Rand Paul Was Right to Vote Against Mandatory GMO Labeling [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul Was Right to Vote Against Mandatory GMO Labeling

FrankRep

05-29-2013, 09:42 PM

ObiRandKenobi

05-29-2013, 09:55 PM

Good job Rand.

JCDenton0451

05-29-2013, 10:16 PM

Dr.3D

05-29-2013, 10:20 PM

No that was a stupid vote by Rand. It wasn't the first, and wouldn't be the last unfortunately.

It doesn't matter who Bernie Sanders is. Something must be done about this GMO crap. If you don't like Sanders's solution, then propose a better one. I'm talking about real solution that can actually work in the real world, not some idealistic fantasy of yours.

How about letting non-GMO products be labeled as such instead?

FrankRep

05-29-2013, 10:36 PM

Something must be done about this GMO crap.
Big Government needs to protect us, right?

mz10

05-29-2013, 11:06 PM

No that was a stupid vote by Rand. It wasn't the first, and wouldn't be the last unfortunately.

It doesn't matter who Bernie Sanders is. Something must be done about this GMO crap. If you don't like Sanders's solution, then propose a better one. I'm talking about real solution that can actually work in the real world, not some idealistic fantasy of yours.

Glad to know you think the free market is an idealistic fantasy. Why do you support Ron Paul again? Please answer that question, because you seem to be very much opposed to free-market economics.

mz10

05-29-2013, 11:11 PM

I understand that you tend to be more of a progressive (i.e. pro-abortion, skeptical of the free market) but you'd be better served by being forthright about that

Natural Citizen

05-29-2013, 11:21 PM

Why do you support Ron Paul again?

Ron Paul is just a man. A very humble one who happens to roar like a lion but a man nonetheless. Ron never once justified or solicited his base to lobby on behalf of a given government controlled market. Never. And especially one that specifically is in the business of the applied sciences to literally own them via gene manipulation through the the hijacking of their own government processes of representation. To continue defending that principle in his name and in a manner that creates the illusion of context relevant to a genuine free market scenario is disingenuous. Almost as much as it is transparent.

FrankRep

05-30-2013, 06:57 AM

The Libertarian Case AGAINST Mandatory GMO Labeling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNlfg9F-BhY)

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

Libertarians should be opposed to government mandates forcing food companies to label genetically modified foods. We should support the free market and getting the government out of the food industry. Let's not give more power to the FDA. Many companies already voluntarily label food containing no genetically modified ingredients.

"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.

July

05-30-2013, 07:54 AM

JCDenton0451

05-30-2013, 08:02 AM

Glad to know you think the free market is an idealistic fantasy. Why do you support Ron Paul again? Please answer that question, because you seem to be very much opposed to free-market economics.

Mostly, because of his foreign policy and civil liberty stances. But like most people I generally think the government has a role in a society. As I understand this is also Rand Paul's position.

Please answer that question, because you seem to be very much opposed to free-market economics. Don't be absurd! One can be pro-free-market without adopting a radical anarchist position. You've got to be seriously paranoid and irrational if you think GMO labelling will lead directly to fascism. In fact I don't see it as damaging the free market, it will strengthen the market by allowing more informed consumer choice. Nobody is talking about banning GMO outright.

I care about consumers, not just unethical businesses making money. Unfortunately, GOP only seems to care about its corporate sponsors. If this party is to have a future, this needs to change.

I understand that you tend to be more of a progressive (i.e. pro-abortion, skeptical of the free market) but you'd be better served by being forthright about that

lol

pro-choice is not a progressive position. It is a pro-liberty position, the only possible pro-liberty position, since the government is not in the position to decide what women can and cannot do with their bodies. We both know who "pro-life" activists really are and what they actual motivations are. It's the same old authoritarian Religious Right. They can be tactical allies, but you would be foolish not to see them as threat.

July

05-30-2013, 08:32 AM

Don't be absurd! One can be pro-free-market without adopting a radical anarchist position. You've got to be seriously paranoid and irrational if you think GMO labelling will lead directly to fascism. In fact I don't see it as damaging the free market, it will strengthen the market by allowing more informed consumer choice. Nobody is talking about banning GMO outright.

We're not just talking about labeling, as an isolated issue, but the growth and expansion of the regulatory state, of which a labeling mandate would be just a part. Why would it lead to fascism, because regulatory agencies are eventually captured by the industries they are meant to regulate. How does this help promote consumer choice, if regulatory agencies are operating under a flase sense of objectivity? First of all, the govt would have to define what GMO is, what qualifies and doesn't qualify, and what exceptions, if any, are allowable. You don't think GMO makers would lobby to influence that definition?

The more effective approach, as some others have suggested, would be removing whatever regulations are currently banning or making it difficult for non GMO producers to voluntarily label their products as such, so that consumers can make an informed choice.

Brett85

05-30-2013, 09:04 AM

But like most people I generally think the government has a role in a society..

But apparently that role shouldn't include stopping people from murdering each other.

angelatc

05-30-2013, 09:19 AM

Ron Paul is just a man. A very humble one who happens to roar like a lion but a man nonetheless. Ron never once justified or solicited his base to lobby on behalf of a given government controlled market. Never. And especially one that specifically is in the business of the applied sciences to literally own them via gene manipulation through the the hijacking of their own government processes of representation. To continue defending that principle in his name and in a manner that creates the illusion of context relevant to a genuine free market scenario is disingenuous. Almost as much as it is transparent.

Can we agree that Ron Paul has solicited his base to rally against unconstitutional law?

Ron Paul on GMO Labeling:

Ron Paul, US Representative (R-TX), provided the following statement on Feb. 26, 2008, "Genetically Engineered Food," available at vote-tx.org:

"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."

Feb. 26, 2008 Ron Paul

It is true that Ron Paul believes that government plays a role on society, and probably always will. But he also believes that the ultimate end game should always be smaller government.

Eagles' Wings

05-30-2013, 09:24 AM

http://www.cornucopia.org/2013/05/grocers-commit-to-not-selling-ge-salmon/

JCDenton0451

05-30-2013, 09:35 AM

But apparently that role shouldn't include stopping people from murdering each other.

A fetus is not a person. Only fundamentalist Christians call it way. This is a religious point of view, which is rooted in the Bible, not Constitution.

Abortion is NOT equivalent to murder. There is already government regulation against murder. Yours and mine right to life is protected.

ObiRandKenobi

05-30-2013, 09:41 AM

A fetus is not a person. Only fundamentalist Christians call it way. This is a religious point of view, which is rooted in the Bible, not Constitution.

If you kill a pregnant woman and her 9 month old fetus that could otherwise survive outside the womb-- that's kinda sorta murder.

When the fetus can survive outside the womb then you're really just being a jerk when you claim it's no different than a kidney or lung or other body part.

JCDenton0451

05-30-2013, 09:49 AM

The more effective approach, as some others have suggested, would be removing whatever regulations are currently banning or making it difficult for non GMO producers to voluntarily label their products as such, so that consumers can make an informed choice.

I already explained what the practical outcome of such policy is going to be. A limited market for educated affluent people willing to pay premium prices for natural food. It will become an "elite" product. lol The people who shop at Wallmart will be eating all GMO crap, while being completely oblivious to it.

The major benefit of mandatory GMO labelling is that it will instantly inform tens of millions of consumers as to what kind of food they're buying. Very few people are aware of GMO food at the moment.

pacelli

05-30-2013, 10:01 AM

Kettle Brand potato chips label themselves as non-GMO, and that's the only non-GMO brand available in the stores I shop. So I vote with my cash... Kettle Brand is the only potato chip I'll eat, other than homemade chips from potatoes that I've grown myself in the garden.

I do the same with other foods.

JCDenton0451

05-30-2013, 10:02 AM

If you kill a pregnant woman and her 9 month old fetus that could otherwise survive outside the womb-- that's kinda sorta murder.

When the fetus can survive outside the womb then you're really just being a jerk when you claim it's no different than a kidney or lung or other body part.

I understand that this is not a clear -cut ethical issue, and you may well be motivated by humanitarian concerns, but the people who lead the "pro-life" movement are certainly not. Groups like Family Research Council, they don't just want to ban abortion, they also want to criminalise homosexuality and ban contraception, they say that unmarried people shouldn't be allowed to have sex. lol These are simply extreme Christian fundamentalists, trying to impose their dogmatic vision of Christianity on everybody else.

BAllen

05-30-2013, 10:16 AM

talkingpointes

05-30-2013, 10:24 AM

mz10

05-30-2013, 11:07 AM

A fetus is not a person. Only fundamentalist Christians call it way. This is a religious point of view, which is rooted in the Bible, not Constitution.

I didn't realize I was a fundamentalist Christian. I am a very bad Catholic who hasn't been to church in over a year.

You can't tell me that something with a heartbeat is just a random mass of tissue. If I was an atheist I would feel the exact same way.

mz10

05-30-2013, 11:08 AM

Rand Paul to be clear does not either.

I really do think Rand's views go much farther than the public positions he takes. He has said things that hint very strongly at that.

JCDenton0451

05-30-2013, 12:17 PM

I really do think Rand's views go much farther than the public positions he takes. He has said things that hint very strongly at that.

Personally, I think Rand Paul is libertarian at heart, who takes extreme SoCon positions in attempt to connect with GOP base, but that's just my opinion.

Christian Liberty

05-30-2013, 12:21 PM

I know a nutritionist who told me that GMO products can potentially be poisonous. This kind of stuff SHOULD be labeled. I believe Rand is wrong on this one. I can see agreeing with Rand if you're an ancap, but logically, ancaps should oppose government enforcing laws against murder too, that should all be done by the private sector. But as for minarchists like me, defense, courts, and police are legitimate government functions. Enforcing anti-fraud legislation is part of the criminal justice sector of government.

All that said, I'm not going to count the rare case where I actually DO want government to do something against Rand. Its obvious that Rand did this because of liberty-minded principle, not because he's a crony capitalist. I'm willing to let this one go on his part.

But this really SHOULD have passed 99-1 or at least 98-2. What is everyone ELSE'S excuse? I think for everyone else (I'm giving Mike Lee the "Liberty" benefit of the doubt as well here, since I know little about him and other than the Iran vote which Rand Paul also did I have yet to see him seriously screw up) this was just because of cronyism...

Christian Liberty

05-30-2013, 12:24 PM

To clarify where I stand...

Most libertarians believe that abortion is primarily a problem that is made worse by government encouragement. I agree. However, its still a violation of the NAP, so even if the problem is made worse by government, a law against it is STILL justified, deontologically.

I feel the same about fraud.

Brett85

05-30-2013, 01:56 PM

A fetus is not a person. Only fundamentalist Christians call it way. This is a religious point of view, which is rooted in the Bible, not Constitution.

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

Christian Liberty

05-30-2013, 02:09 PM

beaker

05-30-2013, 02:21 PM

Did anyone actually read the bill? Everyone demonizing Rand for his vote is saying they don't like that he'd rather not force companies that use GMO's to label their products as such and that they believe that's something we should do. I myself haven't read it and am currently withholding judgement until i do. But i have to question what's in the bill anytime i see a mix of democrats and republicans voting for a bill. I can't help but think what did the republicans miss and what did the democrats hide. Perks, exceptions, loopholes, perhaps a skewed definition of what GMO is. I think the individual in the quote below made a very valid point and i think it bears repeating. I'm all for restricting the use of GMO's and knowing who uses GMO's and who doesn't, but the free market demands enough non-GMO food that companies who don't are more than happy to inform you in BIG BOLD LETTERS. And there is PLENTY of information online with lists of grocery stores and companies that sell non-GMO foods.

We're not just talking about labeling, as an isolated issue, but the growth and expansion of the regulatory state, of which a labeling mandate would be just a part. Why would it lead to fascism, because regulatory agencies are eventually captured by the industries they are meant to regulate. How does this help promote consumer choice, if regulatory agencies are operating under a flase sense of objectivity? First of all, the govt would have to define what GMO is, what qualifies and doesn't qualify, and what exceptions, if any, are allowable. You don't think GMO makers would lobby to influence that definition?

The more effective approach, as some others have suggested, would be removing whatever regulations are currently banning or making it difficult for non GMO producers to voluntarily label their products as such, so that consumers can make an informed choice.

JCDenton0451

05-30-2013, 03:11 PM

In addition, while a great system of government, the Constitution is NOT some kind of holy writ that can't be wrong. I agree that the unborn aren't protected by the Constitution, at ANY point in development. Heck, a baby is not protected by the constitution a minute before it is born, but you'd have to be stupid to actually believe such a baby does not have rights.

The FEDERAL government cannot constitutionally ban abortion. But the states can absolutely give abortion doctors the death penalty they deserve. Admittedly, the constitution does prohibit ex post facto legal enforcement. I believe that too should be amended out of the constitution, because libertarianism is not legally positivist.

Of course. Constitution is not a holy writ. The Bible is a holy writ. So what you want in essense is to amend the Constitution to bring it line with the Christian Bible. This is what this whole "pro-life" movement and social conservatism in general are all about. I've been saying it the whole time.

JCDenton0451

05-30-2013, 03:19 PM

@beaker (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?43496-beaker)

No Republican senator voted for this, only 26 Democrats. This was not a corporatist amendment obviously, or else we would see overwhelming support.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00161#position

T.hill

05-30-2013, 03:21 PM

Mostly, because of his foreign policy and civil liberty stances. But like most people I generally think the government has a role in a society. As I understand this is also Rand Paul's position.
Don't be absurd! One can be pro-free-market without adopting a radical anarchist position. You've got to be seriously paranoid and irrational if you think GMO labelling will lead directly to fascism. In fact I don't see it as damaging the free market, it will strengthen the market by allowing more informed consumer choice. Nobody is talking about banning GMO outright.

I care about consumers, not just unethical businesses making money. Unfortunately, GOP only seems to care about its corporate sponsors. If this party is to have a future, this needs to change.

lol

pro-choice is not a progressive position. It is a pro-liberty position, the only possible pro-liberty position, since the government is not in the position to decide what women can and cannot do with their bodies. We both know who "pro-life" activists really are and what they actual motivations are. It's the same old authoritarian Religious Right. They can be tactical allies, but you would be foolish not to see them as threat.

Free-market economics isn't intrinsically anarchist and just because the constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to coerce companies into labeling foods doesn't make that position anarchist. The constitution, even when strictly interpreted, gives the government a role in society. In a free society consumers have the responsibility and capacity to inform themselves and pressure the marketplace into satisfying their demand.

Christian Liberty

05-30-2013, 03:21 PM

Of course. Constitution is not a holy writ. The Bible is a holy writ. So what you want in essense is to amend the Constitution to bring it line with the Christian Bible. This is what this whole "pro-life" movement and social conservatism in general are all about. I've been saying it the whole time.

That's not what I said.

I'd like to see the Constitution protect the unborn, but that's a pipe dream.

I don't want to see the constitution, or any other law, ban immoral acts that don't hurt other people.

T.hill

05-30-2013, 03:31 PM

deducing from the argument that being against GMO labeling is an anarchist position is nonsense.

mz10

05-30-2013, 03:34 PM

Of course. Constitution is not a holy writ. The Bible is a holy writ. So what you want in essense is to amend the Constitution to bring it line with the Christian Bible. This is what this whole "pro-life" movement and social conservatism in general are all about. I've been saying it the whole time.

Stop attacking people's motives. You're not going to convince anybody by coming across as an angry militant atheist. The dude just agreed with you about GMOs for crying out loud, and you still attack him because he doesn't hate Christianity enough for your liking.

JCDenton0451

05-30-2013, 03:37 PM

That's not what I said.

I'd like to see the Constitution protect the unborn, but that's a pipe dream.

I don't want to see the constitution, or any other law, ban immoral acts that don't hurt other people.

So, you're a Conservative do-gooder: you want to ensure that every fetus gets born, but you forget about it/him the moment it/he gets born.

What do you think about Progressives who believe that every child has a right to universal healthcare? Remember, a lack of access to healthcare hurts people! So what makes Progressive do-gooders different from you?

mz10

05-30-2013, 03:38 PM

deducing from the argument that being against GMO labeling is an anarchist position is nonsense.

Some of the more progressive-leaning people on here are uncomfortable with Austrian economics, because it seems anarchistic to them.

In their defense, not everyone who supports Ron or Rand is a libertarian. No candidate can win the presidency with the support of only one ideological group, so I'm glad they are on board regardless of whether I disagree with them.

mz10

05-30-2013, 03:39 PM

So, you're a Conservative do-gooder: you want to ensure that every fetus gets born, but you forget about it/him the moment it/he gets born.

No. If someone wants to kill them before they are born, we protect them. If someone wants to kill them after they are born, we still protect them. So nothing changes.

Natural Citizen

05-30-2013, 03:42 PM

...militant atheist...

What is this language? What does it mean?

Natural Citizen

05-30-2013, 03:46 PM

I can't find where this thread turned toward the course of "abortion/personhood". Is a very relevant aspect of the science of the Monsanto's of the world. Is predictable that it would go here eventually.

JCDenton0451

05-30-2013, 04:28 PM

No. If someone wants to kill them before they are born, we protect them. If someone wants to kill them after they are born, we still protect them. So nothing changes.
Well, yours is a minority view.

"It's impossible to kill someone, who has yet to be born" - that's the majority view. Who gave you the right to impose your minority view on a majority?

BTW I noticed you live in Massachusetts. Do you know that Republican who runs for Senate in your state is pro-choice? What do you think about it?

XTreat

05-30-2013, 04:32 PM

JCDenton0451

05-30-2013, 04:47 PM

No, it will lead to GMO's being labeled non-GMO. And with a FDA stamp of approval who would argue?

That would be a clear violation of the law through. Private citizens will have every right to sue this manufacturer.

GunnyFreedom

05-30-2013, 04:50 PM

mz10

05-30-2013, 05:01 PM

Well, yours is a minority view.

"It's impossible to kill someone, who has yet to be born" - that's the majority view. Who gave you the right to impose your minority view on a majority?

BTW I noticed you live in Massachusetts. Do you know that Republican who runs for Senate in your state is pro-choice? What do you think about it?

No, the majority view is against late-term abortion, and accepting of early-term abortion. Look at the polls. And you should read what the founders had to say about tyranny of the majority.

I am not voting for Gabriel Gomez. Which has nothing to do with the fact that he is pro-choice (I voted for Dan Winslow in the primary, who is also pro-choice) and has everything to do with that fact that he is an Obama-supporting neocon tool of the establishment who doesn't even know what his own positions are.

mz10

05-30-2013, 05:03 PM

What is this language? What does it mean?

Attacking people for their religious beliefs and stating that every single person who holds a certain political view is a rabid evangelical

muzzled dogg

05-30-2013, 05:14 PM

Funny how many supported Ron Paul out there when be publicly talked about eliminating the corrupt FDA. Now they're begging for the FDA to save them from a company they publicly protect

...

JCDenton0451

05-30-2013, 05:17 PM

Natural Citizen

05-30-2013, 05:18 PM

Attacking people for their religious beliefs and stating that every single person who holds a certain political view is a rabid evangelical

OK. Well, thanks for the clarification. I personally wonder why Christians haven't shown any concern for the scientific reconfiguration of man's genome as a result of this new government controlled corporate God's means to legislate it into being.

JCDenton0451

05-30-2013, 05:25 PM

No, the majority view is against late-term abortion, and accepting of early-term abortion. Look at the polls. And you should read what the founders had to say about tyranny of the majority.

I am not voting for Gabriel Gomez. Which has nothing to do with the fact that he is pro-choice (I voted for Dan Winslow in the primary, who is also pro-choice) and has everything to do with that fact that he is an Obama-supporting neocon tool of the establishment who doesn't even know what his own positions are.

So, you're not completely averse to voting for pro-choice candidates. That's rare among social conservatives...

Speaking about the "tyranny of the majority", it refers to the abuse of rights of the minorities. Now, how are your rights violated by other people having abortions? It's not like somebody forces abortion on you.

Natural Citizen

05-30-2013, 05:25 PM

The pro-GM lobby's seven sins against science...

Is a pretty good paper. Some flaws but comes with the terrirory, I suppose.

Powerful forces in Western society have been promoting genetic engineering (now usually genetic modification - GM) in agricultural crops since the mid-1990s. They have included many governments, in particular those of the USA and UK, powerful individual politicians like George Bush and Tony Blair, scientific bodies like the UK's Royal Society, research councils, successive UK Government chief scientists, many individual scientists, and companies selling GM products. They have ignored the views of citizens, and most sales of GM food have relied on secrecy - denying consumers information on what they are buying (20 US States are currently embroiled in fierce battles over GM labelling, strenuously opposed by Monsanto). Worse, they have consistently promoted GM in ways which are not only unscientific, but which have been positively damaging to the integrity of science.

This is, of course, an argument usually aimed at those who, like me, are opposed to GM crops. We are accused of being 'anti-science', emotional and irrational, and more recently, of being as bad as ‘Nazi book burners’ by the President of the National Farmers’ Union. This criticism has been effective in framing the debate about GM crops in the media in the UK, where the conflict over GM is routinely presented as a debate between those who are pro and those who are anti-science. This is reinforced by the fact that those selected to speak in favour of GM are usually themselves scientists (albeit often working for GM companies, or funded to work on GM crops), and those selected to oppose GM crops are usually environmentalists, farmers, or citizens concerned about the safety of the food they eat. Scientists who are critical of GM crops are almost never interviewed by the media.

This characterisation of those opposed to GM as being anti-science has always ignored the fact that the NGOs concerned, like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Soil Association, are staunch supporters of science, have scientists working for them, and run campaigns to combat problems which were only identifiable through scientific investigation, like the depletion of the ozone layer and climate change. People opposed to GM, including farmers and environmentalists, often have professional or scientific qualifications, and are well versed in the scientific disciplines that affect agriculture. This has not stopped supporters of GM crops dismissing all of these people as irrational, emotional, anti-science zealots.

This characterisation also ignores the fact that the major organisations, and most individuals, who oppose GM crops are not opposed to the use of GM technology in medicine, nor to marker assisted selection (MAS) crop breeding, which relies on scientific knowledge of a plant’s genome. If this was really a case of being 'anti-science', how could we approve of the use of GM technology in medicine or MAS crop breeding?

Indeed, the basic science concerning the complexities of gene organisation and function suggests that natural breeding, often augmented with the non-GM biotechnology tool of MAS, is a far more powerful and productive way forward for crop improvement. Natural breeding and MAS not only preserve gene order and function, but allow the multiple gene systems that confer desirable properties such as higher yield,1 2 3 4 5 pest-6 7 8 9 10 and blight-resistance,11 12 13 and tolerance to drought,4 14 15 16 17 salinity,4 18 and flood,4 19 20 21 to be rapidly and relatively inexpensively22 bred into crops – something which is still only a distant dream for GM crop technologists.

I should briefly mention a personal interest in the relationship between GM crops and science. I was one of 28 Greenpeace volunteers who in 1999 removed part of a GM maize crop being grown in Norfolk as part of a five year, field scale trial to investigate the relative impact of GM and non GM crops on farmland wildlife. Those of us who tried to remove that crop were accused of vandalism, of trashing the crop, and of being anti-science. In legal terms, we were accused of criminal damage.

In common with, I think, all scientists, I believe that there should be limits on what experiments scientists can do. As well as the general law, there are ethics committees to protect people from unnecessary or potentially damaging research, and the UK has strict (but not strict enough) controls on the use of animals in research. But there are no ethics committees to protect the environment or the interests of non-GM farmers. I believe that farm-based trials of GM crops threaten both, and that is why I and others tried to remove that GM crop. The jury agreed with us, and all of us were found not guilty of criminal damage, so what we did was found to be legally justified, not vandalism.

The fact that the framing of the debate about the use of GM technology in agriculture, between pro- and anti-science, has been successful does not make it correct. In fact, it is those who promote GM crops who have routinely abused science, ignored the basic principles of scientific investigation and proof, and ruthlessly attacked fellow scientists who disagreed with their pro-GM line. In doing so they have misused, abused and devalued science. If people have less respect for science than in the past, I hold the pro-GM lobby partly to blame. They have done real damage to the integrity and independence of science.

The first sin

Pro-GM scientists have made the mistake of conflating their opponents' opposition to commercial products (GM crops) with opposition to science. As I will show, those opposed to GM crops have a different, and I would say more accurate, understanding of the underlying science. But GM soya seeds are not 'science' – they are a commercial product.

These products have impacts in the real world. For example, they are used to alter the relationship between farmers and seed producers, preventing farmers saving their own seed. Once a GM variety has been grown, contamination makes it hard for the farmer to revert to non-GM crops, so GM crops tie farmers into long-term relationships with GM seed producers. This allows these companies to exert considerable power over the cost of farmers’ inputs (much as multiple retailers do over the price farmers receive for their outputs). It is now clear that existing GM crops have encouraged herbicide-resistant weeds23 24 25 and insecticide-resistant pests.26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 This has led to ever higher use of more complex mixtures of pesticides to control these pests.23 35 36 As a result, the introduction of most GM crops leads to large increases in pesticide use, rather than the decreases predicted by the GM industry.23 35

The GM traits can be passed by crossing to wild relatives of the crop,37 and the insecticide in GM Bt crops can destroy beneficial soil fungi.38 39 GM crops have negative environmental impacts, as the UK Government's scientific research programme (the Farm Scale Evaluations), which I opposed, showed.40 41 42 43 44

To oppose GM crops for all or any of these reasons is not 'anti-science'. On the contrary, opponents of GM use scientific evidence and cite the practical consequences of growing GM crops as arguments against the use of this particular agricultural technology.

The second sin

Proponents of GM made the mistake of assuming that the scientific breakthrough of unravelling DNA structure and function, and the discovery of DNA-manipulating enzymes (which led to the development of genetic engineering technology being applied to crops), was based on a full understanding of how genes work. As the history of science shows, many great scientific breakthroughs initially appear to have solved some long-standing problem. But on further investigation, it is frequently the case that the new breakthrough raises a host of new questions and areas for investigation. Those of us who love science find this one of the fascinating things about it.

But the companies that were developing GM crops based their ideas on an over-simplistic model of the control of gene expression, and convinced themselves that they were dealing with a straightforward process – hence their initial decision to call the technology of altering crops 'genetic engineering'. They believed that each gene had a single, unique, independent function, and that moving a gene from one plant or animal to another would allow that gene to express that particular function wherever and however it was located.

Even back in the mid-1990s, some scientists said that pro-GM geneticists were oversimplifying gene expression. They pointed out that the geneticists were ignoring relationships that genes have with other genes and relationships that groups of genes have with other groups elsewhere in an organism’s DNA. They pointed out too that the geneticists were ignoring the other factors that effect the regulation of gene expression.

We now know that these scientists were right, and that gene expression is more complex than was initially supposed. Gene organisation within the genome is not random. Genes tend to be grouped into coordinated functional units, and control of expression is far more complex than was initially supposed. The emerging science of epigenetics has demonstrated that, for example, mice with identical DNA can turn out to have extreme variations, between disease-prone, obese animals and fit, slim animals, simply because of the impact that dietary inputs and environmental chemical exposures have on their DNA control mechanisms during pregnancy.45 46 47 Much of the scientific case for GM crop technology is based on a grossly over-simplified view – that genes work as isolated units of information – which we now know to be wrong.

One consequence of the disruptive effect of the GM transformation process is that it can negatively affect crop performance48 (for example ‘yield drag’ seen with GM soya).49 50 Another consequence is the production of novel toxins51 52 53 54 55 56 and allergens,57 58 59 as well as disrupted nutritive value.60 61 62 63

The third sin

Instead of embracing new scientific discoveries in this area, the many scientists involved in promoting GM technology have found a number of ways of trying to disguise or ignore the fact that the processes they are promoting are much more complex than they claim.

For example, transferring genes (usually at random) from one plant to another is a far more uncertain, unstable and disruptive process than was originally thought. In order to avoid the costly and time-consuming safety testing of foods produced through this new technology, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) – a body devoted not to public health but to facilitating international trade – came up with the concept of 'substantial equivalence'.64 This assumes that if relatively simplistic chemical analyses of, say, a GM sweetcorn's protein, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals, find values that can also be found within the range of non-GM sweetcorn varieties, then the GM sweetcorn is deemed to be indistinguishable from, and therefore as safe as, non-GM sweetcorn.65

Substantial equivalence was used to deny the need for any biological or toxicological safety testing of GM foods, because GM food was now assumed to be the same as the equivalent food that people had been eating for hundreds of years. This was a political and commercial decision, taken in consultation with, and on behalf of, a small number of large GM companies. It had nothing to do with science. We now know it was opposed by some scientists in the US Federal Drug Administration (FDA),66 67 68 69 70 71 but it was pushed through by political appointees to the FDA. The same approach has spread to many other countries, although some are now less enthusiastic, and the European Union avoids using the term “substantial equivalence”, redefining it as the “comparative assessment” process. However, proponents of the European concept of “comparative assessment” admit that it has much the same meaning as “substantial equivalence”.72

An increasing number of detailed biological tests comparing GM and equivalent non-GM crops have now been carried out, not just looking at gross values but rather the spectrum of different types of proteins and other biochemical components. These studies, though few in number, clearly show major differences between the GM and non-GM plants, demonstrating that they are not substantially equivalent.60 61 62 63 This science invalidates the use of substantial equivalence to assess the safety of GM crops and food, but it is still used in the USA and forms the basis of safety assessments of GM crops in Europe.

There is still no requirement, in any country in the world, for GM food to be tested in long-term or lifetime animal feeding trials. Nor is there any requirement to test GM food by feeding it to several generations of mice or rats, to see whether it has any identifiable impact. So there is no regulatory requirement for GM food to be tested to see whether it is safe for humans to eat.

In response, it is claimed that much non-GM plant breeding involves chemical or radiological mutagenesis, and thus gives rise to the same risks as GM crop breeding, so it would be wrong to apply extra controls on GM crops and food. It is true that chemical and radiation-induced mutation crop breeding is highly mutagenic. But there is a good reason why it is not widely used – it produces a large proportion of unhealthy and deformed plants.73 74 In fact, some scientists have called for plants produced by mutation breeding to be tested in the same way as GM crops.75

In addition, there is the possibility that there are features of the GM process itself that may affect the genome that are not possible in non-GM crop breeding. And GM allows a gene to be inserted in radically different foodstuffs. For example, in the case of allergic reactions, affected individuals could no longer simply avoid foods they know they are allergic to, as GM crop breeding could allow a toxic, allergenic or sensitising protein to be inserted in any food, with no warning labels.

The fourth sin

While one result of the adoption of the US interpretation of the unscientific concept of 'substantial equivalence' was to discourage scientific studies of the impact of eating GM foods, in practice, the GM companies try to make sure that studies cannot be conducted at all by independent scientists.

As an editorial in Scientific American in August 2009 said:

“It is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers…. Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering.... It would be chilling enough if any other type of company were able to prevent independent researchers from testing its wares and reporting what they find.… But when scientists are prevented from examining the raw ingredients in our nation's food supply or from testing the plant material that covers a large portion of the country's agricultural land, the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous.”76

One of the consequences of this determination to stop science working when it comes to research on GM crops, is that numerous pro-GM scientists have fallen into the unscientific trap of claiming that, because GM food has now been eaten by millions of people for several years, it is clearly 'safe'. As most GM food has been eaten in the USA, and in the period since GM food has been produced, the US has suffered a catastrophic increase in diet-related ill health,77 78 these same scientists might as well claim that GM food is extraordinarily damaging to human health. Because there has been no GM food labelling in the US, no post-market monitoring, and no epidemiological research, we simply don't know. But to claim that the absence of evidence of harm from GM food means that there is evidence that GM food is safe, when none of the necessary research has been done, shows a wilful disregard for basic scientific principles.

The fifth sin

Although proper studies are difficult to carry out because of the problems of obtaining samples of GM material, some studies have been done looking at the impact of GM diets on animals. Worryingly, these studies, conducted by independent scientists, show negative health effects.51 52 53 54 55 56 79 80 81 82 83 84

The first and best known of these studies was carried out in Scotland by Dr Arpad Pusztai.79 His study, and others that have been conducted since, suggest that some adverse impact was being caused to multiple organ systems in the test animals. None of these studies can claim to be conclusive, and most have not been well funded, but they show evidence of potential harm that the scientists involved say needs to be further investigated. All the scientists have been viciously attacked by pro-GM scientists.85 86 87

Re-evaluations by independent scientists of data obtained from the GM crop industry’s own animal feeding studies also demonstrate clear signs of toxicity. The organs consistently affected are the liver and kidney, the two major detoxification organs, with ill effects on the heart, adrenal glands, spleen, and blood cells also being observed.51 53

What is needed are long-term and lifetime animal feeding studies to see the effects of eating GM foods over an extended period – reflecting the real-life exposure of humans. In addition, multigenerational studies are needed to see the effects on reproduction and future generations. Such studies are compulsory for pesticides and pharmaceutical drugs, but not for GM foods – even though the exposure is likely to be longer-term for a food than for a pesticide or drug.

One of the great things about science is that, in theory at least, it should not be subject to the whims of those in power or those with money. Anyone making a claim on the basis of scientific evidence should publish their evidence in a form that will allow any other scientist to repeat their experiment, and show whether they are right or wrong. Some of the richest and most powerful organisations in the world attacked Dr Pusztai and his work, particularly the UK’s Royal Society. However, to their shame, not one of these critics has seen fit to do what any student learning about scientific method would be told should be the first step, namely, to repeat the experiment. An experiment can be repeated with any modifications that would, in the eyes of the critic, make the study acceptable.

Work done by a young Russian scientist,88 89 and by Austrian scientists,84 has been attacked in exactly the same way, and no effort has been made to repeat those experiments in order to justify these attacks. These personal attacks have sometimes been coupled with threats that the scientists might lose their jobs or funding (as indeed Dr Pusztai did).87 But not once anywhere in the world has a pro-GM scientific body or GM company responded to a scientific study they do not like, by doing what anyone who cared about science should do – repeating the experiment.

The sixth sin

One response to these criticisms from the pro-GM scientists is to claim that there is in fact a rigorous, scientific, regulatory regime, for example in the USA and EU, which proves that GM crops are safe. The regulatory regime for GM crops is not based on science, but rather on selected information from GM companies. And because of the perceived need for commercial confidentiality, not all the research the companies give to the regulators is published.

The gold standard of science is peer reviewed, published research. Open publication is fundamental to the integrity of science, and a prerequisite to another key principle on which science rests, namely the fact that conclusions can always be tested by repeating the research. In the area of GM crops, as in some others, what is claimed to be 'scientific' regulation is based on a perversion of science – secretive and (because there is no requirement to publish or even list all studies) possibly highly selective, corporate information.

Independent researchers and NGOs like Greenpeace have used court orders (under EU Freedom of Information laws) to obtain access to previously secret corporate studies. Re-evaluation of the industry raw data shows that the scientists involved selectively studied only a few questions, and interpreted what little evidence they had in ways that favoured corporate interests. Major flaws in the experimental design were evident, which served to mask rather than reveal the effects of the GM transformation process. Nevertheless, these short, 90-day rat feeding studies did show clear signs of toxicity arising from the GM compared to non-GM equivalent feed.51 53 If such signs of toxicity are evident after just 90 days, then clearly, lifelong (2-year) studies are urgently needed.

The seventh sin

Almost all the claims made for GM crops by proponents of the technology are claims about benefits that GM technology will deliver in future.90 This is not a new phenomenon – such claims were being made in the late 1990s, when GM crops were first introduced.91 Claims that GM crops will solve world hunger, or will deliver drought resistant, nitrogen-fixing or nutrient rich crops, are not science but prophecy.

The pro-GM lobby and the media treat these claims as if they are science, but none of them are based on scientific evidence. They are opinions, not science, often expressed by companies or scientists with a strong financial interest in seeing them treated as fact.

Conclusion

To summarise: first, the pro-GM lobby has deliberately conflated opposition to particular commercial products, GM crops, with opposition to science.

Second, the pro-GM lobby has failed to acknowledge our growing understanding of the complexity of gene expression. They have ignored new developments in science which have added complexity and uncertainty to what they initially assumed was a simple process.
Third, the pro-GM lobby invented and interpreted the pseudo-scientific and anti-scientific concept of substantial equivalence, and then defended it as if it had some scientific merit, which it does not.

Fourth, the pro-GM lobby has deliberately prevented independent research into the safety of GM food, by denying the scientists the samples they require to do such work, and has then claimed that there is evidence that GM foods are safe to eat, confusing the absence of evidence of harm with evidence of safety.

Fifth, the relatively small but growing number of scientific studies that have looked at the long term health consequences of eating GM food have raised serious grounds for concern. But instead of following scientific principles and repeating disputed experiments, the pro-GM lobby has only attacked the research and the integrity of the scientists involved.

Sixth, the pro-GM lobby has claimed that the regulatory regimes for GM crops in America and the EU provide scientific proof that GM crops are safe, while in fact these regulatory regimes rely on limited company information, not science. When problems show up even in these limited industry studies, they have been ignored.

Seventh, the pro-GM lobby presents endless claims of future benefits and performance of GM crops as if these are science rather than prophecies.

When the history of the changes in the public understanding of science and public confidence in science over the last fifteen years comes to be written, I believe that the pro-GM lobby's misuse and abuse of science will be seen to have had a chilling impact. These people, organisations and companies have been responsible for part at least of the sad decline in both public understanding and confidence in science and scientific evidence.

Peter Melchett is Policy Director at the Soil Association. You can contact him via email pmelchett@soilassociation.org (http://javascript<strong></strong>:void(location.href='mailto:'+String.fromCharCode( 112,109,101,108,99,104,101,116,116,64,115,111,105, 108,97,115,115,111,99,105,97,116,105,111,110,46,11 1,114,103)+'?subject=seven%20deadly%20sins%20again st%20science'))
Thanks to: Claire Robinson, GMWatch; Professor Andy Stirling, University of Sussex; Professor Erik Millstone, University of Sussex; and Dr Michael Antoniou, King’s College London School of Medicine, for their comments on the draft of this paper.

This article was first published in Mother Earth, the Soil Association's journal of organic thought and policy. We hope you enjoyed this article, please feel free to share this with your contacts. If you wish to support the production of Mother Earth in future, and receive the latest issue direct to your door, then please subscribe to Mother Earth, for just £12 a year (http://www.soilassociation.org/shop/item/categoryid/4/list/1/level/a/productid/49).

1. Ogodo O. Beans climb to new heights in Rwanda. SciDev.Net. 4 February 2010. http://www.scidev.net/en/news/beans-climb-to-new-heights-in-rwanda.html
2. France24. "Rooting" out hunger in Africa – and making Darwin proud 7 September 2010.
3. Queensland Country Life. New maize hybrids to target niche Asian markets. 5 April 2011. http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/grains-and-cropping/general/new-maize-hybrids-to-target-niche-asian-markets/2124544.aspx
4. Berthelsen J. A new rice revolution on the way? AsiaSentinel. 17 January 2011. http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2922&Itemid=214
5. Swoboda R. Cho[o]se high-yielding, SCN-resistant soybeans. Wallace's Farmer (Iowa, USA). 7 November 2007. http://www.wallacesfarmer.com/story.aspx?s=14290&c=0&pv=1
6. Diers B. Discovering soybean plants resistant to aphids and a new aphid ACES News. 10 August 2009. http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/news/stories/news4863.html
7. Suszkiw J. Scientists use old, new tools to develop pest-resistant potato. USDA Agricultural Research Service. 31 March 2009. http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-10447360/Scientists-use-old-new-tools.html
8. Kloosterman K. Pest-resistant super wheat “Al Israeliano”. ISRAEL21c 17 August 2010. http://www.greenprophet.com/2010/08/israel-super-wheat/
9. Siar SV, Beligan GA, Sajise AJC, Villegas VN, Drew RA. Papaya ringspot virus resistance in Carica papaya via introgression from Vasconcellea quercifolia. Euphytica. 20 February 2011: 1–10.
10. Clemson University. New not-so-sweet potato resists pests and disease. Bioscience Technology. 22 June 2011. http://www.biosciencetechnology.com/News/2011/06/New-Not-So-Sweet-Potato-Resists-Pests-and-Disease/
11. Potato Council (UK). Toluca. The British Potato Variety Database 2011. http://varieties.potato.org.uk/display_description.php?variety_name=Toluca (http://%20http//varieties.potato.org.uk/display_description.php?variety_name=Toluca). Accessed 14 September, 2011.
12. Wragg S. Elm Farm 2010: Blight-resistant spuds could lower carbon levels. Farmers Weekly Interactive. 11 January 2010. http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/11/01/2010/119465/Elm-Farm-2010-Blight-resistant-spuds-could-lower-carbon.htm
13. White S, Shaw D. The usefulness of late-blight resistant Sarpo cultivars – A case study. Acta Horticulturae. June 2009(834).
14. Gillam C. DuPont says new corn seed yields better in droughts. Reuters. 5 January 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/05/us-dupont-corn-idUSTRE7043JK20110105
15. Cocks T. Drought tolerant maize to hugely benefit Africa: Study. Reuters. August 26 2010. http://bit.ly/bPXW0p
16. La Rovere R, Kostandini G, Tahirou A, et al. Potential impact of investments in drought tolerant maize in Africa. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. CIMMYT. 2010.
17. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). Farmers get better yields from new drought-tolerant cassava. 3 November 2008. http://old.iita.org/cms/details/news_details.aspx?articleid=1897&zoneid=81
18. Sawahel W. Wheat variety thrives on saltier soils. SciDev.Net. 28 April 2010. http://www.scidev.net/en/news/wheat-variety-thrives-on-saltier-soils.html
19. IRIN News. Philippines: Could flood-resistant rice be the way forward? . 10 September 2009. http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=82760
20. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). Indian farmers adopt flood-tolerant rice at unprecedented rates 14 September 2010. http://beta.irri.org/news/index.php/press-releases/indian-farmers-adopt-flood-tolerant-rice-at-unprecedented-rates.html
21. Hattori Y, Nagai K, Furukawa S, et al. The ethylene response factors SNORKEL1 and SNORKEL2 allow rice to adapt to deep water. Nature. 2009; 460: 1026–1030.
22. Mellon M, Gurian-Sherman D. The cost-effective way to feed the world. The Bellingham Herald. 20 June 2011. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13264
23. Benbrook CM. Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the United States: The first thirteen years. The Organic Center. November 2009. www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/13Years20091126_FullReport.pdf (http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/13Years20091126_FullReport.pdf)
24. Nandula VK, Reddy KN, Duke SO, Poston DH. Glyphosate-resistant weeds: Current status and future outlook. Outlooks on Pest Management. August 2005; 16: 183–187.
25. Herbicide Resistance Action Committee. Glycines (G/9) resistant weeds by species and country. 2010. http://www.weedscience.org/Summary/UspeciesMOA.asp?lstMOAID=12.
26. Dorhout DL, Rice ME. Intraguild competition and enhanced survival of western bean cutworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on transgenic Cry1Ab (MON810) Bacillus thuringiensis corn. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2010; 103: 54–62.
27. Pearson H. Transgenic cotton drives insect boom. Nature. 25 July 2006.
28. Wang S, Just DR, Pinstrup-Andersen P. Bt-cotton and secondary pests. Int. J. Biotechnology. 2008; 10(2/3): 113–121.
29. Goswami B. India: Bt cotton devastated by secondary pests. Grain 2007. http://www.grain.org/btcotton/?id=398.
30. Ashk GKS. Bt cotton not pest resistant. The Times of India. 24 August 2007. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Chandigarh/Bt_cotton_not_pest_resistant/articleshow/2305806.cms
31. The Economic Times (India). Bug makes meal of Punjab cotton, whither Bt magic? September 2 2007. http://bit.ly/967MA8
32. Rohini RS, Mallapur CP, Udikeri SS. Incidence of mirid bug, Creontiades biseratense (Distant) on Bt cotton in Karnataka. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2009; 22: 680–681.
33. Zhao JH, Ho P, Azadi H. Benefits of Bt cotton counterbalanced by secondary pests? Perceptions of ecological change in China. Environ Monit Assess. Feb 2010; 173(1-4): 985-994.
34. Lu Y, Wu K, Jiang Y, et al. Mirid bug outbreaks in multiple crops correlated with wide-scale adoption of Bt cotton in China. Science. May 28 2010; 328(5982): 1151-1154.
35. Benbrook CM. Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs – Problems facing soybean producers in Argentina. Technical Paper No 8. AgBioTech InfoNet. January 2005. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/rust-resistence-run-down-soi.pdf
36. Kilman S. Superweed outbreak triggers arms race. Wall Street Journal. June 4 2010. http://biolargo.blogspot.com/2010/06/round-up-weed-killer-and-acquired.html
(http://biolargo.blogspot.com/2010/06/round-up-weed-killer-and-acquired.html)37. Warwick SI, Legere A, Simard MJ, James T. Do escaped transgenes persist in nature? The case of an herbicide resistance transgene in a weedy Brassica rapa population. Mol Ecol. Mar 2008; 17(5): 1387-1395.
38. Castaldini M, Turrini A, Sbrana C, et al. Impact of Bt corn on rhizospheric and soil eubacterial communities and on beneficial mycorrhizal symbiosis in experimental microcosms. Appl Environ Microbiol. Nov 2005; 71(11): 6719-6729.
39. Cheeke TE, Pace BA, Rosenstiel TN, Cruzan MB. The influence of fertilizer level and spore density on arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization of transgenic Bt 11 maize (Zea mays) in experimental microcosms. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. Feb 2011; 75(2): 304-312.
40. Hawes C, Haughton AJ, Osborne JL, et al. Responses of plants and invertebrate trophic groups to contrasting herbicide regimes in the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. Nov 29 2003; 358(1439): 1899-1913.
41. Roy DB, Bohan DA, Haughton AJ, et al. Invertebrates and vegetation of field margins adjacent to crops subject to contrasting herbicide regimes in the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. Nov 29 2003; 358(1439): 1879-1898.
42. Brooks DR, Bohan DA, Champion GT, et al. Invertebrate responses to the management of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant and conventional spring crops. I. Soil-surface-active invertebrates. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. Nov 29 2003; 358(1439): 1847-1862.
43. Heard MS, Hawes C, Champion GT, et al. Weeds in fields with contrasting conventional and genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. II. Effects on individual species. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. Nov 29 2003; 358(1439): 1833-1846.
44. BBC News. Q&A: GM farm-scale trials. 2004. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3194574.stm.
45. Dolinoy DC, Huang D, Jirtle RL. Maternal nutrient supplementation counteracts bisphenol A-induced DNA hypomethylation in early development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Aug 7 2007; 104(32): 13056-13061.
46. Dolinoy DC, Weidman JR, Waterland RA, Jirtle RL. Maternal genistein alters coat color and protects Avy mouse offspring from obesity by modifying the fetal epigenome. Environ Health Perspect. Apr 2006; 114(4): 567-572.
47. Waterland RA, Jirtle RL. Transposable elements: targets for early nutritional effects on epigenetic gene regulation. Mol Cell Biol. Aug 2003; 23(15): 5293-5300.
48. Ma BL, Subedi KD. Development, yield, grain moisture and nitrogen uptake of Bt corn hybrids and their conventional near-isolines. Field Crops Research. 2005; 93: 199-211.
49. Gurian-Sherman D. Failure to yield: Evaluating the performance of genetically engineered crops. Union of Concerned Scientists. 2009. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf
50. Elmore RW, Roeth FW, Nelson LA, et al. Glyphosate-resistant soyabean cultivar yields compared with sister lines. Agronomy Journal. 2001; 93: 408-412.
51. Séralini GE, Cellier D, Spiroux de Vendomois J. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology May 2007; 52(4): 596-602.
52. Kilic A, Akay MT. A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem Toxicol. Mar 2008; 46(3): 1164–1170.
53. de Vendomois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health. Int J Biol Sci. 2009; 5(7): 706–726.
54. Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, et al. Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric Food Chem. Dec 10 2008; 56: 11533–11539.
55. Trabalza-Marinucci M, Brandi G, Rondini C, et al. A three-year longitudinal study on the effects of a diet containing genetically modified Bt176 maize on the health status and performance of sheep. Livestock Science. 2008; 113(2): 178–190.
56. Hines FA. Memorandum to Linda Kahl on the Flavr Savr tomato (Pathology Review PR–152; FDA Number FMF–000526): Pathology Branch's evaluation of rats with stomach lesions from three four-week oral (gavage) toxicity studies (IRDC Study Nos. 677–002, 677–004, and 677–005) and an Expert Panel's report: US Department of Health & Human Services; 1993.
57. Prescott VE, Campbell PM, Moore A, et al. Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity. J Agric Food Chem. Nov 16 2005; 53(23): 9023–9030.
58. Yum HY, Lee SY, Lee KE, Sohn MH, Kim KE. Genetically modified and wild soybeans: an immunologic comparison. Allergy Asthma Proc. May-Jun 2005; 26(3): 210-216.
59. Nordlee JA, Taylor SL, Townsend JA, Thomas LA, Bush RK. Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. N Engl J Med. Mar 14 1996; 334(11): 688-692.
60. Lappé M, Bailey B, Childress C, Setchell KDR. Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified herbicide-tolerant soybean. Journal of Medicinal Food. 1999; 1: 241–245.
61. Shewmaker C, Sheehy JA, Daley M, Colburn S, Ke DY. Seed-specific overexpression of phytoene synthase: Increase in carotenoids and other metabolic effects. Plant J. 1999; 20(4): 401–412X.
62. Jiao Z, Si XX, Li GK, Zhang ZM, Xu XP. Unintended compositional changes in transgenic rice seeds (Oryza sativa L.) studied by spectral and chromatographic analysis coupled with chemometrics methods. J Agric Food Chem. Feb 10 2010; 58(3): 1746-1754.
63. Zhou J, Ma C, Xu H, et al. Metabolic profiling of transgenic rice with cryIAc and sck genes: an evaluation of unintended effects at metabolic level by using GC-FID and GC-MS. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. Mar 15 2009; 877(8-9): 725-732.
64. Womach J. Agriculture: A glossary of terms, programs, and laws, 2005 edition. Congressional Research Service. 16 June 2005: 247.
65. Millstone E, Brunner E, Mayer S. Beyond "substantial equivalence". Nature. 1999; 401(6753): 525–526.
66. Kahl L. Memorandum to Dr James Maryanski, FDA biotechnology coordinator, about the Federal Register document, "Statement of policy: Foods from genetically modified plants": US Food & Drug Administration; 1992.
67. Guest GB. Memorandum to Dr James Maryanski, biotechnology coordinator: Regulation of transgenic plants – FDA Draft Federal Register Notice on Food Biotechnology: US Department of Health & Human Services; 1992.
68. Matthews EJ. Memorandum to Toxicology Section of the Biotechnology Working Group: "Safety of whole food plants transformed by technology methods": US Food & Drug Administration; 1991.
69. Shibko SL. Memorandum to James H. Maryanski, biotechnology coordinator, CFSAN: Revision of toxicology section of the "Statement of policy: Foods derived from genetically modified plants": US Food & Drug Administration; 1992.
70. Pribyl LJ. Comments on Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92: US Food & Drug Administration; 1992.
71. Pribyl LJ. Comments on the March 18, 1992 version of the Biotechnology Document: US Food & Drug Administration; 1992.
72. Kok EJ, Kuiper HA. Comparative safety assessment for biotech crops. Trends in Biotechnology. 2003; 21: 439–444.
73. Acquaah G. Principles of Plant Genetics and Breeding: Wiley-Blackwell; 2007.
74. Van Harten AM. Mutation Breeding: Theory and Practical Applications: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
75. Batista R, Saibo N, Lourenco T, Oliveira MM. Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Mar 4 2008; 105(9): 3640-3645.
76. Scientific American. Do seed companies control GM crop research? 13 August 2009. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research
77. Mead PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V, et al. Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerg Infect Dis. Sep-Oct 1999; 5(5): 607-625.
78. Foegeding PM, Roberts T, Bennet J, et al. Foodborne pathogens: Risks and consequences. Ames, Iowa. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1994.
79. Ewen SW, Pusztai A. Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet. Oct 16 1999; 354(9187): 1353-1354.
80. Malatesta M, et al. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol. 2008; 130: 967–977.
81. Malatesta M, Biggiogera M, Manuali E, Rocchi MBL, Baldelli B, Gazzanelli G. Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. European Journal of Histochemistry. Oct-Dec 2003; 47: 385–388.
82. Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, et al. Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct Funct. Aug 2002; 27(4): 173–180.
83. Vecchio L, Cisterna B, Malatesta M, Martin TE, Biggiogera M. Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem. Oct-Dec 2004; 48(4): 448-454.
84. Velimirov A, Binter, C., Zentek, J. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Familie und Jugend Report, Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV Band 3/2008. 2008.
85. Waltz E. GM crops: Battlefield. Nature. 3 September 2009; 461(7260): 27–32.
86. Verhaag B. Scientists Under Attack [Film]. mercurymedia2009. http://www.scientistsunderattack.com/
87. Rowell A. Don’t Worry, It’s Safe to Eat. London, UK: Earthscan Ltd; 2003.
88. Ermakova I. Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies. Ecosinform. 2006; 1: 4–9.
89. Ermakova I. Influence of soy with gene EPSPS CP4 on the physiological state and reproductive function of rats in the first two generations. Contemporary Problems in Science and Education. 2009; 5: 15-20.
90. Pollan M. The way we live now: The great yellow hype. The New York Times Magazine. 4 March 2001. http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/the-way-we-live-now-the-great-yellow-hype/
91. Tokar B. Monsanto: A profile of corporate arrogance. In: Goldsmith E, Mander J, eds. The Case Against the Global Economy: Earthscan; 2001:92–105.

Christian Liberty

05-30-2013, 05:26 PM

The US Constitution does not give Washington the authority to mandate labeling of any kind, GMO or otherwise. Such authority only exists Constitutionally in the individual States. Even then, it's not the proper solution on principle. The proper solution on principle would be State-level legislation defining the sale of GM foodstuffs as though they were their natural counterparts as fraud. The only authority that Washington could Constitutionally claim here would be to add that same definition to interstate fraud for foodstuffs that cross State borders. Neither solution involves mandatory labeling beyond that which already (and should not) exists.

Wouldn't that technically be constitutional for the Federal Government to mandate that any foodstuffs that are traded across state lines be labeled? I'm not really crazy about that particular part of the constitution since it can be stretched so many ways, but this actually does seem like it should fit the interstate commerce clause.

So, you're a Conservative do-gooder: you want to ensure that every fetus gets born, but you forget about it/him the moment it/he gets born.

What do you think about Progressives who believe that every child has a right to universal healthcare? Remember, a lack of access to healthcare hurts people! So what makes Progressive do-gooders different from you?

I'm not a conservative except in the loosest of senses. I'm a pro-life libertarian. I support the legalization of drugs, prositution, and basically every other "Vice" you can think of. The only exception is if there's a victim.

Ron Paul was pro-life too, for the record.

Regarding UHC, it is simply not the case that everyone has a legal duty to take care of every child. A parent does, however, have a duty not to kill their own child.

Some of the more progressive-leaning people on here are uncomfortable with Austrian economics, because it seems anarchistic to them.

In their defense, not everyone who supports Ron or Rand is a libertarian. No candidate can win the presidency with the support of only one ideological group, so I'm glad they are on board regardless of whether I disagree with them.

I'm not really sure what I am technically economically, I'm probably "Austrian" or at least close, I'm a supporter of laisez faire in the vast majority of cases.

Regarding Ron Paul and the FDA, I do not support the existance of the FDA both because it legally prevents people from trying controversial medications that have yet to be tested in order to potentially save their lives, and because it punishes companies for TRUTHFULLY labeling their food without permission. I do, however, believe government has a role in stopping and punishing fraud.

GunnyFreedom

05-30-2013, 05:30 PM

I don't understand what's the difference on principle? In order to comply with your law the companies would most likely have to use a distinct label. Explicitly mandating a label is better approach IMO because it tells the companies exactly what they to do to comply, leaving no ambiguity about it.

Fraud is a form of aggression. Saying "aggression is illegal" is consistent with the NAP. Mandates are a form of aggression. Creating mandates would be a violation of the NAP. One could argue that 'mandate b' is really just a defensive measure against 'aggression a,' but its awfully hard to put that case together logically. Simply saying that aggression (ie fraud) is illegal does not require philosophical gymnastics to adhere perfectly to principle.

Christian Liberty

05-30-2013, 05:41 PM

So, you're not completely averse to voting for pro-choice candidates. That's rare among social conservatives...

Speaking about the "tyranny of the majority", it refers to the abuse of rights of the minorities. Now, how are your rights violated by other people having abortions? It's not like somebody forces abortion on you.

They're violating the rights of the unborn.

As for voting for pro-choice candidates, yeah, I would, because the issue is a joke for the GOP to catch the gullible, they don't really care about ending it. I would, however, be a bit averse to voting for a Roe v Wade supporter since that would show they don't get the constitution.

Brett85

05-30-2013, 06:05 PM

So, you're not completely averse to voting for pro-choice candidates. That's rare among social conservatives...

You call anyone who's pro life a "social conservative," even though many people here are simply opposed to abortion because they believe it violates the non aggression principle. You won't find many people here who think the government should ban pornography, ban prostitution, criminalize drug use, ban gambling, etc. You don't even have to be a social conservative to understand that abortion is murder.

Carlybee

05-30-2013, 06:13 PM

Can we please stick to the thread topic and discuss abortion somewhere else?

Natural Citizen

05-30-2013, 06:14 PM

Can we please stick to the thread topic and discuss abortion somewhere else?

Ever hear the one about the neocon and the rope salesman? Is one particular cross breed that I can support whole heartedly. :)

JCDenton0451

05-30-2013, 06:18 PM

Fraud is a form of aggression. Saying "aggression is illegal" is consistent with the NAP. Mandates are a form of aggression. Creating mandates would be a violation of the NAP. One could argue that 'mandate b' is really just a defensive measure against 'aggression a,' but its awfully hard to put that case together logically. Simply saying that aggression (ie fraud) is illegal does not require philosophical gymnastics to adhere perfectly to principle.

So, it's a question of wording? But how you are going to prove that a company in question committed fraud? What does "selling GM foodstuffs as though they were their natural counterparts" actually mean? I fear vague wording like this would leave loopholes for GMO manufacturers to exploit.

GunnyFreedom

05-30-2013, 06:31 PM

So, it's a question of wording? But how you are going to prove that a company in question committed fraud? What does "selling GM foodstuffs as though they were their natural counterparts" actually mean? I fear vague wording like this would leave loopholes for GMO manufacturers to exploit.

Not wording, principle. The difference between promoting aggression and opposing aggression.

If anything, enhancing the legal definition of fraud would be more precise than mandatory labeling.

It would be pretty easy to put together actions that include genetic testing for GM material once there is actionable incentive to do so.

Natural Citizen

05-30-2013, 06:34 PM

GunnyFreedom;5052322
If anything, enhancing the legal definition of fraud would be more precise than mandatory labeling.

Won't be from a political premise. This is something that will come as the science community becomes more relevant to the process. In time...

Think of it as a peer review of sorts rather than fraud.

This is what I meant in the pm/rep scribble or whatever you call it.

T.hill

05-30-2013, 08:27 PM

Well, yours is a minority view.

"It's impossible to kill someone, who has yet to be born" - that's the majority view. Who gave you the right to impose your minority view on a majority?

BTW I noticed you live in Massachusetts. Do you know that Republican who runs for Senate in your state is pro-choice? What do you think about it?

Pro-life views do predominately have religious overtones, especially with christian-Bible origins. However even though some maybe inconsistent with their pro-life views or are seemingly inconsistent with their views, consistency with protecting life is the overwhelming majority view for pro-life libertarians, whether it be an unborn or born life.

Who are you to say an unborn life isn't worth protecting? Who are you to impose that view on to others?

mz10

05-30-2013, 10:42 PM

Fraud is a form of aggression. Saying "aggression is illegal" is consistent with the NAP. Mandates are a form of aggression. Creating mandates would be a violation of the NAP. One could argue that 'mandate b' is really just a defensive measure against 'aggression a,' but its awfully hard to put that case together logically. Simply saying that aggression (ie fraud) is illegal does not require philosophical gymnastics to adhere perfectly to principle.

Not convinced about fraud being aggression. To me, aggression has to include actual, physical aggression, either directly or indirectly. Ultimately, I still think it should be up to the consumer to be aware of fraud and buy from companies that they trust. But then again, I'm against all government action in the economy, so my views do go pretty far.

Keith and stuff

05-30-2013, 11:02 PM

Of course he was right. There is no question. To even suggest he was wrong is to advocate for prison, if not murder, of 1000s of innocent people.

WhistlinDave

05-30-2013, 11:21 PM

Antischism

05-31-2013, 05:58 AM

Curious how many people here think all labeling of food ingredients should be completely voluntary.

And of those who think it should be completely voluntary, wondering how many of those have food allergies.

Also wondering how many people here think the majority of food producers would still label all their ingredients if it was made completely voluntary.

I'm not taking a position either way; I'm not sure I've decided which way I go on this particular issue except to say the government definitely needs to quit making exceptions and favors to Monsanto to protect them from normal free market consequences. Just curious what others think on the above questions.

Here are some stock answers you'd probably get from a few people:

"The free market will solve everything."
"What's stopping them from lying about the ingredients?"
"Grow your own food, then."
"The company will lose good will and be forced to label properly once people die from food allergies."

I view misleading or lying about the food you're selling to be a crime. If a food is being genetically modified to the point where it isn't really a natural food anymore, it should be labeled as such.

The problem with issues such as these is some libertarians become conflicted and fall back on free market rhetoric to explain away their position even though it's not really a pure free market issue. Not only that, but we aren't living in a pure free market system. I'm one who believes for example, that government should get out of the business of marriage entirely, but since that isn't the case at the moment, gay couples should be afforded the same rights as straight. If the government were to get out of the marriage business in the future, it would do away with both cases, not just one, anyway.

XTreat

05-31-2013, 10:11 AM

That would be a clear violation of the law through. Private citizens will have every right to sue this manufacturer.

It won't be a violation of the law once the FDA changes the definition of what a GMO is.

Did you know just last week the FDA ruled that aspartame can now be labeled as a "natural flavor"

XTreat

05-31-2013, 10:14 AM

JCDenton0451

05-31-2013, 01:40 PM

You don't understand the different authorities of the state and federal governments?

No, I don't understand why asking the companies to provide information about the contents of their foodstuffs is a form of agression for some people. This is taking non-agression principle to the extreme imo.

Warrior_of_Freedom

05-31-2013, 04:47 PM

it costs a company no money at all to add next to an ingredient in parentheses (genetically engineered) The only reason companies don't want this is because it will decrease sales for obvious reasons. People not knowing their food is being genetically engineered is fraud IMO and if there's no labeling, the genetically modified food shouldn't be legal to sell period.

XTreat

05-31-2013, 06:54 PM

No, I don't understand why asking the companies to provide information about the contents of their foodstuffs is a form of agression for some people. This is taking non-agression principle to the extreme imo.

You're not asking, you want to make a law, having a law assumes consequences for refusal, that is coercion.

osan

06-02-2013, 09:38 AM

Rand Paul: (https://www.facebook.com/Rand2016)
"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."

There appears to be at least some justifiable reason to vote this down, but in a sense "freedom" and "liberty" may not me among them. Let us see. The amendment states its purpose as follows:

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.

Given the Tenth Amendments recognition of state sovereignty, the stated purpose is immediately rendered irrelevant by those two innocuous words. To wit, the bill in question itself states in Section 12207 (B)(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 12207(B)(4):

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

Evidently the amendment is self-obviating, indicating Mr. Sanders to be at the very best a lowatt intellect. No soup for Bernie and everyone quickly: roll your eyes wildly.

On these bases alone the amendment should have been defeated, so good on Rand Paul for that. I also noticed that the only people to vote yea were Democrats, and two "independents". How surprising.

Now, on a broader level I would say that a properly crafted law making mandatory such labeling would be OK with me even with respect to the question of liberty. Before getting all aghast remember that we are speaking of corporate entities and not individuals. Contrary to idiot court rulings, corporations are not people and therefore hold no inherent rights. That we may grant them provisional rights of a contractual and relatively limited nature can be a good thing if we accept the premise that corporations as legal entities should exist in the first place. I contend that as they exist today they are dangerous and deleterious to human prosperity, health, and liberty but that is a discussion for another day.

Corporations are conceptual construct that provide mental frames of reference by which individual human beings are able to guide and assess their own and each others' actions. They are, in effect, praxeological tools. Nothing wrong with that bit per se, but in legalistic terms the concept of corporation has been grotesquely perverted. A proper corporation, being nothing but a set of conventions for the purposes of guiding human action pursuant to some stated purpose (manufacturing aircraft, farming, running a whore house, what have you) has no inherent rights. This being the case, human beings are in every way superior to corporations in terns of their rights and interests. If we reasonably assume that good health is a broadly pursued human interest and that the quality of food constitutes a major factor with respect to one's health, it therefore stands to reason that the human interest in knowing what a corporation is putting in their food products vastly outweighs any possible interest the "corporation" might have in concealing such information. This is fairly a no-brainer. No human rights are being abridged here, but only the granted, contractual rights of a group of individuals choosing to operate in congress as a formal corporate unit.

Much of this position assumes that such corporate entities provide the benefit of limited liability. If one is to enjoy such strong immunities there must be a countervailing force to better ensure the righteous behavior of decision makers. What, after all, provides the impetus for me to behave properly if I am personally indemnified from wrong doing as I sit behind the corporate veil? If I produce foods and can double my profit my using, say, a GMO'd ingredient that causes health problems with long term exposure, there is nothing standing between me and my choices save the human sense of moral rectitude and we all know how reliably that has served to keep the world a clean, safe, and just place.

Corporations, once grown to proportions beyond some threshold become super-organisms with super-human powers that history illustrates in clear fashion tend more often to trample on the rights of the individual than edify them. The rights of a group do not gain over those of individuals because they are not additive. Human power, however, IS additive and once gone beyond a point tends to grow at greater-than-linear rates, given that entities tend to be far more than the sums of their parts.

It is, therefore, my current view that corporations must be placed on leashes of sorts. This, of course, can be very dicey and a million things can go awry with such schemes, but no more so than allowing them to run amok. Once again, this tends to be so largely due to the factor of limited liability. Were we to remove that element - and I am not convinced that this would be a good idea - then the sorts of control to which I here vaguely refer might well become unnecessary precisely because those working for the corporation in question could be held personally liable for the choices they make as employees and officers of that body.

The bottom line here is this: at least as often as not there arise conflicts between corporate interests and those of the individual. Rights are not additive but instrumentality is. The individual is almost never able to materially battle the super-human entities we call "corporations". Because corporations hold no rights and are therefore inferior to the individual save in material power, those powers they wield in conflict with the interests of the individual must be held at strong bey such that those operating as corporations are prevented from violating the rights of their fellows. This curtail has nothing to do with infringing the rights of people. Quite the contrary, it has everything to do with best ensuring the sanctity of human rights across the broadest spectrum possible. Therefore, any time you feel the urge to rail against "regulation" per se, remember what has been written here. Corporation << human being (reads: corporation is much less than human being)

All this said, it must also be borne in mind that the delimitation of corporate prerogatives must allow for the widest avenues of exercise that sidle right up to the boundaries with individual rights. In other words, so long as they are not in violation, those operating corporations should be free to act as they will. The parameters are clear for the most part. As to those areas of grey, that is supposedly why we have courts.

osan

06-02-2013, 10:04 AM

A fetus is not a person.

Holy hell did you just step in a great steaming heap of it.

Fetuses have apparently been documented as struggling to survive when being aborted. Make of that what you will.

I am torn on the abortion issue. I do not regard a 2 week old glob of cells as a human BEING, though they are indeed human.

At what point between that and a 9-month fetus does the entity become a human being? I don't know and I will not pontificate on the grey area, but to tell me that a fetus which is about to pop is not a person stretches well past the limits of my credulity.

parocks

06-11-2013, 08:25 PM

If a FEDERAL GMO labeling bill was bad because the FEDERAL Government shouldn't be in that business, what do people think of STATE labeling laws?

Rand and Ron spoke against FEDERAL laws. Their arguments do not apply to STATES, I don't think.

satchelmcqueen

06-11-2013, 10:39 PM

nice idea and perfect work around.
How about letting non-GMO products be labeled as such instead?