PDA

View Full Version : Does Ron Paul Oppose GMO Regulation/Labeling? Do you?




gb13
06-25-2010, 05:13 PM
I know most federal regulation is ridiculous, and counterproductive. My question is simple: Does Ron Paul, support some kind of regulation (federal or otherwise) and/or required labeling of genetically modified foods?

I agree that the federal government has no right to regulate business practices, provided those practices don't infringe on the rights of other people and other businesses. However, in my view, GMO farming does infringe on the rights of other businesses and of the population at large. For instance, the pollen from GMO crops can travel (just like any other pollen) and cross contaminate the plants on other farms. This means the crops on organic farms in the nearby areas can be (and have been) contaminated with GMO. Crops in you home garden could suffer the same fate.

Also, don't people at least have a right to know whether the food they're eating has been genetically modified? Wouldn't it be fair to require at least some sort of disclosure to the consumer?

I'm open to all sides of the argument, so please give your input on the subject.

akforme
06-25-2010, 05:26 PM
I think it's a big issue that dates back a long time and is a lot more complex than just the current events.

People should watch "The Future of Food" though, it's pretty scary stuff.

t0rnado
06-25-2010, 05:29 PM
Also, don't people at least have a right to know whether the food they're eating has been genetically modified? Wouldn't it be fair to require at least some sort of disclosure to the consumer?

People don't have a right to force companies to alter their product labels.

susano
06-25-2010, 05:31 PM
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that Ron Paul would say the federal gov't has no business being involved in anything to do with food or labeling and that this is a local issue. Also, that it would up to the consumer to decide whether to buy food that is or is not labeled.

moostraks
06-25-2010, 05:33 PM
Oppose labeling, no. I would very much appreciate them telling what is in their product, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. Organics are not allowed to be gmo. So if you buy organic then theoretically the gmo label is unneccesary. Hit producers in their pocketbook by rewarding good farmers and not those who want to use the current generations as lab rats for their untested frankenfoods...

susano
06-25-2010, 05:34 PM
I would add that IMO, these people who make GMO frankenfoods and splice fish and tomato genes together, and human genes with whatever, AND claim they own life forms, should be be put through a wood chipper and disposed of as toxic waste.

We need a thread on Monsanto.

dannno
06-25-2010, 05:38 PM
Well first of all, the Federal Govt needs to stop protecting Monsanto in regards to the IP they claim on their seeds. If they want to genetically modify seeds and sell them, great.. but if somebody wants to use the seeds that they produce they should be able to.

If Monsanto wants to make their tomatoes tastier and can modify the seed, great.. if somebody else's farm picks up some pollen there isn't much you can do. The "death gene" should be considered destruction of other's property, because it can damage seed stock. They should be able to sue the producers of the seeds that cause sterility since the seeds are produced specifically for that purpose. So in essence, that sort of technology should be illegal, but does not require federal regulation.

The free market can provide mechanisms to provide good information to consumers about genetically modified foods, but the Federal Govt. needs to get out of the way so the demand for this information will pick up.

jbuttell
06-25-2010, 05:57 PM
I'm absolutely against it. Not only do they not have the right to firce them to do so, but it gives people a false sense of security. Now, if a company puts a label on their product that is false, thats fraud and the law should be used here.

Damn we've all been so brainwashed :(

Dr.3D
06-25-2010, 06:01 PM
If some companies labeled their food as non GMO, and people decided it was best to buy the food with the label, the other companies would either have to follow suit or lose business to those who did label their food.

It might even put a crimp in those companies who decide to use GMO food sources. If more people decide they don't want the GMO food, then those companies using GMO food would lose business.

The biggest problem would be making sure those who did label their food products, were being truthful in their labeling.

gb13
06-25-2010, 06:50 PM
I would add that IMO, these people who make GMO frankenfoods and splice fish and tomato genes together, and human genes with whatever, AND claim they own life forms, should be be put through a wood chipper and disposed of as toxic waste.

We need a thread on Monsanto.

Yup!

gb13
06-25-2010, 06:56 PM
Well first of all, the Federal Govt needs to stop protecting Monsanto in regards to the IP they claim on their seeds. If they want to genetically modify seeds and sell them, great.. but if somebody wants to use the seeds that they produce they should be able to.

If Monsanto wants to make their tomatoes tastier and can modify the seed, great.. if somebody else's farm picks up some pollen there isn't much you can do. The "death gene" should be considered destruction of other's property, because it can damage seed stock. They should be able to sue the producers of the seeds that cause sterility since the seeds are produced specifically for that purpose. So in essence, that sort of technology should be illegal, but does not require federal regulation.

The free market can provide mechanisms to provide good information to consumers about genetically modified foods, but the Federal Govt. needs to get out of the way so the demand for this information will pick up.


I agree. The Feds need to stop covering Monsanto's tracks, and stacking the odds against their competition. For starters, if Monsanto's sector or the agri-industrial complex wasn't so heavily subsidized, the field would be more level.

Also, I think the entire organic farming community should file a class action lawsuit against Monsanto for destruction of property (re: the death gene). And I think the civilians of the united stated should do the same for the company intentionally rigging studies and covering-up findings that GMOs are dangerous to the population at large.

Live_Free_Or_Die
06-25-2010, 07:01 PM
I agree. The Feds need to stop covering Monsanto's tracks, and stacking the odds against their competition. For starters, if Monsanto's sector or the agri-industrial complex wasn't so heavily subsidized, the field would be more level.

Also, I think the entire organic farming community should file a class action lawsuit against Monsanto for destruction of property (re: the death gene). And I think the civilians of the united stated should do the same for the company intentionally rigging studies and covering-up findings that GMOs are dangerous to the population at large.

On that same token farmers need to sue their neighbors for pollen drift. It causes de facto damage because farmers who have suffered contamination have been sued and forced to pay.

paulitics
06-25-2010, 07:25 PM
Totally not needed and counterproductive. I assume all food is GMO poison unless it is labeled organic. It is up to the consumer to be responsible.

That being said I do believe monsanto is the biggest environmental hazard we face today. It is destroying the natural balance of things, and is unhealthy crap that is responsible for many diseases in animals and humans.

So, the government is complicit in and probably aiding the development of this for their own nefarious reasons, (administration is completley loaded with Monsanto people). Many of the legislation is designed to destroy small farmers, and organics.

Yes, this is criminal, and the only way to shut them down is to raise enough awareness of what they are doing. The problem is that along with the food, the water, and vaccines, the drive to fight back is becoming a losing battle. People just don't have the drive, or intellect to save themselves unfortunately.

tjeffersonsghost
06-25-2010, 07:26 PM
People don't have a right to force companies to alter their product labels.

Then I guess you wont mind swimming in a pool of nuclear waste as long as the sign says "swimming pool". The company shouldnt have to alter their labels or signs for the small issue that the pool is full of nuclear waste.

Sorry you anarchist logic is flawed. Tyranny doesnt just come in the form of government entities, they can come in the form of corporations also...

t0rnado
06-25-2010, 07:29 PM
Then I guess you wont mind swimming in a pool of nuclear waste as long as the sign says "swimming pool". The company shouldnt have to alter their labels or signs for the small issue that the pool is full of nuclear waste.

Sorry you anarchist logic is flawed. Tyranny doesnt just come in the form of government entities, they can come in the form of corporations also...

Why the hell would I be swimming in a random pool? I would swim in my own pool. Your analogy sucks. No one is forcing you to buy GMO foods. By using force against the company, you are the tyrant.

tjeffersonsghost
06-25-2010, 07:33 PM
Why the hell would I be swimming in a random pool? I would swim in my own pool. Your analogy sucks. No one is forcing you to buy GMO foods. By using force against the company, you are the tyrant.

No body knows if the food they are buying is GMO food to make the choice to buy it or not. That is the point of the thread. If there is nothing on the labels how can you make a choice.

Its just like choosing between two pools with two signs that say swimming pools even though one is filled with nuclear waste. How do you know which one to choose? Neither sign is lying technically because they are both pools u can swim in. One is just leaving off the pesky fact that it is nuclear waste.

You dont like the pool analogy how about a glass of grape juice, one with grape juice and the other grape juice is mixed with cyanide. How do you know which one to choose they are both labeled grape juice. Im not the tyrant, Im the one choosing individual liberties over corporate profits...

gb13
06-25-2010, 07:45 PM
On that same token farmers need to sue their neighbors for pollen drift. It causes de facto damage because farmers who have suffered contamination have been sued and forced to pay.

Pollen drift is a NATURAL occurrence. However, for farms that use GMO seed, yes, they should be liable for suit. It is their responsibility to ensure that none of their UNNATURAL frankenseeds contaminate the crops of neighboring farms who do not wish to grow GMO.

From what I understand, Monsanto has actually sued farmers on the basis of unlawful use of patented product, as a result of pollen drift. Pollen from a farm using Monsanto seed drifts over and cross-pollinates a nearby farm, and then Monsanto sues the nearby farm for infringement of patent.

Monsanto needs a big taste of their own medicine. They are arguably the most evil corporation on the planet.

gb13
06-25-2010, 07:54 PM
No body knows if the food they are buying is GMO food to make the choice to buy it or not. That is the point of the thread. If there is nothing on the labels how can you make a choice.

Its just like choosing between two pools with two signs that say swimming pools even though one is filled with nuclear waste. How do you know which one to choose? Neither sign is lying technically.

You dont like the pool how about a glass of grape juice, one with grape juice and the other grape juice is mixed with cyanide. How do you know which one to choose they are both grape juice. Im not the tyrant, Im the one choosing individual liberties over corporate profits...

I agree with you. I don't think requiring truthful, accurate labeling is an infringement of rights.

Let's say I got to a bar. The sign says "$1.00 Shots". I order one, and the bartender shoots me. Don't you think, in that case, the bar should have to disclose what they mean by shot? Well let's say the government decides that a shot of booze and a shot of lead are the same thing, and that a company doesn't have to disclose which one they mean. That is exactly what happened with GMOs. The FDA decided that GMO and Non-GMO are no different (even though they clearly are), therefore companies don't have to provide disclosure.

t0rnado
06-25-2010, 07:55 PM
No body knows if the food they are buying is GMO food to make the choice to buy it or not. That is the point of the thread. If there is nothing on the labels how can you make a choice.

Its just like choosing between two pools with two signs that say swimming pools even though one is filled with nuclear waste. How do you know which one to choose? Neither sign is lying technically.

You dont like the pool how about a glass of grape juice, one with grape juice and the other grape juice is mixed with cyanide. How do you know which one to choose they are both grape juice. Im not the tyrant, Im the one choosing individual liberties over corporate profits...

No one is forcing me to buy the grape juice or to swim in the pool or to purchase any product. I am making the choice myself. You are using a tyrannical approach to a problem the free market can resolve. The company that sells grape juice laced with cyanide will fail and is bound to fail because whoever drinks their product will die. Any logical person would be able to reason that if a person died from drinking a certain product or from swimming in a certain pool, avoiding those products and those pools would be safer for them.

This doesn't even have anything to do with individual liberty.

tjeffersonsghost
06-25-2010, 08:02 PM
No one is forcing me to buy the grape juice or to swim in the pool or to purchase any product. I am making the choice myself. You are using a tyrannical approach to a problem the free market can resolve. The company that sells grape juice laced with cyanide will fail and is bound to fail because whoever drinks their product will die. Any logical person would be able to reason that if a person died from drinking a certain product or from swimming in a certain pool, avoiding those products and those pools would be safer for them.

This doesn't even have anything to do with individual liberty.

What good is the free market when your dead? What if it is you on the receiving end of the cyanide laced drink? When your dead the death of that business who killed you really doesnt matter much.

If every label is labeled with all of the facts, truthfully and the person still makes the choice to purchase it then it is on them. You find it wrong to be able to make educated choices by knowing all the facts about the product or service you are about to take? I mean we wouldnt want to inconvenience those poor corporations now would we? :rolleyes:

Ricky201
06-25-2010, 08:23 PM
No I don't support labeling and regulations. What I do support is the end of subsides to a few major crops. Well to be more specific, I don't support any subsides at all. If we just ended farm subsides, than most of these problems would be non-existent.

gb13
06-25-2010, 08:27 PM
No one is forcing me to buy the grape juice or to swim in the pool or to purchase any product. I am making the choice myself. You are using a tyrannical approach to a problem the free market can resolve. The company that sells grape juice laced with cyanide will fail and is bound to fail because whoever drinks their product will die. Any logical person would be able to reason that if a person died from drinking a certain product or from swimming in a certain pool, avoiding those products and those pools would be safer for them.

This doesn't even have anything to do with individual liberty.

Seriously? A company withholds information about their product, a person dies as a direct result of using that product, and the company's only punishment is to fail as a result of market forces? That's insane, and not even remotely a free-market principle. Freedom only goes so far that one does not injure or kill others, or infringe on any of their inalienable rights.

susano
06-25-2010, 09:03 PM
Lawsuits cannot be the ultimate remedy for everything! We exist in a very dangerous time where the most evil sonsabitches are trying to destroy nature so they can control the food supply. For GOD's sake, this shit should be outlawed. To say that someone should have the right to contaminate the planet with terminator seeds, and we can just sue them, is like saying that we shouldn't have laws against murder, but someone kills us, our loved ones can sue after the fact. Uh, TOO LATE! As long as we have laws, some laws actually make sense. Now, if we had NO LAWS, which is fine by me, then I would say we should go out and locate and kill these bastards. Monsanto wants to fuck with LIFE itself, I say kill them first. This is a matter of self defense. Too bad we don't live in a world without laws. Since we do, we should actually use the law to our benefit.

I know this doesn't address labels. I think that's best addressed at a local level becuase the feds are 100% corrupt and they are the gov-corp industrial complex. That includes big Ag.

BTW, I was recently looking up "Cactus Juice", an all natural, non-toxic, bug repellent, which works great, but I can't find in stores anymore. When I went to their site, the product was changed to "Outdoor Protectant". In their FAQ section, someone asked why it was no longer called insect repellent. It's because the FDA says if Cactus Juice doesn't KILL bugs, they cannot use the words "insect" or "bug" on their label. Now, that isn't stupidity, it's corruption. In a perfect world, without laws, we take out those FDA fuckers, too. Alas, we cannot, or we go to prison.

tjeffersonsghost
06-25-2010, 09:10 PM
Lawsuits cannot be the ultimate remedy for everything! We exist in a very dangerous time where the most evil sonsabitches are trying to destroy nature so they can control the food supply. For GOD's sake, this shit should be outlawed. To say that someone should have the right to contaminate the planet with terminator seeds, and we can just sue them, is like saying that we shouldn't have laws against murder, but someone kills us, our loved ones can sue after the fact. Uh, TOO LATE! As long as we have laws, some laws actually make sense. Now, if we had NO LAWS, which is fine by me, then I would say we should go out and locate and kill these bastards. Monsanto wants to fuck with LIFE itself, I say kill them first. This is a matter of self defense. Too bad we don't live in a world without laws. Since we do, we should actually use the law to our benefit.

I know this doesn't address labels. I think that's best addressed at a local level becuase the feds are 100% corrupt and they are the gov-corp industrial complex. That includes big Ag.

BTW, I was recently looking up "Cactus Juice", an all natural, non-toxic, bug repellent, which works great, but I can't find in stores anymore. When I went to their site, the product was changed to "Outdoor Protectant". In their FAQ section, someone asked why it was no longer called insect repellent. It's because the FDA says if Cactus Juice doesn't KILL bugs, they cannot use the words "insect" or "bug" on their label. Now, that isn't stupidity, it's corruption. In a perfect world, without laws, we take out those FDA fuckers, too. Alas, we cannot, or we go to prison.

Yup, +100

TCE
06-25-2010, 09:37 PM
People don't have a right to force companies to alter their product labels.

Sure we can, by choosing to buy a competitor's product. Some company would list all of their ingredients and if the market liked it, their business would grow. Also, independent, third-party regulators would sprout up and the public will want their products to be certified by those regulators, but the choice would still be up to the company.

gb13
06-25-2010, 10:08 PM
Lawsuits cannot be the ultimate remedy for everything! We exist in a very dangerous time where the most evil sonsabitches are trying to destroy nature so they can control the food supply. For GOD's sake, this shit should be outlawed. To say that someone should have the right to contaminate the planet with terminator seeds, and we can just sue them, is like saying that we shouldn't have laws against murder, but someone kills us, our loved ones can sue after the fact. Uh, TOO LATE! As long as we have laws, some laws actually make sense. Now, if we had NO LAWS, which is fine by me, then I would say we should go out and locate and kill these bastards. Monsanto wants to fuck with LIFE itself, I say kill them first. This is a matter of self defense. Too bad we don't live in a world without laws. Since we do, we should actually use the law to our benefit.

I know this doesn't address labels. I think that's best addressed at a local level becuase the feds are 100% corrupt and they are the gov-corp industrial complex. That includes big Ag.

BTW, I was recently looking up "Cactus Juice", an all natural, non-toxic, bug repellent, which works great, but I can't find in stores anymore. When I went to their site, the product was changed to "Outdoor Protectant". In their FAQ section, someone asked why it was no longer called insect repellent. It's because the FDA says if Cactus Juice doesn't KILL bugs, they cannot use the words "insect" or "bug" on their label. Now, that isn't stupidity, it's corruption. In a perfect world, without laws, we take out those FDA fuckers, too. Alas, we cannot, or we go to prison.

Oh, I agree. It should ABSOLUTELY be illegal. I'm saying at the very least, they should be sued.

I also like the idea of vigilante justice against Monsanto and the like....but alas, we do have laws against that.

gb13
06-25-2010, 10:08 PM
Lawsuits cannot be the ultimate remedy for everything! We exist in a very dangerous time where the most evil sonsabitches are trying to destroy nature so they can control the food supply. For GOD's sake, this shit should be outlawed. To say that someone should have the right to contaminate the planet with terminator seeds, and we can just sue them, is like saying that we shouldn't have laws against murder, but someone kills us, our loved ones can sue after the fact. Uh, TOO LATE! As long as we have laws, some laws actually make sense. Now, if we had NO LAWS, which is fine by me, then I would say we should go out and locate and kill these bastards. Monsanto wants to fuck with LIFE itself, I say kill them first. This is a matter of self defense. Too bad we don't live in a world without laws. Since we do, we should actually use the law to our benefit.

I know this doesn't address labels. I think that's best addressed at a local level becuase the feds are 100% corrupt and they are the gov-corp industrial complex. That includes big Ag.

BTW, I was recently looking up "Cactus Juice", an all natural, non-toxic, bug repellent, which works great, but I can't find in stores anymore. When I went to their site, the product was changed to "Outdoor Protectant". In their FAQ section, someone asked why it was no longer called insect repellent. It's because the FDA says if Cactus Juice doesn't KILL bugs, they cannot use the words "insect" or "bug" on their label. Now, that isn't stupidity, it's corruption. In a perfect world, without laws, we take out those FDA fuckers, too. Alas, we cannot, or we go to prison.

No, I agree. It should ABSOLUTELY be illegal. I'm saying at the very least, they should be sued.

I also like the idea of vigilante justice against Monsanto and the like....but alas, we do have laws against that. :D

t0rnado
06-25-2010, 10:12 PM
What good is the free market when your dead? What if it is you on the receiving end of the cyanide laced drink? When your dead the death of that business who killed you really doesnt matter much.

If every label is labeled with all of the facts, truthfully and the person still makes the choice to purchase it then it is on them. You find it wrong to be able to make educated choices by knowing all the facts about the product or service you are about to take? I mean we wouldnt want to inconvenience those poor corporations now would we? :rolleyes:

Well, then don't eat, drink, or buy something that doesn't have a label on it. Pressure them that way. Do you want the companies to list every single worker who touched the product? What about every single organic compound that is in an orange? Who decides what is listed on a label? A government agency? Maybe the government should start to force companies to label their products in Spanish as well and have audio for blind people. Also braille for people who are deaf and blind, right?


Seriously? A company withholds information about their product, a person dies as a direct result of using that product, and the company's only punishment is to fail as a result of market forces? That's insane, and not even remotely a free-market principle. Freedom only goes so far that one does not injure or kill others, or infringe on any of their inalienable rights.

Companies label their products right now and people die during E. Coli outbreaks, yet the companies don't fail and face little financial risk. The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act was passed in 1967 under LBJ. Was there a huge decrease in the number of people who died in 1966 and 1967?


Sure we can, by choosing to buy a competitor's product. Some company would list all of their ingredients and if the market liked it, their business would grow. Also, independent, third-party regulators would sprout up and the public will want their products to be certified by those regulators, but the choice would still be up to the company.

That's an indirect way, which I fully support. That's what I'd rather see than the government using force.

susano
06-25-2010, 10:49 PM
No, I agree. It should ABSOLUTELY be illegal. I'm saying at the very least, they should be sued.

I also like the idea of vigilante justice against Monsanto and the like....but alas, we do have laws against that. :D

See how that works? All the laws protect THEM. They are trying to kill and starve people but if we take matters into our hands, we break the law.

Maybe we should declare war on the gov-corp industrial complex, have some money bombs, and hire a private "security" firm to take care of business. If it's war, that seems legal enough - as long as the security firm mercenaries wear uniforms.

susano
06-25-2010, 10:56 PM
BTW, if anyone has any screwy ideas about suing Monsanto and getting made whole, then they need to read about Monsanto. They have lawyers, lawyers and more lawyers, and lawsuits are part of their operating budget. They spend as much time in court as they do dreaming up ways to poison every living on earth. If a corporation could be the Anti Christ, they would certainly qualify.

Major_C_Natural
06-26-2010, 12:19 PM
Companies label their products right now and people die during E. Coli outbreaks, yet the companies don't fail and face little financial risk. The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act was passed in 1967 under LBJ. Was there a huge decrease in the number of people who died in 1966 and 1967?
Woah woah woah, have you been living under a rock?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bon_Vivant_Soup_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_Corporation_of_America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topps_Meat_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrim's_Pride
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Foods_Company

These companies either went out of business, been bought out, or in the middle of intense litigation as a result of a foodborne illness outbreak in their products. Not all of these are small companies either; nice try assuming that companies do not fail due to outbreaks.

Companies should choose what to put on their label but people have the privilege to know what they are ingesting in their body. If someone dies because a company intentionally withholds information (misleading the consumer), yes, the person dies, with or without labels, but the company, along with losing public confidence, is charged with fraud, the person's family can at least sue for compensation. If a person dies because they knowingly ingested cyanide, then the fault is on the person.