The Libertarian Case AGAINST Mandatory GMO Labeling

[green73]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNlfg9F-BhY

[radiofriendly]

>> http://iroots.org/2012/06/23/was-rand-paul-right-to-vote-against-mandated-labeling-of-gmos/

When did the federal government gain such a great track-record that we would trust them to tell us when food items are safe? This might be a good time to remember just why Dr. Paul earned that nickname of “Dr. No.” (Here’s a hint. He didn’t get it by voting for feel-good legislation in the name of “safety.”) I’m unaware if Ron Paul has commented on this issue recently, but I see no reason to believe he has reversed his position since providing the following comments to vote-tx.org in 2008,

The federal government lacks constitutional authority to mandate labeling of products containing genetically-modified food. Furthermore, those who do not wish to consume genetically-modified products should be leery of federally-mandated labeling because history shows that federal regulatory agencies are susceptible to ‘capture,’ where the regulators end up serving the interest of the business they are supposed to control. In the case of labeling, federal agencies could redefine the meaning of ‘modified’ to allow genetically-engineered food on the market without fully-informing consumers of the presence of genetically- engineered ingredients. Instead of federal regulation, consumers should demand that manufactures provide full information and refuse to buy those products that are not fully labeled. Once producers see there is a demand for non-genetically-engineered products they will act to fulfill that demand. Of course, makers of genetically-engineered food should be held legally responsible if they fraudulently market their products or harm anyone. – Ron Paul

Obviously the safety of the food we consume is of utmost importance–and I would argue that it’s of such great importance that we should never let government get their grubby hands anywhere near the issue! Regardless, surely we can come up with some creative free-market solutions to these dilemmas?


more >> http://iroots.org/2012/06/23/was-rand-paul-right-to-vote-against-mandated-labeling-of-gmos/

[Romulus]

I heard Rand voting against this.... now I know why and support him a little more, as the hot token libertarian chick explains, we don't need Federal mandates. We need the free market to fill the demand and label their products NON GMO, and we will support them.

They did it with HFCS and started putting sugar in soda... we need to demand cleaner food, not expect the FDA to mandate and oversea it.

[VIDEODROME]

Okay, what if instead a government agency published a list on a website of foods that are GMOs? At least then a research minded person could have a source to go to. I'm sure they could also look for other private watchdog groups as well.

As for the Market and labeling, I see the American Heart Association logo stamped on food boxes. What if a Non-GMO food group formed and put a similar Stamp of Approval on non-GMO foods. You would see the logo with a website check them out. Also, look up the same company on the Better Business Bureau.

If anything these days I almost wonder of lobbyists and government pressure discourage such a watchdog group from forming.

[Romulus]

I dont want the govt agency in charge of a list of what is and isnt GMO... do not trust.

Good idea.. NOGMO could be an independent research group and apply their logo or seal on all foods that meet the standards. I prefer that free market solution.

UL does the same for electrical devices and we trust them.

[KingNothing]

Okay, what if instead a government agency published a list on a website of foods that are GMOs?

I imagine that something like this has already been provided by the free market, and is free to anyone who might be interested.

[NoOneButPaul]

Reading the GMO arguments here have been pretty disheartening.... it's amazing how libertarian we all are until it comes to something we think Big Brother needs to look out for...

There's a ton of people here arguing against positions they claim to stand for when it comes to food. Why do you people assume that the government will do a better job regulating and labeling GMO foods than the free market will when everyone here claims to be all for free markets?

[tfurrh]

Yup. when did we lose faith in the free market in this area?

[VIDEODROME]

Well I'm not sure I mind the list because it's rather passive and doesn't give the government a monopoly on it as the official label. Also this is me looking for a middle ground. If people really want a government oversight of GMOs this is one less intrusive way to do it.

I kind of feel the same way about product country of origin especially with food. Making some kind of information available somewhere doesn't seem to unreasonable to me. Yes we can call the government reliability into question but I think we can just as easily question a private company.

[liberdom]

No need to watch the video, the thumbnail says it all.

Government mandate is not libertarian. Unless in instances where it is limited government to protect essential rights and freedoms, which people have either consented to or accepted.

So either let companies make their choices (as long as they don't force you to buy or eat), or admit you are not libertarian, or show how this is an acceptable use of government force.

[jmdrake]

Why is she making this about the FDA when the bill in question was whether the states could require the labeling? :confused:

[Working Poor]

screw that I want that crap labeled

[specsaregood]

I imagine that something like this has already been provided by the free market, and is free to anyone who might be interesting.

You would imagine correct.
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/values/genetically-engineered.php
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/images/non-gmo.png

Leave it to our favorite libertarian-run grocery chain.

More info:
http://www.nongmoproject.org/

[green73]

screw that I want that crap labeled

Do you think that only happens because of the government?

[Romulus]

Why is she making this about the FDA when the bill in question was whether the states could require the labeling? :confused:

Because they would oversea "if a product needs to be labeled".

The food manufacturers would go right to them, their protection, to get exemptions from labeling "mandates" in certain states.

[liberdom]

Do you think that only happens because of the government?

I don't think he cares, he just wants it done.

As to jmdrake's question, she probably thinks government is government, and does not care whether it is federal or local, she wants all companies to be free to put poison in food and not have to tell people, as long as they don't lie when asked, or don't force people to buy or eat.

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

GMO sucks, we need it to be labeled. Period.

[liberdom]

GMO sucks, we need it to be labeled. Period.

says you.

[TheGrinch]

There is plenty of good debate about this in a previous thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381083-The-case-for-mandatory-GMO-labeling-%E2%80%93-even-if-you-believe-in-limited-government-and-the-fr/page8), and I think Gunny summed up my POV better than I ever could have:


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.

I agree, that if the market were free and not corporate-dominated, then the market could regulate itself. That's not what we have today however...

Further, although consumer transparency should ideally come from the free market demanding it and not the government enforcing it, but regardless, consumer information is vital for a free market to work, and so if the market is unable or unwilling to do that naturally, then I don't have a huge issue with requiring them to do so... Similarly, I think it's freaking awesome that the drug companies have to list all the side effects, some worse than the affliction, on all of their drug commercials... This is different than regulation/prohibition, it's ensuring transparancy, and so it's not pragmatic to assume that the market is even capable of self-transparency right now....

Anyways, Gunny said it better. I do respect Rand for taking a more hard-lined approach here (although it is a bit ironic with how he's become more pragmatic on other things), but at the same token, I don't really appreciate people calling into question the views of folks like Gunny and myself as any less libertarian. Despite the fact that none of us want the government to be mandating anything that the free market should, there still are times where something has to be done to protect our liberty (i.e., to have it known if our food is being messed with or not). Liberty doesn't just mean doing whatever you want if you're hurting other's and their liberty.

[NoOneButPaul]

LOL... again... so disheartening...

Just because the government doesn't label it doesn't mean it won't be labeled.

This is the same logic as someone saying if the government doesn't give away healthcare no one will get it.

If a free market for GMO labeling exists then GMO labeling is what the free market will get. There's no reason to think it wouldn't happen just because the government wouldn't do it.

[economics102]

<mod please delete>

[TheGrinch]

If a free market for GMO labeling exists then GMO labeling is what the free market will get. There's no reason to think it wouldn't happen just because the government wouldn't do it.
According to what I've heard, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but Monsanto has currently made it to where you cannot label your food as "GMO Free", claiming an unfair marketing advantage or something like that. Maybe someone can clarify better exactly how that's come about, but the current market does not support the use of "GMO Free" labels, let alone ones that do state that they are GMO.

Thus the market is either unwilling or unable to support this basic demand of transparency, and that's when it's an attack on liberty, that they don't even allow you to demand to know what's being put in your food. What we have today isn't a free market, so you can't pretend that a free market solution will work until we do.

Go back and read the post I quoted from Gunny, as he has a better handle on this than I do though.

[specsaregood]

According to what I've heard, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but Monsanto has currently made it to where you cannot label your food as "GMO Free", claiming an unfair marketing advantage or something like that. Maybe someone can clarify better exactly how that's come about, but the current market does not support the use of "GMO Free" labels, let alone ones that do state that they are GMO.


That doesn't seem to be the case. See my post #13 above. whole foods is doing it in partnership with a nonprofit collaboration.

[gerryb]

Advocating for a government solution, because you are not educated enough about the subject matter

*shakes head*

[TheGrinch]

Advocating for a government solution, because you are not educated enough about the subject matter

*shakes head*
How bout you get bent for neg-repping me just because you disagree. I don't know why some here are unable to have a civil debate without attacking those they disagree with... Like I said, "correct me if I'm wrong", which is another way of saying that I might have been fed bad information. Spec showed me that it appears I have, so I retract that statement, and am glad that the free market is able to do something about it. As I said earlier, I'd much prefer not to have the government involved...

Now, if you'd addressed me in a civil manner rather than a neg rep, you'd see that I've changed my mind upon finding out that I was mistaken (or so it appears) as any reasonable person should, so please stop being divisive. It's an absolutely horrible way to bring someone over to your POV to put them on the defensive.

[green73]

According to what I've heard, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but Monsanto has currently made it to where you cannot label your food as "GMO Free", claiming an unfair marketing advantage or something like that. Maybe someone can clarify better exactly how that's come about, but the current market does not support the use of "GMO Free" labels, let alone ones that do state that they are GMO.

Thus the market is either unwilling or unable to support this basic demand of transparency, and that's when it's an attack on liberty, that they don't even allow you to demand to know what's being put in your food. What we have today isn't a free market, so you can't pretend that a free market solution will work until we do.

Go back and read the post I quoted from Gunny, as he has a better handle on this than I do though.

Monsantan lobbied the government to make it illegal for companies to label that they are non GMO and got their wish. How is this anybody but the government's fault?

[specsaregood]

Monsantan lobbied the government to make it illegal for companies to label that they are non GMO and got their wish. How is this anybody but the government's fault?
Then how is wholefoods and many others doing it without any problems?

[danda]

Wow, she's really excited about this topic.

[TheGrinch]

Monsantan lobbied the government to make it illegal for companies to label that they are non GMO and got their wish. How is this anybody but the government's fault?
Oh it's most certainly the government and the lobbyist's fault, but if that's the case, then it speaks to why the market is not free, if other companies cannot make the claim that their product is "GMO free" without being banished from the market. That's the whole point why in our current system, if we just leave it up to the unfree market, then the lobbiest will always override it because we don't actually have a free market, but a corporate-dominated monopoly. (Though again, with all of the conflicting information in this thread, I can't even be sure this is the case with GMO labeling, but if it is, then we do not currently have a free market for non-GMO foods to be transparent; Thus we have a chocie between allowing them to by law, or have their liberty as well as interested consumer's choices infringed upon).

Thus, if the market forces prevent transparency from happening, then that's an infringement on the right of those company's to allow transparancy and benefit to their products. Like I said, Gunny explains much better why the current corporate monopolies make it impossible for competitors to allow transparency, and so perhaps that makes it necessary to make that transparancy possible.

[tfurrh]

The argument of fighting fire with fire is crap. "Well, we don't really have a free market, so...we really can't say we trust the free market...so we need certain gov't mandates because.....they started it."

of course we don't have a free market! They do work though! You can't spend your way out of debt, and you can't regulate yourself into a free market.

[green73]

Thus, if the market forces prevent transparency from happening, then that's an infringement on the right of those company's to allow transparancy and benefit to their products. Like I said, Gunny explains much better why the current corporate monopolies make it impossible for competitors to allow transparency, and so perhaps that makes it necessary to make that transparancy possible.

Fixed:

Thus, if the government prevents transparency from happening, then that's an infringement on the right of those companies to allow transparency and benefit to their products.

The government is the culprit. Without them this problem would go away. End of story. Finito.

[TheGrinch]

The argument of fighting fire with fire is crap. "Well, we don't really have a free market, so...we really can't say we trust the free market...so we need certain gov't mandates because.....they started it."

of course we don't have a free market! They do work though! You can't spend your way out of debt, and you can't regulate yourself into a free market.
Protecting life, liberty and property is the one legitimate function of government. If companies don't have the liberty of being able to slap a GMO-Free label on their products for customers who want to have that guarantee, then it's standing in the way of a free market for the government not to allow for transparancy..

How is it more libertarian to not have any right to demand to know that what you're eating isn't GMO? I'm really not asking for the government to mandate anything like them requiring GMO foods to be labeled as such. I'm arguing for them to allow for companies and customers to have the freedom of advertising/knowing that they don't. This does not need to be an anti-liberty law, so much as ensuring that liberty can prevail for those who wish to label it "non-GMO".

[TheGrinch]

Fixed:


The government is the culprit. Without them this problem would go away. End of story. Finito.
Okay, well ,as long as we do have a corporate-dominated government, then we might jsut have to find solutions that don't allow Monsanto to steam over the marketplace and prevent competition and transparancy.

[green73]

Okay, well ,as long as we do have a corporate-dominated government, then we might jsut have to find solutions that don't allow Monsanto to steam over the marketplace and prevent competition and transparancy.

Translation: As long as we are going to be raped, let's convince the rapist to use lube.

[TheGrinch]

Translation: As long as we are going to be raped, let's convince the rapist to use lube.
More like, as long as we're going to get raped by Monsanto, let's at least stop them from hiding the non-rape alternatives, same as a free market would.

[green73]

More like, as long as we're going to get raped by Monsanto, let's at least stop them from hiding the non-rape alternatives, same as a free market would.

Strike at the root. Get the gov't out of it!

[TheGrinch]

NVM

But if the law is used to infringe liberty, then sometimes you have no choice but to use the law to take back liberty, if it's being overriden by corporate interests.

[specsaregood]

As long as we are going to be raped, let's convince the rapist to use lube.

I have absolutely no problem with that statement. You'd prefer to be raped dry?

[TheGrinch]

Strike at the root. Get the gov't out of it!
Actually, I agree, but if Monsanto is hell-bent on lobbying to get it's way, then maybe it's up to us to force the government to get out of it by passing a law that allows a level playing field.

To be clear, I'm not advocating them mandating labels. I'm advocating making them and the lobbyist stop getting in the way of those who wish to label their prodcuts GMO free, as well as those customers who demand a non-GMO guarantee to be able to have one.

If the systme is set up against liberty, then sometimes you have to use the system to re-obtain that liberty. I'm all for striving to move towards a truly free market, but you cannot just ignore the fact that our market isn't going to be any more free by allowing the lobbyists to run amok and doing nothing about it.

[helmuth_hubener]

screw that I want that crap labeled Then perhaps you should label it. Or do something about getting it labeled. That is fine. That "something" that you do should not include forcing your fellow humans -- at gunpoint, if necessary -- to behave according to your dictates. That is all we ask. Seem reasonable?

[jmdrake]

So...wouldn't the answer be push for laws exempting companies that label foods as GMO free from the type of lawsuits Monsanto allegedly filed? And....I can't find a reference to said lawsuits.


There is plenty of good debate about this in a previous thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381083-The-case-for-mandatory-GMO-labeling-%E2%80%93-even-if-you-believe-in-limited-government-and-the-fr/page8), and I think Gunny summed up my POV better than I ever could have:



I agree, that if the market were free and not corporate-dominated, then the market could regulate itself. That's not what we have today however...

Further, although consumer transparency should ideally come from the free market demanding it and not the government enforcing it, but regardless, consumer information is vital for a free market to work, and so if the market is unable or unwilling to do that naturally, then I don't have a huge issue with requiring them to do so... Similarly, I think it's freaking awesome that the drug companies have to list all the side effects, some worse than the affliction, on all of their drug commercials... This is different than regulation/prohibition, it's ensuring transparancy, and so it's not pragmatic to assume that the market is even capable of self-transparency right now....

Anyways, Gunny said it better. I do respect Rand for taking a more hard-lined approach here (although it is a bit ironic with how he's become more pragmatic on other things), but at the same token, I don't really appreciate people calling into question the views of folks like Gunny and myself as any less libertarian. Despite the fact that none of us want the government to be mandating anything that the free market should, there still are times where something has to be done to protect our liberty (i.e., to have it known if our food is being messed with or not). Liberty doesn't just mean doing whatever you want if you're hurting other's and their liberty.

[Jingles]

What I find disheartening about the GMO issue is the fact that so called "libertarians" will demand government to mandate a specific label on a specific good. I thought we believed in and supported the market. How is this any different that the government mandating "SMOKING CAUSES CANCER", "THIS MAY BE UNHEALTHY FOR YOU", "EAT YOUR 6 GRAINS A DAY!", etc...?

Why don't those that care about this "issue" raise awareness, protest, teach, talk, etc... rather than using to the force of the state the attempt to achieve your ends. This whole labeling issue just reminds me of a bunch of liberals trying to use to force of the state to try and protect people from themselves.

[libertyjam]

I dont want the govt agency in charge of a list of what is and isnt GMO... do not trust.

Good idea.. NOGMO could be an independent research group and apply their logo or seal on all foods that meet the standards. I prefer that free market solution.

UL does the same for electrical devices and we trust them.

Your example of UL is a very, very poor choice for your argument. UL may be private, in fact they are non-profit organization, but they operate more as a public-private partnership (PPP) organization. UL developes standards and then government agencies write the passing of those standards and testing into code and law in various government agencies like OSHA.

What or Who is UL?

Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) is an independent, not-for-profit product safety certification organization that has been writing Standards for Safety for over a century. Up until recently, UL was the only NRTL that could test products and verify compliance to the standards. This compliance has previously been referred to as having a product “UL Listed”

UL is not a government agency, they are a private organization responsible for the generation and publication of safety standards. A separate division of UL is also an OSHA approved NRTL (Nationally Recognized Test Lab), which means they are authorized by OSHA to test, evaluate, and list products to safety standards.

What is an NRTL, and what is the significance of OSHA recognition?

The U.S. Department of Labor; Occupation Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA). is the legal authority for evaluating and approving NRTLs (Nationally Recognized Test Labs). The following definition of an NRTL can be found on OSHA’s website. http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.

An NRTL is an organization that OSHA has "recognized" as meeting the legal requirements in 29 CFR 1910.7. In brief, these requirements are the capability, control programs, complete independence, and reporting and complaint handling procedures to test and certify specific types of products for workplace safety. This means, in part, that an organization must have the necessary capability both as a product safety testing laboratory and as a product certification body to receive OSHA recognition as an NRTL.

OSHA's recognition is not a government license or position, or a delegation or grant of government authority. Instead, the recognition is an acknowledgment that an organization has necessary qualifications to perform safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition . As a result, OSHA can accept products "properly certified" by the NRTL. "Properly certified" generally means: 1) the product is labeled or marked with the registered certification mark of the NRTL, 2) the NRTL issues the certification for a product covered within the scope of a test standard for which OSHA has recognized it, and 3) the NRTL issues the certification from one of its sites (i.e., locations) that OSHA has recognized.

UL would not be so ubiquitous and widespread today if it were not for government patronage.

[TheGrinch]

What I find disheartening about the GMO issue is the fact that so called "libertarians" will demand government to mandate a specific label on a specific good. I thought we believed in and supported the market. How is this any different that the government mandating "SMOKING CAUSES CANCER", "THIS MAY BE UNHEALTHY FOR YOU", "EAT YOUR 6 GRAINS A DAY!", etc...?

Why don't those that care about this "issue" raise awareness, protest, teach, talk, etc... rather than using to the force of the state the attempt to achieve your ends. This whole labeling issue just reminds me of a bunch of liberals trying to use to force of the state to try and protect people from themselves.
Because it's not making a claim "this is unhealthy for you". It's allowing companies and consumers the choice to label/know that their food doesn't contain GMO... Now I'm not as sold that mandating GMO labels is desirable or effective, but Monsanto certainly shouldn't be able to use lobbyists to prevent transparency from other companies who wish to do so, as well as consumers that demand it...

That's far more anti-liberty for them to prevent other companies from doing so, when the free flow of information is vital to a healthy free-market. I have to think that it's just folks who are against mandates under any circumstance, and not looking at how our current system is allowing Monsanto to undermine liberty. Sometimes laws are necessary to allow for liberty, when lobbyists and corporate-controlled politicians are using them to try to take that liberty away.

[helmuth_hubener]

Sometimes laws are necessary to allow for liberty, when lobbyists and corporate-controlled politicians are using them to try to take that liberty away.


So...wouldn't the answer be push for laws exempting companies that label foods as GMO free from the type of lawsuits Monsanto allegedly filed? And....I can't find a reference to said lawsuits. The regulatory body will always be captured by the industry it regulates. That is the nature of the logic of the thing. It's just immutable economics. It's naive to believe it would work out otherwise. The Department of GMO Food Labeling is going to be a stalwart defender of the People's Rights against the Huge Rich and Powerful Corporations? Give me a break. What do you think it means to be rich and powerful. Think about it.

No, the Dept. of GMO will be bought, paid for, and run by Monsanto, ADM, etc.

The solution is not a naive and laughable cry to make the gov't power be put to work for the little guy instead of for the guy with all the money and lobbyists. It's to eliminate the power. The power is never going to be used for good. It will always be twisted for evil, and will always be used to serve the vested interests with lots of political pull. Count on it.

[specsaregood]

So...wouldn't the answer be push for laws exempting companies that label foods as GMO free from the type of lawsuits Monsanto allegedly filed? And....I can't find a reference to said lawsuits.

yeah, im starting to wonder who started that rumor.

[TheGrinch]

The regulatory body will always be captured by the industry it regulates. That is the nature of the logic of the thing. It's just immutable economics. It's naive to believe it would work out otherwise. The Department of GMO Food Labeling is going to be a stalwart defender of the People's Rights against the Huge Rich and Powerful Corporations? Give me a break. What do you think it means to be rich and powerful. Think about it.

No, the Dept. of GMO will be bought, paid for, and run by Monsanto, ADM, etc.

The solution is not a naive and laughable cry to make the gov't power be put to work for the little guy instead of for the guy with all the money and power. It's to eliminate the power. The power is never going to be used for good. It will always be twisted for evil, and will always be used to serve the vested interests with lots of political pull. Count on it.
I don't think either one of us is arguing for a regulatory committee... Waht we're arguing for is simply for a law to allow companies to be able to show their food is GMO-free if that's what they so choose, rather than allowing Monsanto to prevent their transparancy... So I think we agree on this more than you think....

Law does not have to always be synonymous with regulation. In fact, it's similar to regulation that Monsanto is able to prevent transparancy. All we seek to do is restore transparency and consumer choice. It'd be great if the free-market can do that themselves, but if Monsanto is trying to stand in the way of that, then someone needs to be able to tell them no, you're not allowed to dictate whether companies/consumers want a GMO-free transparancy.

[TheGrinch]

yeah, im starting to wonder who started that rumor.
Indeed, there's alot of conflicting information in this thread.

If companies are currently free to bear the GMO-free label, then everything I've said in this thread is moot... If however Monstanto is using lobbyists to prevent others from transparency, then I'm honestly perplexed why anyone would think that it serves the free market for them to hide the alternatives using the law, and why it would be bad to use the law to tell them no.

[KingNothing]

Monsanto certainly shouldn't be able to use lobbyists to....

Yes, they should. Who are you to say what speech they can and can't engage in?

[specsaregood]

Indeed, there's alot of conflicting information in this thread, and if companies are currently free to bear the GMO-free label, then everything I've said in this thread is moot... If however Monstanto is using lobbyists to prevent others from transparency, then I'm honestly perplexed why anyone would think that it serves the free market for them to hide the alternatives using the law.

There is no question that they are free to do so. Go to your closest whole foods, they have the label out and about. it is on the products. Its a non-profit private entity doing the certification. Also, to use the GOVT approved "organic" label, the food has to be non gmo also, so that badge does the same thing. I linked to the whole foods blog discussing it and the homepage of the certification entity.

[TheGrinch]

Yes, they should. Who are you to say what speech they can and can't engage in?
Huh? I think you misread my quote. I said that I don't think mandating is desirable or effective.... This entire thread I've been arguing for freedom of speech of those who wish to have a non-GMO label, even if it takes a law to say that they're allwoed to do so (which we shouldn't need a law for that, but if Monsanto really is using the law against freedom of speech, then...)

[KingNothing]

Advocating for a government solution, because you are not educated enough about the subject matter

*shakes head*

+rep for you! Perfectly summing it up.

[libertyjam]

Monsanto threatens to sue State of Vermont over GMO Labeling Bill
http://www.naturalnews.com/035628_Monsanto_Vermont_GMO_labeling.html
http://rt.com/usa/news/monsanto-sue-gmo-vermont-478/
http://www.alternet.org/food/154855/monsanto_threatens_to_sue_vermont_if_legislators_p ass_a_bill_requiring_gmo_food_to_be_labeled/
http://www.mapledaily.com/monsanto-threatens-to-sue-vermont-for-gmo-labeling-bill.html

Connecticut withdraws GMO labeling provisions over fears of Monsanto lawsuit
http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/connecticut-fears-monsanto-bill-label-genetically-modified-ingredients-dead-lawsuit-worries.html

http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/facts.shtml

[KingNothing]

You would imagine correct.
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/values/genetically-engineered.php
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/images/non-gmo.png

Leave it to our favorite libertarian-run grocery chain.

More info:
http://www.nongmoproject.org/

Awesome. Whole Foods rules.

[TheGrinch]

There is no question that they are free to do so. Go to your closest whole foods, they have the label out and about. it is on the products. Its a non-profit private entity doing the certification. Also, to use the GOVT approved "organic" label, the food has to be non gmo also, so that badge does the same thing. I linked to the whole foods blog discussing it and the homepage of the certification entity.
Fair enough, I guess then my argument was more of an "if...then..." hypothetical, and if they can currently do so, then I have no need to continue a moot argument. Like I said, I'm truly glad that the free market is free, and no action is need to ensure it is...

[Tod]

Wow, she's really excited about this topic.


Yeah, I much prefer her earlier videos where she acted normal. The hyper excited style makes it hard to listen to what she's saying.

[KingNothing]

screw that I want that crap labeled

Then buy from the companies who label. Stop asking for big government where it benefits you, and demanding it be repealed everywhere else.

[specsaregood]

Monsanto threatens to sue State of Vermont over GMO Labeling Bill
http://www.naturalnews.com/035628_Monsanto_Vermont_GMO_labeling.html
http://rt.com/usa/news/monsanto-sue-gmo-vermont-478/
http://www.alternet.org/food/154855/monsanto_threatens_to_sue_vermont_if_legislators_p ass_a_bill_requiring_gmo_food_to_be_labeled/
http://www.mapledaily.com/monsanto-threatens-to-sue-vermont-for-gmo-labeling-bill.html

Connecticut withdraws GMO labeling provisions over fears of Monsanto lawsuit
http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/connecticut-fears-monsanto-bill-label-genetically-modified-ingredients-dead-lawsuit-worries.html

http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/facts.shtml

The libertarian position should be on monsanto's side in this battle. They are fighting passing laws to mandate behavior.

[KingNothing]

Monsanto threatens to sue State of Vermont over GMO Labeling Bill
http://www.naturalnews.com/035628_Monsanto_Vermont_GMO_labeling.html
http://rt.com/usa/news/monsanto-sue-gmo-vermont-478/
http://www.alternet.org/food/154855/monsanto_threatens_to_sue_vermont_if_legislators_p ass_a_bill_requiring_gmo_food_to_be_labeled/
http://www.mapledaily.com/monsanto-threatens-to-sue-vermont-for-gmo-labeling-bill.html

Connecticut withdraws GMO labeling provisions over fears of Monsanto lawsuit
http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/connecticut-fears-monsanto-bill-label-genetically-modified-ingredients-dead-lawsuit-worries.html

http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/facts.shtml


And? This is Monsanto's prerogative. And if they're advocating LESS government mandates, we should endorse their position. At the same time, we should vote with our dollars and buy from grocers like Whole Foods who label things in a manner we respect and appreciate.

[KingNothing]

Huh? I think you misread my quote. I said that I don't think mandating is desirable or effective.... This entire thread I've been arguing for freedom of speech of those who wish to have a non-GMO label, even if it takes a law to say that they're allwoed to do so (which we shouldn't need a law for that, but if Monsanto really is using the law against freedom of speech, then...)


Even if Monsanto hires a lobbyist to push for an "Everyone Must Buy Everything from Monsanto" bill, it is their prerogative. Mandates are bad, and I would oppose the bill, but they are well within their rights to lobby for anything they want.


What Monsanto does or tries to do is really of no concern to us. All we have to do is support people and entities who hold our ideals.

[libertyjam]

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

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

New regulations propose strict guidelines for voluntary labeling of non-GMO productsIn mid-January, the US Food and Drug Administration announced new regulations requiring biotechnology companies to consult with the FDA at least 120 days before marketing new GM foods. Previously, such consultations were voluntary. Biotech companies must provide health safety data about the new GM foods to the FDA, and the agency said it would make this information available on the Internet.

While biotechnology and food industry representatives praised the new regulations, consumer and environmental groups criticized them, saying they didn't go far enough, particularly in terms of labeling GM foods. The FDA rejected consumer demands for labeling.
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.
© Copyright March 2001, The Organic & Non-GMO Report

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/18/fda-labeled-free-modification/
FDA won’t allow food to be labeled free of genetic modification: report
By admin
Saturday, September 18, 2010 23:05 EDT


‘Extra labeling only confuses the consumer,’ biotech spokesman says

That the Food and Drug Administration is opposed to labeling foods that are genetically modified is no surprise anymore, but a report in the Washington Post indicates the FDA won’t even allow food producers to label their foods as being free of genetic modification.

In reporting that the FDA will likely not require the labeling of genetically modified salmon if it approves the food product for consumption, the Post‘s Lyndsey Layton notes that the federal agency “won’t let conventional food makers trumpet the fact that their products don’t contain genetically modified ingredients.”

The agency warned the dairy industry in 1994 that it could not use “Hormone Free” labeling on milk from cows that are not given engineered hormones, because all milk contains some hormones.

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.

“This to me raises questions about whose interest the FDA is protecting,” House Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) told the Post. Kucinich has repeatedly introduced bills in the House that would require the labeling of genetically modified foods.

Source: Raw Story (http://s.tt/1dd9l)

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_24246.cfm

Victory for Voluntary GMO-Free Labels!

By Alexis Baden-Mayer, Esq., Political Director
Organic Consumers Association, November 3, 2011
Straight to the Source

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Information on rBGH and rBST page, and our Ohio News page.

Companies like Monsanto and Eli Lilly have fought long and hard against consumers' right to know about factory-farm dairy production, trying to conceal the use of their genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, a.k.a. rBGH or rBST, which forces cows to overproduce milk.

They've lobbied and infiltrated the FDA, they've sued dairy farmers and they've pressed state governments to curtail farmers' freedom of speech.

Still, when it comes to voluntary labels on non-GMO food, we are winning! This week, the organic community won an important final victory in Ohio against an administrative attempt to remove "rBGH-free" and "produced without artificial growth hormones" labels from dairy products.

[TheGrinch]

Yes, they should. Who are you to say what speech they can and can't engage in?
OK, now that you fixed the quote, ummm no, they should not be able to use lobbyists to restrict free speech of others who wish to be transparent about the fact that their food does not contain GMO.... Apparently this is not the case, but if it were like green suggested, then why in the hell would I support them restricting competition and the decision of others to be transparent? That goes against the idea of a free market if they can mandate other's choices to label or not label their products how they so choose.

[libertyjam]

And? This is Monsanto's prerogative. And if they're advocating LESS government mandates, we should endorse their position. At the same time, we should vote with our dollars and buy from grocers like Whole Foods who label things in a manner we respect and appreciate.

Someone said they could not find any info on Monsanto lawsuits over labeling, so I am providing links.

You are certainly living up to your name.

[TheGrinch]

Even if Monsanto hires a lobbyist to push for an "Everyone Must Buy Everything from Monsanto" bill, it is their prerogative. Mandates are bad, and I would oppose the bill, but they are well within their rights to lobby for anything they want.


What Monsanto does or tries to do is really of no concern to us. All we have to do is support people and entities who hold our ideals.
Jeezus, I am not trying to say that they don't have the right to lobby... I'm saying that we shouldn't roll over for anyone who's trying to restrict their competition's desire to be transparent and provide a competitive alternative. I don't give a crap if they lobby, I give a crap if their actions result in an unfree market that only benefits them.

[jmdrake]

I found that. I was looking for where Monsanto sued a private company.


Monsanto threatens to sue State of Vermont over GMO Labeling Bill
http://www.naturalnews.com/035628_Monsanto_Vermont_GMO_labeling.html
http://rt.com/usa/news/monsanto-sue-gmo-vermont-478/
http://www.alternet.org/food/154855/monsanto_threatens_to_sue_vermont_if_legislators_p ass_a_bill_requiring_gmo_food_to_be_labeled/
http://www.mapledaily.com/monsanto-threatens-to-sue-vermont-for-gmo-labeling-bill.html

Connecticut withdraws GMO labeling provisions over fears of Monsanto lawsuit
http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/connecticut-fears-monsanto-bill-label-genetically-modified-ingredients-dead-lawsuit-worries.html

http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/facts.shtml

[KingNothing]

OK, now that you fixed the quote, ummm no, they should not be able to use lobbyists to restrict free speech of others who wish to be transparent about the fact that their food does not contain GMO.... Apparently this is not the case, but if it were like green suggested, then why in the hell would I support them restricting competition and the decision of others to be transparent? That goes against the idea of a free market if they can mandate other's choices to label or not label their products how they so choose.

It's not about supporting the restriction of free speech, it's about supporting the right of people and organizations to lobby on their behalf. You're free to ask for favorable treatment. Period. Our government is constitutionally required to ignore such requests. If they don't, it is on them - not those who asked for certain benefits.

[KingNothing]

Jeezus, I am not trying to say that they don't have the right to lobby...



That is almost exactly what you said though.

[TheGrinch]

That is almost exactly what you said though.
Okay, I'm going to leave this thread if we're jsut going to argue semantics. When I say "Monsanto certainly shouldn't be able to use lobbyists to....", that's essetailly the same as saying that the government shouldn't allow them to, and if they do, then we should have the right to tell them, no, that's overstepping your constitutional requirements.

I mean, no, lobbying doesn;t have to be a bad thing, and can be a very good thing for a good cause, so yes, the problem is precisely when the government allows unwarranted lobbying requests to happen, not that lobbying itself is the only thing to blame.

[KingNothing]

Sorry. I'm just ridiculously literal. I try to be really careful with words.

[green73]

I have absolutely no problem with that statement. You'd prefer to be raped dry?

Even if we got him to use lube, who's to say he won't use acid?

[green73]

The libertarian position should be on monsanto's side in this battle. They are fighting passing laws to mandate behavior.

The libertarian position is to get the government out of it.

[jbauer]

copied and pasted from the Rand forum, because I don't want to retype it:

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.

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.)

[HigherVision]

I heard Rand voting against this.... now I know why and support him a little more, as the hot token libertarian chick explains, we don't need Federal mandates. We need the free market to fill the demand and label their products NON GMO, and we will support them.

They did it with HFCS and started putting sugar in soda... we need to demand cleaner food, not expect the FDA to mandate and oversea it.

Yeah Pepsi Throwback, I've been drinking it. It's great. I've been replacing all my food items with HFCS with sugar only brands. Bulls Eye barbecue sauce and Blue Bunny ice cream are a few more. Sugar is way more satisfying than HFCS and so you eat less of it.

[liberdom]

copied and pasted from the Rand forum, because I don't want to retype it:

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.


That's like saying just because humans naturally die, murder is acceptable. Just because fetuses miscarry, abortion is acceptable. You do understand the difference between letting nature select the crops out if they survive, and messing with the DNA structure? why is it such a good thing to "grow enough crops of the world"? and what's wrong with going back to the hunter gather diet (aka paleo diet)?



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


Except nobody has died from eating GMO.



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.


good point.

[Seraphim]

What if a consumer protection agency did this for half the cost of the Gov and was able to do so without having to steal those resources through taxes?


Okay, what if instead a government agency published a list on a website of foods that are GMOs? At least then a research minded person could have a source to go to. I'm sure they could also look for other private watchdog groups as well.

As for the Market and labeling, I see the American Heart Association logo stamped on food boxes. What if a Non-GMO food group formed and put a similar Stamp of Approval on non-GMO foods. You would see the logo with a website check them out. Also, look up the same company on the Better Business Bureau.

If anything these days I almost wonder of lobbyists and government pressure discourage such a watchdog group from forming.

[liberdom]

I heard Rand voting against this.... now I know why and support him a little more, as the hot token libertarian chick explains, we don't need Federal mandates. We need the free market to fill the demand and label their products NON GMO, and we will support them.

They did it with HFCS and started putting sugar in soda... we need to demand cleaner food, not expect the FDA to mandate and oversea it.

Rand Paul endorsed Romney, so I don't care about how he votes anymore.

HFCS demonization is a lie propagated by competing sugar and sweetener interests. HFCS is no worse than glucose or cane sugar, sugar is sugar. The amount of consumption is the ultimate deciding factor. Honey is not healthier than sugar, honey is only sweet BECAUSE there is sugar in it. Artificial sweetener is not worse than sugar, at least not until you consume it in insane amounts, which is just as bad if you did it with any sugar. It's funny how people forget HFCS is made from natural products, nothing artificial but concentration.

[liberdom]

I found that. I was looking for where Monsanto sued a private company.

Monsanto wants freedom from government force, the same way fossil fuels want freedom from carbon taxes. Surprise? Does that make them evil?

[Jingles]

Barring the private property/IP issues concerning "Monsanto" Why the hell are you so angry? (those who care about this). Why are you so angry that you wish to use the violence of the state to impose your will via the state? The is where I am am feeling the disconnect. I really don't care about the "GMO'S ARE EVIL VS. GMOs are okay" argument. So why are you trying to use the state to impose your will on others? Because this is any different than the state illegalitizaling heroin because I might get addicted (help me, save me from myself!?!?!). OMG PEOPLE USE SCIENCE TO MAKE CROPS GROW BETTER!! HOW EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gerryb]

Indeed, there's alot of conflicting information in this thread.

If companies are currently free to bear the GMO-free label, then everything I've said in this thread is moot...

Have you ever been to the supermarket? Your answer is on the shelves. Maybe it is state by state, but here in VA and MD, there are products labeled GMO free.

[gerryb]

What if a consumer protection agency did this for half the cost of the Gov and was able to do so without having to steal those resources through taxes?

You're a radical anarchist, aren't you?!

[Danan]

The argument of fighting fire with fire is crap. "Well, we don't really have a free market, so...we really can't say we trust the free market...so we need certain gov't mandates because.....they started it."

of course we don't have a free market! They do work though! You can't spend your way out of debt, and you can't regulate yourself into a free market.

So true!


Another point I'd like to add is that this is one of the topics where a very interesting observation can be made:

Very often people who strongly disagree with libertarian beliefs but also liberty-leaning people make the point that, "I would be fine with it if the free market would provide these services but it doesn't and people still want it so therefore government has to use force to do it!" Or that, "There always has to go something wrong or someone has to get hurt before the free market does anything against it!"

These are very common fallacies. What people don't see is that in all cases something bad has to happen in order for government to react too. They are not all-knowing either (quite the opposite). And their solutions are worse than what the free market would provide. Also, just because the free market doesn't provide a service <b>now</b> doesn't mean that it won't provide it <b>ever</b>. If the argument that so many people care about something very strongly then why doesn't the free market react? Maybe the sentiment is growing and a free market solution is already on the verge - even quicker and better than what bureaucrat will come up with. Or there aren't that many people who care about it in reality.

Personally I'm really sad that there is a huge anti-GMO-sentiment in Austria and there are even some laws against it. It fits in with a very skeptical attitude towards new technology and science. I belief that it's an amazing technology that can help humanity in many ways (although it's not going to solve all food related problems on this planet). But that's not the point. If you want GMO-food labeled pressure your local convenient stores or tell food producers that you would be willing to pay more for "GMO-free"-labels.

[libertyjam]

Personally I'm really sad that there is a huge anti-GMO-sentiment in Austria and there are even some laws against it. It fits in with a very skeptical attitude towards new technology and science. I belief that it's an amazing technology that can help humanity in many ways (although it's not going to solve all food related problems on this planet). But that's not the point. If you want GMO-food labeled pressure your local convenient stores or tell food producers that you would be willing to pay more for "GMO-free"-labels.

Maybe it is just that your fellow Austrians are a little smarter than you!

Two pig farmers from Denmark tell about the deformities and illnesses of pigs fed on GM soy.
http://www.toxicsoy.org/toxicsoy/new...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...#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.c...#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

[presence]

If what seperates an apple from an orange is genetics...
Then how can a genetically modified apple be lawfully sold as an "apple"

Doesn't that constitute fraud?

I come from the camp that if you're selling a genetically modified organism and you try to pass it off for one that is natural in origin, then you're lying.

A handful of GM wheat is NOT wheat.

Its GM wheat.

When you put it on a label, it should be labelled GM wheat.

If you put GM wheat in a packaged labelled "wheat" that would in, my eyes, be deceptive marketing with intent to defraud.


Corn is Corn
GM Corn is not Corn
GM Corn is GM Corn
Call it what it is, not what it isn't.

Labeling real Corn "GM Free" is redundant. Of course it is, all real Corn is not genetically modified. Only GM Corn is not "GM Free".

[jbauer]

Has nothing to do with murder vs death. Humans have been messing with genetics in plants and animals. Its been a LONG time since we've let nature take its course when it comes to ensuring a food supply. Heck you are GMO. Your parents bucked the system. They found each other atractive for whatever reason and mated resulting in you.


That's like saying just because humans naturally die, murder is acceptable. Just because fetuses miscarry, abortion is acceptable. You do understand the difference between letting nature select the crops out if they survive, and messing with the DNA structure? why is it such a good thing to "grow enough crops of the world"? and what's wrong with going back to the hunter gather diet (aka paleo diet)?



Except nobody has died from eating GMO.



good point.

[liberdom]

Has nothing to do with murder vs death. Humans have been messing with genetics in plants and animals. Its been a LONG time since we've let nature take its course when it comes to ensuring a food supply. Heck you are GMO. Your parents bucked the system. They found each other atractive for whatever reason and mated resulting in you.

has anybody ever died from eating GMO?

[libertyjam]

has anybody ever died from eating GMO?

Yes

[liberdom]

Yes

Really? Can you give me a good example? I'm willing to bet its a low risk compared to starvation

[Danan]

If what seperates an apple from an orange is genetics...
Then how can a genetically modified apple be lawfully sold as an "apple"

Doesn't that constitute fraud?

I come from the camp that if you're selling a genetically modified organism and you try to pass it off for one that is natural in origin, then you're lying.


What is a "true apple" then? Only the pure ancient form of apple? Or those fruits too that were genetically modified through cultivation (basically all modern day apples)?

Also there is not one true apple DNA and there never was one. Every apple has a unique genetic code.

To me that doesn't constitute fraud. If it looks like an apple, smells like an apple and tastes like an apple it is an apple not matter how it's genetics came into existence.

[Indy Vidual]

Freedom works, right?

[Danan]

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.


Wrong. As I tried to explain earlier it's the other way around. Because there is more resentment against GMOs a law was created here. But it wasn't necessary since the high demand for "natural" food (whatever this might be) would have created labels anyway.

This whole resentment derives from a general business- and new-technologies-dislike and the romantic (but wrong) notion that "natural", "ecological" or "green" food is somehow better for us when there is good evidence that the opposite is true (at least sometimes).

[green73]

You're a radical anarchist, aren't you?!

The horror!

[helmuth_hubener]

I don't think either one of us is arguing for a regulatory committee... Waht we're arguing for is simply for a law to allow companies to be able to show their food is GMO-free if that's what they so choose, rather than allowing Monsanto to prevent their transparancy... So I think we agree on this more than you think.... Well then indeed we do agree. We should have total free speech. The fact that we have dictators with absolute control to dictate and strangle "commercial" speech is a gross outrage of both the Constitution and of decent human moral principles. If I want to type "the FDA is a bunch of know-nothing ninnies" on my soup can I should be free to do it. Why should I be forced at gunpoint to not print that on my soup can? And, correspondingly, why should I also be forced to print certain things on my label? Why must I inform people of information which they should be perfectly aware of already? And not other information? Why must I print on my chew can "this causes cancer," but I must not print "this causes way, way less cancer than cigarettes, and the cancer it causes is much less likely to kill you, so switch to chew today!"? The second label is just as truthful and accurate, and probably much more informative, and in fact could probably save millions of lives if its message got out there and its advice were followed.

The whole idea of compulsory labeling is tyrannical and wrong. People should be able to say, print, and broadcast whatever speech they wish, as long as it is not fraudulent or in some other way aggressing against others.

[libertyjam]

Really? Can you give me a good example? I'm willing to bet its a low risk compared to starvation

I gave sources,do you need to be taught how to read as well?

[LibertyEagle]

I dont want the govt agency in charge of a list of what is and isnt GMO... do not trust.

Good idea.. NOGMO could be an independent research group and apply their logo or seal on all foods that meet the standards. I prefer that free market solution.

UL does the same for electrical devices and we trust them.

Yeah, that is the way everything like this used to be handled and it worked. Kind of like having the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

[libertyjam]

Wrong. As I tried to explain earlier it's the other way around. Because there is more resentment against GMOs a law was created here. But it wasn't necessary since the high demand for "natural" food (whatever this might be) would have created labels anyway.

This whole resentment derives from a general business- and new-technologies-dislike and the romantic (but wrong) notion that "natural", "ecological" or "green" food is somehow better for us when there is good evidence that the opposite is true (at least sometimes).

You took a quote from an article and made it look like I said it. Nevertheless, that may be your view, but it is more and more a minority view these days, as mountains of evidence are against you. In actuality, the anti-greenwashing phenomenon is against companies that put statements on labels that imply or state "green" benefits to their products but actually have no justification for the claims. It is no reason to conflate that to "factory food is just as good if not better for you."

[Working Poor]

Then perhaps you should label it. Or do something about getting it labeled. That is fine. That "something" that you do should not include forcing your fellow humans -- at gunpoint, if necessary -- to behave according to your dictates. That is all we ask. Seem reasonable?

Just how can I label all GMOs? I do work pretty tirelessly to write articles, talk to my friends and family about GMO foods and anyone who will listen. The public is way under informed about it and I feel that GMOs should have never been allowed into our food system to begin with. Independent test on lab animals have found they cause organ failure and sterility in the next generation. I guess Monsanto will be planting pig, cow, and chicken seeds before long....

[KingNothing]

What is a "true apple" then? Only the pure ancient form of apple? Or those fruits too that were genetically modified through cultivation (basically all modern day apples)?

I wonder how many people posting here have genetically modified dogs living with them. You know, human intervention is the reason why nearly every breed exists.

[liberdom]

Just how can I label all GMOs? I do work pretty tirelessly to write articles, talk to my friends and family about GMO foods and anyone who will listen. The public is way under informed about it and I feel that GMOs should have never been allowed into our food system to begin with. Independent test on lab animals have found they cause organ failure and sterility in the next generation. I guess Monsanto will be planting pig, cow, and chicken seeds before long....

You mean this one?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/13/gm-corn-leads-to-organ-failure-not-so-fast/

[liberdom]

I wonder how many people posting here have genetically modified dogs living with them. You know, human intervention is the reason why nearly every breed exists.

I don't eat, or eat with my dog. So I don't care about my dog being a mutant as long as I live healthy myself

[presence]

nm

[presence]

I wonder how many people posting here have genetically modified dogs living with them. You know, human intervention is the reason why nearly every breed exists.

I don't know the last time anyone has naturally bread a dog with a bacteria or vegetable.

BREEDING two animals which can naturally procreate in the state of nature is qualitatively different from GENETICALLY MODIFYING one species with DNA from an entirely different species/genus/kingdom of life.

[thoughtomator]

The proper solution to GMO labeling is lawsuits and criminal prosecutions for fraud. Someone selling "corn" and giving you something genetically distinct from corn - with the producer knowing this because they specifically engineered that distinction - is fraud. "Genetically modified corn" does not equal "corn".

Unfortunately we are in a situation where the vast majority of people are priced out of the courts for most purposes and nobody of significance is ever prosecuted for fraud, which leads to calls for labeling.

In my mind, this issue is a criminal situation with additional civil wrongs done and should be handled by the courts, not as an administrative function of the FDA.

In terms of my inherent bias against labeling, it is because I do not believe that any government agency can really be effective over the long term, relying on them is costly and offers no real protection or deterrence to future poor behavior.

[helmuth_hubener]

The proper solution to GMO labeling is lawsuits and criminal prosecutions for fraud. Someone selling "corn" and giving you something genetically distinct from corn - with the producer knowing this because they specifically engineered that distinction - is fraud. "Genetically modified corn" does not equal "corn". This is a big stretch. On the market, conventions will arise, but I doubt that the convention will be that one can't call something which is obviously corn, corn.

libertyjam and thoughtomator, have you ever actually eaten corn?

[Yes, Helmuth, of course we have.]

And this "corn" that you ate, did it look like this?

http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/Transgeniccrops/images/teosinte.jpg (http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/Transgeniccrops/maizepopupA.html)

[jllundqu]

I heard Rand voting against this.... now I know why and support him a little more, as the hot token libertarian chick explains, we don't need Federal mandates. We need the free market to fill the demand and label their products NON GMO, and we will support them.

They did it with HFCS and started putting sugar in soda... we need to demand cleaner food, not expect the FDA to mandate and oversea it.

This amendment was NOT a federal mandate. It was to give STATES the CHOICE to require products containing GMOs to be labeled as such. His 'no' vote was the last straw for me. I'm done with Rand.

[gerryb]

If what seperates an apple from an orange is genetics...
Then how can a genetically modified apple be lawfully sold as an "apple"

Doesn't that constitute fraud?

I come from the camp that if you're selling a genetically modified organism and you try to pass it off for one that is natural in origin, then you're lying.

A handful of GM wheat is NOT wheat.

Its GM wheat.

When you put it on a label, it should be labelled GM wheat.

If you put GM wheat in a packaged labelled "wheat" that would in, my eyes, be deceptive marketing with intent to defraud.


Corn is Corn
GM Corn is not Corn
GM Corn is GM Corn
Call it what it is, not what it isn't.

Labeling real Corn "GM Free" is redundant. Of course it is, all real Corn is not genetically modified. Only GM Corn is not "GM Free".

That's an interesting argument. We already require labeling of ingredients -- take it to the courts that the product is mis-labeled.

[gerryb]

I wonder how many people posting here have genetically modified dogs living with them. You know, human intervention is the reason why nearly every breed exists.

You completely misunderstand what GMO means.

Did your dog get injected with a virus to insert new genetic code that you desired?

Oh?

[jbauer]

No, he's got it right. We've been geneticaly modifying things for eons. GMO means geneticaly modified. It happens naturally through mutations and is the basis for the dog breeds we have now.

The two biggest monsanto GMO's are BT corn (bacteria that is grown with the corn) and Round-up ready soybeans. Let go over those 2.

1. BT corn or corn "infected" with bacillus thuringiensis is what it means. Monsanto modified the DNA of the corn plant to allow BT to grow along side with it. They happened to have done this in a lab. They could have just as easily (but more costly) cross bred corn until they got a breed that gave the same quilities. Something they were well on the way to doing.

FYI all you organic folks.............did you know bacillus thuringiensis is something you can buy and shake all over a corn plant all day long and still call it organic, sell it as organic, feed it to organic meat production animals and market it as organic???!!!?? If you'd like to purchase it here it is: http://www.horticulturesource.com/product_info.php?products_id=3564

2. Round-up ready soybeans. Monsanto took the qualities from the alfalfa (hay for those that don't know what it is) plant that resists round-up and bred it into soybeans. So apperantly its ok to eat by-prouducts of alfalfa (anythign that eats hay since I'm not sure we actually directly eat alfalfa hay...but do directly eat other plants that are naturally resistant to roundup) but the same qualities are not acceptibale in another plant?

For all those big time interent armchair quarterbacks out there. Type in dangers of organic farming into google. You'll find just as many links talking about it as you will GMO's for and against. Personaly I've seen whats allowed in organic farming....I'll take my chances with the less toxic less damaging comercial applications than what some of these nutbars consider organic.


You completely misunderstand what GMO means.

Did your dog get injected with a virus to insert new genetic code that you desired?

Oh?

[jbauer]

Also did you know that since corn cross polinates (as many plants do) you could have corn on the same ear of corn in the same field of corn have "GMO" kernals and non GMO kernals regardless of what the original plant was. Do you suggest we individually test each and every kernal of corn? That is the only way to tell whether it is "infected" or not.


That's an interesting argument. We already require labeling of ingredients -- take it to the courts that the product is mis-labeled.

[jbauer]

Also, did you know Round-up was discovered because it first was a commercial soap. The cleaning ladies were tossing out their mop buckets on the grass and it was killing it. Better not eat anything thats been cleaned with soap.

[TheGrinch]

Also, did you know Round-up was discovered because it first was a commercial soap. The cleaning ladies were tossing out their mop buckets on the grass and it was killing it. Better not eat anything thats been cleaned with soap.

Soap is not necessarily pesticide, just because it happened to be the same in that instance. You should have stuck with your much stronger "GM cannot be adequately tested" and "GM occurs in many areas" arguments.

All I know is I've read a whole bunch of BS about Monsanto, to where I'd very skeptical to equate the modifications they're doing with more natural means like selective breeding.

[Seraphim]

Is the DHS asking?

If so....yes.


You're a radical anarchist, aren't you?!