Rand voted no on GMO labeling (a year ago)

[NationalAnarchist]

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

Not surprised anymore really wish Napolitano or Ventura would say they are running already. Maybe even Cruz.

[supermario21]

Why should businesses be forced to label these things? Also, this vote was taken a year ago. How is this news?

[V3n]

"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

"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." -Rand Paul

[squarepusher]

He is a republican, not a Libertarian

[Jeremy Tyler]

Not the job of the government.

[radiofriendly]

Isn't this old news? ...and is it really a surprise that a libertarian leaning official votes against...more government regulation? Don't you trust the FDA to tell you what to eat?

Rand Paul’s recent NO vote on a bill requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods is causing quite a stir in the Ron Paul community. Over at the Daily Paul, a very heated exchange is underway including comments like this from ‘freetoroam,’

“He (Rand Paul) is a disaster and votes like this drive good Americans away from the Liberty movement.”

Another libertarian site, The Humble Libertarian, posted the following,

As if Rand Paul’s credibility with liberty activist isn’t already badly tarnished, he voted NO on a bill to require GMO food labeling. This is a very important issue and an issue that crosses party lines. Folks have an absolute right (emphasis mine) to know what they are eating.

An “absolute right,” seriously?

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." - Rep. Ron Paul

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

[NationalAnarchist]

Why should businesses be forced to label these things? Also, this vote was taken a year ago. How is this news?
Because the crap they put in the food we are eating. We should be allowed to know what's in these things. And no it was just done a few days ago.


Not the job of the government.\
Its the job of the state government to force companies like Monsanto to say what's in the food they are letting people eat...guess everyone is ok with being poisoned.


"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

"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." -Rand Paul
You see one reason I know the real reason he voted against it...can't piss off to many people for his run in 2016...he figured the liberty folks were the least of his worries big business could keep him from winning.

[ObiRandKenobi]

Isn't this old news? ...and is it really a surprise that a libertarian leaning official votes against...more government regulation? Don't you trust the FDA to tell you what to eat?

Game set match.

[JCDenton0451]

Stupid vote by Rand. Personally, I want to know which products contain GMO so I can avoid this crap.

It's not about government control, people! It's about informed consumer choice. Obviously, corporate interests do not want that. But our elected representatives should know better.

[torchbearer]

though a food producer can't mislabel something in order to sell it, to pass a law compelling them to label anything at all is immoral. (if it isn't your property, you don't have the right)
good rule of thumb, if the company is too afraid to list what something is... don't buy it.
if a company lies about the contents through the label, sue them- and let everyone know they sell poison/defraud people.

last thing we need is another state bureacratic army in charge of label inspections.

[thoughtomator]

Because the crap they put in the food we are eating. We should be allowed to know what's in these things.

What you need no one's permission to do is to refuse to eat that which you can't reasonably verify the contents of to your satisfaction. If a company refuses to tell you what's in the product, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that consuming that product is probably not in your best interest.

There is no possible legislative cure for stupid.

[whoisjohngalt]

So unbelievable that supposed libertarians would cannibalize their own for voting against government regulation. Is this really happening?

The free market solved this issue awhile ago. Companies that make GMO free food proudly market and label them as such. If there is no label indicating food is GMO free, then it has GMOs. It's not complicated. In fact, the rapidity with which the food market assimilates to consumer demands is staggering. It was seemingly overnight that every other item in the supermarket was labeled "No Transfats".

Voting against government regulation is now unlibertarian. Pretty pathetic.

[NationalAnarchist]

Stupid vote by Rand. Personally, I want to know which products contain GMO so I can avoid this crap.

It's not about government control, people! It's about informed consumer choice. Obviously, corporate interests do not want that. But our elected representatives should know better.
Exactly! Like I said he knows who to piss off and who to cower to...big business wins this round.

[V3n]

Give more power to the FDA? We shouldn't even have an FDA!

There should be private 'quality-control' firms, and you have the options to trust the ones you want to trust. If one of them slips up - oh boy - you can expect hell to pay for them. When the FDA slips up - what happens? Consumers get sick or die, and no consequences to the FDA.

[jmdrake]

Rand should introduce a bill stripping the patent office of the authority to grant patents for GMOs. That way he'd shrink government while ensuring maximum consumer health and freedom.

[supermario21]

Ok GMO label mandating fans out there? Do you support the mandatory calorie count menus in Obamacare?

[JCDenton0451]

Why should businesses be forced to label these things? Also, this vote was taken a year ago. How is this news?

Because GMO is crap, inferior to natural stuff, and given the choice people wouldn't want to pay the same money for GMO that they pay for real food.

It's a different product, and so it needs a distinct label, so that nobody would confuse it with real food.

[familydog]

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

Not surprised anymore really wish Napolitano or Ventura would say they are running already. Maybe even Cruz.

Didn't you know that poor Monsanto only wants to operate within the free market? Small farmers should know better than to try and compete with Monsanto's amazing scale of production. Monsanto's multi-million dollar legal department and government allies could never keep up with the devastating amount of regulation placed on them.

[Warlord]

Stupid vote by Rand. Personally, I want to know which products contain GMO so I can avoid this crap.

It's not about government control, people! It's about informed consumer choice. Obviously, corporate interests do not want that. But our elected representatives should know better.

Do you often have a hard time understanding enumerated powers and the US constitution?

Hint: this isn't an enumerated power.

[HigherVision]

Because the crap they put in the food we are eating. We should be allowed to know what's in these things. And no it was just done a few days ago.

Then stop eating it! I love all this stuff about 'our food' like we're all pigs feeding at the same trough or something. You have the freedom to eat or not eat what you want, the point is don't infringe on mine with this statist compulsory labeling nonsense.


Because GMO is crap, inferior to natural stuff, and given the choice people wouldn't want to pay the same money for GMO that they pay for real food.

It's a different product, and so it needs a distinct label, so that nobody would confuse it with real food.

You're proven wrong by that fact that people do choose to pay money for it. They're satisfied with the product and thus they don't feel the need to research every aspect of the food's production.

Who's to say it costs the same either? The point of gm is to maximize crop yields so that food can be sold for cheaper.

[PSYOP]

The Anarchists and Libertarians must be kicking up a keg after this one. Yes, no problem, let's allow all the states to decide if they want to poison their citizens.

[HigherVision]

The Anarchists and Libertarians must be kicking up a keg after this one. Yes, no problem, let's allow all the states to decide if they want to poison their citizens.

Better yet lets let people decide if they want to 'poison' themselves or not. You know that whole self-ownership thing? Too bad so many people here are LINOs (Libertarian In Name Only).

[V3n]

I'm against GMO's too.. so just shop at Whole Foods

Whole Foods Market Commits to Full GMO Transparency - Announcement at Natural Products Expo West (http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/blog/whole-foods-market-commits-full-gmo-transparency-announcement-natural-products-expo-west)

They made the decision on their own without Government mandate. This should be applauded and supported. Vote with your wallet and only shop there - then other stores will catch on - this is the proper way to make change. Not with the long arm of the Law. You can't be for limited government only when it suits you.

[whoisjohngalt]

Have I entered the Twilight Zone?

[PSYOP]

Better yet lets let people decide if they want to 'poison' themselves or not. You know that whole self-ownership thing? Too bad so many people here are LINOs (Libertarian In Name Only).

How can people use their freedom to decide what to put into their own bodies if they can't even make that decision due to lack of labeling?

[whoisjohngalt]

How can people use their freedom to decide what to put into their own bodies if they can't even make that decision due to lack of labeling?

Except there are plenty of foods labeled GMO Free. If you only buy products that are labeled thusly, you have made the decision to not eat GMOs. Pretty fucking simple.

[ObiRandKenobi]

How can people use their freedom to decide what to put into their own bodies if they can't even make that decision due to lack of labeling?

Could they possibly choose to NOT buy foods without labeling or grow their food or is that too much to ask from human beings?

[PSYOP]

Except there are plenty of foods labeled GMO Free. If you only buy products that are labeled thusly, you have made the decision to not eat GMOs. Pretty fucking simple.

Yeah.... at organic food stores. What's the point of labeling non-gmo foods at a organic food store if the word organic pretty much says it all?

[sailingaway]

"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

"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." -Rand Paul

Yeah, Ron would let the states do it, though, if they wanted, and did say that oxy packaging so meat looked fresh when it wasn't raised fraud issues, and there was just a vote in Congress over whether the states should be PERMITTED to label, and that would be different. I don't know if Rand voted on that or not. But yeah, this was a year ago and the only way I could justify it at the federal level is that they caused the problem by letting Monsanto control FDA and the Dept of Ag to all practical purposes, insulating themselves and regulating their competitors with the power of the state. I think getting rid of FDA and the Dept of AG at the federal level, and letting all these matters devolve to the states is the way to go.

But until there is no corporatism in FDA and Ag, I am pro labeling, at the state level.

[whoisjohngalt]

Yeah.... at organic food stores. What's the point of labeling non-gmo foods at a organic food store if the word organic pretty much says it all?

Because their products also go to non fully organic stores. That has nothing to do with my point, which was that your original claim was obviously bullshit. All those who insist on government intervening on this issue are not fundamentally sound libertarians. Consider joining the Green Party or something. You would have been part of the Ralph Nader seatbelt movement too indubitably.

[sailingaway]

Yeah.... at organic food stores. What's the point of labeling non-gmo foods at a organic food store if the word organic pretty much says it all?

Because they are allowed to use 'organic' or 'natural' even if it contains GMO because the Monsanto controlled FDA says there is no material difference. Regardless of the fact that to get a patent the first thing you have to show is that there IS a difference. That is also the reason cheerios had a claim against it for daring to say their cereal lowered cholesterol without going through FDA te$$Ting whereas Monsanto is deemed to need no testing for its GMO to be marketed.

[whoisjohngalt]

Can anyone provide a logical reason for why a company producing GMO free food wouldn't label it as such? How about a real world example?

Everything is already labeled thanks to the free market!

[luctor-et-emergo]

Requiring businesses to label food products = bad.
Banning labeling such as 'does not contain GMO's' -if it's a true statement- = bad.

Freedom has to go both ways, businesses should have the freedom to sell their goods to consumers with whatever labeling they want, as long as it's not fraudulent. But on the other hand, other businesses should be allowed to make claims about things that are NOT in their product if that's a way they think they can more successfully advertise their products. If these businesses that don't label products experience a loss in revenue then it's in their interest to think of a way to enhance their products or change their advertisements in order to sell more goods. This is how I think the free market should operate.

We should focus our energy into ensuring that businesses are allowed to claim truthful statements on their packaging which other businesses might not like. I know this has been an issue. I'm not aware of current regulation banning any such advertisements, but things like these may already exist. If laws prevent businesses from claiming the absence of GMO's then it is my sincere opinion it's more 'fruitful' to focus attention on the repeal of such a law.

[sailingaway]

Because their products also go to non fully organic stores. That has nothing to do with my point, which was that your original claim was obviously bullshit. All those who insist on government intervening on this issue are not fundamentally sound libertarians. Consider joining the Green Party or something. You would have been part of the Ralph Nader seatbelt movement too indubitably.


I don't care if I'm a libertarian or not, but when corporatism of the level that exists with Monsanto exists to let them use our government against us, and until that is removed, I am all for using the state government to actually work FOR the people. Unfortunately, that is increasingly captive as well.

[MRoCkEd]

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

Not surprised anymore really wish Napolitano or Ventura would say they are running already. Maybe even Cruz.
Strange that an anarchist would want more government mandates

[GunnyFreedom]

Good for him! Even if you want GMO labeling, it's blatantly unconstitutional at the Federal level.

[jmdrake]

Because they are allowed to use 'organic' or 'natural' even if it contains GMO because the Monsanto controlled FDA says there is no material difference. That is also the reason cheerios had a claim against it for daring to say their cereal lowered cholesterol without going through FDA te$$Ting whereas Monsanto is deemed to need no testing for its GMO to be marketed. Regardless of the fact that to get a patent the first thing you have to show is that there IS a difference.

Another reason why the real answer to this is to strip the patent office of the ability to grant GMO patents.

[PSYOP]

Jesse Ventura would be a disaster. Not only is he a liar about his military career but he's a communist revolutionary apologist.

[sailingaway]

Can anyone provide a logical reason for why a company producing GMO free food wouldn't label it as such? How about a real world example?

Everything is already labeled thanks to the free market!


Seriously? When was the last time you went shopping? Most smaller businesses likely don't even know if the flour they bought for their product has gmos.

[tsai3904]

Also, this vote was taken a year ago. How is this news?

I think it's popped back up in the news recently because the Senate voted on the exact same amendment last week.

Here's the roll call vote:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00135

Text of amendment:


(d) Right to Know.--Notwithstanding any other Federal law (including regulations), a State may require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale in that State have a label on the container or package of the food, beverage, or other edible product, indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.

(e) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out this section.

(f) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall submit a report to Congress detailing the percentage of food and beverages sold in the United States that contain genetically engineered ingredients.

[whoisjohngalt]

I don't care if I'm a libertarian or not, but when corporatism of the level that exists with Monsanto exists to let them use our government against us, and until that is removed, I am all for using the state government to actually work FOR the people. Unfortunately, that is increasingly captive as well.

Why wouldn't a company making GMO free food willingly label it as such? *Cue jeopardy music*

[sailingaway]

Another reason why the real answer to this is to strip the patent office of the ability to grant GMO patents.

I agree that nothing that can naturally reproduce should be patentable. I am absolutely on board with that.

[sailingaway]

Why wouldn't a company making GMO free food willingly label it as such? *Cue jeopardy music*

Because they don't know if it is or not but if they knew what was in their ingredients might? I've answered that multiple times.

[sailingaway]

I think it's popped back up in the news recently because the Senate voted on the exact same amendment last week.

Here's the roll call vote:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00135

Text of amendment:

Was it the exact same amendment? I understood some body of congress voted against an amendment that would have allowed states to even have the ABILITY to label if they want (and I don't think they have the authority to say what states do in any event, but that vote I'd be interested in seeing the roll call for.)

[V3n]

Yeah.... at organic food stores. What's the point of labeling non-gmo foods at a organic food store if the word organic pretty much says it all?

This isn't an argument or anything - just a friendly 'did you know?' - in Vermont there is a company that delivers farm-to-fridge produce right to your door. (just because your location says "Vermont") If organic food is important to you, you may want to check them out:
http://www.grazedelivered.com/

I've used a similar service in my area and it was great. Better tasting than anything in the grocery store, and no waiting in lines at checkout! :)

(and if you're aren't sure if the farms use GMO's - it lists who they are and you can contact them directly!)

Now back to the discussion!

[GunnyFreedom]

Requiring businesses to label food products = bad.
Banning labeling such as 'does not contain GMO's' -if it's a true statement- = bad.

Freedom has to go both ways, businesses should have the freedom to sell their goods to consumers with whatever labeling they want, as long as it's not fraudulent. But on the other hand, other businesses should be allowed to make claims about things that are NOT in their product if that's a way they think they can more successfully advertise their products. If these businesses that don't label products experience a loss in revenue then it's in their interest to think of a way to enhance their products or change their advertisements in order to sell more goods. This is how I think the free market should operate.

We should focus our energy into ensuring that businesses are allowed to claim truthful statements on their packaging which other businesses might not like. I know this has been an issue. I'm not aware of current regulation banning any such advertisements, but things like these may already exist. If laws prevent businesses from claiming the absence of GMO's then it is my sincere opinion it's more 'fruitful' to focus attention on the repeal of such a law.

hear here.

Problem is, it's not any 'laws' to that effect, but the FDA sending threats and cease and desist letters that conflict with their own regulatory register. You can't point to a given law, or even a given regulation, because the FDA just does it by threats, coercion, and cease and desist letters without bothering to have laws or regulations to back them up.

What we need to do is abolish the FDA and the USDA and let the free market reign.

Until then I'm OK with State level requirements in the way of self defense against federal aggression on the matter. Defining fraud is better than labeling though, and any of it only at the State level, per the US Constitution.

So the real problem for those of us on the "I hate GMO" side is we simply can't point to a law or an entry in the Federal Register, because the FDA and the USDA are acting in a very lawless fashion. They are just doing it regardless of law or regulation. And the companies effected can't afford the millions of dollars to take FDA et al to court so they just comply.

[tsai3904]

Was it the exact same amendment?

Yea it's the same amendment.

[Quark]

I'm quite surprised by some "anarchists" and "libertarians" in this thread. An anarchist NEVER believes more government is the answer, and quite honestly other libertarians rarely do either.

[sailingaway]

Yea it's the same amendment.

Did the one last time also say states couldn't label? That is the part I am interested in, and if you don't know, I will just have to look it up at some point. That might have been an amendment to the amendment or a different vote.

[HigherVision]

I don't care if I'm a libertarian or not, but when corporatism of the level that exists with Monsanto exists to let them use our government against us, and until that is removed, I am all for using the state government to actually work FOR the people. Unfortunately, that is increasingly captive as well.

What you're opposing here is not corporatism, on this issue you're opposing the free market & voluntarism.

[sailingaway]

I'm quite surprised by some "anarchists" and "libertarians" in this thread. An anarchist NEVER believes more government is the answer, and quite honestly other libertarians rarely do either.

I think it is pretty unlibertarian to use a label to try to compel behavior myself, but I don't care if others view me as libertarian or not, I believe what I believe. There IS no free market, the government regulates favors for Monsanto and other agribusiness and whether that needs compensation by government is not viewing first principles in a vacuum.

[HigherVision]

How can people use their freedom to decide what to put into their own bodies if they can't even make that decision due to lack of labeling?

It's on them to find out for themselves if they care, obviously. It's none of your business!

[PSYOP]

I'm quite surprised by some "anarchists" and "libertarians" in this thread. An anarchist NEVER believes more government is the answer, and quite honestly other libertarians rarely do either.

And ignorantly so. Anarchists think that humans are naturally good and we can all get along with no problems just so long as government is eliminated.

[sailingaway]

What you're opposing here is not corporatism, on this issue you're opposing the free market & voluntarism.

No, because on this there is no free market.

[HigherVision]

I think it is pretty unlibertarian to use a label to try to compel behavior myself, but I don't care if others view me as libertarian or not, I believe what I believe. There IS no free market, the government regulates favors for Monsanto and other agribusiness and whether that needs compensation by government is not viewing first principles in a vacuum.

So what you're saying literally is that two wrongs make a right.

[sailingaway]

It's on them to find out for themselves if they care, obviously. It's none of your business!

Try.

I got slightly interested in this, enough that I would have avoided GMO where possible, if I could find a way, and found that is much harder than it seems.

[HigherVision]

No, because on this there is no free market.

Yes it is. People being able to buy what they want without you forcing companies to label their products how you want them to is a free market principle.

[sailingaway]

So what you're saying literally is that two wrongs make a right.


No, I am saying that sometimes opposing government skewing of the markets with other government force can be self defense.

I'd prefer none, but I'll take self defense over no defense when others are using the government for aggression. At that point, I stay within the Constitution.

[tsai3904]

Did the one last time also say states couldn't label? That is the part I am interested in, and if you don't know, I will just have to look it up at some point. That might have been an amendment to the amendment or a different vote.

This is what the amendment noted in the OP and the amendment the Senate voted on last week says (everything before (d) is defining terms and findings):


(d) Right to Know.--Notwithstanding any other Federal law (including regulations), a State may require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale in that State have a label on the container or package of the food, beverage, or other edible product, indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.

(e) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out this section.

(f) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall submit a report to Congress detailing the percentage of food and beverages sold in the United States that contain genetically engineered ingredients.

[HigherVision]

Try.

I got slightly interested in this, enough that I would have avoided GMO where possible, if I could find a way, and found that is much harder than it seems.

Yeah well there's no such thing as a free lunch as they say. It's hard producing food too, lots of things are hard. Be glad you live in a society that has so much food due to economic growth that resulted from it having a mostly free market for years.

[sailingaway]

Yes it is. People being able to buy what they want without you forcing companies to label their products how you want them to is a free market principle.

But the principle that the competitors have to have testing to even say blueberries are healthy, while Monsanto patents then genetically alters something yet doesn't have to say what it is selling is so different it can get patent protection for it (fraud, imho) and goes straight to market and even if you prove what they have should not be called 'food' but 'poison' that ongoing harvest cycle can still be marketed and there is no liability to Monsanto, is not a free market principle. When that bias exists, making those not using it also have the cost of tracking down every chain in their ingredient list and labeling cost simply so those buying can see they are not buying what they seem to be buying but a genetically modified substitute seems to me the result of government action in itself, not freedom.

And the amendment I'm interested in tracking down would have said states COULDN'T label, and that vote I do want to see.

[HigherVision]

And ignorantly so. Anarchists think that humans are naturally good and we can all get along with no problems just so long as government is eliminated.

If humans aren't naturally good then you definitely wouldn't want to trust them with the monopoly of power that a government has.

[supermario21]

Am I wrong for not really caring about this issue?

[Quark]

I think it is pretty unlibertarian to use a label to try to compel behavior myself, but I don't care if others view me as libertarian or not, I believe what I believe. There IS no free market, the government regulates favors for Monsanto and other agribusiness and whether that needs compensation by government is not viewing first principles in a vacuum.

This is similar to the argument by socialists used for the nationalization of a market when there is a monopoly (government-induced no less.) Corporations are in bed with government, and the solution is more government involvement and more powers given to such a government that has already expressed itself to be easily corruptible? The problem isn't the corporations but the the government which enables them. If we take away the powers then the corporations have nothing to manipulate in the first place. The solution isn't to give an already powerful, corruptible entity more powers to be used for corruption. The solution is to restrict this entity further and prevent the misuse of the powers it was originally given.

[Brett85]

He is a republican, not a Libertarian

So Libertarians support government mandated labeling of food but Republicans don't? I'm glad that I'm a Republican rather than a Libertarian as well since I actually believe in limited government.

[Brett85]

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

Not surprised anymore really wish Napolitano or Ventura would say they are running already. Maybe even Cruz.

You're an anarchist who wants no government but yet you still want government mandated labeling of food? :confused:

[HigherVision]

No, I am saying that sometimes opposing government skewing of the markets with other government force can be self defense.

The goal of someone who in favor of liberty should be at least lessening government force, and only if eliminating it is politically impossible. Not adding to it in hopes to cancel out other kinds of force with new ones, that's silly. All you're going to do is make things worse.

[sailingaway]

This is what the amendment noted in the OP and the amendment the Senate voted on last week says (everything before (d) is defining terms and findings):

That is the entire bill less definitions? So it wasn't a vote against labeling, it was a vote prohibiting states from labeling, or at least not making it clear it is ok?

[sailingaway]

This is similar to the argument by socialists used for the nationalization of a market when there is a monopoly (government-induced no less.) Corporations are in bed with government, and the solution is more government involvement and more powers given to such a government that has already expressed itself to be easily corruptible? The problem isn't the corporations but the the government which enables them. If we take away the powers then the corporations have nothing to manipulate in the first place. The solution isn't to give an already powerful, corruptible entity more powers to be used for corruption. The solution is to restrict this entity further and prevent the misuse of the powers it was originally given.


I understand it can be used to explain away a lot, but so can many principles. Get rid of the FDA and Ag, and I'm with you. Right now, I think saying you should only be for small government in refusing to remedy the problem that big government creates is disingenuous.

[Brett85]

Why should businesses be forced to label these things?

This seems to be a key difference between "right libertarians" and "left libertarians." The libertarians who are advocating government mandated food labeling are kind of the "left-libertarian," "Occupy Wall Street libertarians" who generally believe in limited government but hate certain corporations so much that in certain instances they end up supporting additional government regulations.

[sailingaway]

The goal of someone who in favor of liberty should be at least lessening government force, and only if eliminating it is politically impossible. Not adding to it in hopes to cancel out other kinds of force with new ones, that's silly. All you're going to do is make things worse.

thank you for telling me what my views should be but in this case I think LESSENING the stranglehold Monsanto has on my food supply which government force alone gives it is the thing I want.

[sailingaway]

This seems to be a key difference between "right libertarians" and "left libertarians." The libertarians who are advocating government mandated food labeling are kind of the "left-libertarian," "Occupy Wall Street libertarians" who generally believe in limited government but hate certain corporations so much that in certain instances they end up supporting additional government regulations.

Not hardly. I'm not 'left libertarian', I don't want FDA to exist or Ag either. Many conservatives do, particularly those who think subsidies for agribusiness is fine, and patents of naturally reproducing organisms which then give ownership of the next generation to the patent holder, but that mandated labeling that a substance is a genetically modified thing, different enough to get a patent, is 'government interference'. I think marketing something different enough to get a patent as if it were the real thing is fraud and government should protect the people from fraud, not legislate it.

[Brett85]

Not hardly. I'm not 'left libertarian', I don't want FDA to exist or Ag either. Many conservatives do, particularly those who think subsidies for agribusiness is fine, but labeling isnt.

I haven't taken the time to read all your posts. Are you arguing in favor of the government forcing companies to label their food?

[KingNothing]

Why should businesses be forced to label these things? Also, this vote was taken a year ago. How is this news?

It's news because some people here hate Rand, and businesses should be forced to label things because some people here only care about freedom when it fits with their worldview.

[sailingaway]

I haven't taken the time to read all your posts. Are you arguing in favor of the government forcing companies to label their food?


I am arguing in favor of getting rid of the FDA and AG but as long as they are allowed to be captured by GMO patent holders to perpetuate fraud to allow states to require labeling if their people want it.

[Quark]

I understand it can be used to explain away a lot, but so can many principles. Get rid of the FDA and Ag, and I'm with you. Right now, I think saying you should only be for small government in refusing to remedy the problem that big government creates is disingenuous.

An infringement of freedom caused by government intervention isn't solved by a reduction of negative liberties and further government intervention. Even the most big government classical liberal would agree with this. We've learned this lesson over the last hundred years with the progressive expansion of government and the unwarranted, baseless, promises of freedoms "created" by government. There isn't such a thing as a freedom created by government. "Get rid of the FDA and Ag" is precisely what we should be promoting, not asking for more government abuse of power. There are always unintended consequences to more laws and state influence.

[KingNothing]

Someone named "NationalAnarchist" is advocating for government intervention. That's excellent.

I love this place and the cognitive dissonance, stupidity, and insanity it harbors.

[sailingaway]

It's news because some people here hate Rand, and businesses should be forced to label things because some people here only care about freedom when it fits with their worldview.

This has nothing to do with Rand to me, and what I want is an end to the corporatism, but since that means our govt force is aimed at us, I want our states to be able to defend us. Is it big government to have California vote to protect its citizens against NDAA indefinite detention, using government force? Is Montana voting to arrest federal agents who try to enforce federal gun laws big government?

[Matt Collins]

Epic fight going on my FB wall about this right now:
https://www.facebook.com/LibertyMatt?ref=flnm

[mz10]

Let me explain this:

If you are a libertarian, I assume you believe 3 things:
A) The initiation of force is never justified
B) There is no such thing as benevolent government
C) Property rights must never be violated

If you do not believe in these three things, you are not a libertarian. I'm sure Ron Paul still appreciates your votes, but you do not understand the basic principles that drive his message.

Mandatory GMO labeling violates all 3 of these principles.

A) A business (small or large) that chooses not to label its food is not committing violence against anyone, directly or indirectly. If a law is passed that punished businesses for not putting a label on their product, then they are being coerced into taking a certain action through the threat of violence. This is in violation of the non-agression principle, the singular foundation of libertarianism.

B) For every instance where the government works for the people, there will always be an instance of it working against the people. Any time you give the government a new power, and create dependency on the government, that power will inevitably be abused. Mandatory GMO labeling creates consumer dependency on government, as consumers no longer feel that they have to pay close attention to what they are buying. This allows for cronyism and government abuse of power.

C) Until and unless any transaction is made, the food is the property of the corporation. As such, they can do whatever they want with it. They can piss in the food, they can put rat poison in the food, they can fill a bag with human feces and tell you that it's shrimp scampi. As soon as you violate one person's property rights, you open the door to violating everybody's property rights.


If you hate corporations more than you hate government, you are not a libertarian. You are by definition a progressive liberal.

[Brett85]

I am arguing in favor of getting rid of the FDA and AG but as long as they are allowed to be captured by GMO patent holders to perpetuate fraud to allow states to require labeling if their people want it.

Well, I agree with you on the states' rights aspect of it. I think that state governments should have the right to require labeling if they want to. I wouldn't want my state to require that, but I support their right to do that. If all this amendment does is simply allow the states to require labeling, I probably would've voted for it had I been in Congress. But, there may be more to the amendment than that. I haven't read it. I wouldn't support any bill that gives more power to the federal government.

[sailingaway]

Well, I agree with you on the states' rights aspect of it. I think that state governments should have the right to require labeling if they want to. I wouldn't want my state to require that, but I support their right to do that. If all this amendment does is simply allow the states to require labeling, I probably would've voted for it had I been in Congress. But, there may be more to the amendment than that. I haven't read it. I wouldn't support any bill that gives more power to the federal government.


I am going to have to track that down. What tsai posted only would have 'allowed' states to label, but since that point matters to me, I am going to have to look it up. I'm not on a really urgent time line on this, but when the time comes that I do it, I can let you know if you want.

[tsai3904]

I am arguing in favor of getting rid of the FDA and AG but as long as they are allowed to be captured by GMO patent holders to perpetuate fraud to allow states to require labeling if their people want it.

I'm a little confused on the issue. Are states currently forbidden from requiring labeling? If states allowed labeling, would they be in violation of federal law?

[mz10]

Well, I agree with you on the states' rights aspect of it. I think that state governments should have the right to require labeling if they want to. I wouldn't want my state to require that, but I support their right to do that. If all this amendment does is simply allow the states to require labeling, I probably would've voted for it had I been in Congress. But, there may be more to the amendment than that. I haven't read it. I wouldn't support any bill that gives more power to the federal government.

Personally, I don't like property rights being violated by any level of government, local state or federal. Federal mandates telling states what they have to do (i.e. Medicaid expansion) is obviously something I object to, but I have no problem with the federal government telling a state government what it can't do. Localization is meaningless if liberty is still being violated.

(This is one of the few things I disagree with Ron about, btw)

[mz10]

Well, I agree with you on the states' rights aspect of it. I think that state governments should have the right to require labeling if they want to. I wouldn't want my state to require that, but I support their right to do that. If all this amendment does is simply allow the states to require labeling, I probably would've voted for it had I been in Congress. But, there may be more to the amendment than that. I haven't read it. I wouldn't support any bill that gives more power to the federal government.

Personally, I don't like property rights being violated by any level of government, local state or federal. Federal mandates telling states what they have to do (i.e. Medicaid expansion) is obviously something I object to, but I have no problem with the federal government telling a state government what it can't do. Localization is meaningless if liberty is still being violated.

(This is one of the few things I disagree with Ron about, btw)

[tsai3904]

Here's the full text of the amendment. I single spaced the parts where it lists findings and defines terms. The last three paragraphs are what I think are the relevant parts of the amendment.


SA 965. Mr. SANDERS (for himself and Mr. BEGICH) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 954, to reauthorize agricultural programs through 2018; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1150, after line 15, add the following:
SEC. 12213. CONSUMERS RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD ACT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Consumers Right to Know About Genetically Engineered Food Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) surveys of the American public consistently show that 90 percent or more of the people of the United States want genetically engineered to be labeled as such;
(2) a landmark public health study in Canada found that--
(A) 93 percent of pregnant women had detectable toxins from genetically engineered foods in their blood; and
(B) 80 percent of the babies of those women had detectable toxins in their umbilical cords;
(3) the tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly reserves powers in the system of Federalism to the States or to the people; and
(4) States have the authority to require the labeling of foods produced through genetic engineering or derived from organisms that have been genetically engineered.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) GENETIC ENGINEERING.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--The term ``genetic engineering'' means a process that alters an organism at the molecular or cellular level by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes.
(B) INCLUSIONS.--The term ``genetic engineering'' includes--
(i) recombinant DNA and RNA techniques;
(ii) cell fusion;
(iii) microencapsulation;
(iv) macroencapsulation;
(v) gene deletion and doubling;
(vi) introduction of a foreign gene; and
(vii) changing the position of genes.
(C) EXCLUSIONS.--The term ``genetic engineering'' does not include any modification to an organism that consists exclusively of--
(i) breeding;
(ii) conjugation;
(iii) fermentation;
(iv) hybridization;
(v) in vitro fertilization; or
(vi) tissue culture.
(2) GENETICALLY ENGINEERED INGREDIENT.--The term ``genetically engineered ingredient'' means any ingredient in any food, beverage, or other edible product that--
(A) is, or is derived from, an organism that is produced through the intentional use of genetic engineering; or
(B) is, or is derived from, the progeny of intended sexual reproduction, asexual reproduction, or both of 1 or more organisms described in subparagraph (A).

(d) Right to Know.--Notwithstanding any other Federal law (including regulations), a State may require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale in that State have a label on the container or package of the food, beverage, or other edible product, indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.

(e) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out this section.

(f) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall submit a report to Congress detailing the percentage of food and beverages sold in the United States that contain genetically engineered ingredients.

[sailingaway]

I'm a little confused on the issue. Are states currently forbidden from requiring labeling? If states allowed labeling, would they be in violation of federal law?

LOL! I THINK they were trying to make it clear there was no 'federal supremacy' of law banning labeling. I would certainly argue states have the right, just as CA has labeled environmental junk to our detriment and has had different gun laws. But that law looks from what you posted as if it thought it would 'allow' states to label. And was voted down. I laughed, because that is what I have to find out. I think states should be able to label if they want. I think the federal government should not remove Monsanto's liability for creating a harmful product. I am pissed at this whole area as I would not be if they weren't claiming ownership of the next generation of seed grain in a farmer's field when the farmer didn't TRY to reproduce monsanto grain and in fact tried to collect seed only from the farmer's NON Monsanto crop, but the wind carried the pollen as wind does.

[GunnyFreedom]

Here's the full text of the amendment. I single spaced the parts where it lists findings and defines terms. The last three paragraphs are what I think are the relevant parts of the amendment.

I would have voted for this, because all it really says is that Washington DC doesn't have the authority to prohibit State initiated labeling, which is true. Washington DC doesn't have that authority. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it give Washington the authority to prohibit State labeling requirements. Washington has too much unconstitutional power as it is, giving them even more is lunacy.

[sailingaway]

Here's the full text of the amendment. I single spaced the parts where it lists findings and defines terms. The last three paragraphs are what I think are the relevant parts of the amendment.

Thanks. That is internally inconsistent. First it says:


(3) the tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly reserves powers in the system of Federalism to the States or to the people; and

(4) States have the authority to require the labeling of foods produced through genetic engineering or derived from organisms that have been genetically engineered.



and I agree with that, which means in my view no law would be needed.... UNLESS there is something on the books not in this act which appears to prohibit states from labeling. That might be the key here, does other regulation through 'supremacy' arguably restrict the states?

because the operative part you stated before, and it is

1. Say states are allowed to label
2. In a year issue regs saying states are allowed to label (no clue why this law isn't good enough w/o 'regulations')
and
3. Report back as to the percentage of food in the nation with GMOs.

As I said, my opinion isn't based on Rand's votes and maybe he thought states already have the right and he didn't want to pay for a list. I have no idea. He'd have to tell us. But the main operative provision seemed to be to clarify that states can label. I do think states have that right, and in CA I voted for them to exercise it after much wrestling with the issue. (that is when I went to the trouble to look into it and discovered how hard it is to find out what is or is not GMO.)

[V3n]

It sounds like it is a bit more than "allowing" the States to label:


(e) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out this section.

Like the Mayor of Boston "allowing" its citizens to stay indoors during a manhunt, or my Mom "allowing" me to put my toys away before bed!

[tsai3904]

I would have voted for this, because all it really says is that Washington DC doesn't have the authority to prohibit State initiated labeling, which is true.

That's how I read it too but then I'm confused about this:


(e) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out this section.

What's the point of this?

[TheGrinch]

Sorry, but I'm not going to read a whole thread started by a guy with "Anarchist" in his username advocating for federal law to "save us from ourselves". There are plenty of better ways to combat what Monsanto is doing than asking the problem to come up with a solution. When does that ever work?

(That said, if I thought it would be done correctly, then I would have little issue with requiring honest labeling, but relying on the FDA to make yet another health choice for us, it's only exacerbating the problem)

[Dr.3D]

Why not just let the market decide? If those who label their product as GMO Free get more business or higher prices for their product it should make those who can, decide to label their products the same way. Thus if you see a product that isn't labeled as GMO free, then you can pretty much assume it isn't GMO free and avoid buying it.

It would seem, the market can easily make such a decision without any government interference.

[sailingaway]

Why not just let the market decide? If those who label their product as GMO Free get more business or higher prices for their product it should make those who can, decide to label their products the same way. Thus if you see a product that isn't labeled as GMO free, then you can pretty much assume it isn't GMO free and avoid buying it.

It would seem, the market can easily make such a decision without any government interference.


because the market is too skewed by Monsanto legal eagles now heading both FDA and Ag, and an ex Monsanto lobbyist being Obama's advisor on GMO products, That is why you get laws like the Monsanto protection act that say even if it is proven in court that Monsanto product is harmful to health, they can continue to market that harvest of it without any liability, continuing to not tell you you are buying something other than the natural product.

This is not a free market.

[sailingaway]

That's how I read it too but then I'm confused about this:



What's the point of this?


The only thing I can think it means is that there are a ton of regulations that seem to impede states from being able to label that have to be defined away. That is not comforting.

[Brett85]

Here's the full text of the amendment. I single spaced the parts where it lists findings and defines terms. The last three paragraphs are what I think are the relevant parts of the amendment.

It sounds to me like part (d) is ok but not parts (e) and (f).

[supermario21]

I would take what mz10 takes to another level, and that is that government empowers corporatism, not the other way around...

[sailingaway]

It sounds to me like part (d) is ok but not parts (e) and (f).

that may have been Rand's take although the only reason e would be anything is if there are a ton of regs pretending to limit states rights, in which case I think e is necessary. F may have been an issue. Again, I am not trying to say why Rand voted as he did on this precise bill, I would like to get that from him. I am speaking of how I philosophically see the point.

[sailingaway]

Sorry, but I'm not going to read a whole thread started by a guy with "Anarchist" in his username advocating for federal law to "save us from ourselves". There are plenty of better ways to combat what Monsanto is doing than asking the problem to come up with a solution. When does that ever work?

(That said, if I thought it would be done correctly, then I would have little issue with requiring honest labeling, but relying on the FDA to make yet another health choice for us, it's only exacerbating the problem)

the bill would just have allowed states to label.

there's this list thing though, that may have added more. Not sure. Not even sure why anyone wanted the list.

[GunnyFreedom]

That's how I read it too but then I'm confused about this:



What's the point of this?

That's pretty much boilerplate for any laws that affect a regulatory body at all. I'd be more concerned about the report to Congress in 2 years. This is just saying that if someone needs to pass a regulation to stop a fed from harassing a State that they are going to be allowed to do it. There is no other authority in the bill from which a regulation could spring, and that section only allows the regulation of authorities arising fromt hat bill itself.

A lot of stuff in legislation is boilerplate. And boilerplate stuff often looks out of place.

[Natural Citizen]

Sigh. I used to think that this was the informed crowd. I think I was wrong.

Can't even decipher between a genuine free market and a government controlled one. And that's the least of it. Stubborn too.

Oh well. Good luck to yuns...

[Brian4Liberty]

What a conundrum this issue is. Look at the example of "trans fat". They mandated that "trans fat" be specifically called out on the label, but this was deceptive, as there are natural trans fats (in grass-fed beef, for example), and then there is artificial trans fat (hydrogenated oils). It's the artificial hydrogenated trans fats that are dangerous, but the lobbyists made sure that the label law did not call that out. Plus, they made a cut off of half a gram of trans fat, and less than that per serving could be called trans fat free.

Everything about that label law was manipulated by industry lobbyists.

[sailingaway]

What a conundrum this issue is. Look at the example of "trans fat". They mandated that "trans fat" be specifically called out on the label, but this was deceptive, as there are natural trans fats (in grass-fed beef, for example), and then there is artificial trans fat (hydrogenated oils). It's the artificial hydrogenated trans fats that are dangerous, but the lobbyists made sure that the label law did not call that out. Plus, they made a cut off of half a gram of trans fat, and less than that per serving could be called trans fat free.

Everything about that label law was manipulated by industry lobbyists.

it is true that lobbyists will manipulate labeling but they are what is requiring no labeling, at this point. I agree it is a conundrum, and you'd have to look at a specific law if you were contemplating one.

[KingNothing]

Is it big government to have California vote to protect its citizens against NDAA indefinite detention, using government force? Is Montana voting to arrest federal agents who try to enforce federal gun laws big government?

You don't see how one level of government limiting what another level of government is allowed to subject the citizens to is different than forcing a company to do something?

[Dr.3D]

because the market is too skewed by Monsanto legal eagles now heading both FDA and Ag, and an ex Monsanto lobbyist being Obama's advisor on GMO products, That is why you get laws like the Monsanto protection act that say even if it is proven in court that Monsanto product is harmful to health, they can continue to market that harvest of it without any liability, continuing to not tell you you are buying something other than the natural product.

This is not a free market.

So that keeps those who have GMO free products from labeling them that way?

[GunnyFreedom]

Sigh. I used to think that this was the informed crowd. I think I was wrong.

Can't even decipher between a genuine free market and a government controlled one. And that's the least of it. Stubborn too.

Oh well. Good luck to yuns...

Ehh, I recognize that this is a tremendously complex issue. I don't have any complaint with people being on either side of it, my complaint is only with those who think the question is simple and straightforward. It's not. There is a largish amount of crony corporatism involved here that leads to fascistic aggression being carried out against individuals.

Mandatory labeling in any rational world is not a libertarian philosophy by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is shooting someone. Yet, we recognize the validity of lethal force in self defense. Any just use of force must comply with the Non Aggression principle. What makes this so very complicated is you have a multitude of parties, and the ones who would be receiving defensive force are not in all cases the ones applying aggression. So there is a serious quandary. The challenge is to come up with a method of defense that only affects the aggressors, and the means to do exactly that is largely unclear because of the crony corporatist (aka fascistic) marketplace that everyone is being forced to operate within.

So I don't begrudge anybody on either side of this one. The ones I think are irrational are the ones who paint this issue as blatantly obvious. It's clearly not.

[ItsTime]

I am no fan of GMO's but please do not use my tax money on FORCING people with violence to label gmos

[Dr.3D]

I am no fan of GMO's but please do not use my tax money on FORCING people with violence to label gmos

Yep, just buy the ones that are labeled GMO free.

[GunnyFreedom]

So that keeps those who have GMO free products from labeling them that way?

it kinda does. The FDA has been issuing threats, coercion, and cease and desist letters against companies who label certain select products "GMO Free" or "rBGH Free" for a long time. The most widely recognized example is recombinant bovine growth hormone in dairy products. The FDA and the USDA don't bother with such passe things as laws or regulations, they just operate on their own whim (and the whim of the crony corporatists who operate them) to prevent such labeling by threats and coercion. The companies who choose to label are usually very small, niche-market companies who got into the business specifically to provide such products, and they cannot even begin to afford the court costs associated with fighting the Federal Government, so they just roll over and comply, notwithstanding the lack of law or regulation creating the situation.

[JCDenton0451]

Exactly! Like I said he knows who to piss off and who to cower to...big business wins this round.

I doubt he was already corrupted, I think Rand was simply ignorant on this issue. Unfortunately, this vote falls into the long-established pattern among GOP conservatives who reflexively oppose any kind of government regulation, unless, of course, we're talking about restrictions on contraception and abortion. That's the kind of intrusive Big Government regulation they can support.

[Dr.3D]

it kinda does. The FDA has been issuing threats, coercion, and cease and desist letters against companies who label certain select products "GMO Free" or "rBGH Free" for a long time. The most widely recognized example is recombinant bovine growth hormone in dairy products. The FDA and the USDA don't bother with such passe things as laws or regulations, they just operate on their own whim (and the whim of the crony corporatists who operate them) to prevent such labeling by threats and coercion. The companies who choose to label are usually very small, niche-market companies who got into the business specifically to provide such products, and they cannot even begin to afford the court costs associated with fighting the Federal Government, so they just roll over and comply, notwithstanding the lack of law or regulation creating the situation.
Then it's not mandatory labeling that's needed but rather to remove the problems associated with voluntary labeling.

[GunnyFreedom]

Then it's not mandatory labeling that's needed but rather to remove the problems associated with voluntary labeling.

Sure, I couldn't agree more. So how does one go about making that happen?

Only real answer is abolish the FDA and the USDA. Unlikely to happen in the next 20 years.

In the meantime, GMO pollen is polluting heirloom seedstock via wind-borne infections, and people who genuinely believe GMO is poison have no way of knowingly avoid the stuff without growing all of their own food. By the time we manage to abolish the FDA, true heirloom seedstock may be going for $100 a gram based on scarcity, and if the anti-GMO'ers are correct, half the population stricken with deadly illnesses.

There is no good answer. I consider State-level actions as reasonable self-defense against crony corporatist fascism run amok in Washington DC.

[JCDenton0451]

though a food producer can't mislabel something in order to sell it, to pass a law compelling them to label anything at all is immoral. (if it isn't your property, you don't have the right)
good rule of thumb, if the company is too afraid to list what something is... don't buy it.
if a company lies about the contents through the label, sue them- and let everyone know they sell poison/defraud people.

last thing we need is another state bureacratic army in charge of label inspections.

There is no basis for suing the companies, because GMO is not a crime. First we need to adopt a rule that will force GMO producers to label their products. Then individual citizens can sue companies, that will refuse to comply. No large bureaucratic army, no violence involved.

[July]

What a conundrum this issue is. Look at the example of "trans fat". They mandated that "trans fat" be specifically called out on the label, but this was deceptive, as there are natural trans fats (in grass-fed beef, for example), and then there is artificial trans fat (hydrogenated oils). It's the artificial hydrogenated trans fats that are dangerous, but the lobbyists made sure that the label law did not call that out. Plus, they made a cut off of half a gram of trans fat, and less than that per serving could be called trans fat free.

Everything about that label law was manipulated by industry lobbyists.

+rep, I was just going to point that out. Indeed the trans fat issue has been a disaster, and is a good case example to study. I would certainly not like to see this history repeated with GMOs as well. This is not the first time. Would we have had such a problem with trans fats in the first place, had the government not started the war on fat? We have widespread GMO largely to activist government as well. The result will be very similar, IMO, a lot more GMO hidden in our food and a false sense of security for consumers. A government solution to a government created problem isn't the answer.

[GunnyFreedom]

There is no basis for suing the companies, because GMO is not a crime. First we need to adopt a rule that will force GMO producers to label their products. Then individual citizens can sue companies, that will refuse to comply. No large bureaucratic army, no violence involved.

Torch is right though. A much more principled approach is focusing on the fraudulent aspect of mislabeling rather than proactively forcing labeling. To me, selling a frogmato as though it were a tomato is fraudulent mislabeling. In the end, it accomplishes the same thing without the use of pro-active force. It is also much more in line with libertarian theory and free market philosophy than any kind of forced labeling scheme. Don't sell me a shit sandwich and claim it's vegemite, that would be fraud. You are better off making no claims at all because then at least you would be telling the truth.

[Natural Citizen]

Isn't this old news?

This is one of the most damaging setback's to people. Generally we'll hear "Oh, it's ok. This is how we've always done it" or "oh, no prioblem. We already heard about this".

Except there is the fact that nobody did anything about it.

Anyhoo. Monsanto has been in the pharmaceutical business for some time too. Does that mean then that it's ok to silence genes in the human body just because we heard they were in the business some time ago? It's ok because they have property rights? Namely you in this case? After all. You are what you eat. Right?

People are blindly handing over their own personhood. First by giving these corporations the giftof constitution in the first place and now were just OK with them completely repatriating personhood/humanity through science itself. Yeah, that's their right. Right?


Monsanto Enters Pharmaceutical Business: Aquires Key "Gene Silencing" Technology for Use In Humans (http://www.hangthebankers.com/monsanto-enters-pharmaceutical-business-acquires-key-gene-silencing-technology-for-use-in-humans/)

[JCDenton0451]

Let me explain this:

If you are a libertarian, I assume you believe 3 things:
A) The initiation of force is never justified
B) There is no such thing as benevolent government
C) Property rights must never be violated


Using your definition of libertarianism Ron Paul is not a libertarian, since he believes in the mission of benevolent government to initiate force against women who choose to have abortion. What a ridiculous approach, applying rigid litmus tests to people, and insulting those with a different point of view as "progressives".

[July]

Torch is right though. A much more principled approach is focusing on the fraudulent aspect of mislabeling rather than proactively forcing labeling. To me, selling a frogmato as though it were a tomato is fraudulent mislabeling. In the end, it accomplishes the same thing without the use of pro-active force. It is also much more in line with libertarian theory and free market philosophy than any kind of forced labeling scheme. Don't sell me a shit sandwich and claim it's vegemite, that would be fraud. You are better off making no claims at all because then at least you would be telling the truth.

Agreed, it's really an issue of fraud, and would better be addressed from that perspective, IMO.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Twelve pages on a year-old vote?

[Natural Citizen]

Twelve pages on a year-old vote?

This means that someone all of a sudden gives a damn that people are waking up. Is a scary thing...for some. We like them when they're sleeping. Right?

The phenomenon is comparable to the almighty poll. These occur when debate is frowned upon for the most part. I think this was brought up again to distract from discussion elsewhere and hijack the topic itself into a more politically correct terms of controvesy and away from a purely scientific perspective. One that, obviously, isn't compatible with the dumbing down process that demands bodies to vote instead of critical thinkers to actually address the issues of the day. You know? The one that means you shouldn't care about the nuts and bolts, just go stand in line with the rest of the herd and vote for things that you don't really need to know or care about.

[JCDenton0451]

Torch is right though. A much more principled approach is focusing on the fraudulent aspect of mislabeling rather than proactively forcing labeling. To me, selling a frogmato as though it were a tomato is fraudulent mislabeling. In the end, it accomplishes the same thing without the use of pro-active force. It is also much more in line with libertarian theory and free market philosophy than any kind of forced labeling scheme. Don't sell me a shit sandwich and claim it's vegemite, that would be fraud. You are better off making no claims at all because then at least you would be telling the truth.

That is your opinion and also my opinon, but that's not something that could sway a court. Courts make their decisions based on laws and regulations. According to US laws, tomato is a tomato, it doesn't matter how it was created. In this case legal framework simply needs to be updated to catch up with new techologies.

[sailingaway]

You don't see how one level of government limiting what another level of government is allowed to subject the citizens to is different than forcing a company to do something?

Limiting state government in what it is allowed to protect its citizens from? Because labeling is just to avoid what Fed level government has created and mandated, the same as with NDAA and the federal gun laws. And yeah, I think nothing in the Constitution gives the federal govt the power to limit the states except on Constitutional specifics, because local government is better, giving more individuals closer to what they want in life, which may vary from what people in other localities want.

Now, voting on a STATE level, I would want to make sure the law was carefully crafted and limited.

I don't in a vacuum want labeling. I want it here only because of the corporate capture using Federal government force to warp the market and, imho, frankly commit fraud. I am seriously troubled by patents on naturally reproducing organisms existing into the NEXT GENERATION at minimum and govt that creates that situation is not working for the people, imho.

[sailingaway]

That is your opinion and also my opinon, but that's not something that could sway a court. Courts make their decisions based on laws and regulations. According to US laws, tomato is a tomato, it doesn't matter how it was created. In this case legal framework simply needs to be updated to catch up with new techologies.

Fraud is fraud however, but yeah, those federal regs saying on the one hand there is no difference, but under patent law that it has to be 'unique and novel' to get a patent give courts a lot of leeway. Or restrict them, if they want to say so.

[Texan4Life]

"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

"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." -Rand Paul

^ this

+ rep

[JCDenton0451]

Fraud is fraud however, but yeah, those federal regs saying on the one hand there is no difference, but under patent law that it has to be 'unique and novel' to get a patent give courts a lot of leeway. Or restrict them, if they want to say so. As I understand it the patents refer to GMO technology itself, not the products created with it, so technically there is no contradiction here.

[sailingaway]

As I understand it the patents refer to GMO technology itself, not the products created with it, so technically there is no contradiction here.


I'd argue differently. If it is 'genetically modified' it is 'modified'.

[JCDenton0451]

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."

There are many problems with this approach:

1. Consumers can demand all they want, but should manufactures care?

2. Very few consumers are aware of GMO, so boycott as proposed by Ron Paul is not going to work

3. Do we really want to see natural food relegated to the status of premium, luxury product?

4. Again, no legal basis to sue or prosecute GMO producers, because technically what they're doing is no mislabelling or fraud.

Ron Paul can't bring himself to admit it, but some problems simply don't have effective free market solutions, they appear to only have a government solution, and no, I'm not talking about abortion.

[GunnyFreedom]

That is your opinion and also my opinon, but that's not something that could sway a court. Courts make their decisions based on laws and regulations. According to US laws, tomato is a tomato, it doesn't matter how it was created. In this case legal framework simply needs to be updated to catch up with new techologies.


Well, in the absence of a legal definition, one should operate under the scientific definition. Kingdom, phyla, genus, species. That being the case, no scientist would mistake an animal for a plant or a plant for an animal. GE within the same genus may be a little iffy, but once you back up to the phyla there should no longer be a question.

Natural cross-breeding results in specie differentiation. Lions and tigers make a new species, even if the product looks similar. Horses and donkeys make a new species, even if the product looks similar. Surely tomatos and fish, or tomatos and frogs make a new species. If it is a new species indeed, then can it really still be called a 'tomato?'

[Dr.3D]

Now I'm starting to wonder about some other ramifications. Is Trout with a bit of pig in it Kosher?

[XTreat]

The day that government mandates GMO labeling will be the day the definition of GMO begins to change, soon you will be eating GMO food proudly sporting a FDA approved "non-GMO" label.

I think aspartame is now a "natural flavor" according to the FDA right?

[angelatc]

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

Not surprised anymore really wish Napolitano or Ventura would say they are running already. Maybe even Cruz.

Because it's totally constitutional to demand that the federal government force food manufacturers to label their food in certain ways.

[sailingaway]

Now I'm starting to wonder about some other ramifications. Is Trout with a bit of pig in it Kosher?

I don't know, but if it breeds, Monsanto owns the offspring, even if only half the DNA came from its patented version.

[angelatc]

So Libertarians support government mandated labeling of food but Republicans don't? I'm glad that I'm a Republican rather than a Libertarian as well since I actually believe in limited government.


What's really cringe-worthy is thinking that the FDA would define GMO modified the same way the Whole Foods people do.

These are the same breed of idiots that demanded that the government define "Organic" then were shocked and apalled to find that the government's watered-down definition was tailored to meet the marketing needs of the corporate food producers.

As a species, we just don't ever learn.

[angelatc]

Here's what I'm talking about:

http://farmwars.info/?p=4913


It makes perfect sense, however, in a Machiavellian sort of way. Flood the food supply with poisons, then lead people to believe that the only safe choice left is USDA Certified Organic. Then buy up the organic companies one by one, and start changing the “organic” rules from the inside out via the bought and paid for government agencies so that you can reap the profits from those trying to escape the poisons.



The same people falling for the same trick. We are so screwed.....

[Liberty74]

Stupid vote by Rand. Personally, I want to know which products contain GMO so I can avoid this crap.

It's not about government control, people! It's about informed consumer choice. Obviously, corporate interests do not want that. But our elected representatives should know better.

Exactly. The people OVERWHELMINGLY want the addition of a product labeled GMO or not including myself.

Ron says the government always reflect the views of the people. Hardly the case here because our government is ILLEGITIMATE and bought by the highest bidder.

[mz10]

Exactly. The people OVERWHELMINGLY want the addition of a product labeled GMO or not including myself.

Ron says the government always reflect the views of the people. Hardly the case here because our government is ILLEGITIMATE and bought by the highest bidder.

Then why is Ron so vehemently against mandatory GMO labeling?

[mz10]

Funny how you can tell, based on people's responses to this issue, who the ex-Democrats are and who the lifelong Republicans are. I say that not as a slur in any way (I'm glad that we have ex-Democrats), but just as an interesting observation.

[TheGrinch]

Exactly. The people OVERWHELMINGLY want the addition of a product labeled GMO or not including myself.

Ron says the government always reflect the views of the people. Hardly the case here because our government is ILLEGITIMATE and bought by the highest bidder.

I'm quite sure you're misquoting Ron on that.

The closest I've heard him say anything like that was when talking about the CRA, that it wasn't the law but the changing views of the people that allowed for this change in public consciousness.

Why would he speak for decades about the abuses of government run amok, if he truly believed they were serving the will of the people? Even if you believed that the proper role of the government is to serve the will of the people (which he clearly doesn't, he's spoken much about how even well intentioned views can bring huge consequences), it is very evident that he does not believe that the government is serving our interests the vast majority of the time.

[Liberty74]

Ok GMO label mandating fans out there? Do you support the mandatory calorie count menus in Obamacare?

Obamacare is unconstitutional and went against the public views on such program. Besides, putting calories next to a product on a menu doesn't do SHIT for you (no real protection) if you are eating cancer causing GMO foods that some of you insanely support.

The government, to a point, has an obligation to protect the people without interfering with our liberties. Forcing food companies to stamp GMO or non-GMO on a product is a good thing for people. What it is not good for is Bill Gates and Rockefeller's Monsanto seeds that is going to do more harm to people in the long run.

So line the fuck up people. Eat your GMO foods because you just won't know. Get your cancer and many other diseases. Spend tens of thousands of dollars treating your new found love. Lose your health. Lose your wealth. Lose your house. And if there is anything left after the government kills you on their death beds, the government will get 50% and simply smile saying NEXT. :p

And unlike Obamacare, people OVERWHELMINGLY support GMO labeling. It doesn't threaten anyone's liberties like Obamacare does on multiple levels.

[Liberty74]

Then why is Ron so vehemently against mandatory GMO labeling?

Because Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. Not everyone in the liberty movement is. And it's not that Ron is against GMO labeling per say. Rather, he is against the labeling from the federal government point of view. Besides, labeling food products GMO or non GMO doesn't threaten anyones' liberties, does it? The government isn't taking from one group and giving to another, is it? The government giving patents and protections via laws to Monsanto creating unfair competition to smaller farmers producing real foods is creating an anti-free market environment. Monsanto knows DAMN WELL that they cannot compete in the long run against the people unless they receive government protection.

[Brett85]

Besides, labeling food products GMO or non GMO doesn't threaten anyones' liberties, does it?

If you're talking about government mandated labeling, it threatens the liberties of these companies that are forced to label their food. These companies would face the threat of government force or violence if they refused to label their food.

[amy31416]

What's really cringe-worthy is thinking that the FDA would define GMO modified the same way the Whole Foods people do.

These are the same breed of idiots that demanded that the government define "Organic" then were shocked and apalled to find that the government's watered-down definition was tailored to meet the marketing needs of the corporate food producers.

As a species, we just don't ever learn.

No doubt. But man, calling produce that hasn't been grown in typical big-ag ways "organic" was just so incredibly stupid. "Organic" means substances derived from living matter and/or chemicals containing carbon (for the most part, some exceptions.)

It's like they were asking for it to be bastardized.

[mz10]

Because Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. Not everyone in the liberty movement is. And it's not that Ron is against GMO labeling per say. Rather, he is against the labeling from the federal government point of view. Besides, labeling food products GMO or non GMO doesn't threaten anyones' liberties, does it? The government isn't taking from one group and giving to another, is it? The government giving patents and protections via laws to Monsanto creating unfair competition to smaller farmers producing real foods is creating an anti-free market environment. Monsanto knows DAMN WELL that they cannot compete in the long run against the people unless they receive government protection.

I already posted this, but it bears repeating so I will post it again....


If you are a libertarian, I assume you believe 3 things:
A) The initiation of force is never justified
B) There is no such thing as benevolent government
C) Property rights must never be violated

If you do not believe in these three things, you are not a libertarian. I'm sure Ron Paul still appreciates your votes, but you do not understand the basic principles that drive his message.

Mandatory GMO labeling violates all 3 of these principles.

A) A business (small or large) that chooses not to label its food is not committing violence against anyone, directly or indirectly. If a law is passed that punished businesses for not putting a label on their product, then they are being coerced into taking a certain action through the threat of violence. This is in violation of the non-agression principle, the singular foundation of libertarianism.

B) For every instance where the government works for the people, there will always be an instance of it working against the people. Any time you give the government a new power, and create dependency on the government, that power will inevitably be abused. Mandatory GMO labeling creates consumer dependency on government, as consumers no longer feel that they have to pay close attention to what they are buying. This allows for cronyism and government abuse of power.

C) Until and unless any transaction is made, the food is the property of the corporation. As such, they can do whatever they want with it. They can piss in the food, they can put rat poison in the food, they can fill a bag with human feces and tell you that it's shrimp scampi. As soon as you violate one person's property rights, you open the door to violating everybody's property rights.


If you hate corporations more than you hate government, you are not a libertarian. You are by definition a progressive liberal.

[Natural Citizen]

If you hate corporations more than you hate government, you are not a libertarian. You are by definition a progressive liberal.

If you support the merge of corporation and state then you are by definition a fascist. My genes are my property, btw. Mine. Monsanto doesn't get to legislate otherwise.

[jtstellar]

If you support the merge of corporation and state then you are a fascist. My genes are my property, btw. Mine. Monsanto doesn't get to legislate otherwise.

didn't you believe in man made global warming as well

[anaconda]

Why should businesses be forced to label these things? Also, this vote was taken a year ago. How is this news?

Exactly. And...let's vote with our consumer dollars rather than invoke the power of the state. Rand did the right thing. I'm sure he despises Monsanto like the rest of us. As an analogy, objecting to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not make one racist.

[Natural Citizen]

didn't you believe in man made global warming as well

Get back in your hole. i wasn't talking to you.

[Natural Citizen]

If you support the merge of corporation and state then you are by definition a fascist. My genes are my property, btw. Mine. Monsanto doesn't get to legislate otherwise.

//

[mac_hine]

But what if the FDA doesn't want non-GMO food producers to be able to advertise their products......

FDA won’t allow food to be labeled free of genetic modification: report

‘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.

David Edwards, director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, told the Post that “extra labeling only confuses the consumer. … It differentiates products that are not different. As we stick more labels on products that don’t really tell us anything more, it makes it harder for consumers to make their choices.”

The Post notes that the debate over genetically modified salmon, which will be decided at an FDA advisory panel meeting this week, “comes at a time when Americans seem to want to know more about their food – where it is grown, how it is produced and what it contains.”

“The public wants to know and the public has a right to know,” New York University nutrition professor Marion Nestle told the Post. “I think the agency has discretion, but it’s under enormous political pressure to approve [the salmon] without labeling.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/18/fda-labeled-free-modification/

[sailingaway]

I already posted this, but it bears repeating so I will post it again....


If you are a libertarian, I assume you believe 3 things:
A) The initiation of force is never justified
B) There is no such thing as benevolent government
C) Property rights must never be violated

If you do not believe in these three things, you are not a libertarian. I'm sure Ron Paul still appreciates your votes, but you do not understand the basic principles that drive his message.

Mandatory GMO labeling violates all 3 of these principles.

A) A business (small or large) that chooses not to label its food is not committing violence against anyone, directly or indirectly. If a law is passed that punished businesses for not putting a label on their product, then they are being coerced into taking a certain action through the threat of violence. This is in violation of the non-agression principle, the singular foundation of libertarianism.

B) For every instance where the government works for the people, there will always be an instance of it working against the people. Any time you give the government a new power, and create dependency on the government, that power will inevitably be abused. Mandatory GMO labeling creates consumer dependency on government, as consumers no longer feel that they have to pay close attention to what they are buying. This allows for cronyism and government abuse of power.

C) Until and unless any transaction is made, the food is the property of the corporation. As such, they can do whatever they want with it. They can piss in the food, they can put rat poison in the food, they can fill a bag with human feces and tell you that it's shrimp scampi. As soon as you violate one person's property rights, you open the door to violating everybody's property rights.


If you hate corporations more than you hate government, you are not a libertarian. You are by definition a progressive liberal.

Aggression is bad, but self defense is fine. I'd rather not have corporations use our federal government to unConstitutionally use aggression against us but if they do, I think it is ok at the state level to defend against it. I wouldn't choose either of those things if I had a choice of starting from scratch.

[mz10]

If you support the merge of corporation and state then you are by definition a fascist. My genes are my property, btw. Mine. Monsanto doesn't get to legislate otherwise.

I don't ever remember saying anything about merging corporation and state. I believe in no government involvement in the economy, period. That's Austrian economics. If you don't like Austrian economics, fine, but please understand that you are throwing out one of the fundamental things that Ron Paul advocated for.

If you don't want to buy Monsanto products, don't buy Monsanto products. The answer is less government, not more.

[jtstellar]

Get back in your hole. i wasn't talking to you.

i'm glad the notion of man-made global warming reminds you of troll caves. your belief can't even handle challenge from more than 1 person at a time? what kind of 'public issue' is that


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I

last time you attempted to grill people here on man-made global warming, someone already posted this to you. although i suspect you ignored it, as usual of all other evidence pointing to the contrary. so you already disagree with this movement on something as big as man-made global warming.. what do you support next, carbon tax?

so what is this gmo shit, you attempting to find common ground with this coalition now? lmao. just defect to neo-libs, pal.

[mac_hine]

Here's an example of the free market stepping up:

GMO Food Supermarket Phone Apps

Scan the bar codes of everything you consider buying and eating!

• Find out what is GMO or is Non-GMO in seconds!
• Find out if something is vegan, vegetarian and organic - instantly!
• Filter out wheat, gluten, food colorings and food allergens!
• Get a quick calorie count and fat content (the good and bad fats)!

The best part of the Fooducate app is that it gives concise explanations along with a grading system developed by scientists, dietitians and concerned parents.
http://tehparadox.com/forum/f28/gmo-food-supermarket-phone-apps-5345882/

BTW, I haven't used the Ap.

[mz10]

Aggression is bad, but self defense is fine. I'd rather not have corporations use our federal government to unConstitutionally use aggression against us but if they do, I think it is ok at the state level to defend against it. I wouldn't choose either of those things if I had a choice of starting from scratch.

Defend against it.....through even more government force??

That's the same argument as "Well, we shouldn't have been involved in the Middle East, but now that we are, we might as well just wipe the whole place off the map and finish what we started"

[Brett85]

If you support the merge of corporation and state then you are by definition a fascist.

If you support government mandated labeling then by definition you support the merge of corporation and state.

[jtstellar]

i have no fucking idea why greenies, man-made-global-warming, federal-regulation-on-gmo crowds insist this movement is their place.. there is nothing in common. go join the libs, they would gladly expand the role of EPA and FDA for your pet issues.

'ban EPA from confiscating people's private lands! oh but, leave it to collect carbon tax'. 'prevent FDA from overreaching in medicine! oh but, preserve it to mandate food labels on every street corner in the US of freaking A, so we know which food is organic' jesus christ how did ron paul make you confused fucks believe you have anything in common with him, he must be a genius politician at pidgins

[mz10]

i have no fucking idea why greenies, man-made-global-warming, federal-regulation-on-gmo crowds insist this movement is their place.. there is nothing in common. go join the libs, they would gladly expand the role of EPA and FDA for your pet issues.

'ban EPA from confiscating people's private lands! oh but, leave it to collect carbon tax'. 'prevent FDA from overreaching in medicine! oh but, preserve it to mandate food labels on every street corner in the US of A, so we know which food is organic' jesus christ how did ron paul bring you confused fucks in here

I'm completely okay with them voting for liberty even if they don't believe in it. So shhhhhhh.......don't tell them they're supporting the wrong people!

[Natural Citizen]

You people are doomed. And you're going to guarantee the same for your candidate. And it's an unfortunate travesty.

Don't even know what you should be discussing.

Wide awake in dreamland. :rolleyes:

[angelatc]

And unlike Obamacare, people OVERWHELMINGLY support GMO labeling.


So it's ok to give FedGov new unconstitutional powers as long as a majority agree.

<bangs head>

[angelatc]

If you support the merge of corporation and state then you are by definition a fascist. My genes are my property, btw. Mine. Monsanto doesn't get to legislate otherwise.


Dear God, how can this be made any simpler? If you support the government testing and labeling all corporate produced foods, then you're the one merging the state and corporate America!

[Christian Liberty]

If the foods were produced in one state and distributed in another, you could argue that the Feds have the authority. On the other hand, if everything is done in one state, I don't think you can argue that.

As far as it goes, I do think if someone sells me "Milk" I should be allowed to assume that it is milk, and unless other ingrediants are listed, I should be allowed to sue for fraud if there is anything else in the milk. As far as I understand it, fraud is a form of theft and a violation of the NAP.

So yes, if the commerce crosses state lines, I do support the Federal Government mandating that milk produced in one state and sold in another not be called "Milk" without an ingrediants list unless the only thing in it is... MILK.

I do not, however, support an FDA that controls what consenting buyers are allowed to buy, and punishes people for making TRUTHFUL statements without official permission to do so.

[Icymudpuppy]

I do not support forced labelling.

I do support voluntary GMO-free certification like certified Organic.

[Natural Citizen]

Dear God, how can this be made any simpler? If you support the government testing and labeling all corporate produced foods, then you're the one merging the state and corporate America!

Labeling is only worth a hill of beans in the politically correct world of sheeple narrative. This serves folks who run from the science of what Monsanto is legislating. That's right...Monsanto is writing the rules. Monsanto. What I want is for Monsanto to not be in the position to assume the role of government to then force the experimentation with human genes. If I had my way we wouldn't even be discussing labeling. This justifies the tyrannical science of what they are doing...what they are themselves legislating of, by and for their bottom line and across a geo-political landscape now to include foreign policy and others factors. What baffles the heck out of me is that we're ok with handing over our right of representation to entities like Monsanto so that they may actually assume the role of governing but now we want to endorse the notion that they can literally hijack our natural personhood as well via scientific experiments on the genome.

How about we think of it like this. Let's not spin it into labeling. Let the citizens see the science of what they are doing for peer review. How's that?

Everyone keeps spitting out the "government" spew but why is it that nobody recognizes that Monsanto is actually the one writing and enforcing their experiments on the world?

[CT4Liberty]

I am a bit surprised by some of the responses looking for more government and more regulation here... the government is not there to force companies to label to the nth degree everything in their products.

IF you want non-GMO food, you should research the products, look for a non-GMO label and only buy products you know. IF a company tells you its non-GMO and its not, then you have a case of fraud and could demand damages.

Just because it seems like a good cause, doesnt mean we should give up our liberties...

[sailingaway]

Labeling is only worth a hill of beans in the politically correct world of sheeple narrative. This serves folks who run from the science of what Monsanto is legislating. That's right...Monsanto is writing the rules. Monsanto. What I want is for Monsanto to not be in the position to assume the role of government to then force the experimentation with human genes. If I had my way we wouldn't even be discussing labeling. This justifies the tyrannical science of what they are doing...what they are themselves legislating of, by and for their bottom line and across a geo-political landscape now to include foreign policy and others factors. What baffles the heck out of me is that we're ok with handing over our right of representation to entities like Monsanto so that they may actually assume the role of governing but now we want to endorse the notion that they can literally hijack our natural personhood as well via scientific experiments on the genome.

How about we think of it like this. Let's not spin it into labeling. Let the citizens see the science of what they are doing for peer review. How's that?

Everyone keeps spitting out the "government" spew but why is it that nobody recognizes that Monsanto is actually the one writing and enforcing their experiments on the world?


I did say that. They are using the government force against us and I see labeling (at the state level) as imperfect self defense against that aggression.

[Dr.3D]

I am a bit surprised by some of the responses looking for more government and more regulation here... the government is not there to force companies to label to the nth degree everything in their products.

IF you want non-GMO food, you should research the products, look for a non-GMO label and only buy products you know. IF a company tells you its non-GMO and its not, then you have a case of fraud and could demand damages.

Just because it seems like a good cause, doesnt mean we should give up our liberties...

Seems the problem is, government has also gotten into the labeling of non-GMO products and specified they couldn't label them as such.

[green73]

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

Not surprised anymore really wish Napolitano or Ventura would say they are running already. Maybe even Cruz.

I'm not even going to read the link or thread.

GOOD FOR RAND!

If you're for the state mandating private companies to put certain labels on their products, you're a rubbish libertarian.

The fight should be to allow companies to label their products as non-GMO. That's currently prohibited. It's the real fucking evil in all this.

[jtstellar]

You people are doomed. And you're going to guarantee the same for your candidate. And it's an unfortunate travesty.

Don't even know what you should be discussing.

Wide awake in dreamland. :rolleyes:

better than a slow death, whoever has the privilege of growing up under your brand of intellectual influence. your basement is much scarier than global warming

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'm not even going to read the link or thread.

GOOD FOR RAND!

If you're for the state mandating private companies to put certain labels on their products, you're a rubbish libertarian.

The fight should be to allow companies to label their products as non-GMO. That's currently prohibited. It's the real fucking evil in all this.

This. I've been as critical of Rand as anyone on this site, and he made the right call on this vote. The correct answer is removing restrictions on non-GMO labeling, not forcing GMO labeling.

[jtstellar]

I am a bit surprised by some of the responses looking for more government and more regulation here... the government is not there to force companies to label to the nth degree everything in their products.

IF you want non-GMO food, you should research the products, look for a non-GMO label and only buy products you know. IF a company tells you its non-GMO and its not, then you have a case of fraud and could demand damages.

Just because it seems like a good cause, doesnt mean we should give up our liberties...

you shouldn't be.. a bunch of glass half fulls with half ass understanding of liberty or total failures of communicating and understanding what rand actually says most of the time have been crawling out from under the rocks en masse since ron paul stepped off the stage. i'm just glad we're getting a lot of new blood through rand, although they don't bother conversing here with a few nut jobs you have had the displeasure to witness

[angelatc]

Everyone keeps spitting out the "government" spew but why is it that nobody recognizes that Monsanto is actually the one writing and enforcing their experiments on the world?


The answer is always smaller government, not enemy lists.

[puppetmaster]

The govs hands are all over labeling already.......

[Natural Citizen]

I did say that. They are using the government force against us and I see labeling (at the state level) as imperfect self defense against that aggression.

Yes, I know. I don't really mean to generalize people.

[angelatc]

I am a bit surprised by some of the responses looking for more government and more regulation here... the government is not there to force companies to label to the nth degree everything in their products.

IF you want non-GMO food, you should research the products, look for a non-GMO label and only buy products you know. IF a company tells you its non-GMO and its not, then you have a case of fraud and could demand damages.

Just because it seems like a good cause, doesnt mean we should give up our liberties...


It's the left-leaning Libertarians that are just about the majority of the posters remaining here.

I'm at the point of insisting that they should grow their own damned food and STFU. The whole point of supporting the free market is to enable the market to make these decisions. But the problems with the left starts when other people don't share their passion for a particular issue.

This GMO thing is one of them. Out in the real world, 99% of the people don't give a crap for a myriad of reasons. They want cheap food, or fast food, or cocaine - they really have zero interest in the topic as long as the food is edible.

At this, the left screeches about how they're sheeple, dumbed down by the media, blah blah blah, then immediately proceeds to treat them as such. Namely, by trying to pass laws to make other people play by their rules, since they can't force them to take an interest in "what's important!" in any other way.

And as we've seen repeatedly, as with the dilution of the organic brands, those laws unfortunately always have unintended consequences.

But being liberal means never learning a damned thing from the past.

[mad cow]

I do not support forced labelling.

I do support voluntary GMO-free certification like certified Organic.

Can I get an Amen?

[GunnyFreedom]

It's the left-leaning Libertarians that are just about the majority of the posters remaining here.

I'm at the point of insisting that they should grow their own damned food and STFU. The whole point of supporting the free market is to enable the market to make these decisions. But the problems with the left starts when other people don't share their passion for a particular issue.

This GMO thing is one of them. Out in the real world, 99% of the people don't give a crap for a myriad of reasons. They want cheap food, or fast food, or cocaine - they really have zero interest in the topic as long as the food is edible.

At this, the left screeches about how they're sheeple, dumbed down by the media, blah blah blah, then immediately proceeds to treat them as such. Namely, by trying to pass laws to make other people play by their rules, since they can't force them to take an interest in "what's important!" in any other way.

And as we've seen repeatedly, as with the dilution of the organic brands, those laws unfortunately always have unintended consequences.

But being liberal means never learning a damned thing from the past.

Wow, most people who call me left and liberal are neocons. :(

[GunnyFreedom]

I am a bit surprised by some of the responses looking for more government and more regulation here... the government is not there to force companies to label to the nth degree everything in their products.

IF you want non-GMO food, you should research the products, look for a non-GMO label and only buy products you know. IF a company tells you its non-GMO and its not, then you have a case of fraud and could demand damages.

Just because it seems like a good cause, doesnt mean we should give up our liberties...


I'm guessing you've never tried to buy GMO Free in your life.

[Dr.3D]

Can I get an Amen?

Guess that's really what it's all about.

[GunnyFreedom]

I do not support forced labelling.

I do support voluntary GMO-free certification like certified Organic.

USDA Certified Organic is a joke and a government protection racket. It's designed to shut out the little guys who actually grow natural foods, and enable the big guys who use it for maketing with little or no concern over food quality.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Libertarians for Government Mandates.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Exactly. The people OVERWHELMINGLY want the addition of a product labeled GMO or not including myself.

Prop 37 Defeated: California Voters Reject Mandatory GMO-Labeling

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/prop-37-defeated-californ_n_2088402.html

[Natural Citizen]

Prop 37 Defeated: California Voters Reject Mandatory GMO-Labeling

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/prop-37-defeated-californ_n_2088402.html

Are you serious with this? I mean, do we have to bump up some other prop 37 threads to show it how it really happened?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I mean, do we have to bump up some other prop 37 threads to show it how it really happened?

No, I don't need your spin. California voted on it, and if the people "overwhelmingly" wanted GMO labeling, it would not have lost at the ballot box. No complaining about politicians, the people said 'no.'

[GunnyFreedom]

Libertarians for Government Mandates.

Libertarians for food slavery.

I can do that too. :)

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Libertarians for food slavery.

"Slavery" implies you're forced to buy it. Grow your own food if it scares you so much.

[GunnyFreedom]

"Slavery" implies you're forced to buy it. Grow your own food if it scares you so much.

Slaves could refuse to work. They should just let their masters kill them if they don't like it.

[Natural Citizen]

No, I don't need your spin.

Well, tough.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/fooddemocracynow/images/sos_prop_37_6million_deleted.jpg

[GunnyFreedom]

I am seriously not getting how fascism is suddenly OK here as long as it doesn't affect one personally.

[Natural Citizen]

I am seriously not getting how fascism is suddenly OK here as long as it doesn't affect one personally.

Well. I think it's the whole Frank Luntz "Crony Capitalism" reframe. Kind of like a zodiac mind fug. We don't like to use the term "fascism" because then we have to acknowlege that we're not advocating for a free market scenario but instead solicit for support of a government controlled market. We can create the illusion that we're defending free market principle if we use the term "Crony Capitalism" though. You know? I mean it has the word capitalism in it. Right? Fuggin nuts....:confused:


I'm surprised that you throw the term around so comfortably to be honest and considering your work. Is a bit ballsy.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well. I think it's the whole Frank Luntz "Crony Capitalism" reframe. Kind of like a zodiac mind fug. We don't like to use the term "fascism" because then we have to acknowlege that we're not advocating for a free market scenario but instead solicit for support of a government controlled market. We can create the illusion that we're defending free market principle if we use the term "Crony Capitalism" though. You know? I mean it has the word capitalism in it. Right? Fuggin nuts....:confused:


I'm surprised that you throw the term around so comfortably to be honest and considering your work. Is a bit ballsy.

Well, that's what fascism is, it's corporatism. It's kind of the dictionary definition. Even the fascist's fascist Benito Mussolini said that "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Crony capitalism = corporatism.

Why wouldn't I say it? It's like saying "the sky is blue."

And Republican grassroots don't like crony corporatism any more than we do or the Democrats do.

[Natural Citizen]

And Republican grassroots don't like crony corporatism any more than we do or the Democrats do.

I don't even know where this term came from. It creates a tremendous amount of unnecessary spin and confusion though.

[CaptUSA]

As Thoreau would say, government enforced labeling is hacking at the branches of the evil instead of striking at the root.

We shouldn't be asking for MORE government to correct a problem that bad government created.

[GunnyFreedom]

we are playing checkers while the fascists are playing chess. Government is not the solution, government is the problem. The root of the problem is the existence of the FDA, which will not be abolished this decade, at least. Corporatism (Fascism) of any kind is unacceptable and we should openly reject it.

[V3n]

it's like déjà vu all over again! We had these same arguments a year ago when this was new news. I'm not going to bump the threads because they're old and it would just split the discussion across multiple timelines (so can we keep this discussion here in this one even after I reveal this?)

Here's what we all were saying a year ago:

Rand Paul Votes NO on GMO Labeling (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381638-Rand-Paul-Votes-NO-on-GMO-Labeling)

The Libertarian Case AGAINST Mandatory GMO Labeling (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381685-The-Libertarian-Case-AGAINST-Mandatory-GMO-Labeling)

The case for mandatory GMO labeling – even if you believe in limited government and the free market (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381083-The-case-for-mandatory-GMO-labeling-%96-even-if-you-believe-in-limited-government-and-the-fr)

There is a lot of good information and links in those threads. I recommend these videos I found in there too. one is Bernie Sanders explaining the bill - the other is TokenLibertyGirl giving her explanation.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QOJ8qmlvd1k#!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bNlfg9F-BhY#!

all I can see is we've been spinning in circles and just got spun up again

[jtstellar]

If the foods were produced in one state and distributed in another, you could argue that the Feds have the authority.

.. i hope that's not a commerce clause argument. commerce clause from someone who bashes rand who doesn't add enough libertarian flavor to his political speeches for some's liking? really?

[angelatc]

Wow, most people who call me left and liberal are neocons. :(

Gunny, even if you were called to set up and administer a statewide or nationwide GMO program, you're not going to live forever. Once the government has power, it's only a matter of time that power is corrupted.

The answer is never government force. And that's aside from the issue that I can think of better ways for my tax money to be spent. (You can disagree, but the bottom line is that you're advocating for using someone else's means to accomplish your ends.)

If, as so many people claim, 95% of people want these labels, then somebody should fund a kickstarter campaign to do whatever it is you want done.

[angelatc]

Why Prop 37 failed;
If Prop 37 was really about informed decisions, it would have sought accurate labeling of different types of GMOs so consumers can choose to avoid those that they disapprove of or are worried about. Instead, anti-GMO activists put forward a sloppily written mandate in a attempt to discredit all genetic engineering as a single entity. The legislation was considered so poorly worded that most Californian newspapers rallied against it (http://www.calchamber.com/headlines/pages/10182012-californianewspapersopposeproposition37.aspx), with the LA Times calling Prop 37 (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-end-prop37-20121004,0,2668604.story) “problematic on a number of levels”.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2012/11/07/prop-37-fails-scientists-cheer/


And that's written by a guy who hates Monsanto.

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny, even if you were called to set up and administer a statewide or nationwide GMO program, you're not going to live forever. Once the government has power, it's only a matter of time that power is corrupted.

The answer is never government force. And that's aside from the issue that I can think of better ways for my tax money to be spent. (You can disagree, but the bottom line is that you're advocating for using someone else's means to accomplish your ends.)

If, as so many people claim, 95% of people want these labels, then somebody should fund a kickstarter campaign to do whatever it is you want done.

I don't understand why on this issue, we are so prone to speak falsely about what the other guy wants, and then to outright support and encourage fascism, and finally mock and insult anyone who doesn't want or support our preferred kind of fascism.

OH, and this is the issue where we adopt the whole "'Murika, love it or leave it" type attitude too.

I've never really bought into the whole fluoride brain control thing, but I'm beginning to suspect that GMO may have that quality. :(

[GunnyFreedom]

it's like déjà vu all over again! We had these same arguments a year ago when this was new news. I'm not going to bump the threads because they're old and it would just split the discussion across multiple timelines (so can we keep this discussion here in this one even after I reveal this?)

Here's what we all were saying a year ago:

Rand Paul Votes NO on GMO Labeling (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381638-Rand-Paul-Votes-NO-on-GMO-Labeling)

The Libertarian Case AGAINST Mandatory GMO Labeling (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381685-The-Libertarian-Case-AGAINST-Mandatory-GMO-Labeling)

The case for mandatory GMO labeling – even if you believe in limited government and the free market (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381083-The-case-for-mandatory-GMO-labeling-%96-even-if-you-believe-in-limited-government-and-the-fr)

There is a lot of good information and links in those threads. I recommend these videos I found in there too. one is Bernie Sanders explaining the bill - the other is TokenLibertyGirl giving her explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QOJ8qmlvd1k#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bNlfg9F-BhY#!

all I can see is we've been spinning in circles and just got spun up again

In my case, I'm flummoxed why so many libertarians suddenly support fascism on this issue.

[angelatc]

I don't understand why on this issue, we are so prone to speak falsely about what the other guy wants, and then to outright support and encourage fascism, and finally mock and insult anyone who doesn't want or support our preferred kind of fascism.

OH, and this is the issue where we adopt the whole "'Murika, love it or leave it" type attitude too.

I've never really bought into the whole fluoride brain control thing, but I'm beginning to suspect that GMO may have that quality. :(

We're on well water.

Maybe I am wrong, but I am gathering that you favor mandatory food labeling.

Fascism is the public / private partnership that would entail developing labels. I think the FDA should be abolished, but even if this power were handed out at the state level, where are you going to find the person to run a food labeling program, aside from the food industry?

[GunnyFreedom]

We're on well water.

Maybe I am wrong, but I am gathering that you favor mandatory food labeling.

Yes. You are wrong.


Fascism is the public / private partnership that would entail developing labels. I think the FDA should be abolished, but even if this power were handed out at the state level, where are you going to find the person to run a food labeling program, aside from the food industry?

Fascism is the unholy alliance between Washington and Monsanto that is inflicting this food dystopia upon us.

ETA - and the fluoride comment wasn't about the effects of water, but the effects of GMO. I cannot comprehend how there are members of this forum actively - and passionately - defending food fascism unless they have possibly been affected by something. This whole movement was the possibly the most principled anti-fascist movement America had ever seen, and yet here folks are not merely defending food fasism, but apparently defending it to the death. I just don't get it. :confused:

[mad cow]

Farmers buy what seeds they want to plant.It seems like a whole pile of them prefer Monsanto seeds.Would you have the government force them at gunpoint to buy another company's seeds?Would you consider that fascism if it happened?

[GunnyFreedom]

Farmers buy what seeds they want to plant.It seems like a whole pile of them prefer Monsanto seeds.Would you have the government force them at gunpoint to buy another company's seeds?Would you consider that fascism if it happened?

Pretty sure nobody here has advocated for seed bans, prohibitions, or mandates.

That's the other thing the pro-GMO folks are doing around here. They are just 'making crap up' about us anti-food-fascism folks in an attempt to paint us as something we are not. That's how neocons debate libertarians. Surely we do not want to adopt their disintegrity?

[amy31416]

Farmers buy what seeds they want to plant.It seems like a whole pile of them prefer Monsanto seeds.Would you have the government force them at gunpoint to buy another company's seeds?Would you consider that fascism if it happened?

I certainly wouldn't, but I do think that many farmers may come to regret using the Monsanto soybean/Roundup duo in the long-term. And I'm completely against their abysmal practice of suing farmers unfortunate enough to have been contaminated with their seeds.

At this point, I'm against Monsanto being able to patent their seeds as well. Haven't thought about it or researched it as much as I could have though.

[angelatc]

I certainly wouldn't, but I do think that many farmers may come to regret using the Monsanto soybean/Roundup duo in the long-term. And I'm completely against their abysmal practice of suing farmers unfortunate enough to have been contaminated with their seeds.

At this point, I'm against Monsanto being able to patent their seeds as well. Haven't thought about it or researched it as much as I could have though.

I think the farmers whose crops are contaminated should be the people suing. I'm not necessarily against Monsanto being able to patent their seeds, but I am against the concept that they own the seeds that those plants produce.

The "rentership" society seems to be where we are headed. We don't buy music any more, we buy a digital file that allows us to listen to it until they disable it. Same with software. Adobe is abandoning it's desktop system in favor of a cloud based subscription model. You essentially rent the right to use their software.

And the housing market makes me cry. The house next door to me went for either $19,000 or $30,000 depending on who I ask. He paid cash for it, and rents it out for $950 a month. Which is crazy, I think. The new family moving in has 3 small kids, both work. Paying $900 a month they'll never be able to save up enough money to buy their own place.

The rich get richer.

[NationalAnarchist]

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00135

Here is the link I MEANT to post he voted against it AGAIN just a few days ago.