I kind of agree. I'm not really swayed by arguments that consumers shouldn't have information because they'd use it to make mistaken decisions. Let them; that's not my business.
The concern is that disclosures can be used selectively, to make unpopular businesses embarrass themselves while favored ones skate by. If we make people slap “contains glyphosate” on produce, is there any realistic chance that organic produce will say “contains blood meal” or apples will say “contains beeswax”?
Thank you for this, I hadn't thought about it from this point of view. One thought is that growers have to disclose all additives? In the wine industry, it's common during particularly bad grape years to sugar dose the wine as it ferments. In France they require vintners to disclose this, and other major modifications. Could we use something similar with growers? It would be AMAZING for a number of data driven sciences, having access to all additives used to grow different items
I think that'd be a reasonable rule, but Roundup isn't an additive. It's an herbicide that's sprayed on the plants as they're growing, and isn't supposed to be present in the final product in more than trace amounts.
If growers had to disclose everything that makes its way into the product they're selling, insect parts and rat dung would be much higher up the list than Roundup.
Those warnings are useless not because they're ubiquitous, but because they don't specify the reason/ingredient. I'm not sure whether that's allowed by the law, or it's just that the law isn't fully enforced.
So I don't think you're making an argument against disclosure, just against bad law or scofflaws.