The case for mandatory GMO labeling – even if you believe in limited government and the fr

[John F Kennedy III]

The case for mandatory GMO labeling – even if you believe in limited government and the free market

Mike Adams
Natural News
June 18, 2012

Now that the GMO labeling ballot measure has been officially accepted onto the California ballot, Monsanto is gearing up its propaganda campaign that aims to convince people you don’t need to know what you’re eating! Trust us, we’re the food companies! We never lie, do we?

http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/6/5561/z5561566X.jpg

For the record, I’m an opponent of most government mandates against individuals. When the government says you have to give your children vaccine shots, that’s a violation of your liberty. When Mayor Bloomberg says you can’t buy a 16 oz. soda in New York, that’s a violation of your liberty, too — even though I am opposed to soda consumption in general.

When the government says you can’t drink raw milk, or you can’t treat cancer with medicinal herbs, or you have to get EPA approval before building a house on your own neighborhood lot, those are all examples of government mandates against individuals gone terribly wrong.

But this GMO labeling ballot measure is not a government mandate against the People. In fact, it’s quite the opposite: A People-powered mandate against the corporations.

Forcing corporations to tell the truth

It is the People of California, after all, who developed this GMO labeling ballot measure, gathered the signatures, and put it on the ballot. And the point of it is solely to keep corporations honest about what they put in our food. It is, technically, merely an extension of existing food ingredient labeling laws, and I can’t think of a single person who would argue that food companies shouldn’t even be required to list food ingredients.

For the record, I’ve actually lived in a country where food ingredients were not required to be listed on labels. It was a nightmare trying to avoid MSG because food companies consistently and tirelessly seek to deceive consumers about what they put into foods. Without labeling laws, we would all soon be eating melamine, human fetal cells, and mystery chemicals of dubious origin (even beyond what we’re already eating).

If the GMO labeling issue were up to the government of California, there would be no ballot measure whatsoever. The biotech industry rules over corrupt government bureaucrats and politicians because it can always buy sufficient influence to kill any legislative initiative. Such is the reasoning behind a people-powered ballot measure: It is the one lawmaking mechanism still available to the People who can bypass corruption and go straight to the voters. Of course, even if passed, the ballot measure is subject to state Supreme Court interpretation, and that’s an important measure to make sure the masses of any state don’t enact a law that would deprive other people of their constitutional rights and liberties.

But GMO labeling is a threat to no one other than the deceptively-operated biotech industry itself. GMO labeling is an effort to force corporations to simply tell the truth on food labels so that moms, dads, children and everybody else can know what they’re buying and eating.

The proper use of regulatory power

The People forcing their state government to mandate honest food labels is one of the few legitimate applications of government regulatory power. This is true even if you believe, as I do, that government is too big, too oppressive, too arrogant and way too expensive. Today in America, we suffer from bloated government that has become a serious threat to the liberty of the People. Yet to take that argument and use it to say that GMO labeling mandates are an encroachment of liberties is a logic error: this mandate is directed solely at corporations with a proven track record of deceiving the People. In no way is GMO labeling encroaching upon individual rights or liberties. If anything, it actually empowers individuals with accurate information about their free market choices of what they’re buying.

The free market requires accurate information about products

One of the most fundamental concepts of the free market is that both producers and consumers benefit from access to accurate information about what they are buying or selling. This is fundamental to the efficiency of any free market. But biotech companies selling GMOs want the market to be a one-way mirror — they know what’s in the food but you don’t!

Consumers therefore don’t know what they’re buying, and thus you don’t have a free market… you have a contrived market where products are deceptively labeled to make sure that consumers do not have access to accurate information about what they’re buying.

Think about it: the successful selling of GMOs depends entirely on consumers not knowing they are buying them. Nearly every other product is sold because people actually want it: People buy vitamin C because they want vitamin C. They buy whole wheat bread because they want whole wheat. But they only buy GMOs because they are not aware they are buying GMOs.

Genetically engineered food ingredients, in other words, are purchased entirely by accident by nearly everyone who buys them. That’s not a free market. That’s not transparency. That’s deception. It is what destroys consumer confidence in the free market, thereby harming the efficiencies of the market itself. How many corn-based food products, for example, are entirely avoided by informed consumers today merely because they suspect those products might contain GMOs even if they don’t?

If GMOs are so good, why don’t the food companies want them listed on food labels?

The other big question in all this concerns the GMO “feature” of foods. Genetically modified seeds, you see, are sold to farmers with all sorts of features. “These seeds are different,” companies like Monsanto promise farmers. “They will increase your crop yields and make you more money.”

But when it comes to food labeling, Monsanto speaks with a forked tongue to the FDA.” GMOs are no different,” they claim. “Therefore, there’s no need to list them on food labels.”

How can GMOs be different, and yet be not different at the same time? How can Monsanto apply for patents on GM seeds by claiming they are “unique” and then claim there’s no need to regulate them because they are “equivalent” to other seeds? It’s a bald-faced contradiction, as anyone can readily tell.

It’s easier to just call it a lie… a convenient lie that sells more food containing genetically modified ingredients. Because, again, the only reason most consumers even purchase foods contain GM ingredients is because they are completely unaware of what they’re really buying.

Monsanto would love to keep it this way. Its entire business model depends on a lack of transparency. Withholding information from consumers is central to its business model. Telling the truth on food labels would destroy its business revenues because consumers would then be operating with reliable information, making free market choices based on accurate information.

But Monsanto, you see, is the enemy of a free market. Just like the Rockefellers, the JP Morgans, Goldman Sachs… you name it. Powerful corporate interests that collude with government almost always do so as a way to somehow cheat or betray consumers. The last thing they want is to be forced to actually tell the truth about what they’re selling (and what you’re buying).

Want to audit the Fed? You’ll want to audit your FOOD even more…

Why do lovers of liberty wish to audit the Federal Reserve? Because we demand transparency. We all deserve to know what’s being done with our money, right?

By the same token, we should just as much wish to audit our food and find out what’s in it. After all, we eat this stuff. It impacts our health and lives in a profound way. Food labels are like little food audit reports: At a glance, we can know the ingredients and nutrition facts. With the help of GMO labeling, we will also be able to tell if ingredients are genetically engineered.

Everyone who believes in transparency from government and corporations by definition must also agree with mandatory GMO labeling. It’s about telling the truth so that consumers can make an informed choice in a free market economy.

You’ve got to wonder: What business is so ashamed of its products that it doesn’t even want its technology identified on product labels? The answer, of course, is the biotech industry.

To oppose GMO labeling is to side with Monsanto

The final point here is that to oppose GMO labeling — full transparency so that consumers to know what they’re buying — is to play right into the hands of Monsanto itself. This corporation, in fact, will likely spent tens of millions of dollars attempting to defeat the California ballot initiative in the hopes that foods containing GMOs can continue to be deceptively sold to consumers who have no idea what they’re actually buying.

Again, Monsanto’s business model depends on consumers NOT having access to accurate information about what they’re buying. Market success means withholding information from customers. Gotcha, sucka!

What’s beautiful about the GMO labeling ballot measure is that people from all walks of life strongly support it: Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and almost everybody else. People overwhelmingly agree — over 90% in the polls I’ve seen — with the simple principle that we have the right to know what we’re buying and eating. It’s not a complicated issue. It’s a fundamental principle of consumer choice and free market efficiency.

This is why I will personally continue to strongly advocate support for this GMO labeling initiative, regardless of what the biotech industry might do to try to obfuscate the issue in the minds of voters. That effort will be significant, no doubt. Everything is on the line for this industry which is terrified of having to tell the truth. When full transparency would cause an entire industry to lose 90 percent of its customers, you have to scratch your head and wonder what they’re selling people in the first place.

The California GMO ballot measure — a grassroots measure put on the ballot by the People in the face of fierce corporate resistance — would force the biotech industry to simply tell the truth. It is the ultimate expression of the People demanding fundamental transparency from an industry so powerful that it has successfully threatened states (http://www.naturalnews.com/035628_Monsanto_Vermont_GMO_labeling.html) and even entire nations (http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_GMOs_Wikileaks.html) with economic sanctions.

Passage of this GMO labeling initiative will be a victory for transparency, a victory for the free market, and a victory for the People. It is time that We the People demanded full transparency from the companies that produce the food we feed ourselves and our children.

NaturalNews thanks all those who support this honest labeling effort. With your support, we can make history together and end the scourge of GMOs in America — even in the face of powerful corporations and governments which would greatly prefer we all stay uninformed.

Learn more about GMO labeling

www.LabelGMOs.org
www.JustLabelIt.org
www.OrganicConsumers.org
www.ResponsibleTechnology.org



article here:
http://www.infowars.com/the-case-for-mandatory-gmo-labeling-even-if-you-believe-in-limited-government-and-the-free-market/

originally here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/036209_GMO_labeling_ballot_measure_California.html

[tttppp]

I'm all in favor of requiring companies to provide disclosure on their products. In this particular case, it would cost next to nothing for companies to add "GMO" to the stickers they place on their food. And it would provide a huge benefit, as it would most likely result in more real food being sold.

Companies should also be required to disclose the chemicals they put in your food. But this law would be a good step in the right direction.

[John F Kennedy III]

I'm all in favor of requiring companies to provide disclosure on their products. In this particular case, it would cost next to nothing for companies to add "GMO" to the stickers they place on their food. And it would provide a huge benefit, as it would most likely result in more real food being sold.

Companies should also be required to disclose the chemicals they put in your food. But this law would be a good step in the right direction.

I agree.

[jj-]

He is saying "I want limited government, except for this issue I really care about!". There are thousands of programs that can be justified with the same argument. Insane idea.

[James Madison]

He is saying "I want limited government, except for this issue I really care about!". There are thousands of programs that can be justified with the same argument. Insane idea.

I think you're missing the point. Government exists to preserve the righs of men against all who would wish to violate them. If GMOs are a legitimate threat to our liberties, it is the duty of government to enforce laws that protect consumers from false advertising.

[John F Kennedy III]

I think you're missing the point. Government exists to preserve the righs of men against all who would wish to violate them. If GMOs are a legitimate threat to our liberties, it is the duty of government to enforce laws that protect consumers from false advertising.

This. Well said.

[libertyfanatic]

Can someone explain the whole gmo thing to me? I've never understood what it was about.

[jj-]

I think you're missing the point. Government exists to preserve the righs of men against all who would wish to violate them. If GMOs are a legitimate threat to our liberties, it is the duty of government to enforce laws that protect consumers from false advertising.

How is not having a label in some product a violation of my rights? Again, insanity.

[specsaregood]

He is saying "I want limited government, except for this issue I really care about!". There are thousands of programs that can be justified with the same argument. Insane idea.

Constitutionally I have no problem with these laws at the state level, just like in this case.

I do think his argument that without food labeling laws we would all be eating nothing but baby fetus and chemicals flavoring such fetus is incorrect. I would just do even more shopping at somewhere like whole foods where they advertise and brag about their complete inspection process for their suppliers.

[MelissaWV]

This is a nice idea in an ideal world. Unfortunately, it ignores the fact that we live in THIS world, where lobbies will react even before the bill can rack up a dozen co-sponsors.

While the label for GMO products is being considered, there will be intense lobbying to rename a certain kind of GMO as "selectively-bred enhanced produce," which will then not have to carry the label as it is not really GMO. It is "selectively-bred." The onus will be on small farmers to prove their produce is not GMO, which many will suddenly find is impossible due to years of cross-pollenation. Certain larger processed food companies will not have this issue as their produce is "selectively-bred," and they have decades of records demonstrating how their product is SBEP under the new guidelines. No label is required, but "SBEP" must appear on the ingredients list somewhere in teeny print, accompanying the item that the SBEP produce/grain was used in.

Get where this is going?

[James Madison]

How is not having a label in some product a threat to my rights? Again, insanity.

IF (and it's a big if) GMOs are dangerous they should be labeled. Some consumers may also reject GMOs on ethical or religious grounds.

[specsaregood]

This is a nice idea in an ideal world. Unfortunately, it ignores the fact that we live in THIS world, where lobbies will react even before the bill can rack up a dozen co-sponsors.

Well, thats one argument in favor of allowing citizen created ballot measures such as the one discussed in the OP.

[erowe1]

Jews don't need the government to require quality control and labeling of kosher foods. They have private entities that meet their demand for that. If people who don't want to eat GMO food choose only to buy food that has been similarly labeled as certified GMO-free, they can do that. They don't need the government to get involved.

[jj-]

Constitutionally I have no problem with these laws at the state level, just like in this case.

From a what is right perspective it makes no sense to have a FDA at the state level.

If some products must be labelled, who will decide this? If mandatory labels are acceptable, why not mandatory serving sizes? Why not mandatory limits on salt? Who is to decide that GMOs are dangerous? If they have that authority, they also have the authority to decide that sugar, fats, salt, or anything else you might eat is dangerous. I thought after some time in the forums people would immediately laugh at these dumb proposals.

[jj-]

IF (and it's a big if) GMOs are dangerous they should be labeled.

Why? Knives are dangerous. Should they have a label that says don't press it against your neck?

Who is to decide if the IF part of your statement is true?

[John F Kennedy III]

Constitutionally I have no problem with these laws at the state level, just like in this case.

I do think his argument that without food labeling laws we would all be eating nothing but baby fetus and chemicals flavoring such fetus is incorrect. I would just do even more shopping at somewhere like whole foods where they advertise and brag about their complete inspection process for their suppliers.

I think without any type of labeling there would be even worse things in the food than what is already there.

[jj-]

This is a nice idea in an ideal world.

In an ideal world the free market rates the quality of products. If any sort of fraud occurs when a product is sold, that can be solved with laws against fraud that already exist.

[Travlyr]

Can someone explain the whole gmo thing to me? I've never understood what it was about.

One example: Once upon a time not long ago soybeans would die if herbicide was applied to the field to kill weeds. Soybean yields per acre were low and it was a lot of labor to walk the fields and cut the weeds which would steal water & nutrients from the soybean crop if the weeds were allowed to grow.

Monsanto was able to genetically modify the soybean seed to resist Roundup herbicide.

Roundup Ready Soybeans (http://www.stineseed.com/soybeans/traits/roundup-ready/)

[NoOneButPaul]

How is not having a label in some product a violation of my rights? Again, insanity.

You're absolutely right.

These laws would eventually get hijacked by the special interests and the GMOs all-natural competitors would end up wearing the stickers instead.

Have we learned nothing?

This has nothing to do with liberty, and to make this one issue about the protection of liberty is to open up almost every other door to the protection of liberty until we're right back to the government we have right now...

[James Madison]

Why? Knifes are dangerous. Should they have a label that says don't press it against your neck?

Who is to decide if the IF part of your statement is true?

Anybody who buys a knife is aware of the dangers associated with its use. They are explicit.
The dangers surrounding GMOs are far more difficult for consumers to identify only by what's on the can.

[NoOneButPaul]

I think without any type of labeling there would be even worse things in the food than what is already there.

Why not leave the labeling up to the free market? Why not allow companies to market particularly that their food is all-natural or whatever... why not let food companies compete with their labels instead?

[libertyfanatic]

One example: Once upon a time not long ago soybeans would die if herbicide was applied to the field to kill weeds. Soybean yields per acre were low and it was a lot of labor to walk the fields and cut the weeds which would steal water & nutrients from the soybean crop if the weeds were allowed to grow.

Monsanto was able to genetically modify the soybean seed to resist Roundup herbicide.

Roundup Ready Soybeans (http://www.stineseed.com/soybeans/traits/roundup-ready/)
So why are people against companies doing that?

[specsaregood]

So why are people against companies doing that?

They are afraid that it will make their offspring be born with a 3rd arm coming out their butt or similar.

[NoOneButPaul]

Anybody who buys a knife is aware of the dangers associated with its use. They are explicit.
The dangers surrounding GMOs are far more difficult for consumers to identify only by what's on the can.

You could replace GMOs here with just about any product we consume and the argument is the same...

[jj-]

The dangers surrounding GMOs are far more difficult for consumers to identify only by what's on the can.

Where do you draw the line?

[Travlyr]

This is a nice idea in an ideal world. Unfortunately, it ignores the fact that we live in THIS world, where lobbies will react even before the bill can rack up a dozen co-sponsors.

While the label for GMO products is being considered, there will be intense lobbying to rename a certain kind of GMO as "selectively-bred enhanced produce," which will then not have to carry the label as it is not really GMO. It is "selectively-bred." The onus will be on small farmers to prove their produce is not GMO, which many will suddenly find is impossible due to years of cross-pollenation. Certain larger processed food companies will not have this issue as their produce is "selectively-bred," and they have decades of records demonstrating how their product is SBEP under the new guidelines. No label is required, but "SBEP" must appear on the ingredients list somewhere in teeny print, accompanying the item that the SBEP produce/grain was used in.

Get where this is going?

It is all a game. In a laissez-faire free market, growers would label their products honestly and completely because people would only buy labeled products. Whoever didn't label their products correctly would lose business.

[NoOneButPaul]

They are afraid that it will make their offspring be born with a 3rd arm coming out their butt or similar.

Pretty much...

I don't understand the food scares... it's like people are so afraid of where food will go in the future so they refuse to accept any kind of advances in it without realizing that truly all-natural food comes with all sorts of different hazards itself...

I see no problem with allowing food to advance itself like the rest of the world, at some point we are going to have to feed tens of billions of people and stopping the technology on that doesn't seem right.

I'm not saying I want to eat it or would if given the choice but i'm not against the advancement...

[jj-]

You could replace GMOs here with just about any product we consume and the argument is the same...

and what will happen is that the government will get it wrong. It will allow truly dangerous products and it will put restrictions on safe products.

[SpicyTurkey]

Constitution wise this is perfectly legal, and believe (with a bias as big as an elephant) that this law should pass. Screw GMO. Those bastards have put many an innocent man in prison for not reason other than to kill competition. Bastards.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I agree with proper food product disclosure. Sure, the market will deal with it after people start getting sick and dying lol. I know several food inspectors and they will cut corners even if there are health safety problems. And when people get sick, they won't know what hit them or why.

Though, I don't really have a problem with GMOs myself. They seem like a great idea. I like the idea of creating chickens with multiple legs.

[James Madison]

You could replace GMOs here with just about any product we consume and the argument is the same...


Where do you draw the line?


It is all a game. In a laissez-faire free market, growers would label their products honestly and completely because people would only buy labeled products. Whoever didn't label their products correctly would lose business.

What everyone fails to understand is that in order to pure free-market capitalism to function you need a morally perfect society. But we don't have this. Businesses will attempt to cut-corners, consumers will become lazy and uninformed, the little guy will get bought-out because he does things the honest way. Just like what we have at the moment.

[Travlyr]

So why are people against companies doing that?

Spraying herbicide on your food may not be such a good idea. It is certainly not natural.

[jj-]

What everyone fails to understand is that in order to pure free-market capitalism to function you need a morally perfect society. But we don't have this. Businesses will attempt to cut-corners, consumers will become lazy and uninformed, the little guy will get bought-out because he does things the honest way. Just like what we have at the moment.

Ah, I see. So since we might never have a perfectly moral society, we should have fascism forever.

[specsaregood]

Spraying herbicide on your food may not be such a good idea. It is certainly not natural.

And yet there are natural herbicides.

[Travlyr]

What everyone fails to understand is that in order to pure free-market capitalism to function you need a morally perfect society. But we don't have this. Businesses will attempt to cut-corners, consumers will become lazy and uninformed, the little guy will get bought-out because he does things the honest way. Just like what we have at the moment.

Perhaps. Yet, the government is easily bought off. I shop at Whole Foods even though it is more expensive because I trust their labeling. They buy locally when they can and their producers list how they are raised. Sure I could be swindled, but it would be devastating to Whole Foods if they get caught lying to their customers.

[Travlyr]

And yet there are natural herbicides.

True enough, however it is more labor intensive and expensive to apply.

[James Madison]

Ah, I see. So since we might never have a perfectly moral society, we should have fascism forever.

Nice strawman. Because I recognize how reality works I'm a fascist. :rolleyes:

[erowe1]

What everyone fails to understand is that in order to pure free-market capitalism to function you need a morally perfect society.

Hogwash. One of the beauties of pure free-market capitalism is that it harnesses even peoples' moral imperfections and uses them to drive people to provide better services to others by rewarding them for it. Moral imperfection isn't an argument against freedom, it's an argument for it.

[NoOneButPaul]

What everyone fails to understand is that in order to pure free-market capitalism to function you need a morally perfect society. But we don't have this. Businesses will attempt to cut-corners, consumers will become lazy and uninformed, the little guy will get bought-out because he does things the honest way. Just like what we have at the moment.

But the question does have to be asked then... what is acceptable to regulate and what isn't? AND if free markets are dependent on a morally perfect society why isn't the governmental system of review also dependent on the same thing?

Whether we stop it through the government regulations or the free market motive there will still be people that slip through the cracks.

I'd rather go with the system where I don't pay anyone to check for me...

[erowe1]

I'd rather go with the system where I don't pay anyone to check for me...

Or at least you have the right not to if you so choose.

[James Madison]

JJ- why did you -rep me simply because you disagree with me?

[jj-]

Nice strawman. Because I recognize how reality works I'm a fascist. :rolleyes:

That's the logical consequence of your arguments, whether you realize it or not

[jj-]

JJ- why did you -rep me simply because you disagree with me?

You got neg rep because the mockery you make of James Madison by associating anti-liberty ideas with his name.

[erowe1]

You got neg rep because the mockery you make of James Madison by associating anti-liberty ideas with his name.

The real James Madison wasn't as bad as most presidents. But it shouldn't be too difficult to find some anti-liberty ideas to associate with his name.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

JJ- why did you -rep me simply because you disagree with me?

Question: How do you know if you are neg repped? (or repped at all)?

[Travlyr]

The real James Madison wasn't as bad as most presidents. But it shouldn't be too difficult to find some anti-liberty ideas to associate with his name.

Like the Second National Bank.

[James Madison]

Question: How do you know if you are neg repped? (or repped at all)?

Check the settings page at the top righ of the screen.

[jj-]

The real James Madison wasn't as bad as most presidents. But it shouldn't be too difficult to find some anti-liberty ideas to associate with his name.

There is no need to associate more that he didn't hold.

[thoughtomator]

There should be no GMO labeling because there should be no GMO, period. There's a solid argument to be made that placing a genetically modified organism into the environment is an act of war and a crime against humanity.

[James Madison]

You got neg rep because the mockery you make of James Madison by associating anti-liberty ideas with his name.

You've got a long way to go. Search through my post history and you'll see I'm one of the biggest supporters of liberty on the forums.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Check the settings page at the top righ of the screen.Ah, thanks. For some reason I thought that was a subscribed threads list.

[jj-]

You've got a long way to go. Search through my post history and you'll see I'm one of the biggest supporters of liberty on the forums.

If that is so, this is a very sad state of affairs. It means almost everybody in the forum is in favor of violating all sorts of rights and that the proper role of the government is to micromanage the rules of production and commerce, way beyond the reasonable protections of life, property, and contracts.

As far as I'm concerned, you're an enemy of liberty and your stated arguments can justify a gigantic oppressive government. If you don't believe the free market is good enough to rate the quality of products, what do you believe the free market should be able to do without government interference?

[thoughtomator]

Can someone explain the whole gmo thing to me? I've never understood what it was about.

Basically, they're genetically modifying plants in order to make them resistant to the ever-greater amount of pesticides being applied to them (and for other purposes, but that's the prime mover). A second-order effect of this is that we now have companies claiming patent rights over living organisms.

The main things to be concerned with are a) the unknowable long-term effects of genetic modification (they have no real idea what changes happen to the plant, other than that trial-and-error testing shows they can withstand more pesticides), and b) the overapplication of pesticides killing off the microorganisms that form the bottom of the food chain and rendering land indefinitely unsuitable for any form of life.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

It's the common man's job to determine what is healthy, what he wishes to eat, genetically modified or natural - not the Government's.

This "Labeling of GMO's" sounds like the same old tired Liberal fallacy that the government can fix this problem, when it will only complicate and make this situation worse.

[Travlyr]

The government's job concerning GMO is to enforce the contract if a customer does not want GMO but buys a GMO product under false labeling.

[Travlyr]

Basically, they're genetically modifying plants in order to make them resistant to the ever-greater amount of pesticides being applied to them (and for other purposes, but that's the prime mover). A second-order effect of this is that we now have companies claiming patent rights over living organisms.

The main things to be concerned with are a) the unknowable long-term effects of genetic modification (they have no real idea what changes happen to the plant, other than that trial-and-error testing shows they can withstand more pesticides), and b) the overapplication of pesticides killing off the microorganisms that form the bottom of the food chain and rendering land indefinitely unsuitable for any form of life.

Isn't it interesting that Industrial Hemp needs no pesticides or herbicides to grow an abundant crop but it is illegal to grow. Interesting. Very Interesting.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

The government's job concerning GMO is to enforce the contract if a customer does not want GMO but buys a GMO product under false labeling.

Many companies already label their products "NO GMO'S". My guess is, they will succeed by doing this.

The free market is already fixing this problem; no government intervention is necesarry.

[ClydeCoulter]

In an ideal world the free market rates the quality of products. If any sort of fraud occurs when a product is sold, that can be solved with laws against fraud that already exist.

I don't want to eat GMO's, so how do I know, and how do I sue if I don't know? And how are fraud laws to solve that if there are no labeling laws?

At minimum there must be a way for everyone (food manufacturing also) to know so they can label their foods as "NO GMO".

[Exavier]

I’m a big protector of individual rights and freedom. Places like Monsanto shouldn’t be protected by national government agencies such as the USDA and what not. From a liberty perspective I don’t see a true problem with a state passing laws requiring labeling as long as the people vote and agree on it. As long as it’s not the national government doing it. The idea of having separate states was so that if people didn’t like how their state government was behaving they could either influence it at the local level or move to a different state which was better for them.

[Travlyr]

I don't want to eat GMO's, so how do I know, and how do I sue if I don't know? And how are fraud laws to solve that if there are no labeling laws?

At minimum there must be a way for everyone (food manufacturing also) to know so they can label their foods as "NO GMO".

The government's job is to enforce contract law. If a food manufacturer mislabels the product, then they are liable for fraud. Label law is not necessary.

[tttppp]

The government's job is to enforce contract law. If a food manufacturer mislabels the product, then they are liable for fraud. Label law is not necessary.

So can I sue the makers of GMO products for false advertising?

[mad cow]

Jews don't need the government to require quality control and labeling of kosher foods. They have private entities that meet their demand for that. If people who don't want to eat GMO food choose only to buy food that has been similarly labeled as certified GMO-free, they can do that. They don't need the government to get involved.

This.
If you want your food certified GMO-free,set up and pay for a private organization to inspect it for you and leave the government and my tax dollars out of it.

[thoughtomator]

So can I sue the makers of GMO products for false advertising?

yep, and if these companies didn't own the government you'd probably win

If the package says "corn" and the package contains something engineered to be genetically distinct (distinct enough to patent!) from corn, then you have been defrauded.

[BamaAla]

Hopefully California will pass their measure. I'm trying to get a sponsor here in Alabama...I'm not holding my breathe.

[tttppp]

yep, and if these companies didn't own the government you'd probably win

If the package says "corn" and the package contains something engineered to be genetically distinct (distinct enough to patent!) from corn, then you have been defrauded.

You would think this would be done already. People sue all the time for stupid reasons. Here's a clear case of fraud and nobody has sued these producers and forced them to label their products correctly.

Also, can I sue them for putting chemicals in my food without labeling them correctly?

[Travlyr]

So can I sue the makers of GMO products for false advertising?

Lol... not until you End The Fed. Monsanto owns the courts.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I don't want to eat GMO's, so how do I know, and how do I sue if I don't know? And how are fraud laws to solve that if there are no labeling laws?

At minimum there must be a way for everyone (food manufacturing also) to know so they can label their foods as "NO GMO".

I wish more companies labeled their food "no GMO."

[Travlyr]

I wish more companies labeled their food "no GMO."

I'm not sure about that. Not all GMO is created equal. Some GMO is natural... 'Evolution' for example.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Well, messing with food has been going on for so long, I'm sure it will be hard to get food you know is safe. :( I don't think someone in a laboratory splicing different things together is natural, but that's just me.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Jews don't need the government to require quality control and labeling of kosher foods. They have private entities that meet their demand for that. If people who don't want to eat GMO food choose only to buy food that has been similarly labeled as certified GMO-free, they can do that. They don't need the government to get involved.

Thread winner!

If someone really wants to hold these companies accountable, they would do this, and make some money while they're at it.

Getting the government involved when many here freely admit that these companies are in the pockets of our representatives, is insanity, will achieve nothing - and makes you a fool for supporting such an effort.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I agree with proper food product disclosure. Sure, the market will deal with it after people start getting sick and dying lol. I know several food inspectors and they will cut corners even if there are health safety problems. And when people get sick, they won't know what hit them or why.

Though, I don't really have a problem with GMOs myself. They seem like a great idea. I like the idea of creating chickens with multiple legs.

So.. you deride not having government health inspectors with snide remarks about illness and death (implication being that companies would put dangerous items in their products and lie on the label), then go on to say that health inspectors - who would be responsible for regulating a company's product disclosure - are prone to corruption and/or laziness? While advocating for a government program that would increase regulations?

Seriously?

[John F Kennedy III]

There should be no GMO labeling because there should be no GMO, period. There's a solid argument to be made that placing a genetically modified organism into the environment is an act of war and a crime against humanity.

I agree.

[wrestlingwes_8]

There should be no GMO labeling because there should be no GMO, period. There's a solid argument to be made that placing a genetically modified organism into the environment is an act of war and a crime against humanity.

THIS

Almost no one truly understands the implications GMO varieties are having on our ecosystems.


If you think GMOs are fine and dandy, I can assure you that you are 100% wrong. Take the time to do some research.

[BamaAla]

THIS

Almost no one truly understands the implications GMO varieties are having on our ecosystems.


If you think GMOs are fine and dandy, I can assure you that you are 100% wrong. Take the time to do some research.

One only needs to look at "dead zones" the world over to see the effects. GMOs are bad news for everything involved (ecosystems near and far, animals, and humans.)

[twoggle]

Can someone explain the whole gmo thing to me? I've never understood what it was about.

The only way Monsanto and other GMO companies can sell their junk is to prevent people from knowing that their patented ingredient is in the product and by taking control of government agencies to allow for massive pollution of private property. (Not to mention bribes, using our taxpayer money to threaten other governments, etc.) I would love state laws that require ingredients to be listed on products. Since their crops are different enough to be patented, then they should be different enough to be listed as a separate ingredient.

One day, society may be able to do away with labelling of ingredients, but I think it is important to do so now (at the state level). I want to know if a food product has small amounts of added arsenic or organic mercury or cocaine or a myriad of other chemicals/drugs that may or may not cause cancer and other chronic illnesses after 1-20+ years. At least if I see it on the ingredients label, I can make my own decision.

[From a previous post of mine....]
From a health and environmental perspective there are quite a number of reasons why
genetically modified (GM) crops are dangerous and different from breeding. Many of the finding
related to toxicity and other problems found in independent research can be found on the
Institute of Science and Society web page:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GE-agriculture.php

One of many examples of GM research discussed by the geneticists and other scientists who have published scientific papers on these issues:

-----------
"GM Feed Toxic, New Meta-Analysis Confirms:
A meta-analysis on 19 studies confirms kidney and liver toxicity in rats and mice fed on GM soybean and maize, representing more than 80 percent of all commercially available GM food; it also exposes gross inadequacies of current risk assessment"
-----------

As you will see by reading the independent research as that chronic toxicity from long-term ingestion of GMO ingredients is common.

From a libertarian perspective, GM crops may end up being eliminated for several different reasons:

1. Property Rights -- GM crops pollute crops in nearby fields, including organic crops. In a normal justice system, the victim could sue the farm causing the pollution and that would likely be the end of GM crops. But with Monsanto backed by government influence, it is the company (Monsanto) that ends up suing the pollution victims and winning royalties for "use" of the GM crops!

2. Patenting Life -- I believe that most libertarians would be against having federal government-enforced patents on life forms.

3. Government / Corporate Fascist Partnership -- The Obama administration threatened other countries in Europe in order to attempt getting approval for Monsanto's GM crops. One quote from our Paris embassy states, "“Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits."

One can see the level of takeover of the Obama Administration by Monsanto and this is an excellent way I have shown to people (especially former Obama supporters) that fascist partnerships are dangerous:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronnie-cummins/the-unholy-alliance-monsa_b_642385.html
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/246615-Monsanto-s-Deep-Roots-in-Washington

A little bit more about Monsanto using the government to try and control our food supply:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYO2k_o16E0

4. Attacks on small organic farms -- I think you'll see the Federal Government increase regulations and attacks on small organic farms in order to try and eliminate Monsanto's competition.

http://www.examiner.com/article/farmageddon-the-continuing-assault-on-family-farms-america
http://www.examiner.com/article/monsanto-lobbyist-uses-power-as-fda-food-czar-to-target-amish
http://rockrivertimes.com/2011/12/14/to-your-health-small-farmers-beware-of-big-government/

[KingNothing]

He is saying "I want limited government, except for this issue I really care about!". There are thousands of programs that can be justified with the same argument. Insane idea.


Completely correct.

This issue is nonsense, from a Libertarian point of view.

[KingNothing]

What everyone fails to understand is that in order to pure free-market capitalism to function you need a morally perfect society. But we don't have this. Businesses will attempt to cut-corners, consumers will become lazy and uninformed, the little guy will get bought-out because he does things the honest way. Just like what we have at the moment.


That is one of the least Libertarian things I have ever read. Anywhere.

The implication of that paragraph is a complete disagreement with everything that Paul and the movement is about.

[KingNothing]

So basically if Bloomberg had banned GMO instead of big sugary drinks, people on this board would be happy and not raging.

Got it.

[LibertyEagle]

Question: How do you know if you are neg repped? (or repped at all)?

Click on "Settings" in the upper right hand corner of the screen.

[LibertyEagle]

One only needs to look at "dead zones" the world over to see the effects. GMOs are bad news for everything involved (ecosystems near and far, animals, and humans.)

Not to mention honeybees.

[ProIndividual]

Controversy time?

You all know I'm an anarchist...but if this is about labels on food to tell people important facts about the food, like contents, pesticides used in production (not the names of the chemicals, but if they were used or not), etc, then I think even if the state were abolished that such labeling would be done. To sell a product without telling people what they are buying, knowing yourself the contents may be controversial, would be fraud. I don't oppose GMO food, nor do I favor it speficially...but I do think the consumer has the right to know what they are purchasing. Do I want the state to regulate this? NO. But do I have a choice until we abolish the state? No. It's like me being against state monopolist law...I'm against it, but I'm not against law.

So, if this is ONLY about labeling food for contents, them I'm okay with it. It's anti-fraud law. HOWEVER...it should not be pre-emptive law!!! Only those who have compalints brought against them for NOT labeling food fairly (fraud) should be governed by some regulator. No one who has NOT defrauded a customer, either by verbal disclosure, signs at the place of sale, or their own labels without being forced, should have to be regulated along with those who have shown themselves to be irresponsible with products.

This is one thing I firmly believe...only those who compromise their sovereignty (individually) through their own harmful (or fraudelant in this case) actions should be governed. All regulation on those who have compromised their sovereignty should only effect them, and not become a "one bad apple spoils the bunch" pre-emptive scenario. This would make regulation far easier and far cheaper...because you're only regulating a minority of people (those who harm others). Most people do not defraud or harm, so they should not be governed (regulated) on the chance they MIGHT defraud or harm someone.

If this is what you want, fine...because in the absence of the state, this would also occur. Otherwise, I'm against it.

[ClydeCoulter]

The government's job is to enforce contract law. If a food manufacturer mislabels the product, then they are liable for fraud. Label law is not necessary.

So, after millions of people find that their grandchildren are all born without kidneys and they spend billions in reasearch to find that it is from eating gmo's produced in 2011 and 2012 with seed batch numbers xxxyyzzzz-11 thru -98 then everyone can sue? Sue for not labeling? And what will help the grandchildren and how, it's a bit late.

[ProIndividual]

One only needs to look at "dead zones" the world over to see the effects. GMOs are bad news for everything involved (ecosystems near and far, animals, and humans.)

If the GMOs caused dead zones, and eventually would threaten us all, then that would threaten their business...so it wouldn't be worth it to create a finite business out of an infitinte demand like food. It's like saying unregulated loggiing leads to deforrestization...when in reality only public lands face the tragedy of the commons. Private lands (like 99% of logging lands are private) have no such issue, because the loggers don't want to log themselves out of an industry. They maintain it via property rights...they replant forrests and regrow them, and cut down less than than grow, and slower than they grow. Forrest that get logged have usually been logged numerous times, once or twice each, every generation.

I'd bet dollars to donuts these "dead zones" are public land, not private.

[KingNothing]

Controversy time?


You all know I'm an anarchist...but I'm not against law.



Sorry to focus on one tiny piece of a larger post, but that blew my mind.

[ClydeCoulter]

Consider,
He who controls the money supply controls the nation, he who controls the food supply controls the world (think terminator gene).

[ProIndividual]

Sorry to focus on one tiny piece of a larger post, but that blew my mind.

LOL. Why? Anarchists are for free market law, not monopolized statist law. We're not for lawlessness..that's anomie, not anarchy. The two are conflated by state schools and their sanctioned dictionaries because they have an interest in slandering a philosophy that advocates their abolition. :)

Did you know the first international law was Merchant Law, a form of free market stateless law?

Anarchy doesn't mean chaos, lawlessness, normlessness, and lack of social mores....that's anomie. Look up anomie, and see if that is what anarchy means to most people. Notice, anomie is caused by no laws, or too much government regulation leading to fatalistic attitudes of individuals with no rights and autonomy. Too much government tyranny, you get anomie...no law (which is not what anarchists want) leads to anomie.

Every state in history leads to anomie eventually via chaos theory...they monopolize certain services like law and defense, which makes a "closed system". Open systems only exist with no barriers to entry into the market...the state opposes an "open system" via its very existence. All closed systems degrade via entropy. Entropy leads to breakdown of the system, because the system needs more and more power to maintain control. As the economy gets larger and wealthier, and the population grows, the system gets more complex. This is why China tries to limit birthrates, and North Korea bans certain technologies even though it starves its people. Sooner or later the complexity is too much, the power needed to control it is too tyrannical, and the system explodes into revolution. This is when anomie occurs.

This predictable cycle of closed systems is why people like me oppose the state. We want to end this cycle and stop at anarchy (a system of law, social mores, and defense that isn't monopolized into a closed system doomed to fail). Maybe it's possible, maybe it's not (I lean toward the former), but the current system is guaranteed to collapse into anomie...lawlessness. That can't be good :)

[ProIndividual]

Consider,
He who controls the money supply controls the nation, he who controls the food supply controls the world (think terminator gene).

But regulation caused these companies to capture such an inflated market share by thwarting competiton via barriers to entry into the market (from that regulation).

Deregulation would logically lead to these companies having less market share, and therefore less control over the food market. BTW...he who controls the food controls nothing. It's the guy with the guns who controls the guy with the food that controls everything.

[ClydeCoulter]

But regulation caused these companies to capture such an inflated market share by thwarting competiton via barriers to entry into the market (from that regulation).

Deregulation would logically lead to these companies having less market share, and therefore less control over the food market. BTW...he who controls the food controls nothing. It's the guy with the guns who controls the guy with the food that controls everything.

You can't fight if you're starving to death. Take away the ability of a state to get seeds (after everything has terminator gene) and they won't be able to grow food. How long will ground hogs and squirrels last?

edit: BTW, the same corp.s that control the seed are in bed with the empire at the moment.

[ClydeCoulter]

I think we have to look at what remedy is possible for the people.
The federal level is helping to propagte GMO's and preventing transparency there.
The state (CA) is being asked for a remedy.
What would a perfect world look like? Right now, it doesn't matter, cause it's not. So what's the remedy right now?

edit: Farmers have been trying to fight monsanto and dupont in court, how's that working out?

[specsaregood]

LOL. Why? Anarchists are for free market law, not monopolized statist law. We're not for lawlessness..that's anomie, not anarchy. The two are conflated by state schools and their sanctioned dictionaries because they have an interest in slandering a philosophy that advocates their abolition. :)

Yes, I'm quite sure it is the state sanctioned dictionaries fault that the definition of the word disagrees with you.

[Travlyr]

So, after millions of people find that their grandchildren are all born without kidneys and they spend billions in reasearch to find that it is from eating gmo's produced in 2011 and 2012 with seed batch numbers xxxyyzzzz-11 thru -98 then everyone can sue? Sue for not labeling? And what will help the grandchildren and how, it's a bit late.

This is the problem we endure now. In a laissez-faire free market researchers would be earning their money evaluating the facts for consumers, growers, and suppliers rather than rely on government officials & researchers who don't really care and are easily bribed. Competition would force the truth in labeling. Much like Whole Foods does today (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381083-The-case-for-mandatory-GMO-labeling-%96-even-if-you-believe-in-limited-government-and-the-fr&p=4500410&viewfull=1#post4500410).

[anewvoice]

It is not a free market if the corporations can not be held accountable. Corporations cannot be held accountable if we (the people) lack information. We (the people) cannot force information from corporations while the government shields them.

This is not a Constitutional issue, this is a false advertising issue. Say you buy an Apple, what do you expect to receive? That's right, an apple. But what if that Apple has been genetically modified to add a vitamin, or a round-up immunity. Now, 2 decades later let's say we find out that said round-up immunity added to these apples causes cancer.

Who's to know you bought an Apple vs the Round-up Ready Apple? Nobody because the corporations lied and sold it as an Apple when it was clearly not one. Trying to force labeling is an effort to prevent fraud now but in truth the corporations already ought be selling it as a new product and not as the original as they are not genetically the same.

Also, fruits and vegetables are labeled already in most places.



Shop by numbers... PLU Code
4 #s=conventionally grown.
5 #s (starting with number 8)=genetically modified (GMO).
5 #s (starting with 9)=organically grown.


Unfortunately it seems industry did not adopt the "optional" 8 code label and we're stuck with an even more dubious system wherein GMO food is mis-labeled. But it's not illegal and therefore nobody can be held accountable.

An Apple is an apple, unless it isn't.

[anewvoice]

edit: Farmers have been trying to fight monsanto and dupont in court, how's that working out?

Exactly, the crony capitalism that infects all of the federal government is protecting big agro with no respect for the individual rights of the small farmer. It's not nullification but I support a states right to protest against the federal overstepping of authority.

[Travlyr]

I think we have to look at what remedy is possible for the people.
The federal level is helping to propagte GMO's and preventing transparency there.
The state (CA) is being asked for a remedy.
What would a perfect world look like? Right now, it doesn't matter, cause it's not. So what's the remedy right now?

edit: Farmers have been trying to fight monsanto and dupont in court, how's that working out?

The courts work for the corporations. Fighting in court is no different than emailing Monsanto's CEO... except it is more expensive.

[specsaregood]

This is the problem we endure now. In a laissez-faire free market researchers would be earning their money evaluating the facts for consumers, growers, and suppliers rather than rely on government officials & researchers who don't really care and are easily bribed. Competition would force the truth in labeling. Much like Whole Foods does today (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381083-The-case-for-mandatory-GMO-labeling-%96-even-if-you-believe-in-limited-government-and-the-fr&p=4500410&viewfull=1#post4500410).

There are a lot of entries on their blog about their various inspection and certification processes.
http://blog.wholefoodsmarket.com/?s=inspection&x=0&y=0

[KingNothing]

There are a lot of entries on their blog about their various inspection and certification processes.
http://blog.wholefoodsmarket.com/?s=inspection&x=0&y=0

And they supply that information without government edict?????? IMPOSSIBLE!

[Exavier]

One farmer actually did take Monsant to court and win so it's not impossible. Though it is close to it due to the power Monsanto has.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/25/percy-schmeiser-farmer-who-beat-monsanto.aspx

Either way I'll admit that I'm unsure why so many people are against a state government passing a law requiring a certain type of labeling. As long as it's done at the state level and not the federal I'm not sure that I see the problem. And yes all fed agencies bend over backwards to protect Monsanto.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I think you're missing the point. Government exists to preserve the righs of men against all who would wish to violate them. If GMOs are a legitimate threat to our liberties, it is the duty of government to enforce laws that protect consumers from false advertising.GMOs are a threat to the balance of nature, PERIOD.

[donnay]

Let's forget government regulation. The organic industry need to take it upon themselves to label their food packages "non-GMO," and we'll buy them. Simple solution.

[liberdom]

I'm all in favor of requiring companies to provide disclosure on their products. In this particular case, it would cost next to nothing for companies to add "GMO" to the stickers they place on their food. And it would provide a huge benefit, as it would most likely result in more real food being sold.

Companies should also be required to disclose the chemicals they put in your food. But this law would be a good step in the right direction.

You're in favor of requiring? Government and force are what they are, regardless of how you phrase it. There is no right in the Constitution to know anything, whether in your food or your house. It is however, perfectly legal to punish fraud IF consumers asked about it. You have no right to clean and healthy food, you are not forced to buy or eat anything.

[liberdom]

Let's forget government regulation. The organic industry need to take it upon themselves to label their food packages "non-GMO," and we'll buy them. Simple solution.

agreed. And I've gladly chosen to buy cheap, organic, GMO or not.

[liberdom]

GMOs are a threat to the balance of nature, PERIOD.

balance of nature? What have you been reading? Georgia Guidestones?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Let's forget government regulation. The organic industry need to take it upon themselves to label their food packages "non-GMO," and we'll buy them. Simple solution.It's not that easy. Though a lot of companies have been winning, it was like climbing a mountain just being able to package milk as non-hmo. Some companies still put a disclaimer that it hasn't been proven the hormones they put in some milk affects health negatively, thanks to corporations.

[liberdom]

It's not that easy. Though a lot of companies have been winning, it was like climbing a mountain just being able to package milk as non-hmo. Some companies still put a disclaimer that it hasn't been proven the hormones they put in some milk affects health negatively, thanks to corporations.

Vegans aren't complaining, and not everybody is as picky as some people here like to think, some people simply can't afford "better choices" even if they cared. So I agree, it's not that simple, because we're assuming the market even wants it this way.

[ProIndividual]

You can't fight if you're starving to death. Take away the ability of a state to get seeds (after everything has terminator gene) and they won't be able to grow food. How long will ground hogs and squirrels last?

edit: BTW, the same corp.s that control the seed are in bed with the empire at the moment.

Why would you be starving to death when you have the gun, and they don't? Guy with gun trumps guy with ear of corn.

And I'm not one that believes companies are worse than the state, sorry. I'm against coporate personhood, and I'm not anti-company.

All which you fear is the result of barriers to entry into the market via regulation that has nothing to do with harm or fraud, hence the companies you are angry at (and for good reason) have more than market level market share and competitors that would otherwise bankrupt them have an inability to compete with them effectiviely, or at all. Also, when they harm people, the state won't hold them liable. When they lose a lawsuit, responsible parties do not go to prison, and fines are not collected from the responsible persons who commited the acts, it's added to the price at sale for future consumers, and the little guy who did nothing but own stock (made no decisions in the company) pays via devalued stocks.

Corporate personhood (a creation of the state) and the state are the problem.

[ProIndividual]

Yes, I'm quite sure it is the state sanctioned dictionaries fault that the definition of the word disagrees with you.

But the word is a philsophy...anarchy is just a society organized according to anarchism. Anarchism is a philosophy about an enlightened transition to stateless society. None of that implies a lack of law. I would like you to point me to the book by an anarchist author that advocates no law. If you find one, it will be an illegalist, an egoist, or an insurrectionist...2 of them are leftists, the third is a non-philosophy because it has no ethical theory (it's an ideology therefore). Every other of the dozens of types of anarchism call for law, defense, etc.

I suppose the dictionary doesn't Pc-up the "N" word? I have a 1930s dictionary that says 'black race, woolen hair, large lips, wide nostrils, anyone but Aboriginal Australians or Asian Indians'....but that's not the lie our dictionary pukes at us now, is it?

When I was a kid they taught in dictionaries the "N" word meant "low, uneducated, loathesome person"...as to lie to us and say even a white person could be one...to make it seem non-racial. The internet is great, as now the word is returning to its true meaning...a racial term, nothing more.

The dictionary is full of PC BS. Anyone who doesn't realize that needs to study a bit...especially philosophy.


Anarchy (from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία, anarchia, meaning "absence of a leader"), has more than one definition. In the United States, the term "anarchy" typically is used to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority.[1][2]

And even that definition is wrong. "An-" means "without", "archon" was the term for city-state rulers in Ancient Greece. "Anarchy" means "without rulers", not without leaders. We believe a football coach should be free to lead a team, a teacher to lead a class, etc...those are VOLUNTARY hierarchy. We only oppose compulsory hierarchy.

If we didn't believe in leaders we couldn't have jobs...lol.


Outside of the US, and by most individuals that self-identify as anarchists, it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level although there are a few successful historical examples,[5] that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society.[6]

That's what it means inside the USA too..again the definition isn't exactly right. The difference comes down to, in reality, leftists saying free markets are "coercion", and Americans pointing out "not if it's voluntary". Leftists would ban free markets...we point out in America that banning something implies coercion (not very anarchist of them).


Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be immoral,[7][8] or alternatively as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations.[9][10][11][12][13][14] Proponents of anarchism (known as "anarchists") advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical[9][15][16] voluntary associations.[17][18]

No mistake there...other than the owrd "political". Anarchists seek to abolish the state (compulsory, as opposed to voluntary, government and it's forced monopolies on law and defense based on geographic area)...which logically abolishes politics. Politics is about fighting over who rules who...if you have no rulers, then there is no such thing. All we have in a philosophy...the "political" modifier is not necessary. It's like calling Socratic philosophy (Socrates) a "political philosophy". No, it was just a philosophy.

I don't think I need to quote for you our legal philosophy...I'd bet you trust me that we have one (or have heard of it before). I'll spare you...but we do not advocate in any way, shape, or form a lawless society. There are no "anomists", only anarchists (where anomie is lawlessness).

I'd also like to point out our rightful place in libertarianism for the record...


Libertarianism refers to political philosophies that emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. There is no general consensus among scholars on the precise definition. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a government of small scope relative to most present day societies or no government whatsoever.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines libertarianism as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[1] Libertarian historian George Woodcock defines libertarianism as the philosophy that fundamentally doubts authority and advocates transforming society by reform or revolution.[2] Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[3] According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.[4]

Now, enough telling me what the meaning of the word "anarchy" is...as colloquially it means "chaos", because state schools have a vested interest in telling you a society organized according to the principles that leads to its very abolition is "chaos"...precisely because it's not at all chaos, and precisely because it's an existential threat to the state. What it means is voluntary organization of society, panarchism in law, and panarchist synthesis in economics.

[Bman]

Government should this, government should that blah, blah, blah.

My wife is a vegetarian. She wants that all of our house hold cleaners, soaps, etc are not animal tested. Every time I go shopping for these items I have to do some research if a brand I have previously validated is not available. Sometimes I cannot tell on a certain brand, but have never not succeeded in finding that item in another brand that fits.

Some personal responsibility would go a long way on this rather than watching that dip shit Bill Maher and friends talk nonsense.

[liberdom]

Government should this, government should that blah, blah, blah.

My wife is a vegetarian. She wants that all of our house hold cleaners, soaps, etc are not animal tested. Every time I go shopping for these items I have to do some research if a brand I have previously validated is not available. Sometimes I cannot tell on a certain brand, but have never not succeeded in finding that item in another brand that fits.

Some personal responsibility would go a long way on this rather than watching that dip shit Bill Maher and friends talk nonsense.

yep. People wanting government to mandate labeling is like people wanting goverment to mandate warnings on investments and loans.

[row333au]

GM grass linked to Texas cattle deaths

Tifton 85 grass suddenly started producing cyanide gas, poisoning cattle - cyanide are transferable to meat if introduce in blood streams to muscle fibers

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57459357/gm-grass-linked-to-texas-cattle-deaths/

[Travlyr]

But the word is a philsophy...anarchy is just a society organized according to anarchism. Anarchism is a philosophy about an enlightened transition to stateless society.

More bullshit from ProIndividual. Anarchy is a state of mind where stealing other's intellectual property is okay, and misquoting people is alright as long as it further's an agenda. Anarchy is not honest as constantly proved by ProIndividual. They are simply dishonest people and don't give a damn about anybody but themselves. Anarchists lie in order to keep the powers-that-be in power. The oligarchs do not want to obey the law and neither do anarchists. They are on the same team. Hegelian Dialect.

See how ProIndividual cut the last 1/2 of my quote out? He did that to be dishonest. Rothbard himself is the one who claimed to support minimal government as I have included the full quote in my signature.


"You guys have been lying to your recruits for years. Rothbard advocates for minimal government..." - TravlyrThey just keep on lying to see if you will believe their bullshit.

[thoughtomator]

ProIndividual is simply a clever troll who is spinning the conditions of feudalism as some sort of utopia, in outright denial of any non-financial aspect to human liberty. Should he ever have the opportunity to engage in any of his social experiment fantasies, he will find the free market in violence will assert itself most convincingly.

Given that his philosophy, masked in whatever terms, is existentially hostile to the foundations of human liberty (and thus is hostile to Ron Paul), I fail to see why he is tolerated here.

[Working Poor]

I think you're missing the point. Government exists to preserve the righs of men against all who would wish to violate them. If GMOs are a legitimate threat to our liberties, it is the duty of government to enforce laws that protect consumers from false advertising.

they are a legitimate threat to our health thereby also a threat to our liberty.

[MelissaWV]

they are a legitimate threat to our health thereby also a threat to our liberty.

Threats to our health:

Bad air and water (so we need the EPA to protect our liberties).
Terrorists (so we need the CIA, NSA, TSA, etc).
Unsafe items coming on board planes (so we need the TSA).
Lack of exercise (so we really should have a DOMYA - Department of Moving Your Ass).
Genetics (we should probably start looking to restrict the breeding of people with bad cells).

Sadly, the "it's a threat to health so it's a threat to liberty" argument leads to precisely that road.

[BamaAla]

If the GMOs caused dead zones, and eventually would threaten us all, then that would threaten their business...so it wouldn't be worth it to create a finite business out of an infitinte demand like food. It's like saying unregulated loggiing leads to deforrestization...when in reality only public lands face the tragedy of the commons. Private lands (like 99% of logging lands are private) have no such issue, because the loggers don't want to log themselves out of an industry. They maintain it via property rights...they replant forrests and regrow them, and cut down less than than grow, and slower than they grow. Forrest that get logged have usually been logged numerous times, once or twice each, every generation.

I'd bet dollars to donuts these "dead zones" are public land, not private.

That's the problem: the dead zones don't effect corn growers in Iowa; they kill wildlife in the gulf. If GMs destroyed the crop land, they'd be gone tomorrow; unfortunately, the problem is way down the Mississippi (and various other places around the world.)

[liberdom]

That's the problem: the dead zones don't effect corn growers in Iowa; they kill wildlife in the gulf. If GMs destroyed the crop land, they'd be gone tomorrow; unfortunately, the problem is way down the Mississippi (and various other places around the world.)

But they ARE destroying the land! The media is just hiding it from you! What if it does get to Iowa later? Do you only worry about your own backyard?

[thoughtomator]

Threats to our health:

Bad air and water (so we need the EPA to protect our liberties).
Terrorists (so we need the CIA, NSA, TSA, etc).
Unsafe items coming on board planes (so we need the TSA).
Lack of exercise (so we really should have a DOMYA - Department of Moving Your Ass).
Genetics (we should probably start looking to restrict the breeding of people with bad cells).

Sadly, the "it's a threat to health so it's a threat to liberty" argument leads to precisely that road.

On the other hand, dismissing out of hand any kind of threat is not correct either, as then you dismiss murder, rape, arson, robbery, and so on. Anarchism only works if everyone is civilized to begin with, and humans do not take to civilization all that easily.

[Travlyr]

That's the problem: the dead zones don't effect corn growers in Iowa; they kill wildlife in the gulf. If GMs destroyed the crop land, they'd be gone tomorrow; unfortunately, the problem is way down the Mississippi (and various other places around the world.)

While I do not like the idea of spraying herbicide and insecticide on food, I do not have enough information to determine if GMO is bad or good. Evolution is GMO. GMO has been around for centuries. Has anyone studied this? If so, please share.

[MelissaWV]

On the other hand, dismissing out of hand any kind of threat is not correct either, as then you dismiss murder, rape, arson, robbery, and so on. Anarchism only works if everyone is civilized to begin with, and humans do not take to civilization all that easily.

When did I say that we should dismiss threats? I am saying the Government is not the one to call for this one. Getting into the habit of "save me Government" when one's health is threatened is an oft-repeated first step down a very slippery slope.

[liberdom]

While I do not like the idea of spraying herbicide and insecticide on food, I do not have enough information to determine if GMO is bad or good. Evolution is GMO. GMO has been around for centuries. Has anyone studied this? If so, please share.

Conspiracy theorists certainly have "studied it". While you are correct evolution is genetic modification, but I think there's a point to be made that human modification and human selection may differ from natural selection. This isn't saying its bad, and I think its unfair that conspiracy theorists and fearmongers blow that out of proportion, always assuming humans must fail if they mess with nature.

[Travlyr]

Conspiracy theorists certainly have "studied it". While you are correct evolution is genetic modification, but I think there's a point to be made that human modification and human selection may differ from natural selection. This isn't saying its bad, and I think its unfair that conspiracy theorists and fearmongers blow that out of proportion, always assuming humans must fail if they mess with nature.

You throw the word conspiracy theorist around like confetti. Conspiracy is real. Theories are real. Some theories prove to be facts with the scientific method of proof. That is the best we have at the moment. I'm okay with that.

What we are discussing is the fact that Monsanto, and others, have developed seeds resistant to herbicide and insecticide in order to increase production and profits. Is is good to spray chemical herbicide, and insecticide, on plants that humans ingest? I doubt it, but I do not know. I'm looking for someone who knows.

[Verrater]

No thanks. Food is expensive enough without the government mandating new labels which could persuade consumers away from purchasing gmo's. Which would cause a rise in prices as a result of companies having to put more capital into unmodified foods which are harder to grow and thus cost more. Disclosure is enough.

[thequietkid10]

Interesting topic, I don't have time to read the whole topic. But I can't see how you can reconcile a world view that is both libertarian and believes a successful company like Monsanto is evil. I have all night to think about it and you will have a better response tomorrow.

[liberdom]

Interesting topic, I don't have time to read the whole topic. But I can't see how you can reconcile a world view that is both libertarian and believes a successful company like Monsanto is evil. I have all night to think about it and you will have a better response tomorrow.

You can't, only liberals who hate capitalism or people who insist on organic hate Monsanto , there is nothing libertarian about hating a successful company.

[BenIsForRon]

there is nothing libertarian about hating a successful company.

Unless they trampled on the rights and dignity of others to become successful.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Fuck Monsanto, fuck mandatory labeling by the government.

Fuck the FDA and USDA, which passes mandates and laws at the behest of Monsanto and other megacorps.

[donnay]

You can't, only liberals who hate capitalism or people who insist on organic hate Monsanto , there is nothing libertarian about hating a successful company.

Is there anything libertarian about companies deliberately profiting by genocide?

[row333au]

Keiser Report: Monsanto and the Seeds of Evil

regarding Monsanto 00:32 to 08:52


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiK_RF3ioRw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3UVYdRTQoU&feature=fvwrel


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TTWwOWvPzA&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml_k005tsU&feature=related

[liberdom]

Is there anything libertarian about companies deliberately profiting by genocide?

as far as I know, there's nothing libertarian about genocide, why do you ask?

[specsaregood]

You can't, only liberals who hate capitalism or people who insist on organic hate Monsanto , there is nothing libertarian about hating a successful company.

I'd suggest that people that support small farmers right to not be sued and lose their seed because some other farmers monsanto crop polluted their neighbors crop have a valid libertarian position for hating monsanto. I'd suggest that people that support farmers rights to not have monsanto private investigators trespass on their property have a valid libertarian position for hating monsanto.

[liberdom]

I'd suggest that people that support small farmers right to not be sued and lose their seed because some other farmers monsanto crop polluted their neighbors crop have a valid libertarian position for hating monsanto.


Right to sue works both ways. It's one of the special freedoms Americans enjoy.



I'd suggest that people that support farmers rights to not have monsanto private investigators trespass on their property have a valid libertarian position for hating monsanto.

fair enough.

[specsaregood]

Right to sue works both ways. It's one of the special freedoms Americans enjoy.

Its more about the right to not have your product stolen because somebody elses patented product polluted your own. And if you think that special freedom is equally protected you havent been paying attention. Fact is, average farmers does not have the resources to excercise their right against monsanto. Sure it may be "freedom" doesn't mean people have to like it, not even libertarians.

[row333au]

http://distilleryimage0.s3.amazonaws.com/b86b3e16ad4c11e181bd12313817987b_7.jpg

[thoughtomator]

Its more about the right to not have your product stolen because somebody elses patented product polluted your own. And if you think that special freedom is equally protected you havent been paying attention. Fact is, average farmers does not have the resources to excercise their right against monsanto. Sure it may be "freedom" doesn't mean people have to like it, not even libertarians.

There's no such thing as a right to exclusivity on an idea. That's a state-granted privilege that does not exist in Natural Law. Patents and other intellectual property protections are anti-free market and anti-liberty. If I come up with an idea I shouldn't be restricted from putting it to use because someone somewhere else also came up with that idea and was first to rush to the patent/copyright office. The fatal flaw in the idea of intellectual property is the false assumption that two or more people cannot come up with the same idea independently. Yet that is exactly what has happened over the history of scientific progress... as an example, take the development of Calculus by Liebnitz and Newton, respectively.

[liberdom]

There's no such thing as a right to exclusivity on an idea. That's a state-granted privilege that does not exist in Natural Law. Patents and other intellectual property protections are anti-free market and anti-liberty. If I come up with an idea I shouldn't be restricted from putting it to use because someone somewhere else also came up with that idea and was first to rush to the patent/copyright office. The fatal flaw in the idea of intellectual property is the false assumption that two or more people cannot come up with the same idea independently. Yet that is exactly what has happened over the history of scientific progress... as an example, take the development of Calculus by Liebnitz and Newton, respectively.

And property of land is natural law? Says you?

[liberdom]

http://distilleryimage0.s3.amazonaws.com/b86b3e16ad4c11e181bd12313817987b_7.jpg

It's a bad thing that American companies have more freedom?

[GunnyFreedom]

The problem is that Monsanto is not the result of free markets, it is the result of fascism, or corporatism. Monsanto is the king of 'captured regulators,' and God forbid a company dare to label their product "GMO Free" or "rBGH Free" they get sued into oblivion with the advice and consent of Congress.

IF we had a free market, then GMO labeling would be a bad idea, just like any mandate, because consumers who wanted to avoid GMO foods could easily choose products that advertised themselves as GMO Free. However in today's world, based on Monsanto arguments, labeling your product "GMO Free" is considered an insult to GMO and an unfair market advantage, and any company that dares to do so is banished from the marketplace.

That is why I literally oppose all government mandates in a free market, but support GMO labeling in the current market. Until we can break the back of the fascistic corporatist stranglehold that companies like Monsanto (with the full cooperation and assistance of our government by the creation of artificial monopolies) consumers who choose to avoid GMO's ought to be free to do so, and in the current market they are not.

You may not consider GMO's to be poison, but a significant share of consumers do. If a megagiant corporation with enhanced monopoly power from the ownership of government regulation managed to put arsenic in 80% of the food supply and used their government-enhanced power to destroy any company that labeled their product "Arsenic Free," then I would support state level mandatory labeling for products containing arsenic too.

It's a stop-gap emergency measure to ensure that consumers have the freedom of choice that has been robbed from them by a fascist government.

If we actually had a free market, then I would oppose mandatory GMO labeling vehemently. In our current market, I actually introduced a bill to require GMO labeling in NC, because our government is fascist (corporatist), and companies are not free to label their products GMO Free without being forced out of business.

I would prefer to make a bill that creates immunity from predatory lawsuits for companies who choose to label their products "GMO Free" but in the 21st century such a law in one state only will effectively solve nothing.

Show me a free market and I will oppose mandatory GMO labeling with everything I've got. Until then, there are people out there who are desperately trying to avoid consuming what they believe is deadly poison and they cannot. Like it or not, those people have rights too.

[thoughtomator]

And property of land is natural law? Says you?

Says the fact that it is a physical object that can't be duplicated without doing harm to or taking possession of the original.

Patents and intellectual property are nothing more than state-granted monopolies. Your only "right" to an idea is the right to use it, with which it is wrong to let a patent interfere.

[row333au]

It's a bad thing that American companies have more freedom?

The restriction is at the urge of consumers and health organisations due to past results of GMO and what they are still suffering through. The government were only pressured to mandate protection rights by the population to do so, as its also called freedom.....

Is that short for liberty condom, as in stopping the seeding of liberty?

[Stallheim]

Outstanding analysis, Melissa.
+Rep


This is a nice idea in an ideal world. Unfortunately, it ignores the fact that we live in THIS world, where lobbies will react even before the bill can rack up a dozen co-sponsors.

While the label for GMO products is being considered, there will be intense lobbying to rename a certain kind of GMO as "selectively-bred enhanced produce," which will then not have to carry the label as it is not really GMO. It is "selectively-bred." The onus will be on small farmers to prove their produce is not GMO, which many will suddenly find is impossible due to years of cross-pollenation. Certain larger processed food companies will not have this issue as their produce is "selectively-bred," and they have decades of records demonstrating how their product is SBEP under the new guidelines. No label is required, but "SBEP" must appear on the ingredients list somewhere in teeny print, accompanying the item that the SBEP produce/grain was used in.

Get where this is going?

[Working Poor]

When did I say that we should dismiss threats? I am saying the Government is not the one to call for this one. Getting into the habit of "save me Government" when one's health is threatened is an oft-repeated first step down a very slippery slope.

I hope someone saves us from GMO foods I hope it is us.

[thequietkid10]

Ok, lets see if I can get this all out.

To the extent that Monsanto crops damage other people's property, that they sue other farmers for "royalties" and that they sue others for "GMO Free" stickers, they are both anti libertarian and evil.

But the initial question seemed to be suggesting that GMOs are dangerous to human health, and more importantly that Monsonto doesn't want you to know. In effect Monsanto is running a disinfo campaign. So let's think about this in the context of a libertarian society. In this scenario I'm going to assume that GMO are dangerous to your health and Monsanto is evil and trying to stop you from knowing this, as some have implied


In a libertarian society there would be competing "regulatory" agencies who provide information to the consumer. Anyone can start such a group, including those connected to the industries being monitored. So for food, there might regulatory agencies who are tied to organic farmers, a couple funded by Monsanto who are pro GMOs and others who have less of an agenda and should be the most trusted. Here is where I have a couple of problems, mainly that Monsanto backed agencies are free to lie out their ass and hide their connections to Monsanto. (in this scenario that is why they were in fact created).With enough well placed scientific looking jargon, they could convince many people that GMOs are safe. Or at the very least confuse the general populace with science beyond their understanding, leaving them unable to make a good decision. Between those who they convince and those they confuse, they will continue to do lots of business, selling a harmful product.



Now let's look at another scenario, where Monsanto is not evil.

They would still be competing regulatory agencies, they're might even be one connected to Monsanto. But in this scenario, that agency doesn't want to lie to you. They exist because either
1. they honestly believe (or the truth is) that GMOs aren't as bad as they are being made out to be
2. they honestly believe (or the truth is) that GMOs are completely safe.
In this scenario, lets assume there is a report done that suggest the consumption of GMOs is "dangerous." Monsanto looks at the information and there heart sinks because it's a rock solid piece of science. Since they are not evil, they don't try and discredit the report completely, and they start re-evaluating the elements deemed dangerous to create a safer product. Free of overwhelming propaganda consumers in this scenario are free to shop with a more accurate understanding of the risks (or non risks) of GMOs, in the same way they do with candy and junk food.

I guess what I am saying is that I trust the free market regulatory methods to be effective watchdogs when dangerous products are the exception or an honest mistake, not company policy of a major business in the industry. Maybe that's not the most libertarian thing to say, but so if I'm wrong let me have it.

That is why I cannot understand how someone can reconcile a libertarian world view and the belief that Monsanto is evil (first sentence in this essay not withstanding)

[Travlyr]

This is less about GMO and more about spraying herbicide and insecticide on food. Monsanto was able to genetically modify plants so that herbicide and insecticide could be sprayed on food to kill insects and weeds while not killing the plant itself. Everything has been genetically modified either by nature or by choice.

[Travlyr]

On a side note: Industrial Hemp grows without the need for either chemical herbicide or insecticide. A farmer can get thrown in the brig for growing it, but it also replenishes the soil with nutrients as a natural cycle and the root system binds the soil to help prevent soil erosion. The products made from industrial hemp are numerous and of high quality. The plastics made from industrial hemp can be made compostable. It is illegal to grow it in most states. It is illegal because our rulers are paid by Monsanto, and other corporations.

[specsaregood]

There's no such thing as a right to exclusivity on an idea. That's a state-granted privilege that does not exist in Natural Law. Patents and other intellectual property protections are anti-free market and anti-liberty. If I come up with an idea I shouldn't be restricted from putting it to use because someone somewhere else also came up with that idea and was first to rush to the patent/copyright office. The fatal flaw in the idea of intellectual property is the false assumption that two or more people cannot come up with the same idea independently. Yet that is exactly what has happened over the history of scientific progress... as an example, take the development of Calculus by Liebnitz and Newton, respectively.

Your post represents the gross misunderstanding of the patent process; as you can't patent or copywrite an idea, only inventions. I for one am glad that our founders recognized the importance of protecting intellectual property.

But either way, the process needs to be reformed and instances such as monsanto's patented products infecting other peoples products and thus monsanto seizing their product as a result needs to be ended, immediately.

[donnay]

as far as I know, there's nothing libertarian about genocide, why do you ask?


Monsanto is the producer of Agent Orange, DDT, Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), Aspartame, Round-Up and Genetically Modified Round-up ready seeds.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/8/8a/Monsanto_or_Organics_Cartoon_Cropped.jpg




Political contributions

Monsanto gave $658,207 to federal candidates in the 2010 election cycle through its political action committee (PAC) - 48% to Democrats, 52% to Republicans.[35]

Public relations & lobbying

Monsanto spent $6,560,000 for lobbying in 2010. $1,030,000 was to outside lobbying firms with the remainder being spent using in-house lobbyists.[36]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto

[soulcyon]

So how about a private organization that does ratings/certifications of food, rather than the government imposing the labels?

Essentially a privatized FDA... any takers?

[Travlyr]

So how about a private organization that does ratings/certifications of food, rather than the government imposing the labels?

Essentially a privatized FDA... any takers?

Shop at Whole Foods and Trader Joes. They are more expensive but they do their homework.

[donnay]

On a side note: Industrial Hemp grows without the need for either chemical herbicide or insecticide. A farmer can get thrown in the brig for growing it, but it also replenishes the soil with nutrients as a natural cycle and the root system binds the soil to help prevent soil erosion. The products made from industrial hemp are numerous and of high quality. The plastics made from industrial hemp can be made compostable. It is illegal to grow it in most states. It is illegal because our rulers are paid by Monsanto, and other corporations.


The plastic made from Industrial Hemp would be safer than the plastics we have out now leeching PCB's which was covered up Monsanto, Westinghouse, and GE.

Sources:
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200103/conspiracy.asp
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto
http://www.naturalnews.com/023254_Monsanto_PCB_toxic.html
http://www.commonweal.org/programs/brc/ppt-presentations/Anniston_AL_PCB.pdf

[HigherVision]

I think you're missing the point. Government exists to preserve the righs of men against all who would wish to violate them. If GMOs are a legitimate threat to our liberties, it is the duty of government to enforce laws that protect consumers from false advertising.

Not unless the food companies put a gun to your head and force you to buy them is that true.

[HigherVision]

Monsanto is the producer of Agent Orange, DDT, Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), Aspartame, Round-Up and Genetically Modified Round-up ready seeds.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/8/8a/Monsanto_or_Organics_Cartoon_Cropped.jpg




Political contributions

Monsanto gave $658,207 to federal candidates in the 2010 election cycle through its political action committee (PAC) - 48% to Democrats, 52% to Republicans.[35]

Public relations & lobbying

Monsanto spent $6,560,000 for lobbying in 2010. $1,030,000 was to outside lobbying firms with the remainder being spent using in-house lobbyists.[36]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto

If only organic farming was allowed the food supply would shrink and food would become unaffordable for millions of people. It's not a coincidence that people who are zealots about organic tend to be anti-capitalist and civilization in general. If you're against capitalism I'd suggest leaving the liberty movement. Honestly there are too many progressives around muddying the waters.


It's a bad thing that American companies have more freedom?

Yeah, we don't even have fully socialized medicine. We're completely barbaric. How did these people become Ron Paul fans? (the person you replied to)

[thoughtomator]

Your post represents the gross misunderstanding of the patent process; as you can't patent or copywrite an idea, only inventions. I for one am glad that our founders recognized the importance of protecting intellectual property.

But either way, the process needs to be reformed and instances such as monsanto's patented products infecting other peoples products and thus monsanto seizing their product as a result needs to be ended, immediately.

I understand the patent process. The thing that makes an invention what it is is the idea behind it; that's what the patent protects. I'm simply not convinced that there is any legitimacy to the concept of intellectual property. By its very name it makes an idea, not the actual item, a possession. But the nature of information is to be free.

[jt8025]

Is there anything keeping companies selling products that are non-GMO from putting a sticker saying non-GMO?

Instead of looking to not buy products with a GMO label just buy products with a non-GMO label.

[GunnyFreedom]

Is there anything keeping companies selling products that are non-GMO from putting a sticker saying non-GMO?

Instead of looking to not buy products with a GMO label just buy products with a non-GMO label.

That is in fact the problem. Any company that dares to have the audacity to label their products "GMO-Free" is sued out of existence by Monsanto. If not for that fact, your suggestion would of course be the proper solution.

[donnay]

If only organic farming was allowed the food supply would shrink and food would become unaffordable for millions of people. It's not a coincidence that people who are zealots about organic tend to be anti-capitalist and civilization in general. If you're against capitalism I'd suggest leaving the liberty movement. Honestly there are too many progressives around muddying the waters.

Excuse me? How in the hell did we evolve without Monsanto and Dow Chemical? Seriously! I am not anti-capitalist, I am against crony capitalism! There is definitely a difference, and people like you fail to make that distinction. You are falling for the crony capitalists lie!!

Government pays farmers not to produce. Because they have their crony friends who lobby them to do so. Corporate Welfare!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/25/demand-strong-for-government-program-paying-farmers-not-to-plant-crops/
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/06/senate_passes_5-year_farm_and.html
http://www.enotes.com/payment-kind-program-pays-u-s-farmers-not-plant-reference/payment-kind-program-pays-u-s-farmers-not-plant

Tell me this, why is Organic Farmers and Ranchers around the country being raided?

http://media.washtimes.com/media/community/photos/blog/entries/2011/08/06/aweseome-raid-640_s640x427.jpg?73b8e21685896c3f2859310aaa5adb253 919b641
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/omkara/2011/aug/6/rawsome-foods-raided-sad-day-america/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/03/rawsome-raid-_n_917540.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/04/the-rawesome-raid-and-raw-milk-controversy/


Why are Amish dairy farms being raided?
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/15/10418406-amish-farmer-targeted-by-fda-raids-shuts-down-raw-milk-business?lite
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/omkara/2011/dec/20/fda-escalates-war-against-amish-dairy-farmers/
http://www.wapf-houston.org/wapf-houston-wp/2012/01/08/fda-escalates-war-against-amish-dairy-farmers-2/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/amish/discuss/72157626654869501/

You need to get a clue there buddy. The waters are muddy from people like yourself, who fail to realize that the water is being polluted by propaganda.

Higher Vision-- interesting moniker you have picked, too bad you have been blinded, by crony capitalism.

[TheGrinch]

The problem is that Monsanto is not the result of free markets, it is the result of fascism, or corporatism. Monsanto is the king of 'captured regulators,' and God forbid a company dare to label their product "GMO Free" or "rBGH Free" they get sued into oblivion with the advice and consent of Congress.

IF we had a free market, then GMO labeling would be a bad idea, just like any mandate, because consumers who wanted to avoid GMO foods could easily choose products that advertised themselves as GMO Free. However in today's world, based on Monsanto arguments, labeling your product "GMO Free" is considered an insult to GMO and an unfair market advantage, and any company that dares to do so is banished from the marketplace.

That is why I literally oppose all government mandates in a free market, but support GMO labeling in the current market. Until we can break the back of the fascistic corporatist stranglehold that companies like Monsanto (with the full cooperation and assistance of our government by the creation of artificial monopolies) consumers who choose to avoid GMO's ought to be free to do so, and in the current market they are not.

You may not consider GMO's to be poison, but a significant share of consumers do. If a megagiant corporation with enhanced monopoly power from the ownership of government regulation managed to put arsenic in 80% of the food supply and used their government-enhanced power to destroy any company that labeled their product "Arsenic Free," then I would support state level mandatory labeling for products containing arsenic too.

It's a stop-gap emergency measure to ensure that consumers have the freedom of choice that has been robbed from them by a fascist government.

If we actually had a free market, then I would oppose mandatory GMO labeling vehemently. In our current market, I actually introduced a bill to require GMO labeling in NC, because our government is fascist (corporatist), and companies are not free to label their products GMO Free without being forced out of business.

I would prefer to make a bill that creates immunity from predatory lawsuits for companies who choose to label their products "GMO Free" but in the 21st century such a law in one state only will effectively solve nothing.

Show me a free market and I will oppose mandatory GMO labeling with everything I've got. Until then, there are people out there who are desperately trying to avoid consuming what they believe is deadly poison and they cannot. Like it or not, those people have rights too.
This is an incredibly well-thought out and pragmatic approach... Yes, we should be moving towards a truly free market that can regulate itself, but that's not what we have in the current corporate-controlled environment, and thus, some pragmatism is needed to not just let them steamroll over the market without transparency.

[liberdom]

Government pays farmers not to produce. Because they have their crony friends who lobby them to do so. Corporate Welfare!!!


you're mad that people are so greedy they care about money, rather than producing?

[liberdom]

That is in fact the problem. Any company that dares to have the audacity to label their products "GMO-Free" is sued out of existence by Monsanto. If not for that fact, your suggestion would of course be the proper solution.

what is the suit about?

can you give an example?

[liberdom]

I understand the patent process. The thing that makes an invention what it is is the idea behind it; that's what the patent protects. I'm simply not convinced that there is any legitimacy to the concept of intellectual property. By its very name it makes an idea, not the actual item, a possession. But the nature of information is to be free.

Even if its your social security number or home address? What about your name? I guess "identity theft" is not a crime in your books. What about counterfeiting?

I know you'll respond "but that's fraud!" and I will ask "How is it fraud? Why can't it be free speech? Do you own words or what they mean?"

[liberdom]

The fatal flaw in the idea of intellectual property is the false assumption that two or more people cannot come up with the same idea independently. Yet that is exactly what has happened over the history of scientific progress... as an example, take the development of Calculus by Liebnitz and Newton, respectively.

Ok, let's see you come up with one of them, let's start with some trade secrets, can you give me KFC, Coca Cola, and WD 40? Sure, it's not impossible that certain ideas can be found or discovered independently, but not only are they extremely rare, but there are reasonable exceptions, whether you are talking about copyright, trademark, or patent. Patent office has the obligation to deny patents which they either know are un-unique, or already registered.

[cajuncocoa]

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/5115/monsanto.png

[HigherVision]

Excuse me? How in the hell did we evolve without Monsanto and Dow Chemical? Seriously! I am not anti-capitalist, I am against crony capitalism! There is definitely a difference, and people like you fail to make that distinction. You are falling for the crony capitalists lie!!

Government pays farmers not to produce. Because they have their crony friends who lobby them to do so. Corporate Welfare!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/25/demand-strong-for-government-program-paying-farmers-not-to-plant-crops/
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/06/senate_passes_5-year_farm_and.html
http://www.enotes.com/payment-kind-program-pays-u-s-farmers-not-plant-reference/payment-kind-program-pays-u-s-farmers-not-plant

Tell me this, why is Organic Farmers and Ranchers around the country being raided?

http://media.washtimes.com/media/community/photos/blog/entries/2011/08/06/aweseome-raid-640_s640x427.jpg?73b8e21685896c3f2859310aaa5adb253 919b641
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/omkara/2011/aug/6/rawsome-foods-raided-sad-day-america/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/03/rawsome-raid-_n_917540.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/04/the-rawesome-raid-and-raw-milk-controversy/


Why are Amish dairy farms being raided?
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/15/10418406-amish-farmer-targeted-by-fda-raids-shuts-down-raw-milk-business?lite
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/omkara/2011/dec/20/fda-escalates-war-against-amish-dairy-farmers/
http://www.wapf-houston.org/wapf-houston-wp/2012/01/08/fda-escalates-war-against-amish-dairy-farmers-2/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/amish/discuss/72157626654869501/

You need to get a clue there buddy. The waters are muddy from people like yourself, who fail to realize that the water is being polluted by propaganda.

Higher Vision-- interesting moniker you have picked, too bad you have been blinded, by crony capitalism.

I'm completely opposed to the existence of regulatory agencies, and government tariffs, quotas and subsidies. I vote to end these things by supporting political candidates who are against them. But what I think you and many libertarians assume falsely is that only small businesses can exist in a free market and no large businesses would. But during the time period when America had a mostly free market before the 1900's that wasn't the case. If genetic modification cheapens the cost of food production, and food grown using GMO is cheaper as a result many people will choose to buy it voluntarily for that reason. No one has the moral right to intervene, even if it's true that the food is less healthy than non-GMO. The trade-off for the people who choose to consume it is that they get to save more of their money which increase the quality of life in other ways, perhaps making up for the loss in food quality. And it's up to consumers to research what they're buying, no crime is committed as long as producers don't commit fraud and misrepresent their product blatantly, like if Monsanto started advertising GMO food specifically as non-GMO.

[HigherVision]

Even if its your social security number or home address? What about your name? I guess "identity theft" is not a crime in your books. What about counterfeiting?

I know you'll respond "but that's fraud!" and I will ask "How is it fraud? Why can't it be free speech? Do you own words or what they mean?"

These are just a lot of logical fallacies. The test of whether an action is a crime or not is if it initiates force against another person. The act of copying a cd doesn't initiate force against anyone, except maybe the disc that has to undergo being burned by a laser. Seriously though, how you can equate that with identity theft I don't understand.

[GunnyFreedom]

what is the suit about?

can you give an example?

The United States FDA Regulations make it illegal to label your product "GMO Free"

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/millenium/fdadisallowsgmo-freelabel.php

Google "Captured Regulators"

ETA -- If FedGov says "You are NOT allowed to label your product GMO free because it's embarrassing to GMO" then I say there is no choice in the states which want to provide the freedom of choice to their citizens except to mandate GMO labeling.

Allow companies to label their products GMO Free unmolested and there is no reason to require GMO's be labeled. This is corporatism. Dictionary definition fascism. This is an example of the people defending themselves from a fascist government being operated by the special interests to the detriment of the American people.

[liberdom]

These are just a lot of logical fallacies. The test of whether an action is a crime or not is if it initiates force against another person. The act of copying a cd doesn't initiate force against anyone, except maybe the disc that has to undergo being burned by a laser. Seriously though, how you can equate that with identity theft I don't understand.

Explain to me, smarty.

1) why use your test? Who uses your test?
2) Let's say we use your test, I would have to agree that copying a CD isn't using force against a person. So explain to me how identity theft or counterfeiting is.

I wrote this in response to somebody saying "information can't be owned, and should be free". He said nothing about intiating force, but since you did, I'll let you do the talking.

[liberdom]

The United States FDA Regulations make it illegal to label your product "GMO Free"

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/millenium/fdadisallowsgmo-freelabel.php

Google "Captured Regulators"

That's not what I asked, or what you said. You said Monsanto is suing private companies who label, so I ask you, what is the tort?

If you meant to say new FDA regulations prohibit voluntary labeling of non-GMO, then fine.

[liberdom]

I'm completely opposed to the existence of regulatory agencies, and government tariffs, quotas and subsidies.

Meaning you have no problem with unemployment, outsourcing and immigration?

[GunnyFreedom]

That's not what I asked, or what you said. You said Monsanto is suing private companies who label, so I ask you, what is the tort?

If you meant to say new FDA regulations prohibit voluntary labeling of non-GMO, then fine.

They are doing that too, but the FDA issue is both more pertinent and easier to confirm. If you actually cared about an answer to your fundamental premise, then that would have been enough. Your splitting of hairs here plainly reveals that you don't really care about an answer to your issue.

[KingNothing]

Is there anything libertarian about companies deliberately profiting by genocide?

It must be nice to be able to view the world through a prism that delinates everything so clearly between righteous and good, and nefarious and evil.

[liberdom]

They are doing that too, but the FDA issue is both more pertinent and easier to confirm. If you actually cared about an answer to your fundamental premise, then that would have been enough. Your splitting of hairs here plainly reveals that you don't really care about an answer to your issue.

I am not interested in the fundamental premise, I am interested in facts, with context, and claims people make. "FDA prohibits" vs "Monsanto sues private individuals" is splitting hairs???

[GunnyFreedom]

I am not interested in the fundamental premise,

And there, sir, is your problem.

[liberdom]

It must be nice to be able to view the world through a prism that delinates everything so clearly between righteous and good, and nefarious and evil.

Of course, you wanna waste time thinking and doubting? No wonder this country is such a moral and financial mess.

[rideurlightning]

Disagree. Let the market deal with this issue.

[rideurlightning]

Jews don't need the government to require quality control and labeling of kosher foods. They have private entities that meet their demand for that. If people who don't want to eat GMO food choose only to buy food that has been similarly labeled as certified GMO-free, they can do that. They don't need the government to get involved.

THIS.

[GunnyFreedom]

Disagree. Let the market deal with this issue.

I agree with you. So then what do we do about the FDA making it illegal for American companies to label their products "GMO-Free"?

[GunnyFreedom]

Jews don't need the government to require quality control and labeling of kosher foods. They have private entities that meet their demand for that. If people who don't want to eat GMO food choose only to buy food that has been similarly labeled as certified GMO-free, they can do that. They don't need the government to get involved.

Except that's illegal, unlike labeling something Kosher, which is perfectly legal.

[rideurlightning]

What everyone fails to understand is that in order to pure free-market capitalism to function you need a morally perfect society. But we don't have this. Businesses will attempt to cut-corners, consumers will become lazy and uninformed, the little guy will get bought-out because he does things the honest way. Just like what we have at the moment.

So why are you here again?

[KingNothing]

If only organic farming was allowed the food supply would shrink and food would become unaffordable for millions of people.


That so few people realize this is very disconcerting.

[KingNothing]

Of course, you wanna waste time thinking and doubting? No wonder this country is such a moral and financial mess.

Thinking means understanding the nuances inherent in every issue, and not making bombastic ill-informed claims. The world is not black and white. Issues are much deeper and more complicated than they appear.

[tttppp]

Except that's illegal, unlike labeling something Kosher, which is perfectly legal.

Why is that illegal? That seems like one of the all-time stupidest laws.

[liberdom]

I agree with you. So then what do we do about the FDA making it illegal for American companies to label their products "GMO-Free"?

It wouldn't surprise me if it was a restriction on accuracy, just like "certified organic" rather than a blanket "you are not allowed to sell or advertise whether it's GMO"

[liberdom]

That so few people realize this is very disconcerting.

But that might in turn create jobs.

[familydog]

If only organic farming was allowed the food supply would shrink and food would become unaffordable for millions of people. It's not a coincidence that people who are zealots about organic tend to be anti-capitalist and civilization in general. If you're against capitalism I'd suggest leaving the liberty movement. Honestly there are too many progressives around muddying the waters.

This is amazingly untrue.

Please think carefully when comparing state-subsidized corporate agriculture to honest and clean small-scale food production. The cost of that ear of GMO corn you love so much would be much more expensive if not for government hand-outs and legal protections. In fact, it would be more expensive than those hippie organic ears of corn.

It amazes me how many people seem to think the food industry operates within the free market.

[KingNothing]

But that might in turn create jobs.

I'm not sure if you're serious.

If so, who cares about jobs?

[liberdom]

This is amazingly untrue.

Please think carefully when comparing state-subsidized corporate agriculture to honest and clean small-scale food production. The cost of that ear of GMO corn you love so much would be much more expensive if not for government hand-outs and legal protections. In fact, it would be more expensive than those hippie organic ears of corn.

It amazes me how many people seem to think the food industry operates within the free market.

it's free as far as nobody is ever forced to buy any of it.

[liberdom]

I'm not sure if you're serious.

If so, who cares about jobs?

I was serious, but I don't care about jobs. I was stating a possibility.

[familydog]

it's free as far as nobody is ever forced to buy any of it.

Your standard of freedom is very low.

Go ahead and start your own backyard farm and try to compete without government intervention. Let me know how that goes for you.

[liberdom]

Your standard of freedom is very low.

Go ahead and start your own backyard farm and try to compete without government intervention. Let me know how that goes for you.

wait, I'm not the one complaining, so what am I asked to prove to you?

[familydog]

wait, I'm not the one complaining, so what am I asked to prove to you?

Eh? You replied to my post.

[GunnyFreedom]

Why is that illegal? That seems like one of the all-time stupidest laws.

It's not a law, it's an FDA Regulation. Requested by Monsanto et al.

And yes. Yes it is.

[GunnyFreedom]

It wouldn't surprise me if it was a restriction on accuracy, just like "certified organic" rather than a blanket "you are not allowed to sell or advertise whether it's GMO"

No, Monsanto lobbied the FDA regulators to ban "GMO-Free" labeling because it 'inherently assumes that GMO products are unhealthy, which puts our products at a market disadvantage.' so they did.

[specsaregood]

It's not a law, it's an FDA Regulation. Requested by Monsanto et al.

And yes. Yes it is.

And it has no effect on the already existing private organizations that label products as non-gmo. Sure they can't say it is 100% guaranteed no-gmo, they just have to word their certification that says they put in every effort to verify that there is no gmo in the product.

[specsaregood]

And it has no effect on the already existing private organizations that label products as non-gmo. Sure they can't say it is 100% guaranteed no-gmo, they just have to word their certification that says they put in every effort to verify that there is no gmo in the product.

Here you go, screw the FDA. The market provides:
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/images/non-gmo.png
http://www.nongmoproject.org/product-verification/process/
that is what whole foods uses for their products and labeling.

[liberdom]

No, Monsanto lobbied the FDA regulators to ban "GMO-Free" labeling because it 'inherently assumes that GMO products are unhealthy, which puts our products at a market disadvantage.' so they did.

Not entirely a bad reason, given the scaremongering propaganda on the Internet these days, but if it's factual and accurate, it shouldn't be illegal. I wonder if the labels said " not approved or evaluated by FDA or Monsanto" they could still ban it.

I think I start to see the 'problem' now. FDA requires non drugs to be labeled 'not evaluated by FDA' probably for liability reasons, and that approved drugs are required to have warning on side effects. However, 'organic and gmo free' are vague facts which have no predict power of its effects, side effects...etc unless and until tested. While people should still be free to make their choices no matter how stupid and baseless they can be, I am all for accuracy in labeling and fairness for the industry.

Monsanto is avoiding labeling on the gmo phrase, but they cannot stop labeling altogether, so eventually there will be a voluntary labeling and branding technique to undermine them.

[tttppp]

It's not a law, it's an FDA Regulation. Requested by Monsanto et al.

And yes. Yes it is.

So they effectively banned good business practices?

[liberdom]

So they effectively banned good business practices?

No, the effectively ban competition via misleading propaganda. Saying something is "trans fat free" or "hormone free" or "organic" says nothing about its health effects, unless the user knows in advance what they mean. This is different from side effects, but similar to ingredients, or nutritional information.

[tttppp]

No, the effectively ban competition via misleading propaganda. Saying something is "trans fat free" or "hormone free" or "organic" says nothing about its health effects, unless the user knows in advance what they mean. This is different from side effects, but similar to ingredients, or nutritional information.

Stating whether or not your product is GMO is good business practice. Consumers should have a right to information on the products they buy. The last thing that should be done is to outlaw companies from providing information to consumers about their product.

[row333au]

In having good business practices there are bodies of commerce that organizes producers, retailers and consumers from the private and the meeting of government side for commerce. Whereby throughout the years of overseeing, have created and help the molding of laws such as: protections against criminals, code of conducts, responsibility to consumers and customers, fair trading and business ethics, anti-competition criteria, occupational, health and safety standards.... these were the basis of lead and mercury mandate, poisonous substances warning, safety toys Quality Assurance, harmful allergies and poisoning with preservatives, additives and ingredients warnings, etc... as science is neither moral or ethical as it can be used for good and bad.... the public consensus decides the ruling under consumer rights advocates

[liberdom]

Stating whether or not your product is GMO is good business practice. Consumers should have a right to information on the products they buy. The last thing that should be done is to outlaw companies from providing information to consumers about their product.

Why? Unless GMO is either good or bad, or testable? I'm not against consumers choosing what they like, even if its purely superficial and pointless, and I am definitely not for outlawing any labeling, but I don't see what's good practice about GMO labeling, unless we want to perpetuate the propaganda that GMO is actually either always better or always worse.

[liberdom]

In having good business practices there are bodies of commerce that organizes producers, retailers and consumers from the private and the meeting of government side for commerce. Whereby throughout the years of overseeing, have created and help the molding of laws such as: protections against criminals, code of conducts, responsibility to consumers and customers, fair trading and business ethics, anti-competition criteria, occupational, health and safety standards.... these were the basis of lead and mercury mandate, poisonous substances warning, safety toys Quality Assurance, harmful allergies and poisoning with preservatives, additives and ingredients warnings, etc... as science is neither moral or ethical as it can be used for good and bad.... the public consensus decides the ruling under consumer rights advocates

I'm not sure I necessarily trust voluntary and private testing for safety, but a good example of voluntary labeling for non-safety purposes is Kosher labeling.

[tttppp]

Why? Unless GMO is either good or bad, or testable? I'm not against consumers choosing what they like, even if its purely superficial and pointless, and I am definitely not for outlawing any labeling, but I don't see what's good practice about GMO labeling, unless we want to perpetuate the propaganda that GMO is actually either always better or always worse.

I believe its always good business practice to give consumers as much honest information about your product as possible. If you want to disclose something true about your product, you should be allowed to do it.

[tttppp]

For those of you who said it was illegal for companies to state their product is non-gmo, I just noticed today that my soy milk advertised it was non-gmo and was verified by non-gmo project, nongmoproject.org.