs - for effectively no difference? Even if you think it is worth it in the cost - it is not worth eroding all of our basic rights by creating situations where we say it is ok for the government to violate them when they think it's justified. They are basic individual rights in which the primary purpose of the government is to protect - not violate at their whim.

The water example is another example of people not taking their own lives into their own hands. These water quality issues have surfaced from people having their water tested. Considering that the water supplies they are talking about are generally run by the local government, thus truly public entities, they should follow regulations and reporting requirements we the people tell them they must do - as they are established by the people. But those same requirements then do not flow down to private businesses - as a matter of law. Now, if the community subcontracted a private company to supply their water, they can negotiate in their contracts to require regular water quality testing and reporting. If the company wants to do it - great, if they don't, then they don't have to accept the contract or the customer. But the contract would set the terms or the agreement - not law.

Every inch we give in the erosion of our freedom will result in another foot taken. It is an ever moving line towards socialism and communism by active forces trying to get us there. It's like Obama's advisor Cass Sunstein - nudge them into the final place we want them - one little step at a time.

The DARK act is not banning the release of the information - it is restricting the Fed Gov and states/local govs from creating laws requiring additional labeling. It only forces the issue that the decision to label is voluntary.

Right now you are probably right that they will not label. For people that are concerned about it, they will not buy the products that are labeled as being GMO and the producers may loose some sales. But as other countries have shown, it is not affecting sales to any noticeable level - even with the labeling. Until the people get concerned about it enough to start affecting the producers sales, it will make food buying choices difficult for people like us to do. But again, that doesn't give us a right to force them to label. We move to a rural area about 10 years ago in part for the purpose of being able to grow our own garden and produce more of our own food. We chose a small house that needed a lot of repairs - but that we could afford. We chose a lifestyle that does not impose a burden on society to pay for our poor financial choices and to give us the ability to know what we are eating verses the crap from the store that is filled with ingredients you can't pronounce. We still buy some of that stuff out of convenience, but we try to be selective based on the labeling. But I have not right to demand the labeling. If they stopped labeling, we would probably just buckle down a little harder and grow all of our own food and simply eliminate the issue.

And just to note too - I am not a large scale producer of foods. I am arguing from the philosophical and constitutional perspective. However, I will say that we do sell some of our extra food at local farmers markets. If labeling requirements come into play - I will not. We have considered selling jams, jellies, preserves, picked items, etc... But they all have so much regulatory BS involved we have decided not to because it is simply too time consuming, difficult, and expensive for the sales we have. It simply isn't worth it. We have very healthy, non-GMO, produce - it's a shame we cannot sell it - due entirely to the same kind of regulations you are in favor of. Then end result is products in the stores full of ingredients you can't pronounce because only larger companies can afford to do it. And some of those unpronounceable ingredients are even required by other regulations. It is healthier? Probably not - but gov has required it. When I make it at home for ourselves - it is not required and our products are healthier for it. We just can't sell them to anyone else.