Good.
My problem with the "why not inform consumers?" argument is that there are a ton of pieces of information available about the production of every consumer good. We have to leave some of them up to supply-and-demand, because otherwise we'd have to have a giant booklet with every consumer good. The reason GMOs are targeted for labeling is because there's this weird, purist paranoia about them. We already have a huge proportion of the American population believing they're bad, and cherry-picking them for labeling is just going to increase that baseless fear. What's the point of spending resources to play into baseless fears, to provide no usable consumer information?
Along those lines, there is also the notion that if something is labelled, it must be important. They don't put the Surgeon General's warning on cigarettes for fun, after all. Someone who is not otherwise paying attention might be misled to think that it means GMOs are cause for concern, because why would they be labelled if they were not?
