Any connection between issues of GMO labeling and monopoly beer?
Yes, I think so. The connection is "market failure" in the supply of public goods by an "unregulated" market. Regulation needs labeling.
In the GMO case, I see no SCIENTIFIC objection to LABELING. The scientific evidence apparently shows no harm in CONSUMING GMO foods. But no scientific evidence is required to justify LABELING, which is (and should be) merely disclosure of truthful information.
The harm I see (the market failure) comes in the concentration of food system control; widespread monocropping threatens future food supply through elimination of plant diversity. Seed banks preserve numerous varieties for potential future needs. How are they to identify GMO seeds if not by labeling?
In the CRAFT BEER case, the powerful giant brewers reportedly have not succeeded in stemming the growth of craft breweries. Labeling is very much present. It allows beer drinkers to discriminate for any reason. A big reason is to support local business and preserve jobs. Read the article. Down near the end you find this:
For its part, Big Beer has responded to the declining popularity of its goods in two ways. The first is relentless cost cutting. When Belgian mega-brewer InBev bought US corporate beer giant Bud in 2008, it very quickly slashed 1,400 jobs, about 6 percent of its US workforce. And the laser-like focus on slashing costs has continued, as this aptly titled 2012 BusineseWeek piece "The Plot to Destroy America's Beer" shows.The reason for labeling is to allow purchasers to apply their VALUES in selecting their purchases. It is MARKET FAILURE when public goods are sacrificed to private gain and purely "scientific" evaluation.
Ersatz "craft" beers include Shock Top, Blue Moon, Leinenkugel, Killian's, Batch 19, and Third Shift.
The second is to roll out phony craft beers—brands like ShockTop and Blue Moon—and buy up legit craft brewers like Chicago's Goose Island, which inBev did in 2011. Other ersatz "craft" beers include Leinenkugel, Killian's, Batch 19, and Third Shift. The strategy has been successful, to a point. Bloomberg reports that InBev has seen its Goose Island and Shock Top sales surge.
But there's a catch: These stealth Big Beer brands aren't "putting the microbrewers who started the movement out of business," Bloomberg reports. Rather, "the new labels are taking sales from already-troubled mass-market brands owned by the industry giants peddling these crafty brews." In other words, consumers aren't dropping Sierra Nevada or Dogfish Head and reaching for the Shocktop. Rather, ShockTop sales are being propped up by refugees from Bud Light and the like.