PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul Votes NO on GMO Labeling




parocks
06-24-2012, 02:29 PM
************************

http://farmwars.info/?p=8686

**********************

voted NO on a GMO labeling amendment to the farm bill “to permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.”

*****************

key is "permit States"

I thought we were all about permitting states to do this. States rights and all that. Leave it up to the states.

This probably doesn't belong in grassroots central but others are more expert as to where it actually does belong

trey4sports
06-24-2012, 02:29 PM
interesting. i'd like to know his reasoning.

GeorgiaAvenger
06-24-2012, 02:35 PM
Is the Federal government currently prohibiting states from doing it?

parocks
06-24-2012, 02:35 PM
interesting. i'd like to know his reasoning.

Hopefully it's better than 100% of Republicans voted no.

I am not a fan of Monsanto.

parocks
06-24-2012, 02:38 PM
Is the Federal government currently prohibiting states from doing it?

My understanding is that FedGov currently prohibits food manufacturers from putting those labels on. They don't want to put Monsanto's poison at a competitive disadvantage to food. I could me mistaken, I researched this a while ago.

GeorgiaAvenger
06-24-2012, 02:40 PM
My understanding is that FedGov currently prohibits food manufacturers from putting those labels on. They don't want to put Monsanto's poison at a competitive disadvantage to food. I could me mistaken, I researched this a while ago.

Then the amendment should have been a reversal of that law.

It comes off an endorsement of an individual state's (already affirmed, not granted by Congress) police power on this particular issue.

angelatc
06-24-2012, 02:41 PM
************************

http://farmwars.info/?p=8686

**********************

voted NO on a GMO labeling amendment to the farm bill “to permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.”

*****************

key is "permit States"

I thought we were all about permitting states to do this. States rights and all that. Leave it up to the states.

This probably doesn't belong in grassroots central but others are more expert as to where it actually does belong

Did the bill forbid the states from doing it, or require them to do it? If the bill required them to do it, it's not really about State's Rights. NM - I read it 3 times and still read it wrong.

parocks
06-24-2012, 02:56 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/science/dispute-over-labeling-of-genetically-modified-food.html?_r=3&hp

a discussion of these issues

parocks
06-24-2012, 02:59 PM
Did the bill forbid the states from doing it, or require them to do it? If the bill required them to do it, it's not really about State's Rights. NM - I read it 3 times and still read it wrong.

I think what's being said is that the states can require the labeling. Apparently, the states cannot require the labeling currently. I'm not necessarily in favor of the states requiring labeling, but whether labeling is required should be a state by state decision, and not a federal one.

parocks
06-24-2012, 03:01 PM
Then the amendment should have been a reversal of that law.

It comes off an endorsement of an individual state's (already affirmed, not granted by Congress) police power on this particular issue.

I believe that the amendment would allow states to do what they wanted, and not a federal decision. Yes, the amendment would've returned the power to the states, a reversal of that law.

John F Kennedy III
06-24-2012, 03:07 PM
interesting. i'd like to know his reasoning.

Me too. I'm pretty big on getting them to label GMO. To properly label everything actually.

GeorgiaAvenger
06-24-2012, 03:08 PM
I believe that the amendment would allow states to do what they wanted, and not a federal decision. Yes, the amendment would've returned the power to the states, a reversal of that law.

But you said the law was prohibiting corporations from labeling GMO's.

For this amendment to make any sense, there would have to be a law prohibiting the states from requiring labeling GMO's.

Both Rand and Mike Lee are strict Constitutionalists, as am I, and I suspect they voted NAY because of the lack of clarity on this amendment.

GeorgiaAvenger
06-24-2012, 03:14 PM
Bernie Sanders introduced the amendment. Here is his explanation:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOJ8qmlvd1k

As I suspected, this is a toothless amendment. Any vote on it depends on the personal opinion on the labeling of genetically modified foods. Perhaps Rand didn't agree with expanding government in that area.

It shows that Bernie Sanders misunderstands the Constitution though. Congress does not grant the states their own rights.

paulpwns
06-24-2012, 03:15 PM
Labeling laws cause the cost of food to rise. This hurts the poor and middle class in an already difficult time. If you want to know if your food has GMOs you should assume ALL food does, and do your own research. The government has no business labeling food IMHO.

Carlybee
06-24-2012, 03:15 PM
https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTUzfngTunkl9DOGOE8SvViP0Qo4Lmj3 A2mrTY6WrK2b7AZICtE


http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2012&cmte=C00042069

Carlybee
06-24-2012, 03:17 PM
Labeling laws cause the cost of food to rise. This hurts the poor and middle class in an already difficult time. If you want to know if your food has GMOs you should assume ALL food does, and do your own research. The government has no business labeling food IMHO.

Nor do they have the right to have former Monsanto executives and lobbyists in positions of power that could influence legislative decisions that may involve or favor Monsanto.

american.swan
06-24-2012, 03:18 PM
Could it be possible they are too many laws for there staffs to keep up with? Call Rand's office. They'll tell you something.

paulpwns
06-24-2012, 03:19 PM
https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTUzfngTunkl9DOGOE8SvViP0Qo4Lmj3 A2mrTY6WrK2b7AZICtE


http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2012&cmte=C00042069

So they spent money on a political campaign, and the SCOTUS already said that is a 1st amendment right to political speech.
Besides the politicians actually being beholden to these companies, then what is the problem? The problem is that the government is putting these companies in a position of influence, rather than the company competing under the standards that the federal government sets.

John F Kennedy III
06-24-2012, 03:19 PM
Bernie Sanders introduced the amendment. Here is his explanation:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOJ8qmlvd1k

As I suspected, this is a toothless amendment. Any vote on it depends on the personal opinion on the labeling of genetically modified foods. Perhaps Rand didn't agree with expanding government in that area.

It shows that Bernie Sanders misunderstands the Constitution though. Congress does not grant the states their own rights.

Thank you.

paulpwns
06-24-2012, 03:19 PM
Nor do they have the right to have former Monsanto executives and lobbyists in positions of power that could influence legislative decisions that may involve or favor Monsanto.

I agree. I think if you worked for a company regulated by the federal government, that you shouldn't work there for at least 5 years. End the revolving door.

GeorgiaAvenger
06-24-2012, 03:22 PM
Could it be possible they are too many laws for there staffs to keep up with? Call Rand's office. They'll tell you something.

The amendment was an "opinion vote" on whether states should regulate GMO labeling.

IMO, I couldn't care less how anyone voted.

parocks
06-24-2012, 03:27 PM
Me too. I'm pretty big on getting them to label GMO. To properly label everything actually.

I'm almost 100% Ron Paul / Libertarian / States Rights, etc. But I don't think I'd complain too much at all if they actually just banned GMO. Philosophically, it might be wrong, so, I guess I'm not philosophically pure on this. They take a section of the dna of a bacteria that poisons potato bugs, and they add that to potatoes. Viola, BT potatoes with the poison built right in. No thanks. I'll pass. I guess I'm not a purist here. Oh well.

parocks
06-24-2012, 03:28 PM
The amendment was an "opinion vote" on whether states should regulate GMO labeling.

IMO, I couldn't care less how anyone voted.

Link to that?

parocks
06-24-2012, 03:31 PM
Labeling laws cause the cost of food to rise. This hurts the poor and middle class in an already difficult time. If you want to know if your food has GMOs you should assume ALL food does, and do your own research. The government has no business labeling food IMHO.

Well, they do already. Add GMO to the list.

LibertyEagle
06-24-2012, 03:31 PM
I'm almost 100% Ron Paul / Libertarian / States Rights, etc. But I don't think I'd complain too much at all if they actually just banned GMO. Philosophically, it might be wrong, so, I guess I'm not philosophically pure on this. They take a section of the dna of a bacteria that poisons potato bugs, and they add that to potatoes. Viola, BT potatoes with the poison built right in. No thanks. I'll pass. I guess I'm not a purist here. Oh well.

Monsanto needs their asses sued off. That's what they need. Along with some of our public servants being thrown in the slammer for accepting bribes.

GeorgiaAvenger
06-24-2012, 03:32 PM
Link to that?To what?

Sanders explained the function of the amendment above.

He mentioned no federal law prohibiting the states from requiring GMO labeling. He didn't mention the FDA either.

He did mention that Monsanto had a role in preventing the laws from passing.

This amendment has nothing to do with a federal government function one way or the other.

parocks
06-24-2012, 03:35 PM
But you said the law was prohibiting corporations from labeling GMO's.

For this amendment to make any sense, there would have to be a law prohibiting the states from requiring labeling GMO's.

Both Rand and Mike Lee are strict Constitutionalists, as am I, and I suspect they voted NAY because of the lack of clarity on this amendment.

Which law? I don't know exactly which law this amendment was designed to modify.

There are 2 issues.

1) States that might want to mandate labeling may or may not be prevented from doing so.

2) Food manufacturers that might want to label their food GMO Free I believe are prevented from doing so. I'm not 100% sure of this at this point, and since theres a lot of talk these days about mandatory labeling on the state level, I'm having trouble finding references to companies labeling.

GeorgiaAvenger
06-24-2012, 03:40 PM
Which law? I don't know exactly which law this amendment was designed to modify.

There are 2 issues.

1) States that might want to mandate labeling may or may not be prevented from doing so.

2) Food manufacturers that might want to label their food GMO Free I believe are prevented from doing so. I'm not 100% sure of this at this point, and since theres a lot of talk these days about mandatory labeling on the state level, I'm having trouble finding references to companies labeling.
I don't know of any law preventing STATES OR MANUFACTURERS from labeling GMO's, you mentioned it in post 5.

I am 99% sure there is no such law, for it would have been struck down as un-Constitutional even by the most liberal courts.

The amendment clearly repeals no such law, or else it would have referenced it. In my above posts I had some other thoughts.

parocks
06-24-2012, 03:43 PM
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/millenium/fdadisallowsgmo-freelabel.php

FDA's new regulations won't allow non-GMO, GMO-free label

May take legal action against companies

Notable for companies wanting to advertise products as non-genetically modified is the fact that the FDA says it will not allow labels like "GM-free," "GMO-Free" or "biotech-free." The agency says guaranteeing a product to be free of GM material is virtually impossible. Instead the labels will have to say the food was not produced through bioengineering. The FDA said it may take legal action against companies that violate these guidelines.

Recently, a U.S.-European biotechnology committee had recommended that the U.S. strengthen regulations on GM foods, including labeling. The Consumers Federation of America had also issued a report criticizing the current U.S. regulations. Editorials calling for labeling GM foods have appeared in major U.S. newspapers, including The Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, and Des Moines Register in the past year.


**************************

This was from March 2001

GeorgiaAvenger
06-24-2012, 03:48 PM
Not that I like FDA pickiness, but "not produced through bioengineering" is pretty clear, and dare I say easier for consumers to understand than "GMO".

In any case, I think the thread title is a bit misleading. Rand Paul did not vote against GMO labeling as I have explained above.

parocks
06-24-2012, 04:15 PM
More links

French Food Companies Can Use ‘GMO Free’ Labels, Government Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-01/french-food-companies-can-use-gmo-free-labels-government-says.html
2012

FDA won’t allow food to be labeled free of genetic modification: report
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/18/fda-labeled-free-modification/
2010

US opposes honest labeling of GMO foods
http://www.naturalnews.com/029168_GMO_foods_labeling.html
2010

It's not clear if GMO-free is allowed on labels now.

parocks
06-24-2012, 04:18 PM
Not that I like FDA pickiness, but "not produced through bioengineering" is pretty clear, and dare I say easier for consumers to understand than "GMO".

In any case, I think the thread title is a bit misleading. Rand Paul did not vote against GMO labeling as I have explained above.

The thread title is the title of the news article I linked to.

Consumers know what GMO is. Bioengineering not as much.

I'm not clear exactly what it was that every single Republican Senator and half the Democrat Senators voted against.

HigherVision
06-24-2012, 04:19 PM
************************

http://farmwars.info/?p=8686

**********************

voted NO on a GMO labeling amendment to the farm bill “to permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.”

*****************

key is "permit States"

I thought we were all about permitting states to do this. States rights and all that. Leave it up to the states.

This probably doesn't belong in grassroots central but others are more expert as to where it actually does belong

I'm all about freedom myself, I could care less about states.

parocks
06-24-2012, 04:19 PM
I don't know of any law preventing STATES OR MANUFACTURERS from labeling GMO's, you mentioned it in post 5.

I am 99% sure there is no such law, for it would have been struck down as un-Constitutional even by the most liberal courts.

The amendment clearly repeals no such law, or else it would have referenced it. In my above posts I had some other thoughts.

Ok, I don't want to argue the fine distinctions between laws and regulations. See my links.

thoughtomator
06-24-2012, 04:21 PM
Not that I like FDA pickiness, but "not produced through bioengineering" is pretty clear, and dare I say easier for consumers to understand than "GMO".

In any case, I think the thread title is a bit misleading. Rand Paul did not vote against GMO labeling as I have explained above.

That's not adequate at all. Any kind of farming and traditional animal husbandry could legitimately be considered bioengineering.

HigherVision
06-24-2012, 04:26 PM
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/millenium/fdadisallowsgmo-freelabel.php

FDA's new regulations won't allow non-GMO, GMO-free label

May take legal action against companies

Notable for companies wanting to advertise products as non-genetically modified is the fact that the FDA says it will not allow labels like "GM-free," "GMO-Free" or "biotech-free." The agency says guaranteeing a product to be free of GM material is virtually impossible. Instead the labels will have to say the food was not produced through bioengineering. The FDA said it may take legal action against companies that violate these guidelines.

Recently, a U.S.-European biotechnology committee had recommended that the U.S. strengthen regulations on GM foods, including labeling. The Consumers Federation of America had also issued a report criticizing the current U.S. regulations. Editorials calling for labeling GM foods have appeared in major U.S. newspapers, including The Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, and Des Moines Register in the past year.


**************************

This was from March 2001

See the solution is to have no government label requirements, negative or positive. So that you'd know who the producers who are GMO-free are by their labels advertising as such without infringing on anybody else's freedom. So as always the government regulations work against a positive objective rather than for it. & the solution as always is to weaken government rather than strengthen it.

parocks
06-24-2012, 04:35 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/18/AR2010091803520_2.html?wprss=rss_nation&sid=ST2010091804108

The labeling matter is further complicated because the FDA has maintained a tough stance for food makers who don't use genetically engineered ingredients and want to promote their products as an alternative.

It has sent a flurry of enforcement letters to food makers, including B&G Foods, which was told it could not use the phrase "GMO-free" on its Polaner All Fruit strawberry spread label because GMO refers to genetically modified organisms and strawberries are produce, not organisms.

It told the maker of Spectrum Canola Oil that it could not use a label that included a red circle with a line through it and the words "GMO," saying the symbol suggested that there was something wrong with genetically engineered food.

parocks
06-24-2012, 04:38 PM
See the solution is to have no government label requirements, negative or positive. So that you'd know who the producers who are GMO-free are by their labels advertising as such without infringing on anybody else's freedom. So as always the government regulations work against a positive objective rather than for it. & the solution as always is to weaken government rather than strengthen it.

Your argument is the best argument to use to Democrats about why the Federal Government is bad.

Many Democrats do not like Monsanto one bit, and it's good to tell them that the Federal Government makes it difficult for manufacturers to label their products "GMO Free".

parocks
06-24-2012, 04:42 PM
Monsanto needs their asses sued off. That's what they need. Along with some of our public servants being thrown in the slammer for accepting bribes.

GMO and/or HFCS causes a whole bunch of bad stuff. I'm not sure what, but a series of class action lawsuits would settle it. Start with Autism maybe. Monsanto most certainly is a bad guy here. It's not clear that a Ron Paul / Libertarian solution to the Monsanto problem would be the most immediately effective.

XTreat
06-24-2012, 05:01 PM
Me too. I'm pretty big on getting them to label GMO. To properly label everything actually.

Yeah somebody should make a law right?

parocks
06-24-2012, 05:03 PM
http://blogs.burlingtonfreepress.com/politics/2012/06/21/sanders-gmo-amendment-goes-to-vote-fails/

Sanders’ GMO amendment goes to vote, fails

When he introduced the amendment to the Farm Bill earlier, Sanders noted that the Vermont House Agriculture Committee voted 9-1 for a labeling bill, but that it failed to advance in the Legislature out of fear it would be challenged in court. Congress could remove that fear, Sanders noted.

http://www.paramuspost.com/article.php/20120621162931533

Food Democracy Now! Urges Senators To Pass Bill Allowing States To Label Genetically Modified Foods

Today, the Senate will vote on amendment #2310 put forth by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that clarifies a state’s existing rights to require labeling of genetically engineered foods.

In the past year, more than a dozen states have introduced legislation to allow their citizens the right to know what’s in their food and how it’s produced, but massive corporate lobbying by Monsanto and the biotech industry has brought these bills to a halt in key states like Connecticut and Vermont.

parocks
06-24-2012, 05:05 PM
Yeah somebody should make a law right?

http://www.examiner.com/article/california-s-senators-vote-for-open-gmo-labeling-most-states-not-so-fortunate

Senator Sanders' amendment did not ban GMO foods; it simply required that they be identified along with over 3,000 other ingredients manufacturers are currently required to declare, and be reported to the Food and Drug Administration.

July
06-24-2012, 05:20 PM
GMO and/or HFCS causes a whole bunch of bad stuff. I'm not sure what, but a series of class action lawsuits would settle it. Start with Autism maybe. Monsanto most certainly is a bad guy here. It's not clear that a Ron Paul / Libertarian solution to the Monsanto problem would be the most immediately effective.

All of our major industries have been consolidated and monopolized in this way. The Monsanto problem really has the same root cause, whether it is the Media industry, the Health Care industry, or the Defense Contractors, etc.

I know the long term solution in attacking the root cause, but I don't know what the most immediate solution would be. I used to think I was for more regulation and labeling, until I learned how there are often loop holes built into these regulations. For instance the requirement for food manufacturers to list trans fats on the nutrition label. Manufacturers may legally advertise their products as "zero trans fat" or "trans fat free" as long as their product contains .5 grams of trans fat or less per serving. Well, naturally, manufactures simply tinker with serving sizes to adjust it down per serving, so they can list zero grams of trans fat. So in the end this solution didn't even work, and the result is actually worse, because now people have a false sense of security.

Revolution9
06-24-2012, 05:54 PM
Me too. I'm pretty big on getting them to label GMO. To properly label everything actually.

I ain't touching any corn products until they do.

Rev9

Carlybee
06-24-2012, 07:07 PM
I agree. I think if you worked for a company regulated by the federal government, that you shouldn't work there for at least 5 years. End the revolving door.

Monsanto is a big ugly monster with way too many tentacles. This issue with the GMO labeling reminds me of when the government didn't want to put country of origin on labels. I would like to know if my food is coming from a farm near the Fukushima nuclear disaster...same with GMO...I don't want to eat any Frankenfoods. This fight has been going on a while. The question is...why are they so opposed to it? They sure don't mind telling you what you can't eat. The answer is $$$$.

Distinguished Gentleman
06-24-2012, 09:41 PM
I don't care for the intellectual property put on genetically modified foods. As far as the food itself, all scientific evidence suggests it Is safe. My main concern is that the current climate of fear surrounding them will cause people to avoid them, when in fact they arethe only thing that will help bring the poorest parts of the world away from starvation. Legally, I guess states could label them. Personally I don't want them. Labels are for things that harm humans.

ClydeCoulter
06-24-2012, 10:09 PM
Pretty sad when a state is afraid of being sued by a corporation that can keep them in court until they are broke. Things are getting out of f**king hand.

Carlybee
06-24-2012, 10:53 PM
I don't care for the intellectual property put on genetically modified foods. As far as the food itself, all scientific evidence suggests it Is safe. My main concern is that the current climate of fear surrounding them will cause people to avoid them, when in fact they arethe only thing that will help bring the poorest parts of the world away from starvation. Legally, I guess states could label them. Personally I don't want them. Labels are for things that harm humans.

Watch this and then see if you feel the same way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml_k005tsU&feature=related

RickyJ
06-24-2012, 11:10 PM
I ain't touching any corn products until they do.

Rev9

Even if they labelled it, there is nothing to stop them from just lying. I am all for labelling but I also realize they can never be trusted.

thoughtomator
06-25-2012, 12:43 AM
Giving more power to a government agency isn't going to solve the problem. Suing GMO companies for fraud is the legal and proper solution. These people are constantly selling "corn" that is not actually corn, but is specifically genetically distinct enough from corn to qualify for a patent.

The one government-based solution that can be useful is to deny and void any and all patents over living organisms. Fail to do so and they WILL GMO human beings for labor as in Brave New World.

Who owns a GMO human being? And what genes will they cut out, the ones that allow for creative thinking, free will, natural reproduction ... ?

thoughtomator
06-25-2012, 12:44 AM
I ain't touching any corn products until they do.

Rev9

You're going to have some trouble gassing up your car then, as much of the GMO corn crop gets made into biofuel and forced into the gasoline supply by government fiat.

Much of the rest goes into high fructose corn syrup, which appears in so many products it's difficult to avoid entirely.

ClydeCoulter
06-25-2012, 07:08 AM
Giving more power to a government agency isn't going to solve the problem. Suing GMO companies for fraud is the legal and proper solution. These people are constantly selling "corn" that is not actually corn, but is specifically genetically distinct enough from corn to qualify for a patent.

The one government-based solution that can be useful is to deny and void any and all patents over living organisms. Fail to do so and they WILL GMO human beings for labor as in Brave New World.

Who owns a GMO human being? And what genes will they cut out, the ones that allow for creative thinking, free will, natural reproduction ... ?

Law suits get really fricking expensive. Monsanto has been sueing the hell out of farmers. States are afraid of being sued by them?

Carlybee
06-25-2012, 09:54 AM
The problem is..its not like a Big Gulp where you can just choose not to drink it. No one should have jurisdiction over what you choose to eat or drink but Monsanto has been purposely contaminating the food supply with genetically engineered seed crops across the world. Former Monsanto executives are embedded in departments like the USDA and the gov't supports their agenda. Criminal at best on all counts.

jbauer
06-25-2012, 04:37 PM
Hate to tell you all this but humans have been genicially modifiying crops since the days we left the hunter gather stage. Yes it has been taken to a new level latley but without GMO crops there aren't enough acers in the world to grow enough crops for the world.

So....either kill a bunch of people off by starvation or by GMO crops.

Also, do you understand that there is not a reliable way test for GMO properties in crops? You can't force lableing on something you can't test for. Thats why Rand voted against it.

jbauer
06-25-2012, 04:45 PM
Well, you should probably dig a hole, jump in and call it a day (assuming the shovel hasn't been treated with a corn by-product, such as the polyurethane or rust reducing properties of the grease applied to the metal part of said shovel)


I ain't touching any corn products until they do.

Rev9

jbauer
06-25-2012, 04:57 PM
Oh and if you want to open up a whole 'nother Pandora’s box on this: ANY crop that cross pollinates has the chance to cross pollinate with a "GMO" plant if planted within a given radius of each other even if the original plant is not GMO the crop would be.

There are some evils we've not come across with GMO's and there are certainly some major concerns. Keep in mind, I don't particularly care for scientists messing with the food supply. But this GMO thing has been completely and totally over blown by organic farming marketing conglomerate. Many of the organic treatments carry FAR more health concerns/carcinogens then their non-organic counterparts.

Again, I'm not some lobbyist for Monsanto but GMO's have taken on a life of their own similarly to some of the other media driven health scares out there like immunizations ect. There is risk to ever single decision one makes throughout their lives. To make a proper, intelligent and informed decision you have to weigh the risk of doing and not doing.)

cajuncocoa
06-25-2012, 05:45 PM
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/5115/monsanto.png

libertyjam
06-25-2012, 06:41 PM
Two pig farmers from Denmark tell about the deformities and illnesses of pigs fed on GM soy.
http://www.toxicsoy.org/toxicsoy/news/Artikelen/2012/4/28_Health_damage_to_pigs_fed_on_GM_soy.html

http://www.toxicsoy.org/toxicsoy/impact.html#3

Widespread environmental pollution; poisoning and contamination of agriculture; countless injuries, deformities, and deaths in humans -- these and many other horrific events are a result of cultivating genetically-modified (GM) crops, and GM soy in particular. A recent news documentary short that aired on German television exposes the massive destruction being caused by GM soy cultivation, and warns consumers that the food chain is more loaded with GM materials than they might think.

In Germany and throughout the European Union (EU), food products that contain GMOs must be properly labeled as such. As a result, there are few GM products on store shelves because, when made aware of their presence, consumers almost unanimously reject them. But what many people fail to realize, both in Europe and in the U.S., is that conventional livestock is often fed GM soy and corn, which ultimately ends up on store shelves in the form of conventional meat, milk, and eggs.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031382_GM_soy_GMOs.html#ixzz1yr199NeQ



No major insurance company has been willing to limit risks, or insure bio-engineered agricultural products. The reason given is the high level of unpredictable consequences. Over two hundred scientists have signed a statement outlining the dangers of GM foods and The Union of Concerned Scientists (a 1000 plus member organization with many Nobel Laureates) has expressed similar reservations. The prestigious medical journal, Lancet, issued a warning that GM foods should never have been allowed into the food chain.

Read more: http://www.icangarden.com/document.cfm?task=viewdetail&itemid=4650#ixzz1yr43OMss
GMO Foods Do Cause Human Deaths!

50 HARMFUL EFFECTS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) FOODS
http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful.

Doctors Warn Patients To Avoid Genetically Modified Food
http://www.rense.com/general86/doct.htm

Keith and stuff
06-25-2012, 06:44 PM
key is "permit States"

I thought we were all about permitting states to do this. States rights and all that. Leave it up to the states.


I don't support permitting states to murder people, eliminate rights or rape children. I do support permitting states to increase freedom, increase liberty and expand rights. I guess Ron Paul and I agree. Perhaps you and I disagree on this one issue.

Sure, Northern New England is the most democratic part of the US. The local voters in the towns have a great deal of control. NH is likely the freest state in the US. However, the voters in VT and ME tend to dislike liberty. Many towns in VT and ME aren't pro-liberty at all. Democracy and local contral only work well if the people involved are pro-liberty.

Brett85
06-25-2012, 06:49 PM
I'm glad that Rand is still standing strong for limited government and getting under the skin of the big government liberals.

Carlybee
06-25-2012, 10:31 PM
But it's not limited government if the government is in bed with the likes of Monsanto and at the same time out arresting raw milk farmers and trying to squash organic growers. A label at this point is tantamount to putting a poison sticker on a bottle of rat killer.

Weston White
06-26-2012, 12:42 AM
So they spent money on a political campaign, and the SCOTUS already said that is a 1st amendment right to political speech.
Besides the politicians actually being beholden to these companies, then what is the problem? The problem is that the government is putting these companies in a position of influence, rather than the company competing under the standards that the federal government sets.

Yes, but see, that’s the fallacy. Say, when I donate to a candidate that donation is hardly, if at all noticed. However, when say, Monsanto lobbyists donate to that same candidate, it is noticed, there is an “understanding” being levied.

So let's just call this process was it is actually is, legalized bribery, if not extortion. This is not such a simple issue as just freedom of speech, which really has nothing to do with proving political contributions, e.g., company-X giving candidate-A $500,000 is not all comparable to company-X publicly supporting candidate-A verbally or on company stationary, products, adverts, etc. Clearly, it is vastly more intergral.

Working Poor
06-26-2012, 05:54 AM
I completely agree with Bernie Sanders on this I think I want to write him a letter and thank him for his efforts. What really sticks in my gut is that there are so many bill before the house and senate that are for big corpo and hurting the people I can't keep up with it all and I think we do need less laws especially the ones that allow companies like Monsanto to poison every person in our country with no consequences except increasing profits. If a country like Brazil requires labeling of GMO foods and we are saying it limiting freedom to label this crap oh come on.

They put aspartame in a lot of food I am deathly allergic to it if it were not for this labeling I could die from eating it. I cannot go down the sugar ailse in a grocery store because there is too much risk that I could accidentally touch it or breathe I cannot even touch it. The stuff kills insects almost immedatly after they come into contact with it. Don't believe me? Pour some diet soda on an ant kill and watch them. Rats won't eat it either. But if it were not for labeling I would probably be dead. I look on in horror anytime I see someone in a wheel chair or on oxygen drinking a diet soda and think to myself don't they have any idea that the aspartame could be at very least harming them more. I am sure that many people are experiencing illness that is directly related to aspartame and GMO foods the crap needs to have a big skull and cross bones on it cause it is poison.

Working Poor
06-26-2012, 06:01 AM
I completely agree with Bernie Sanders on this I think I want to write him a letter and thank him for his efforts. What really sticks in my gut is that there are so many bill before the house and senate that are for big corpo and hurting the people I can't keep up with it all and I think we do need less laws especially the ones that allow companies like Monsanto to poison every person in our country with no consequences except increasing profits. If a country like Brazil requires labeling of GMO foods and we are saying it limiting freedom to label this crap oh come on.

They put aspartame in a lot of food I am deathly allergic to it if it were not for this labeling I could die from eating it. I cannot go down the sugar ailse in a grocery store because there is too much risk that I could accidentally touch it or breathe I cannot even touch it. The stuff kills insects almost immedatly after they come into contact with it. Don't believe me? Pour some diet soda on an ant kill and watch them. Rats won't eat it either. But if it were not for labeling I would probably be dead. I look on in horror anytime I see someone in a wheel chair or on oxygen drinking a diet soda and think to myself don't they have any idea that the aspartame could be at very least harming them more. I am sure that many people are experiencing illness that is directly related to aspartame and GMO foods the crap needs to have a big skull and cross bones on it cause it is poison.

I think any medical exam ought to include a complete list of all things that a person eats to see what patterns develop out of that.

jllundqu
06-26-2012, 10:04 AM
I am very dissappointed in Rand. I am a food freedom advocate, much like Ron Paul is. I would love it if a state could choose to label foods containing Frankenfoods(read: GMOs). That would be a direct hit to Monsnato and Co. All I want is clean food and water without pesticide-self-growing Roundup-Ready Corn, Cyanide producing Hybridized Alfalfa, etc. This should have been an easy vote for Rand, but he truly is positioning himself as a Benedict Arnold. Very sad to watch.

Since when does a self-described Socialist like Bernie Sanders make more sense than a so-called "Liberty" candidate like Rand Paul???

GeorgiaAvenger
06-26-2012, 11:09 AM
I am very dissappointed in Rand. I am a food freedom advocate, much like Ron Paul is. I would love it if a state could choose to label foods containing Frankenfoods(read: GMOs). That would be a direct hit to Monsnato and Co. All I want is clean food and water without pesticide-self-growing Roundup-Ready Corn, Cyanide producing Hybridized Alfalfa, etc. This should have been an easy vote for Rand, but he truly is positioning himself as a Benedict Arnold. Very sad to watch.

Since when does a self-described Socialist like Bernie Sanders make more sense than a so-called "Liberty" candidate like Rand Paul???

Did you review the amendment and what it actually meant?

See my posts earlier in the thread.

Pisces
06-26-2012, 11:59 AM
Here is Natural News' take on this issue:


As others have already begun to point out in the days following the amendment's rejection, the legislation was essentially toothless from the start. The federal government does not, after all, have the constitutional authority to prohibit states from requiring GMO labeling, let alone permit it. The federal government has also never even tried, at this point, to legally stop individual states from mandating GMO labeling. This means S. Amdt. 2310 was a faulty attempt to address an issue that is not even an issue, and one that attempted to do so using an unconstitutional approach.

A key thing to remember in all this is that neither the federal government nor the U.S. Congress has any constitutional authority to grant states permission to label or not to label GMOs. Under the U.S. Constitution, individual states already possess their own inherent authority to determine how they wish to handle the GMO labeling issue, and the federal government does not legally possess any authority whatsoever in the matter.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036301_Rand_Paul_GMO_labeling_Senate.html#ixzz1yvJ akMX4

tbone717
06-26-2012, 12:27 PM
This was posted on Rand's FB

I am an opponent of the FDA's war on natural foods and farmers. I've stood up for raw milk, hemp and natural supplements. I fought to take power AWAY from the government on these issues. So while there is evidence we should be concerned about GMOs, we should also be careful not to lose our constitutional perspective simply because the end result is one we may desire. That's what we fight against. That's what the statists do. Take a loot at a pretty thorough rundown on the recent GMO amendment. There were many more problems with it, including the potential the FDA could have assumed broad new rulemaking authority if this badly written amendment had passed.

July
06-26-2012, 05:30 PM
//