Constitutionality of Food Labels

Henry Miller from Stanford University's Hoover Institution weights in with a letter to the editor in the WSJ in reference to my most recent op-ed.

Here is a spinet:

Jayson Lusk is correct that radical activists will likely continue their efforts to lobby state governments to require labeling of certain "genetically engineered" foods ("The Food Police Are Routed at the Ballot Box," op-ed, Nov. 20). However, whatever such requirements state legislatures or electorates attempt to impose, those efforts are destined to fail in the courts.
Federal law pre-empts state labeling rules that conflict with FDA policy, which requires labeling only if a food raises questions related to nutrition or safe use. Just last year, a federal court in Los Angeles ruled that a California requirement to label genetically engineered foods "would impose a requirement that is not identical to federal law" and would therefore be pre-empted.

He's probably right with respect to food labels.  I'm not so sure about the fat taxes which I also mentioned in my piece.