The Libertarian Case AGAINST Mandatory GMO Labeling

[FrankRep]

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.


Ron Paul: (http://vote-tx.org/politicianissue.aspx?state=tx&id=txpaulrone&issue=busfood)



"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."

[familydog]

Why do so many libertarians see this as a free market issue? Monsanto does not operate in a free market. They never did and they never will. Monsanto is basically the fourth branch of government. They do what they want with impunity. Frankly it's embarrassing how many people think this is an issue of innocent business vs. evil government.

[PierzStyx]

Why do so many libertarians see this as a free market issue? Monsanto does not operate in a free market. They never did and they never will. Monsanto is basically the fourth branch of government. They do what they want with impunity. Frankly it's embarrassing how many people think this is an issue of innocent business vs. evil government.


Because at the end of the day, everything is a free market issue. Excuse government over-stepping its legal boundaries in one area, lose your right to complain about it elsewhere and be a huge hypocrite. The truth is that as the quote from Dr. Paul has brought up, it wouldn't work anyway. The most effective system to make sure businesses are honest and doing what they should is the free market. Only buy products labelled as being non-GMO, convince those around you to do the same, and more businesses will make those products. Its an elegant simple solution that doesn't require unconstitutional or immoral use of force.

[Seraphim]

I don't think GMO labelling should be mandatory.

What sends me into a fit of rage is that company's that do label as NON GMO are raped with litigation by Monsanto and the USG.

[familydog]

Because at the end of the day, everything is a free market issue. Excuse government over-stepping its legal boundaries in one area, lose your right to complain about it elsewhere and not be a huge hypocrite. The truth is that as the quote from Dr. Paul has brought up, it wouldn't work anyway. The most effective system to make sure businesses are honest and doing what they should is the free market. Only buy products labelled as being non-GMO, convince those around you to do the same, and more businesses will make those products. Its an elegant simple solution that doesn't require unconstitutional or immoral use of force.

So, if the IRS chief gets audited and forced to pay back taxes, I should feel bad for him? Of course not. If you live by government you die by government. I have no sympathy for any parasite whose host turns on him.

[PierzStyx]

So, if the IRS chief gets audited and forced to pay back taxes, I should feel bad for him? Of course not. If you live by government you die by government. I have no sympathy for any parasite whose host turns on him.


If you're using the government in the same way they are, pushing unconstitutional and immoral legislation, then you are a parasite too.

[Debbie Downer]

If you're using the government in the same way they are, pushing unconstitutional and immoral legislation, then you are a parasite too.

Someone please rep this for me.

[familydog]

If you're using the government in the same way they are, pushing unconstitutional and immoral legislation, then you are a parasite too.

I'm not using government for anything. I don't support mandated labeling. I just laugh out loud at the outrage at forcing a quasi-government entity to be regulated by government.

[jbauer]

It's easy to bitch about GMO with your mouth full. Monsanto has jut become the wiping kid on this issue.

[EBounding]

It's strange that the only people complaining about GMO's are those with full bellies. The starving in Africa should rally to get the Government to ban GMO food.

[Working Poor]

Why do so many libertarians see this as a free market issue? Monsanto does not operate in a free market. They never did and they never will. Monsanto is basically the fourth branch of government. They do what they want with impunity. Frankly it's embarrassing how many people think this is an issue of innocent business vs. evil government.
I am embarrassed that people in our movement would consider this a free market issue. Aspartame no longer has to be put on labels either and as I and others like me can experience life tbreatening consequences if they come into contact with it I for one am all in favor of truthful labeling of food substances. I don't care what Ron Paul or anyone else says about it.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

It's strange that the only people complaining about GMO's are those with full bellies. The starving in Africa should rally to get the Government to ban GMO food.

This.

[Wooden Indian]

At the end of the day, this is not anything that Congress should be involved in. Not in one direction or the other.

Our household goes out of it's way to identify GMO foods and leave them on the shelves. Do we get duped sometimes by labeling? Probably. But we catch it enough of the time that if everyone would do it, it would become unprofitable for them to continue using the crap, and they'd be forced to remove them or suffer huge losses.

An informed public is what's needed here. Not MOAR LAWZ!! The answer is never more laws, really.

[Working Poor]

//

[Carlybee]

They are already required to list ingredients. Studies have shown it doesn't cost any more to add the GMO labeling and testing. We are not dealing with a normal company with Monsanto..we are dealing with a monster that wants to poison the world. That being said the government is complicit and one does have to wonder how to safeguard from their machavellian intent.

[Debbie Downer]

I am embarrassed that people in our movement would consider this a free market issue. Aspartame no longer has to be put on labels either and as I and others like me can experience life tbreatening consequences if they come into contact with it I for one am all in favor of truthful labeling of food substances. I don't care what Ron Paul or anyone else says about it.

That's not true. Aspartame must be labelled in all foods.

What you're misrepresenting is that some dairy groups want FDA approval to allow the use of artificial sweeteners in milk without having to label the milk as "reduced calorie" or "reduced sugar."

Of course if you ask the "natural news" and mercola crowd they'll misrepresent the fact, as usual.

[Carlybee]

It's strange that the only people complaining about GMO's are those with full bellies. The starving in Africa should rally to get the Government to ban GMO food.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

[Debbie Downer]

They are already required to list ingredients. Studies have shown it doesn't cost any more to add the GMO labeling and testing. We are not dealing with a normal company with Monsanto..we are dealing with a monster that wants to poison the world. That being said the government is complicit and one does have to wonder how to safeguard from their machavellian intent.

Yeah, Monsanto wants us to poison us all dead so they can sell more food... :rolleyes:

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I am embarrassed that people in our movement would consider this a free market issue. Aspartame no longer has to be put on labels either and as I and others like me can experience life tbreatening consequences if they come into contact with it I for one am all in favor of truthful labeling of food substances. I don't care what Ron Paul or anyone else says about it.

I see labels more and more all the time that says "No Aspartame" ... "No High Fructose corn syrup" ... on name brand popular products.

The government should stay out of this issue on all fronts, the free market is already fixing the problem.

[Carlybee]

Yeah, Monsanto wants us to poison us all dead so they can sell more food... :rolleyes:

Control the food supply, control the world. We aren't going to be running out of humans anytime soon but the quality of life for those humans is another matter...keeps the cancer clinics busy.

[jbauer]

They are already required to list ingredients. Studies have shown it doesn't cost any more to add the GMO labeling and testing. We are not dealing with a normal company with Monsanto..we are dealing with a monster that wants to poison the world. That being said the government is complicit and one does have to wonder how to safeguard from their machavellian intent.

You can't feasibly test for GMO. In grains it would require testing each and every individual seed. It is not possible to do that. GMO is the new "organic" people eat it (or don't eat it) because whole food people have done a great job of advertising.

[pcosmar]

Because at the end of the day, everything is a free market issue.

Is,, or "should be".
The simple fact of the matter is that there is no "free Market"..

And though I do agree with the premise,, Without Government,, Monsanto would not exist.
IT WOULD BE JUST SOME GUY SELLING MAGIC BEANS.

We are so far from any free market solution it is pointless to consider.

[Working Poor]

For the record the so called starving
masses came out pretty strong against Monsanto poison seeds.

[liberty2897]

http://www.pubpat.org/monsanto-seed-patents.htm


With the help of a nonprofit called the Public Patent Foundation, organic and other farmers who do not wish to plant GMOs filed a lawsuit against Monsanto, the world's largest seed company and the holder of numerous GMO seed patents. The company is notorious for suing those farmers when their non-GMO crops become contaminated by GMOs growing in nearby fields. And the organic and non-GMO farmers hoped the suit would protect them from any litigation in the event that their crops become contaminated against their knowledge via drifting pollen or cross-pollination from bees. The lawsuit represented over 300,000 farmers, most of whom were represented by the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association.


PUBPAT encourages the public to not buy any products made with corn, soy, sugar, canola, cotton or alfalfa (this includes milk, as dairy cows eat alfalfa) unless you are certain it was made without any use of genetically modified seed. If you're not sure, call the manufacturer and ask. If they can't or don't give you a straight answer, then don't buy their product. The proponents of genetically modified seed have vigorously opposed labeling of genetically modified food here in America (although Europe and Asia have such labeling), so to make this effort easier on your fellow Americans, once you know whether certain products are derived from genetically modified seed or not, spread that information so others know. Increasing consumer awareness and demand for food not derived from genetically modified seed, even slightly, will increase the supply of the food we want, which will reduce prices and increase availability. If you want to purge genetically modified food from society, you can help do so every time you go to the grocery store or a restaurant. It's your money, spend it as you see fit.

Personally, I'm not all that worried about the potential health issues related to GMO. I'm more concerned about the potential global disaster that could occur from making every crop a mono-culture. What happens if an insect becomes resistant and wipes out an entire crop? We're fucked. Not like you can turn this stuff around over night.

[PierzStyx]

I am embarrassed that people in our movement would consider this a free market issue. Aspartame no longer has to be put on labels either and as I and others like me can experience life tbreatening consequences if they come into contact with it I for one am all in favor of truthful labeling of food substances. I don't care what Ron Paul or anyone else says about it.


The reason its not being labelled IS BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. So called regulatory agencies are the ways companies manipulate the people to give legitimacy to their back room deals and the illusion of "punishment" when they "break the rules." I find it ludicrous that a group of people who complain that corporations run everything in America, especially the government, somehow think regulatory agencies are the exception. Its the regulatory agencies that prevent the free market system from responding to the people who do want things like GMOs and aspartame labelled in foods.

[familydog]

It's strange that the only people complaining about GMO's are those with full bellies. The starving in Africa should rally to get the Government to ban GMO food.

Your argument is so full of inaccuracies it makes me laugh.

1. I grow what I eat and barter/buy local for the rest.
2. Many African countries are just as skeptical of GMOs as the rest of the world. They realize GMO food is not the answer. Besides, African governments make it very difficult through regulation for people to grow and raise their own food so it's no wonder why Monsanto tries to say it's products will save the day.
3. Who the heck is even talking about banning GMO?

Please, let's discuss this like adults.

[donnay]

Because at the end of the day, everything is a free market issue. Excuse government over-stepping its legal boundaries in one area, lose your right to complain about it elsewhere and not be a huge hypocrite. The truth is that as the quote from Dr. Paul has brought up, it wouldn't work anyway. The most effective system to make sure businesses are honest and doing what they should is the free market. Only buy products labelled as being non-GMO, convince those around you to do the same, and more businesses will make those products. Its an elegant simple solution that doesn't require unconstitutional or immoral use of force.


This is the logical way to go--except Monsanto has threatened to sue farmers and ranchers for labeling.

I do not think people understand the power Monsanto wields in DC. They are seriously like the mafia and the FDA and USDA are their protectors.

Case in point:
http://www.alternet.org/story/154855/monsanto_threatens_to_sue_vermont_if_legislators_p ass_a_bill_requiring_gmo_food_to_be_labeled

[Carlybee]

The reason its not being labelled IS BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. So called regulatory agencies are the ways companies manipulate the people to give legitimacy to their back room deals and the illusion of "punishment" when they "break the rules." I find it ludicrous that a group of people who complain that corporations run everything in America, especially the government, somehow think regulatory agencies are the exception. Its the regulatory agencies that prevent the free market system from responding to the people who do want things like GMOs and aspartame labelled in foods.

It would be preferable to have voluntary labeling given that govt is in bed with Monsanto and a huge industry for GMO independent testing labs are sprouting up...wonder who owns stock in those. The whole thing is evil at the core and that is due to blatent corporatism and possibly some even more far reaching machination. However in the pursuit of life and liberty we have the right to know if something can kill us.

[EBounding]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

That really is a tragedy. They committed suicide because of the massive debt they took on to purchase a lot of GM seeds. I guess we do need more government regulations to protect people from making bad decisions.

[Carlybee]

That really is a tragedy. They committed suicide because of the massive debt they took on to purchase a lot of GM seeds. I guess we do need more government regulations to protect people from making bad decisions.

And you totally miss the point.

[PierzStyx]

It's strange that the only people complaining about GMO's are those with full bellies. The starving in Africa should rally to get the Government to ban GMO food.

I think you're missing the issue. No one is complaining about making corn more durable in even drier climates than it already lives in. What people are complaining about is the adding of chemical pesticides, most commonly Round-Up, into the every kernel of corn or wheat. Excuse me for wanting to know if my food had poison built into it.

[EBounding]

Your argument is so full of inaccuracies it makes me laugh.

1. I grow what I eat and barter/buy local for the rest.
2. Many African countries are just as skeptical of GMOs as the rest of the world. They realize GMO food is not the answer. Besides, African governments make it very difficult through regulation for people to grow and raise their own food so it's no wonder why Monsanto tries to say it's products will save the day.
3. Who the heck is even talking about banning GMO?


1. It does seem growing your food is the only way to assure you know what you're eating.
2. Yes, many African governments are now skeptical of GMOs.
3. A lot of people (but not in this thread).

But why would you trust a government mandated GMO label when the Monsanto people are still running the government and the agencies? I think the efforts would be best spent trying to stop the government from rewarding Monsanto for it's rent-seeking behavior.

[PierzStyx]

It would be preferable to have voluntary labeling given that govt is in bed with Monsanto and a huge industry for GMO independent testing labs are sprouting up...wonder who owns stock in those. The whole thing is evil at the core and that is due to blatent corporatism and possibly some even more far reaching machination. However in the pursuit of life and liberty we have the right to know if something can kill us.

Exactly. So buy food form only organic producers. Convince you friends to do the same. I fail to see how you have to use for of government for any of this.

[Carlybee]

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_monsanto.htm#contents

[PierzStyx]

This is the logical way to go--except Monsanto has threatened to sue farmers and ranchers for labeling.

I do not think people understand the power Monsanto wields in DC. They are seriously like the mafia and the FDA and USDA are their protectors.

Case in point:
http://www.alternet.org/story/154855/monsanto_threatens_to_sue_vermont_if_legislators_p ass_a_bill_requiring_gmo_food_to_be_labeled

Well, exactly. Which is what should be all the proof people need to show that government regulation wouldn't work. As Dr. Paul points out in teh OP quote, not only would it be immoral but Monsanto owns the regulators/ is the regulators.

[Carlybee]

Exactly. So buy food form only organic producers. Convince you friends to do the same. I fail to see how you have to use for of government for any of this.

I fail to see why the government continues to protect the GMO industry through legislation. Not all organic products are GMO free either.

[Spoa]

Let the government mandate one thing, they'll mandate another thing.

Give the government an inch, they'll take a yard.

Where in the Constitution does it say the government can mandate corporations to put labels on their food items? If you're so concerned about your food, do your own research!

[EBounding]

And you totally miss the point.

They're not protesting the fact that they're GMO's though. They're protesting and committing suicide because the crops did not yield what was promised and they can't afford to repay the debts. Is your point that the villagers were defrauded? I don't necessarily disagree. So what should be done?

[donnay]

That's not true. Aspartame must be labelled in all foods.

What you're misrepresenting is that some dairy groups want FDA approval to allow the use of artificial sweeteners in milk without having to label the milk as "reduced calorie" or "reduced sugar."

Of course if you ask the "natural news" and mercola crowd they'll misrepresent the fact, as usual.

You're wrong! Once people have woken up to it, the name is changed. Just like they do with MSG.

Sources:
http://voices.yahoo.com/aminosweet-name-aspartame-6653526.html
http://voices.yahoo.com/how-find-hidden-artificial-sweeteners-drinks-899641.html?cat=5
http://healthfreedoms.org/2010/02/15/aspartame-has-been-renamed-and-is-now-being-marketed-as-a-natural-sweetener/


Besides Aspartame is fecal matter of genetically engineered Ecoli.


You sure you are not a representative for the Bio Tech-industry?

[Carlybee]

They're not protesting the fact that they're GMO's though. They're protesting and committing suicide because the crops did not yield what was promised and they can't afford to repay the debts. Is your point that the villagers were defrauded? I don't necessarily disagree. So what should be done?

Read the other link I posted which is a more current scenario about farmers suing Monsanto.

[Carlybee]

Let the government mandate one thing, they'll mandate another thing.

Give the government an inch, they'll take a yard.

Where in the Constitution does it say the government can mandate corporations to put labels on their food items? If you're so concerned about your food, do your own research!

We arent all privy to lab equipment to test what has and hasnt been genetically modified.

[PaulConventionWV]

I see labels more and more all the time that says "No Aspartame" ... "No High Fructose corn syrup" ... on name brand popular products.

The government should stay out of this issue on all fronts, the free market is already fixing the problem.

That's ridiculous. We are far from any market solution. As long as government is involved in the agribusiness, the non-GMO foods you speak of are doomed to be relegated to the status of alternative medicine, perpetually trapped in obscurity.

I'm not a proponent of mandatory labelling. I just want to destroy Monsanto by any means possible. They wouldn't exist if it were't for this government. It's too late for the government to "stay out". They are already in!

[angelatc]

The real kicker is that
After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops.” http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2012/11/07/prop-37-fails-scientists-cheer/

[Carlybee]

And you totally miss the point.


The real kicker is that

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_monsanto50.htm

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_monsanto49.htm

[cajuncocoa]

They are already required to list ingredients. Studies have shown it doesn't cost any more to add the GMO labeling and testing. We are not dealing with a normal company with Monsanto..we are dealing with a monster that wants to poison the world. That being said the government is complicit and one does have to wonder how to safeguard from their machavellian intent.
+rep

All anyone expects is that the truth be displayed on labels that are already required.

[EBounding]

They are already required to list ingredients. Studies have shown it doesn't cost any more to add the GMO labeling and testing. We are not dealing with a normal company with Monsanto..we are dealing with a monster that wants to poison the world. That being said the government is complicit and one does have to wonder how to safeguard from their machavellian intent.

Would a government mandated label really be all that trustworthy? Seems like it would provide a false sense of security.

[Carlybee]

Would a government mandated label really be all that trustworthy? Seems like it would provide a false sense of security.

I agree that's a conundrum however someone could do a privately funded independent study to make sure...there are enough watchdog groups that could probably be feasible. Not really sure how to go about it.

[donnay]

The real kicker is that

Were those scientist bought and paid for by Monsanto?

Chronic illness are soaring...but there are no adverse effects reported. :rolleyes:

[angelatc]

Would a government mandated label really be all that trustworthy? Seems like it would provide a false sense of security.


I don't think the Constitution allows them to mandate food labeling either, with perhaps the exception of food that crosses state lines.

So "they're already doing it" is like the liberals who whine "Bush did it too!"

[Eagles' Wings]

I agree that's a conundrum however someone could do a privately funded independent study to make sure...there are enough watchdog groups that could probably be feasible. Not really sure how to go about it.

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

Cornucopia is a consumer advocate and education agency. Check out their picks for eggs. Several on the D/F list, which are organic, are on that list because of the factory farm conditions that do not differ from conventional farms.

[erowe1]

The thread title is redundant.

There is no libertarian case for the USDA at all.

[Carlybee]

The case for GMO labeling even if you believe in limited government

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

[FrankRep]

The case for GMO labeling even if you believe in limited government

http://www.naturalnews.com/036209_GMO_labeling_ballot_measure_California.html
This is talking about GMO labeling on a state level, which is fine.

The argument is against the federal government forcing GMO labels.

[erowe1]

The case for GMO labeling even if you believe in limited government

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

The worst tyrant imaginable still believes in limited government.

[erowe1]

This is talking about GMO labeling on a state level, which is fine.

The argument is against the federal government forcing GMO labels.

It is not fine for me as an individual to prevent you from being able to buy unlabeled foods. Therefore, it's not fine for a state to do it.

[angelatc]

It is not fine for me as an individual to prevent you from being able to buy unlabeled foods. Therefore, it's not fine for a state to do it.

I agree with you on a philosophical level, but the Constitution gives the right to the states.

[mczerone]

This is similar to the gay marriage thing: we don't want gov't mandating what counts as marriage or not, but while they do, is it possible to have a "libertarian" position on public policy?

In this case the govt already mandates labeling for processed foods. While the libertarian position is that product labeling should be left to the market (grocers and distributors enforcing certain standards for products they deal and producers voluntarily forming groups that are mutually beneficial to help standardize products) we are left with the question "is it possible to have a libertarian position on public policy in this area?"

I can see arguments for both: On one hand it's more regulatory to set govt standards on what is or isn't "GMO" and enforcing those laws; there will be a crowding out of private regulators (like Whole Foods' GMO-free requirements); and there would be an incentive to fudge the laws to favor large producers and crowd out the small competitors.

On the other hand, if no GMO labeling is required then consumers have a hard time distinguishing between products that have labels that list identical ingredients, but one uses GMO corn and one uses legacy corn; the market will grow in a way that favors GMOs that may crowd out legacy producers; and the FDA regulations themselves may begin to be questioned by the populace (leading to more favorable conditions for private regulators to find profit in the market).

There's pro's and cons on both sides. Ultimately here there is no "clear" libertarian stance because the whole policy arena is based on immoral grounds and there's no way to objectively balance the needs of the consumers with the liberties of the producers.

I'd just ignore the whole GMO debate and focus on Monsanto being a massive D.C. lobby, a huge subsidy consumer, and an IP predator.

[familydog]

But why would you trust a government mandated GMO label when the Monsanto people are still running the government and the agencies? I think the efforts would be best spent trying to stop the government from rewarding Monsanto for it's rent-seeking behavior.

I don't trust a government mandated GMO label and I agree with what you are saying. My only point is that government mandated GMO labeling is not somehow anti-free market. The people who sympathize and are outraged that Monsanto's products would have to be exposed are looking for a crime where none exists.

[jack555]

Could it not be said that monsanto is commiting fraud selling gmo corn as corn? Is it still corn? I dont think it is. Its genetically a different produce with different properties. I think it should be labeled what it is....genetically modified corn. To call it corn is to intentionally mislead.

[Antischism]

Isn't the problem that Monsanto pretty much IS another head on the disfiguration we call government? Why would any libertarian try to bring up the "free market" if it doesn't pertain to this situation at all? Am I missing something? Pardon my ignorance, but I haven't been following this as closely as others.

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't think GMO labelling should be mandatory.

What sends me into a fit of rage is that company's that do label as NON GMO are raped with litigation by Monsanto and the USG.


THIS.

And then folks in this movement actively defending what the Washington/Monsanto industrial complex is doing here. THAT'S the part that gets my Irish up. It's like 'fascism is OK so long as it's not a subject that I, personally, care about.'

Well you know what? I'm going to fight against fascism whether it affects me or not. Times like these I'm very disappointed in us.

[cajuncocoa]

Would a government mandated label really be all that trustworthy? Seems like it would provide a false sense of security.

There's already a false sense of security. Government isn't the answer to correct that, but right now government is providing protection for those companies that produce GMO food.

[GunnyFreedom]

Were those scientist bought and paid for by Monsanto?

Chronic illness are soaring...but there are no adverse effects reported. :rolleyes:

Just like young girls are entering menarche younger and younger every year, starting right about when they started loading hormones into milk and dairy. The girls in Europe where they have banned dairy hormones are not suffering a similar effect. The answer is not bans but free choice. We are relieved of our freedom to choose by the prohibition against hormone-free labeling. Because the docs from the wholly-owned corporate subsidiaries, the USDA and the FDA, have pronounced them safe, with no adverse effects.

Someone like me with a brain says, huh, where they put rBGH in milk, girls are entering menarche years and years earlier, and where they have banned rBGH from milk that is not happening. Scientists funded by the company who produces rBGH claim the stuff has no adverse effects, and government uses those findings to prohibit the labeling/advertising of dairy as "rBGH Free." We might have a food fascism problem in America.

[GunnyFreedom]

There's already a false sense of security. Government isn't the answer to correct that, but right now government is providing protection for those companies that produce GMO food.

Indeed. Government is not the solution, government is the problem. What government is doing in food right now is a very, very big problem.

[donnay]

There's already a false sense of security. Government isn't the answer to correct that, but right now government is providing protection for those companies that produce GMO food.


Just like the false sense of security the FDA gives to people about pharmaceuticals safety and so-called unbiased studies conducted by Big pHARMa. :rolleyes:

Government is NEVER the answer! Education and awareness is!

[Carlybee]

THIS.

And then folks in this movement actively defending what the Washington/Monsanto industrial complex is doing here. THAT'S the part that gets my Irish up. It's like 'fascism is OK so long as it's not a subject that I, personally, care about.'

Well you know what? I'm going to fight against fascism whether it affects me or not. Times like these I'm very disappointed in us.

People get on this meme of "I'm a libertarian therefore I must be against everything". People need to use their heads.

[Peace Piper]

Scientists funded by the company who produces rBGH claim the stuff has no adverse effects, and government uses those findings to prohibit the labeling/advertising of dairy as "rBGH Free." We might have a food fascism problem in America.


Obomba appointed Michael R. Taylor to head the FDA. Nice Work Obomba!


On July 17, 1991, Michael Taylor left King & Spalding, returning to the FDA to fill the newly created post of Deputy Commissioner for Policy. During that time, he signed the Federal Register notice stating that milk from cows treated with BGH did not have to be labeled as such.[1][7] His name is not on the FDA’s 1992 policy statement on genetically engineered plant foods,[8] but he is said to have been a co-author.[1] Both of these documents grew out of, and fall within, the regulatory policy framework that was developed starting in the mid-1980s under the Reagan and Bush Administrations to ensure safety of the public and to ensure the continuing development of the fledgling biotechnology industry without overly burdensome regulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor

It's great that so many people are willing to be guinea pigs and chow down on this brand new food. Just don't expect help from those of us who avoided this crap if strange things start happening to your digestive tracts.

[Carlybee]

I have had health issues directly related to hormone laced products. Once I cut them out of my diet the health issues began improving. Nobody can tell me we are not being slowly poisoned with the blessing of the govt.

[John F Kennedy III]

All of our food should be labelled properly so we can all make real, honest choices about our food purchases. Let's stop arguing over how to do it and just get it done already.

[pcosmar]

Libertarian Case? Free Market?

There is no Free Market. It would be nice, but it is not the reality.
And then, if it existed there might be some libertarian case.

As long as there is Government Mandated Labels..then Label it as such.

or do away with Labels and the FDA entirely. Nice fantasy,, not the reality.

[GunnyFreedom]

Obomba appointed Michael R. Taylor to head the FDA. Nice Work Obomba!
On July 17, 1991, Michael Taylor left King & Spalding, returning to the FDA to fill the newly created post of Deputy Commissioner for Policy. During that time, he signed the Federal Register notice stating that milk from cows treated with BGH did not have to be labeled as such.[1][7] His name is not on the FDA’s 1992 policy statement on genetically engineered plant foods,[8] but he is said to have been a co-author.[1] Both of these documents grew out of, and fall within, the regulatory policy framework that was developed starting in the mid-1980s under the Reagan and Bush Administrations to ensure safety of the public and to ensure the continuing development of the fledgling biotechnology industry without overly burdensome regulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor

It's great that so many people are willing to be guinea pigs and chow down on this brand new food. Just don't expect help from those of us who avoided this crap if strange things start happening to your digestive tracts.


Aye,

fas·cism

[fash-iz-uhm] noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

[Working Poor]

DebbieDowner-

I cannot even enter a conventional grocery store because the risk is so great that I might touch something that has aspartame in it.

Not long ago a very dear freind briught a cake over to my house to share with our "coffee group"she well knows about my allergy but when I put a bite of cake in my mouth I started vhaving a reaction to it like I had eaten aspartame my friend rushed to her home to read the label of the cake mix aspartame was not listed on the label anywhere we went to the website and got the number of the company and called them. They admittd the mix had aspartame in it and by saying on the label that it may have other ingredients not listed that it meant they were covered from having to lust aspartame because the percentage of the weight was below a certain amont that meant they did not have to lus it as an ingredient.

They must know something is wrong with aspartame if they do not even want to list it as an ingredient.. So if a box of something says:" may have other ingredients not listed" assume that it has aspartame, msg,or some other ingredient that maybe harmful.
Pour a diet soda on an ant hill and see what happens...

[better-dead-than-fed]

All anyone expects is that the truth be displayed on labels that are already required.


As long as there is Government Mandated Labels..then Label it as such.


Your personal interest is in knowing about a food's GMO content, right? But another person might care about something different; he might want to see a spectral analysis and magnetic-resonance image of food before he eats it. A third person might not care about any of that, but might want to know the astrological sign under which the seeds were planted. A fourth person wants to know the exact DNA of his food; and a fifth person wants to know
whether it's kosher. Do you want the FDA labels to show all that information, or just the information that happens to interest you in particular?

As long as there are government labels, who's to say what information should be left off the labels?

[Anti Federalist]

OK, so let's try this:

I sue for damages, and during discovery it comes to light what was actually in product "x".

I publish those ingredients so that people know and understand what is in product "x".

Foul ball?

[better-dead-than-fed]

People get on this meme of "I'm a libertarian therefore I must be against everything". People need to use their heads.

If you refrained from fabricating quotes, might you better understand what people are actually saying?

[better-dead-than-fed]

My only point is that government mandated GMO labeling is not somehow anti-free market. The people who sympathize and are outraged that Monsanto's products would have to be exposed are looking for a crime where none exists.

The crimes in issue are (1) whether to use violence to extort funding from taxpayers for FDA-labeling, and (2) whether to use violence against companies who exercise their right to leave information off labels.

[better-dead-than-fed]

We arent all privy to lab equipment to test what has and hasnt been genetically modified.


... the argument that the FDA is somehow the only body capable of reporting a food's content. Wizards with super-powers by virtue of their government-employment -- I don't think so.

The FDA holds no monopoly on lab equipment.

[better-dead-than-fed]

... Monsanto has threatened to sue farmers and ranchers for labeling. ...

Case in point:
http://www.alternet.org/story/154855/monsanto_threatens_to_sue_vermont_if_legislators_p ass_a_bill_requiring_gmo_food_to_be_labeled

That link doesn't really show any cases where Monsanto has threatened to sue farmers and ranchers for labeling. It says something totally different:


Monsanto’s minions sued in Federal Court and won on a judge’s decision that dairy corporations have the first amendment “right” to remain silent

[Neil Desmond]

First, promises are made to be broken.

The problem with this whole "GMO labeling" issue is that a red herring debate is being used to dominate the issue to keep people from talking about the real issue: false advertising. It's not a mandate to label food that are GMO that I want, it's just that I don't want something labeled "banana" if it's not actually a banana. If someone took a banana and altered its DNA structure in any way, then it's no longer a banana. If it's no longer a banana, then the company should not be able to label it "banana" and get away with it. As a libertarian, I do believe that there is a place for the state to protect victims; a person who purchases something labeled "banana" that isn't actually a banana (and to clarify, I mean as a food/culinary/sustenance product), then they are a victim of false advertising. Not saying they have, but I wouldn't doubt it if the GMO industry has co-opted at least some "self-proclaimed" spokes-humans to push the GMO industry agenda.

Anarchists and socialists (specifically fascists or "corporatists") would be opposed to anti-false advertising laws/regulations.

Libertarians, to me, are inherently in favor of anti-false advertising laws/regulations - because there is an actual victim.

[better-dead-than-fed]

What sends me into a fit of rage is that company's that do label as NON GMO are raped with litigation by Monsanto and the USG.

What are the case-numbers of these alleged lawsuits?


From what I've seen now on the FDA website, their only problem is with use of the term "GMO" on labels; because the FDA construes "GMO" as a relatively extensive term. (See the FDA's position: "Most, if not all, cultivated food crops have been genetically modified." (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5046685&viewfull=1#post5046685)) If a producer added a label saying:


This food is not from recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion, gene deletion or doubling, introduction of exogenous genetic material, alteration of the position of a gene, or similar procedure,

the FDA's objection would not apply, as far as I've seen.

[Natural Citizen]

First, promises are made to be broken.

The problem with this whole "GMO labeling" issue is that a red herring debate is being used to dominate the issue to keep people from talking about the real issue: false advertising.

Which eventually goes back to the real heart of the matter. Which is the science of it. Was watching the op's vid. Julie is looking to justify a specific way of scraping the chicken off the road instead of asking why it crossed in the first place right when the 18 wheeler was passing by. It will only be when the base places their prospective representatives into a position of accountabilty to share and justify their position on the science itself as well as how they would lead us conforming to it that the issue will be approached productively.

Labeling itself is irrelevant in scope and the fact that it does seem to trump the terms of controversy is indicative of the gap between political science and literacy to the relevance of the real stuff and it's impact on infratructural/legislative processes. Is a fine line. One that is fading.

[Neil Desmond]

Which eventually goes back to the real heart of the matter. Which is the science of it. Was watching the op's vid. Julie is looking to justify a specific way of scraping the chicken off the road instead of asking why it crossed in the first place right when the 18 wheeler was passing by. It will only be when the base places their prospective representatives into a position of accountabilty to share and justify their position on the science itself as well as how they would lead us conforming to it that the issue will be approached productively.

Labeling itself is irrelevant in scope.

No; I think that I already made the issue of "the science of it" clear when I stated this:


If someone took a banana and altered its DNA structure in any way, then it's no longer a banana.

[Natural Citizen]

No; I think that I already made the issue of "the science of it" clear when I stated this:

Right. So now we need our representatives to be held accountable to approach the issue in the same manner.

[Neil Desmond]

Right. So now we need our representatives to be held accountable to approach the issue in the same manner.
Sure, that sounds fine to me.

[Danan]

There is no "good" libertarian case for mandatory anything. Whenever two parties are voluntarily trading with each other, no force should be used against them.

It's sad that so many "libertarians" dismiss this philosophy when it's about their pet issues.

[GunnyFreedom]

What are the case-numbers of these alleged lawsuits?

Monsanto v. Schmeiser (Canadian Supreme Court Judgement) (http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2147/index.do)
Lower courts ruled that even crops contaminated by GM pollination are owned and controlled by Monsanto because of the presence of the Monsanto gene. By the time it reached the Supreme Court, Monsanto feared the establishment of precedent and dropped that claim, but retained the patent infringement claim without specified deliver methods invoked.

Monsanto v Parr and Monsanto v Runyon (CBS News Report) - windborne cross-pollination (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-4048288.html)

Class Action v Monsanto dismissed. Windborne cross-pollination is not a threat. (http://www.dailytech.com/Monsanto+Defeats+Small+Farmers+in+Critical+Bioethi cs+Class+Action+Suit/article24118.htm)
(GyF - of course not, it'a a profit model!)

Monsanto wins lawsuit against Indiana soybean farmer (http://www.mnn.com/your-home/organic-farming-gardening/stories/monsanto-wins-lawsuit-against-indiana-soybean-farmer)

Monsanto claimed intellectual property infringement when a farmer used the company's patented seeds from a commodity seed bag. (http://www.mnn.com/your-home/organic-farming-gardening/stories/monsanto-wins-lawsuit-against-indiana-soybean-farmer)


Bearing in mind that 'commodity seed bags' come from farmers harvesting the seed from their own crops, and the Monsanto gene would have entered these bags via aerial pollination.



http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/monsanto-v-us-farmer-2012-update-final_98931.pdf

As of June 2006, Monsanto had instituted an estimated 2,391 to 4,531 “seed piracy matters” against farmers in 19 states.
 Farmers have paid Monsanto an estimated $85,653,601 to $160,594,230 in settlements of these seed piracy matters.
 The number of seed piracy matters reported by Monsanto is 20 to 40 times the number of lawsuits we have found in public court records.
 The estimated total of settlements paid to Monsanto by farmers ($85.7 to $160.6 million) exceeds by four to eight times the total of recorded judgments ($21.6 million).


http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/seed-giants_final_04424.pdf

As of January 2013, Monsanto filed 144 lawsuits based upon purported violations of itsTechnology UseAgreement and its patents on GE seed technology.These cases involve 410 farmers and 56 small businesses or farm companies, in at least 27 different states.


Seventy-two lawsuits ended in recorded damages awarded to Monsanto. Twenty-seven lawsuits ended in unrecorded damages awarded to Monsanto (confidential settlements).Fourteen lawsuits were dismissed, with no indication of whether damages were awarded to Monsanto.Eleven lawsuits were ongoing as of November 28,2012.

...

Finally, the above cited recorded cases and judgments fail to convey atrue picture of the scope of the seed giants’aggressive actionsagainstU.S.farmers.This is because as one federal district court concluded “[t]he vast majority of cases filed by Monsanto against farmers have been settled before any extensive litigation took place.” (Monsanto Co .v .McFarling, 2005)

...

In 2006, CFS used materials downloaded from Monsanto’s website to determine the approximate scope and cost to farmers from these out-of-court settlements. These documents showed that Monsanto had instituted an estimated 2,391 to 4,531 of “seed piracy matters” against farmers in 19 states. This is 20 to 40 times the number ofreported lawsuits found in public records.





$24 Million in judgements, another $106 Million in settlements.

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/monsanto-v-us-farmer-2010-update-v-2.pdf

Could go on for hours. This is Monsanto's business model. they take in between $100M and $160M in the US alone every year for court awards and out of court settlements.

[mczerone]

There is no "good" libertarian case for mandatory anything. Whenever two parties are voluntarily trading with each other, no force should be used against them.

It's sad that so many "libertarians" dismiss this philosophy when it's about their pet issues.

I agree. But the reality is that labeling requirements already exist.

This isn't about whether they should exist or not, but how they should be managed by the govt.

If labeling is going to exist, would you rather they require truthful claims, or that they just be whatever the manufacturer claims?

Here's a candy bar that says: "Serving size: 1 bar. Calories: 10. Carbs: 140g. Fat 0g. Protein: some. Ingredients: pure candy!"

There's room for libertarian/NAP judgement on existing public policy while arguing in the alternative that there should be no govt involvement whatsoever.

[mac_hine]

#MarchAgainstMonsanto: The Grassroots Uprising

By James Corbett
http://www.corbettreport.com/marchagainstmonsanto-the-grassroots-uprising/

In any honest ranking of the world’s most hated corporations, Monsanto is almost certain to find itself at the top of the list. Indeed, it is difficult to think of a company that has affected the lives of so many around the world, either directly through its coercive and litigious practices against small farmers the world over, or indirectly through the pollution of the food supply with their genetically modified crops. And despite what corporate apologists and paid shills would have the public believe, the company’s abominable reputation is not based on knee-jerk anti-corporatism, but the documented record of Monsanto’s own history and actions.

Many are familiar with the company’s sordid past, including its role in the development of Agent Orange and its contribution to the epidemic of farmer suicides in India, but in recent years Monsanto has gained special notoriety for its attempts to push the boundaries of patent law in a self-admitted attempt to gain a monopoly over the world’s food supply. [See this and this and this.]

The company’s remarkable record in court has helped it set worrying precedents in the field of patent law, not just in the United States but in numerous districts around the world. Some might attribute the company’s success to blind luck, or to the vast resources it has available to prosecute its cases against cash-strapped farmers, but the real secret to Monsanto’s court victories is to be found in the infamous Monsanto / government revolving door.

The list of Monsanto employees and consultants who have also held key roles in the U.S. government is truly staggering. It includes such names as Dennis DeConcini the US Senator who also served as Monsanto Legal Counsel, Mickey Kantor, Commerce Secretary under President Clinton who also served as a Monsanto board member, Michael Taylor, Obama’s Deputy FDA Commissioner who also served as Monsanto’s VP for Public Policy, Linda Fisher, a senior EPA official who later became Monsanto’s VP of Government and Public Affairs, US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who served as a corporate lawyer for Monsanto in the 1970s, and literally dozens of other examples.

These judicial successes culminated in recent weeks in what may be the company’s largest victory to date: the passage of the so-called Monsanto Protection Act, which stacks the deck even further in Monsanto’s favour.

For a company so universally reviled there has been remarkably little coordination of grassroots resistance to Monsanto and its agenda. Protest has been haphazard, and, while occasionally symbolically effective, have done little to derail the Monsanto freight train from its path of worldwide domination of the food supply.

Later this month, however, a new grassroots movement seeking to galvanize resistance to the multinational will stage an unprecedented worldwide protest rally against the company, coordinating marches in hundreds of cities involving tens of thousands of people all across the globe.

Earlier this month I had the chance to interview Tami Canal, the organizer and founder of the March Against Monsanto, about the movement and what it is seeking to accomplish.

The March Against Monsanto is necessarily only the first link in a potential chain of reaction that could help to galvanize grassroots resistance to the Monsanto juggernaut and encourage people around the world to participate in a boycott of the company and the products derived from its seeds. Like any chain, it will take time and patience to forge, and it will be created link by link, as more and more people are educated about the dangers of Monsanto, its seed patents, and its seeds themselves. Ultimately, what becomes of such a movement depends on the grassroots itself: either it will re-commit itself to the fight against the company and its practices, or it will opt to maintain the status quo, hoping that some government officials not bought off or in the employ of the company will somehow pass some piece of legislation that will make everything better again.

Whatever the outcome, it cannot be denied that the struggle itself is of paramount importance. If there is any truth to the age-old dictum that you are what you eat, then the population of the world is slowly turning into Monsanto. Given the chilling nature of that thought, can there be any doubt as to why the public needs to engage in this fight?

-------------


Monsanto is the antithesis of free market

[GunnyFreedom]

Monsanto is the antithesis of free market

But it's OK, see because I don't personally care about GMO, then fascism in this area is cool by me. :p

[luctor-et-emergo]

Monsanto v. Schmeiser (Canadian Supreme Court Judgement) (http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2147/index.do)
Lower courts ruled that even crops contaminated by GM pollination are owned and controlled by Monsanto because of the presence of the Monsanto gene. By the time it reached the Supreme Court, Monsanto feared the establishment of precedent and dropped that claim, but retained the patent infringement claim without specified deliver methods invoked.

Monsanto v Parr and Monsanto v Runyon (CBS News Report) - windborne cross-pollination (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-4048288.html)

Class Action v Monsanto dismissed. Windborne cross-pollination is not a threat. (http://www.dailytech.com/Monsanto+Defeats+Small+Farmers+in+Critical+Bioethi cs+Class+Action+Suit/article24118.htm)
(GyF - of course not, it'a a profit model!)

Monsanto wins lawsuit against Indiana soybean farmer (http://www.mnn.com/your-home/organic-farming-gardening/stories/monsanto-wins-lawsuit-against-indiana-soybean-farmer)

Monsanto claimed intellectual property infringement when a farmer used the company's patented seeds from a commodity seed bag. (http://www.mnn.com/your-home/organic-farming-gardening/stories/monsanto-wins-lawsuit-against-indiana-soybean-farmer)


Bearing in mind that 'commodity seed bags' come from farmers harvesting the seed from their own crops, and the Monsanto gene would have entered these bags via aerial pollination.






$24 Million in judgements, another $106 Million in settlements.

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/monsanto-v-us-farmer-2010-update-v-2.pdf

Could go on for hours. This is Monsanto's business model. they take in between $100M and $160M in the US alone every year for court awards and out of court settlements.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyFreedom again.

[Anti Federalist]

True that.

I fail to see how fraud can be justified as "free market".


First, promises are made to be broken.

The problem with this whole "GMO labeling" issue is that a red herring debate is being used to dominate the issue to keep people from talking about the real issue: false advertising. It's not a mandate to label food that are GMO that I want, it's just that I don't want something labeled "banana" if it's not actually a banana. If someone took a banana and altered its DNA structure in any way, then it's no longer a banana. If it's no longer a banana, then the company should not be able to label it "banana" and get away with it. As a libertarian, I do believe that there is a place for the state to protect victims; a person who purchases something labeled "banana" that isn't actually a banana (and to clarify, I mean as a food/culinary/sustenance product), then they are a victim of false advertising. Not saying they have, but I wouldn't doubt it if the GMO industry has co-opted at least some "self-proclaimed" spokes-humans to push the GMO industry agenda.

Anarchists and socialists (specifically fascists or "corporatists") would be opposed to anti-false advertising laws/regulations.

Libertarians, to me, are inherently in favor of anti-false advertising laws/regulations - because there is an actual victim.

[Christian Liberty]

Regarding policy, the logical conclusion of "If government shouldn't be involved, I'll oppose all regulations whatsoever" is also that public roads cannot be managed by government, government cannot pull reckless drivers off the roads, immigration should be completely open, even to the point where Osama Bin Laden (If he weren't dead) should be allowed to walk right across the border, public hospitals should just leave their patients to die because ultimately the hospitals should be privatized, exc.

Now, I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist, but even if I opposed ALL government, I still wouldn't agree with the conclusions I proposed above just because ideally there should be no government.

I don't support violation of the NAP, but I think reducing said violations is justified even if you can't get it to 0. I wouldn't vote "No" on a bill that removes cannabis from the list of controlled substances just because I believe that list to be illegitimate, even though I do believe that it is.

[GunnyFreedom]

True that.

I fail to see how fraud can be justified as "free market".

I think it stems from the self-interest aspect of Objectivism. ie - if it doesn't affect me personally, then I don't give a damn, and I personally like GMO so anybody who opposes it must be a socialistic anti-free market raving lunatic.

It makes sense to me because a large number of our people are Ayn Rand acolytes, and the concept of self-interest exclusively dictating philosophy is a pretty big piece of Objectivism.

[mac_hine]

But it's OK, see because I don't personally care about GMO, then fascism in this area is cool by me. :p

Exactly.

Surprised? Monsanto Openly Wrote Own Monsanto Protection Act

from naturalsociety.com: It should come as no surprise to many of you to find out that Monsanto actually authored the wording of its own Monsanto Protection Act (Sec. 735) hidden in the recently passed and signed Continuing Resolution spending bill. How could a major corporation write its own laws and regulations, you ask?

Quite frankly I think it’s important to understand that the entire Senate passed the bill containing the Protection Act, but the politician who actually gave Monsanto the pen in order to write their very own legislation is no others than Roy Blunt — a Republican Senator from Missouri. As the latest IB Times article reveals, the Missouri politician worked with Monsanto to write the Monsanto Protection Act. This was confirmed by a New York news report I will get to shortly.

As you probably know I do not play the political clown game of left verses right, and instead highlight corruption and wrongdoing wherever it is found — regardless of party affiliation. In the case of Senator Blunt, he admits to colluding with Monsanto, a corporation that has literally been caught running ‘slave-like’ working conditions in which workers are unable to leave or eat (among many worse misdeeds).

Food Democracy Now, a major activist organization that organized signatures to fight the Monsanto Protection Act, described the rider: “The Monsanto Protection Act would force the USDA to allow continued planting of any GMO crop under court review, essentially giving backdoor approval for any new genetically engineered crops that could be potentially harmful to human health or the environment.” Sounds like a great idea, right?
http://foodworldorder.blogspot.com/2013/03/surprised-monsanto-openly-wrote-own.html

----------------------

We all know the FDA/USDA are useless government bureaucracies, and in a free society they wouldn't even exist. This collusion between Monsanto, the US Government, and various alphabet agencies is the height of corporate fascism. If we as libertarians reject the use of force, we must reject corporations like Monsanto, as they are in bed with the organization that holds a monopoly on the use of force. Without the government granted monopoly that Monsanto holds, an argument could be made that it wouldn't even exist. The state has created this monster. If we must use the state to reign it in, so be it. It's not the best solution, but what are our other options?

[Acala]

Regarding policy, the logical conclusion of "If government shouldn't be involved, I'll oppose all regulations whatsoever" is also that public roads cannot be managed by government, government cannot pull reckless drivers off the roads, immigration should be completely open, even to the point where Osama Bin Laden (If he weren't dead) should be allowed to walk right across the border, public hospitals should just leave their patients to die because ultimately the hospitals should be privatized, exc.

Now, I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist, but even if I opposed ALL government, I still wouldn't agree with the conclusions I proposed above just because ideally there should be no government.

I don't support violation of the NAP, but I think reducing said violations is justified even if you can't get it to 0. I wouldn't vote "No" on a bill that removes cannabis from the list of controlled substances just because I believe that list to be illegitimate, even though I do believe that it is.

So in any area of human activity that government is already involved, it is okay to have MORE government coercion? You have just destroyed the liberty movement because government is involved in EVERYTHING and I defy you to come up with a principled basis for saying coercion is okay in one area and not another.

I deny you the right to coerce me in any way. The fact that government is already coercing me in no way justifies more coercion. Your argument is nothing but hand waiving to justify the use of violence to get the result you want.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Surprised? Monsanto Openly Wrote Own Monsanto Protection Act

Here come the arguments that Monsanto employees should be denied Freedom of Speech?

[mac_hine]

Here come the arguments that Monsanto employees should be denied Freedom of Speech?


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
You used at least three of these in that one sentence alone.

[mac_hine]

Very relevant...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZOjR41FGio

[GunnyFreedom]

Here come the arguments that Monsanto employees should be denied Freedom of Speech?

A company writing the legislation to govern themselves (particularly if they buy and sell the legislators in order to pass it) is not freedom of speech, it's corporatism. Corporatism is also known as crony capitalism, or fascism, according to it's definition. Which you are once again defending. Your equating of dictionary-definition corporatism with freedom of speech is perhaps the clearest example of your defense of fascism yet.

[better-dead-than-fed]

The problem with this whole "GMO labeling" issue is that a red herring debate is being used to dominate the issue to keep people from talking about the real issue: false advertising. It's not a mandate to label food that are GMO that I want, it's just that I don't want something labeled "banana" if it's not actually a banana. If someone took a banana and altered its DNA structure in any way, then it's no longer a banana. If it's no longer a banana, then the company should not be able to label it "banana" and get away with it. As a libertarian, I do believe that there is a place for the state to protect victims; a person who purchases something labeled "banana" that isn't actually a banana (and to clarify, I mean as a food/culinary/sustenance product), then they are a victim of false advertising. Not saying they have, but I wouldn't doubt it if the GMO industry has co-opted at least some "self-proclaimed" spokes-humans to push the GMO industry agenda.

Anarchists and socialists (specifically fascists or "corporatists") would be opposed to anti-false advertising laws/regulations.

Libertarians, to me, are inherently in favor of anti-false advertising laws/regulations - because there is an actual victim.

How would altering DNA structure "in any way" make it no longer a banana? Artificial genetic-modification is as old as agriculture itself (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5046747&viewfull=1#post5046747). Do you dispute the FDA's position: "Most, if not all, cultivated food crops have been genetically modified" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5046685&viewfull=1#post5046685)?

[better-dead-than-fed]

A company writing the legislation to govern themselves (particularly if they buy and sell the legislators in order to pass it) is not freedom of speech, it's corporatism. Corporatism is also known as crony capitalism, or fascism, according to it's definition. Which you are once again defending. Your equating of dictionary-definition corporatism with freedom of speech is perhaps the clearest example of your defense of fascism yet.

Here came the argument that Monsanto employees should be denied Freedom of Speech.

[Natural Citizen]

How would altering DNA structure "in any way" make it no longer a banana?


The more relevant question is whos banana? why should my genome becomes some corporate/government controlled asshat's intellectual property?

[better-dead-than-fed]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
You used at least three of these in that one sentence alone.

So what was the relevance of your statement: "Monsanto Openly Wrote Own Monsanto Protection Act"?

[GunnyFreedom]

How would altering DNA structure "in any way" make it no longer a banana? Artificial genetic-modification is as old as agriculture itself (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5046747&viewfull=1#post5046747). Do you dispute the FDA's position: "Most, if not all, cultivated food crops have been genetically modified" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5046685&viewfull=1#post5046685)?


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5052201#post5052201

One of several, several times that you have already been answered on the subject.

[GunnyFreedom]

Here came the argument that Monsanto employees should be denied Freedom of Speech.

So you think that the action of enforcing fascism is freedom of speech?

Gosh, I guess Benito Mussolini was just misunderstood all this time...

[mac_hine]

So what was the relevance of your statement: "Monsanto Openly Wrote Own Monsanto Protection Act"?


FROM the article....


Quite frankly I think it’s important to understand that the entire Senate passed the bill containing the Protection Act, but the politician who actually gave Monsanto the pen in order to write their very own legislation is no others than Roy Blunt — a Republican Senator from Missouri. As the latest IB Times article reveals, the Missouri politician worked with Monsanto to write the Monsanto Protection Act. This was confirmed by a New York news report I will get to shortly.

[better-dead-than-fed]

So you think that the action of enforcing fascism is freedom of speech?

Gosh, I guess Benito Mussolini was just misunderstood all this time...

There went the argument that Mussolini should have been denied Freedom of Speech, and that therefore Monsanto employees should be denied Freedom of Speech.

[GunnyFreedom]

There went the argument that Mussolini should have been denied Freedom of Speech, and that therefore Monsanto employees should be denied Freedom of Speech.

So we shouldn't be fighting fascism? Not even Mussolini himself?

Well, at least you've openly revealed that much now. :)

[better-dead-than-fed]

Food Democracy Now, a major activist organization that organized signatures to fight the Monsanto Protection Act, described the rider: “The Monsanto Protection Act would force the USDA to allow continued planting of any GMO crop under court review, essentially giving backdoor approval for any new genetically engineered crops that could be potentially harmful to human health or the environment.” Sounds like a great idea, right?

It sounds similar to Acts forcing the government to allow continued production of cars, essentially giving backdoor approval for any new car that could be potentially harmful to human health or the environment.

[better-dead-than-fed]

So we shouldn't be fighting fascism? Not even Mussolini himself?

Well, at least you've openly revealed that much now. :)

There went the argument that Freedom of Speech is a form of fascism.

[GunnyFreedom]

There went the argument that Freedom of Speech is a form of fascism.

LOL you are the one defending dictionary-definition fascism as though it were 'freedom of speech.' I take it you get a lot of mileage out of the "I am rubber, you are glue..." argument eh?

[better-dead-than-fed]

LOL you are the one defending dictionary-definition fascism as though it were 'freedom of speech.' I take it you get a lot of mileage out of the "I am rubber, you are glue..." argument eh?

'k

[Christian Liberty]

So we shouldn't be fighting fascism? Not even Mussolini himself?

Well, at least you've openly revealed that much now. :)

Well, just speaking for myself I believe America should have stayed out of WWII as well.

[RickyJ]

Just label it! Damn, I want to know and 90+ percent of Americans want to know. Or better yet, just ban it!

[Natural Citizen]

Just label it! Damn, I want to know and 90+ percent of Americans want to know. Or better yet, just ban it!


Eight additiona national governments in the European Union have banned Monsanto's MON810 maize and other forms of GMO cultivation in their countries. Add them to the list. The growing list.

Austria

Bulgaria

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Luxembourg

Poland


Moving forward...

[better-dead-than-fed]

How would altering DNA structure "in any way" make it no longer a banana? Artificial genetic-modification is as old as agriculture itself (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5046747&viewfull=1#post5046747). Do you dispute the FDA's position: "Most, if not all, cultivated food crops have been genetically modified" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5046685&viewfull=1#post5046685)?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5052201#post5052201

One of several, several times that you have already been answered on the subject.

The link you just posted does nothing but demonstrate your fundamental misunderstanding of taxonomy (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5052319&viewfull=1#post5052319).

In which other posts has this subject been "answered"?

[better-dead-than-fed]

Just label it! Damn, I want to know and 90+ percent of Americans want to know. Or better yet, just ban it!

Just pay for the labels, and I'll make them for you.

[GunnyFreedom]

I am definitely going to let that absurdity stand as a monument in demonstration of my point. :)

[affa]

i hate Monsanto. That is all.

[affa]

Artificial genetic-modification is as old as agriculture itself

Rather misleading, don't you think? I mean, bombs have been around a long time, but defending nuking a country because 'it's just a bomb' is... well, misleading.

GMO food crops affect everyone due to the natural spread of seeds.

[libertyjam]

Japan suspends imports after modified wheat found
By MARY CLARE JALONICK and NIGEL DUARA
Associated Press / May 30, 2013
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/2013/05/30/japan-suspends-imports-after-modified-wheat-found/E0ZgXku7PWf48IzpBRBK6I/story.html



WASHINGTON (AP) — Japan has suspended some imports of U.S. wheat after genetically engineered wheat was found on an Oregon farm.

The Agriculture Department announced the discovery of the modified wheat on Wednesday. No genetically engineered wheat has been approved for U.S. farming.

Japan is one of the largest export markets for U.S. wheat growers. Katsuhiro Saka, a counselor at the Japanese Embassy in Washington, said Thursday that Japan had canceled orders of western white wheat from the Pacific Northwest and also of some feed-grade wheat. He said the country was waiting for more information from the Agriculture Department as it investigates the discovery.

‘‘In most countries the unapproved genetically modified wheat would be a target of concern,’’ Saka said. ‘‘The Japanese people have similar kinds of concerns.’’

USDA officials said the wheat was the same strain as a genetically modified wheat that was designed to be herbicide-resistant and was legally tested by seed giant Monsanto a decade ago but never approved. Monsanto stopped testing that product in Oregon and several other states in 2005.

The Agriculture Department said the genetically engineered wheat is safe to eat and there is no evidence that modified wheat entered the marketplace. But the department is investigating how it ended up in the field, whether there was any criminal wrongdoing and whether its growth is widespread.

The mystery could have implications on the wheat trade in the U.S. and abroad, as evidenced by Japan’s suspension of imports on Thursday.

Many countries around the world will not accept imports of genetically modified foods, and the United States exports about half of its wheat crop.
...
Japan is regularly the top buyer of Northwest wheat, said Blake Rowe, CEO of the Oregon Wheat Commission. He said reductions in wheat sales would affect farmers in Idaho and Washington as well as Oregon, because the wheat is blended together.

Oregon sold $492 million in wheat in 2011, the most recent data available, and 90 percent of it went overseas, Oregon Department of Agriculture spokesman Bruce Pokarney said.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Monsanto v. Schmeiser (Canadian Supreme Court Judgement) (http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2147/index.do)
Lower courts ruled that even crops contaminated by GM pollination are owned and controlled by Monsanto because of the presence of the Monsanto gene. By the time it reached the Supreme Court, Monsanto feared the establishment of precedent and dropped that claim, but retained the patent infringement claim without specified deliver methods invoked.

Monsanto v Parr and Monsanto v Runyon (CBS News Report) - windborne cross-pollination (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-4048288.html)

Class Action v Monsanto dismissed. Windborne cross-pollination is not a threat. (http://www.dailytech.com/Monsanto+Defeats+Small+Farmers+in+Critical+Bioethi cs+Class+Action+Suit/article24118.htm)
(GyF - of course not, it'a a profit model!)

Monsanto wins lawsuit against Indiana soybean farmer (http://www.mnn.com/your-home/organic-farming-gardening/stories/monsanto-wins-lawsuit-against-indiana-soybean-farmer)

Monsanto claimed intellectual property infringement when a farmer used the company's patented seeds from a commodity seed bag. (http://www.mnn.com/your-home/organic-farming-gardening/stories/monsanto-wins-lawsuit-against-indiana-soybean-farmer)


Bearing in mind that 'commodity seed bags' come from farmers harvesting the seed from their own crops, and the Monsanto gene would have entered these bags via aerial pollination.






$24 Million in judgements, another $106 Million in settlements.

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/monsanto-v-us-farmer-2010-update-v-2.pdf

Could go on for hours. This is Monsanto's business model. they take in between $100M and $160M in the US alone every year for court awards and out of court settlements.

What's stopping anyone from patenting a gene, letting it blow onto a Monsanto farm, and suing the Monsanto farm for patent infringement?

[Neil Desmond]

How would altering DNA structure "in any way" make it no longer a banana? Artificial genetic-modification is as old as agriculture itself (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5046747&viewfull=1#post5046747). Do you dispute the FDA's position: "Most, if not all, cultivated food crops have been genetically modified" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5046685&viewfull=1#post5046685)?
Ok, I see that there's some clarification that needs to be made: by someone altering DNA structure in any way I mean direct "under the molecular hood" synthetic (as opposed to naturally occurring) manipulation, such as gene-splicing (as in using technology in the molecular biology level); I don't mean at the level of getting two parents together (specifically of the same species/subspecies) to mate with each other to produce a child with traits common to the parents, or things such as isolating which plants can or do cross pollinate with each other.

But to reiterate, what I'm trying to say is that this debate is a diversion by steering the discussion to the ambiguous issue of what is a GMO and away from the actual concern, which I'm sure we all know what it is if we would just quit playing semantics games. This is a typical Orwellian tactic by the likes of Monsanto and company at its finest.

[better-dead-than-fed]

What sends me into a fit of rage is that company's that do label as NON GMO are raped with litigation by Monsanto and the USG.

What are the case-numbers of these alleged lawsuits?

Monsanto v. Schmeiser (Canadian Supreme Court Judgement) (http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2147/index.do)
Lower courts ruled that even crops contaminated by GM pollination are owned and controlled by Monsanto because of the presence of the Monsanto gene. By the time it reached the Supreme Court, Monsanto feared the establishment of precedent and dropped that claim, but retained the patent infringement claim without specified deliver methods invoked.

Monsanto v Parr and Monsanto v Runyon (CBS News Report) - windborne cross-pollination (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-4048288.html)

Class Action v Monsanto dismissed. Windborne cross-pollination is not a threat. (http://www.dailytech.com/Monsanto+Defeats+Small+Farmers+in+Critical+Bioethi cs+Class+Action+Suit/article24118.htm)
(GyF - of course not, it'a a profit model!)

Monsanto wins lawsuit against Indiana soybean farmer (http://www.mnn.com/your-home/organic-farming-gardening/stories/monsanto-wins-lawsuit-against-indiana-soybean-farmer)

Monsanto claimed intellectual property infringement when a farmer used the company's patented seeds from a commodity seed bag. (http://www.mnn.com/your-home/organic-farming-gardening/stories/monsanto-wins-lawsuit-against-indiana-soybean-farmer)


Bearing in mind that 'commodity seed bags' come from farmers harvesting the seed from their own crops, and the Monsanto gene would have entered these bags via aerial pollination.






$24 Million in judgements, another $106 Million in settlements.

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/monsanto-v-us-farmer-2010-update-v-2.pdf

Could go on for hours. This is Monsanto's business model. they take in between $100M and $160M in the US alone every year for court awards and out of court settlements.

Seraphim, so how would you deal with companies that falsely label products as non-GMO?

[better-dead-than-fed]

But to reiterate, what I'm trying to say is that this debate is a diversion by steering the discussion to the ambiguous issue of what is a GMO and away from the actual concern, which I'm sure we all know what it is if we would just quit playing semantics games. This is a typical Orwellian tactic by the likes of Monsanto and company at its finest.

Is there any way to oppose March Against Monsanto's calls for government-expansion (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5052060&viewfull=1#post5052060), without being guilty of "Orwellian tactics"?

[better-dead-than-fed]

The problem with this whole "GMO labeling" issue is that a red herring debate is being used to dominate the issue to keep people from talking about the real issue: false advertising. It's not a mandate to label food that are GMO that I want, it's just that I don't want something labeled "banana" if it's not actually a banana. If someone took a banana and altered its DNA structure in any way, then it's no longer a banana. If it's no longer a banana, then the company should not be able to label it "banana" and get away with it. As a libertarian, I do believe that there is a place for the state to protect victims; a person who purchases something labeled "banana" that isn't actually a banana (and to clarify, I mean as a food/culinary/sustenance product), then they are a victim of false advertising. Not saying they have, but I wouldn't doubt it if the GMO industry has co-opted at least some "self-proclaimed" spokes-humans to push the GMO industry agenda.

Anarchists and socialists (specifically fascists or "corporatists") would be opposed to anti-false advertising laws/regulations.

Libertarians, to me, are inherently in favor of anti-false advertising laws/regulations - because there is an actual victim.How would altering DNA structure "in any way" make it no longer a banana? Artificial genetic-modification is as old as agriculture itself (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5046747&viewfull=1#post5046747). Do you dispute the FDA's position: "Most, if not all, cultivated food crops have been genetically modified" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5046685&viewfull=1#post5046685)?

Ok, I see that there's some clarification that needs to be made: by someone altering DNA structure in any way I mean direct "under the molecular hood" synthetic (as opposed to naturally occurring) manipulation, such as gene-splicing (as in using technology in the molecular biology level); I don't mean at the level of getting two parents together (specifically of the same species/subspecies) to mate with each other to produce a child with traits common to the parents, or things such as isolating which plants can or do cross pollinate with each other.

But the genetic-modification techniques you call "naturally occurring" are more widely called unnatural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unnatural_selection) and artificial selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection).

What principled basis is there for the distinction you're drawing? If someone alters a banana's DNA without going "under the molecular hood", the DNA is still altered, so why shouldn't he be guilty of fraud if he calls it a 'banana'?

[GunnyFreedom]

Ok, I see that there's some clarification that needs to be made: by someone altering DNA structure in any way I mean direct "under the molecular hood" synthetic (as opposed to naturally occurring) manipulation, such as gene-splicing (as in using technology in the molecular biology level); I don't mean at the level of getting two parents together (specifically of the same species/subspecies) to mate with each other to produce a child with traits common to the parents, or things such as isolating which plants can or do cross pollinate with each other.

But to reiterate, what I'm trying to say is that this debate is a diversion by steering the discussion to the ambiguous issue of what is a GMO and away from the actual concern, which I'm sure we all know what it is if we would just quit playing semantics games. This is a typical Orwellian tactic by the likes of Monsanto and company at its finest.

The definition of GMF is pretty straightforward. Those who conflate GE with crossbreeding are doing so intentionally.

"The term 'genetically modified food' means food the genetic structure of which has been modified by direct human manipulation in a manner that does not occur under natural conditions, including through any of the following genetic engineering methods: recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion, gene deletion or doubling, introduction of exogenous genetic material, alteration of the position of a gene, or similar procedure. The term also includes food that is, or is from, the progeny or genetic line of an animal or plant described in the preceding sentence."

They will say that "not under natural conditions" includes captive breeding or induced pollination, which is patently absurd, of course. It does demonstrate the disingenuous nature of their argument, however, which is helpful in the way of showing them to be absurd.

[Neil Desmond]

Is there any way to oppose March Against Monsanto's calls for government-expansion (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5052060&viewfull=1#post5052060), without being guilty of "Orwellian tactics"?
I'm not sure what is to be opposed, because I tried to click the link in the thread (this one: http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/) to see what it has, but it says: "Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist."

All I can think of to respond to this is to educate, inform, and spread awareness of what all the problems are (both the biological as well as political category of problems), and advocate something that is a solution for the problems of both categories. That's the approach I'm taking to oppose the "advocacy for state-mandated ______ (fill in the blank)" for this particular situation.

My thinking, though, is why bother putting the effort into opposing them rather than doing what I'm doing? What if the likes of Monsanto and company are themselves the ones putting this stuff out there as a diversion? With my approach that's a moot question to begin with.

If you want to do something about this, just spread awareness, get people to see past all the BS going on, and focus on what's really relevant.

[better-dead-than-fed]

The definition of GMF is pretty straightforward. Those who conflate GE with crossbreeding are doing so intentionally.

"The term 'genetically modified food' means food the genetic structure of which has been modified by direct human manipulation in a manner that does not occur under natural conditions, including through any of the following genetic engineering methods: recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion, gene deletion or doubling, introduction of exogenous genetic material, alteration of the position of a gene, or similar procedure. The term also includes food that is, or is from, the progeny or genetic line of an animal or plant described in the preceding sentence."

They will say that "not under natural conditions" includes captive breeding or induced pollination, which is patently absurd, of course. It does demonstrate the disingenuous nature of their argument, however, which is helpful in the way of showing them to be absurd.

The FDA defines "genetic modification" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5046685&viewfull=1#post5046685) differently than Gunny does. Any failure to adopt Gunny's personal definition should be construed as a sinister act of malice.

[better-dead-than-fed]

I'm not sure what is to be opposed, because I tried to click the link in the thread (this one: http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/) to see what it has, but it says: "Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist."

My typo. It's fixed now, the link works.

[better-dead-than-fed]

If you want to do something about this, just spread awareness, get people to see past all the BS going on, and focus on what's really relevant.

(And be prepared to be stalked and accused of Orwellian tactics if you oppose March Against Monsanto's calls for government-expansion (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5052060&viewfull=1#post5052060).)

[Neil Desmond]

But the genetic-modification techniques you call "naturally occurring" are more widely called unnatural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unnatural_selection) and artificial selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection).

What principled basis is there for the distinction you're drawing? If someone alters a banana's DNA without going "under the molucular hood", the DNA is still altered, so why shouldn't he be guilty of fraud if he calls it a 'banana'?
Your question about the guilty aspect is a good point; in the case of this point it's a rather trivial matter of intent. What is the intent of the likes of Monsanto and company? As a "potential" customer to their products or services, is their intent benevolent or malevolent to my interests?

Yes, almost every distinct organism's DNA is different or an "altered" version of another one of the same species/subspecies and it eventually and gradually veers away from its ancestors. At least with the "without going under the molecular hood" version, I think we can still go with the flow, or roll with the punches through life, by adapting to it over time as it alters itself. What I'm objecting to when I say that I don't want something labeled as a banana is when the "under the molecular hood altered version" in question is that at the very least it has skipped and jumped or suddenly changed course and altered itself into something that is far too different to be (or what has been) a contemporary banana, in such a way that is probably unhealthy for me (in other words, goes against my interests). It's more than that; it's also that a "banana" that was altered by going "under the molecular hood" made it into something that takes it on a course that it would not have otherwise taken on its own.

[Neil Desmond]

The definition of GMF is pretty straightforward. Those who conflate GE with crossbreeding are doing so intentionally.

"The term 'genetically modified food' means food the genetic structure of which has been modified by direct human manipulation in a manner that does not occur under natural conditions, including through any of the following genetic engineering methods: recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion, gene deletion or doubling, introduction of exogenous genetic material, alteration of the position of a gene, or similar procedure. The term also includes food that is, or is from, the progeny or genetic line of an animal or plant described in the preceding sentence."

They will say that "not under natural conditions" includes captive breeding or induced pollination, which is patently absurd, of course. It does demonstrate the disingenuous nature of their argument, however, which is helpful in the way of showing them to be absurd.
Yeah, I understand; what I'm trying to do is refocus what others are trying to blur.

[Neil Desmond]

My typo. It's fixed now, the link works.
Oh, ok.

[Danan]

Eight additiona national governments in the European Union have banned Monsanto's MON810 maize and other forms of GMO cultivation in their countries. Add them to the list. The growing list.

Austria

Bulgaria

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Luxembourg

Poland


Moving forward...

How is banning farmers from growing the crop they want to on their property progress? I'd love to see that regulation removed.

[kcchiefs6465]

Your question about the guilty aspect is a good point; in the case of this point it's a rather trivial matter of intent. What is the intent of the likes of Monsanto and company? As a "potential" customer to their products or services, is their intent benevolent or malevolent to my interests?

Yes, almost every distinct organism's DNA is different or an "altered" version of another one of the same species/subspecies and it eventually and gradually veers away from its ancestors. At least with the "without going under the molecular hood" version, I think we can still go with the flow, or roll with the punches through life, by adapting to it over time as it alters itself. What I'm objecting to when I say that I don't want something labeled as a banana is when the "under the molecular hood altered version" in question is that at the very least it has skipped and jumped or suddenly changed course and altered itself into something that is far too different to be (or what has been) a contemporary banana, in such a way that is probably unhealthy for me (in other words, goes against my interests). It's more than that; it's also that a "banana" that was altered by going "under the molecular hood" made it into something that takes it on a course that it would not have otherwise taken on its own.
If this isn't the end of it I don't know what will be.

Must spread some rep around.

[GunnyFreedom]

The definition of GMF is pretty straightforward. Those who conflate GE with crossbreeding are doing so intentionally.

"The term 'genetically modified food' means food the genetic structure of which has been modified by direct human manipulation in a manner that does not occur under natural conditions, including through any of the following genetic engineering methods: recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion, gene deletion or doubling, introduction of exogenous genetic material, alteration of the position of a gene, or similar procedure. The term also includes food that is, or is from, the progeny or genetic line of an animal or plant described in the preceding sentence."

They will say that "not under natural conditions" includes captive breeding or induced pollination, which is patently absurd, of course. It does demonstrate the disingenuous nature of their argument, however, which is helpful in the way of showing them to be absurd.


Yeah, I understand; what I'm trying to do is refocus what others are trying to blur.

intentionally, and with malice aforethought.

Here is the USDA Definition:


A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). Such methods do not include the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture.

and here was the definition proposed for US Code in the bill Rand Paul recently voted against:


(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.

So not only is the USDA definition and the proposed USC definition remarkably similar to mine given above, they have gone even further to explicitly exclude any kind of breeding methodologies from being considered under GE. Point being, the conflation of GE and 'artificial selection' is deliberately disingenuous. Under no definition is that even remotely possible.

[Neil Desmond]

(And be prepared to be stalked and accused of Orwellian tactics if you oppose March Against Monsanto's calls for government-expansion (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5052060&viewfull=1#post5052060).)
Yeah, unfortunately you're probably right. This brings me to a point that I don't know how to resolve other than to implement solutions that will eliminate the problem of scarcity itself, which is something that I'm interested in doing and am trying to work on (they involve the research and implementation of technologies such as automation, seawater desalination, etc.).

[Neil Desmond]

If this isn't the end of it I don't know what will be.

Must spread some rep around.
lol thanks

[Neil Desmond]

intentionally, and with malice aforethought.

Here is the USDA Definition:



and here was the definition proposed for US Code in the bill Rand Paul recently voted against:



So not only is the USDA definition and the proposed USC definition remarkably similar to mine given above, they have gone even further to explicitly exclude any kind of breeding methodologies from being considered under GE. Point being, the conflation of GE and 'artificial selection' is deliberately disingenuous. Under no definition is that even remotely possible.
Yeah, that's basically also how I see the meanings of GE/GMO.

[Natural Citizen]

How is banning farmers from growing the crop they want to on their property progress? I'd love to see that regulation removed.

A genuine free market will work itself out. Always has and always will.

Add Peru to the list of countries to ban GMO....

Peru is the first country in the Americas to ban genetically modified foods, putting its food policy closer to that of Europe, than the United States.

Add to the previous list also...

Italy

Austria

Hungary

France

Germany

Luxembourg

Portugal

Greece

Spain

UK: The Church of England has refused permission for GE crop trials
on 60,000 hectares of its land, dozens of local authorities supply GE
free school lunches, the House of Commons banned GE foods for its
catering. The vote of the Welsh Assembly to keep Wales GE free was
counteracted by the ministry of Agriculture approving a GE maize variety.

The Island of Jersey

Switzerland

Norway: Banned the import of several GE crops and products which
contain antibiotic resistance genes.

Australia: The State of Tasmania banned GE rapeseed as weed,
Western Australia has banned commercial GE planting. Australian
States are given the right to declare themselves GE free. Some
communities (e.g. Bondi/Sydney, West Wimmera Shire) declared
themselves GE free.

Thailand

Philippines

Saudi Arabia

Egypt

Algeria

Brazil


Let me guess. They hate Monsanto for their freedoms? Does that sound about right? Is what I gather from most of the pro-Monsanto lobby that I've been reading.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Yes, almost every distinct organism's DNA is different or an "altered" version of another one of the same species/subspecies and it eventually and gradually veers away from its ancestors. At least with the "without going under the molecular hood" version, I think we can still go with the flow, or roll with the punches through life, by adapting to it over time as it alters itself. What I'm objecting to when I say that I don't want something labeled as a banana is when the "under the molecular hood altered version" in question is that at the very least it has skipped and jumped or suddenly changed course and altered itself into something that is far too different to be (or what has been) a contemporary banana, in such a way that is probably unhealthy for me (in other words, goes against my interests).

The distance between one organism and another depends on the metric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_(mathematics)) you choose to employ. Taxonomy classifies organisms into species according to certain characteristics. Whether the molecular-hood's been gone under isn't one of those characteristics.


It's more than that; it's also that a "banana" that was altered by going "under the molecular hood" made it into something that takes it on a course that it would not have otherwise taken on its own.

The same results from artificial selection (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?416020-The-Libertarian-Case-AGAINST-Mandatory-GMO-Labeling&p=5052399&viewfull=1#post5052399).

[better-dead-than-fed]

How is banning farmers from growing the crop they want to on their property progress? I'd love to see that regulation removed.

It's not the first time genocide's been tried in those countries.

[Neil Desmond]

The distance between one organism and another depends on the metric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_(mathematics)) you choose to employ. Taxonomy classifies organisms into species according to certain characteristics. Whether the molecular-hood's been gone under isn't one of those characteristics.
Alright; but was there a point to be made, maybe one that I'm overlooking?


The same results from artificial selection (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?416020-The-Libertarian-Case-AGAINST-Mandatory-GMO-Labeling&p=5052399&viewfull=1#post5052399).
No, as unlikely as it might be, the products of selective breeding could have also occurred biologically by chance. The "under the molecular hood manipulation" creates stuff that at best would not be expected to biologically happen by chance. In other words, there's no known way (at least not that I'm aware of) that gene splicing can occur in the "wild", but it is possible that something created from selective breeding could have occurred in the "wild."

[better-dead-than-fed]

Alright; but was there a point to be made, maybe one that I'm overlooking?

You have your own reasons for thinking that an organism isn't really a banana if it's been tinkered with at the molecular level; but taxonomists think differently than you. They classify organisms according to characteristics, e.g., "yellow", "has a peel". If something has those characteristics, it's a banana according to taxonomists. It doesn't matter how the DNA came into being. If you see something in a store billed as a banana, that word is telling you the thing is yellow and has a peel, that's all, so what grounds do you have to call fraud? It's not reasonable to assume that just because something's billed as a banana, it hasn't had it's DNA tinkered with on the molecular level. So I don't accept your argument about fraud (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?416020-The-Libertarian-Case-AGAINST-Mandatory-GMO-Labeling/page8&p=5051903#post5051903).

All this just goes to show that different people have different questions about the food they're eating. Those questions would be answered best by a free-market. The FDA can't print labels that answer everyone's different questions. The segment of people who care whether foods are GMO should not advocate violence to force their values on everyone else.

Unless you're the only one who cares whether food as been tinkered with on a molecular level, the market will meet your demand, by offering you catalogs of food which haven't been tinkered with on the molecular level. Neither Monsanto nor the FDA is stopping anyone from producing, selling, or buying such catalogs. But of course, last Saturday there was no march for such privately produced catalogs.

[kcchiefs6465]

So if a taxonomist labelled it other than a tomato, perhaps a pig-mato, assuming they changed their criteria, you would.... what? - be able to understand the fraudulant (perhaps false advertising fits better?) claims the seller proposes to the buyer?

[better-dead-than-fed]

So if a taxonomist labelled it other than a tomato, perhaps a pig-mato, assuming they changed their criteria, you would.... what? - be able to understand the fraudulant (perhaps false advertising fits better?) claims the seller proposes to the buyer?

I don't understand your question. If taxonomists refined their terminology, and decided to declare that pig-matos (even when red and round) are a separate and distinct class from tomatoes, then pig-matos billed as tomatoes would be fraud. But taxonomists haven't done that at this point. You could march on these guys: http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php; or give up on the possibility of having all your questions answered by a label, and turn to catalogs and databases instead for information.

[dbill27]

If you're against mandatory gmo labeling then you're a statist end of story. Quit you're fucking whining. The reason this is an issue is because 99% of the population either isn't aware of any gmo issues or they don't give a shit. What statists do when no one fucking cares about their issues is they get the government to enforce their opinions violently. It's much easier to influence a few hundred congressman or employ a few lobbyists than it is to use voluntarism to educate people. If what you care about is so important, then violence shouldn't be needed.

[kcchiefs6465]

I don't understand your question. If taxonomists refined their terminology, and decided to declare that pig-matos (even when red and round) are a separate and distinct species from tomatoes, then pig-matos billed as tomatoes would be fraud. But taxonomists haven't done that at this point. You could march on these guys: http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php
Then you did understand my question.

Who has given them the right to decide when something ceases from being one thing into another? (especially in the case of pig-matos and the religious consequence some may feel)

What is the recourse I have - should I adhere to a religion who does not eat pork, being sold a tomato with pig genes as a tomato as the world understands it? Start a boycott? Would that not be false advertising? Would the damages not exceed the normal? (in their mind being condemned)

It seems to me you are trollishly (with all due respect) advocating for an entirely free market system. Where the company could be challenged in court and if found to be violating what they are selling compared to supposedly selling, the person able to gain some restitution. Seeing that we do not have a true free market system and do have labels as they stand, should GE food not also be labelled? I'd be all for no labels, so long as there is a clear path to restitution.

I had asked in another similar thread (I think in off topics) what should the path to restitution be and if there was an opinion of what restitution ought be, considering the violation of my person and all.

[Danan]

Let me guess. They hate Monsanto for their freedoms? Does that sound about right? Is what I gather from most of the pro-Monsanto lobby that I've been reading.

All these countries also have a public healthcare system. I don't see how that proves anything. Those countries have terrible governments and if anything, seeing them acting in a certain manner is more of an indication of bad policy, rather than good policy.

The reason Austrian politicians can ban GMO-food on all Austrian soil is that they practically claim ownership over all the farmland and our public seems to be ok with that. If that's what you want for the US, go for it. But it's unlibertarian.

[Neil Desmond]

You have your own reasons for thinking that an organism isn't really a banana if it's been tinkered with at the molecular level; but taxonomists think differently than you. They classify organisms according to characteristics, e.g., "yellow", "has a peel". If something has those characteristics, it's a banana according to taxonomists. It doesn't matter how the DNA came into being.
First, this is another diversion tactic. When I go to the grocery store to buy a banana, I am a consumer engaging in trade, and am acquiring it for the context or eating it or culinary purposes for nourishment and health reasons; I am not shopping as a taxonomist, or any kind of biologist. When it comes to what a banana is as a consumer, it's a fruit; and as a fruit in a consumer context, it's a culinary arts term, not a biological or taxonomical term. A taxonomist has no more relevance to this situation than a physicist has if I go to a mechanic who uses a cheaper less reliable inventory mechanical part to repair my vehicle and doesn't want to disclose this to me, even though mechanics is a branch of physics. Culinary and trade issues aren't a part of biology or taxonomy, just like manufactured inventory parts & design specifications for automobiles aren't issues or categories defined, studied, or classified in the scientific branch of physics.

But regarding your claims about taxonomists and bananas, I have a friend who has a Ph.D. in biology, and I've sent him an email asking him if what you say about taxonomy, and what a banana is to taxonomists, is accurate.


If you see something in a store billed as a banana, that word is telling you the thing is yellow and has a peel, that's all, so what grounds do you have to call fraud? It's not reasonable to assume that just because something's billed as a banana, it hasn't had it's DNA tinkered with on the molecular level. So I don't accept your argument about fraud (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?416020-The-Libertarian-Case-AGAINST-Mandatory-GMO-Labeling/page8&p=5051903#post5051903).
If you're a company engaging in fraud or false advertising (or false labeling), would you be willing to take such a risk with a jury in a litigation process? I wouldn't.


All this just goes to show that different people have different questions about the food they're eating. Those questions would be answered best by a free-market. The FDA can't print labels that answer everyone's different questions. The segment of people who care whether foods are GMO should not advocate violence to force their values on everyone else.
That's fine; but it's not about non-controversial questions that can and do get answered; it's about the dilemma of being in the dark and not knowing if there is a consistency in what is labeled "banana" and being a victim of fraud or false advertising and whether or not they have legal recourse if it comes to that. It's companies that gene splice things and who don't want people to know who are being the aggressors.


Unless you're the only one who cares whether food as been tinkered with on a molecular level, the market will meet your demand, by offering you catalogs of food which haven't been tinkered with on the molecular level. Neither Monsanto nor the FDA is stopping anyone from producing, selling, or buying such catalogs. But of course, last Saturday there was no march for such privately produced catalogs.
Again, to me that's all about diversion To me it seems like they're trying to make it appear as though without mandatory GMO, there's no legal recourse. That's just an illusion, because there is legal recourse. We already have laws in place against fraud and false advertising, and there's nothing they can do about that. BTW, I've heard that they are in fact doing things, such as contaminating non GMO crops then suing those farmers on IP infringement grounds - just more aggression to me.

[Acala]

A genuine free market will work itself out. Always has and always will.

Add Peru to the list of countries to ban GMO....

Peru is the first country in the Americas to ban genetically modified foods, putting its food policy closer to that of Europe, than the United States.

Add to the previous list also...

Italy

Austria

Hungary

France

Germany

Luxembourg

Portugal

Greece

Spain

UK: The Church of England has refused permission for GE crop trials
on 60,000 hectares of its land, dozens of local authorities supply GE
free school lunches, the House of Commons banned GE foods for its
catering. The vote of the Welsh Assembly to keep Wales GE free was
counteracted by the ministry of Agriculture approving a GE maize variety.

The Island of Jersey

Switzerland

Norway: Banned the import of several GE crops and products which
contain antibiotic resistance genes.

Australia: The State of Tasmania banned GE rapeseed as weed,
Western Australia has banned commercial GE planting. Australian
States are given the right to declare themselves GE free. Some
communities (e.g. Bondi/Sydney, West Wimmera Shire) declared
themselves GE free.

Thailand

Philippines

Saudi Arabia

Egypt

Algeria

Brazil


Let me guess. They hate Monsanto for their freedoms? Does that sound about right? Is what I gather from most of the pro-Monsanto lobby that I've been reading.

They also ban guns, limit speech, and have mercantilist/socialist economies. Shall we follow them there also? Listing other people who have done something stupid provides absolutely zero support for using the violence of the state to have your way with other people's life and property.

[Acala]

If you're against mandatory gmo labeling then you're a statist end of story.

If you think this qualifies as a rational argument, you are hopeless.

[Carlybee]

All these countries also have a public healthcare system. I don't see how that proves anything. Those countries have terrible governments and if anything, seeing them acting in a certain manner is more of an indication of bad policy, rather than good policy.

The reason Austrian politicians can ban GMO-food on all Austrian soil is that they practically claim ownership over all the farmland and our public seems to be ok with that. If that's what you want for the US, go for it. But it's unlibertarian.

Is it okay for Monsanto to dictate to farmers what kind of seeds they can use and have it backed up by our government ergo dictating what kind of foods are available for consumption? How is that libertarian? They want all seed stock to be round up ready and heirloom seeds to be eradicated. Which is why they are being sued. However with former Monsanto execs in positions of power within the administration how do you think that will work out? They are fighting the consumer every step of the way as well as using tax dollars to promote their policies around the world. Please explain how supporting that is a libertarian position.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5051486&viewfull=1#post5051486


http://www.naturalnews.com/031532_Monsanto_lobbyists.html

[Acala]

Is it okay for Monsanto to dictate to farmers what kind of seeds they can use and have it backed up by our government ergo dictating what kind of foods are available for consumption? How is that libertarian? They want all seed stock to be round up ready and heirloom seeds to be eradicated. Which is why they are being sued. However with former Monsanto execs in positions of power within the administration how do you think that will work out? They are fighting the consumer every step of the way as well as using tax dollars to promote their policies around the world. Please explain how supporting that is a libertarian position.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5051486&viewfull=1#post5051486


http://www.naturalnews.com/031532_Monsanto_lobbyists.html

The answer is never more government power. Giving government too much power is how we got into this situation. The answer is to unwind government power, not add another layer. But that seems too hard so everyone wants to take the easy road and pass another law. That's ALWAYS the way it goes and that is why we are so screwed. People are too lazy to solve the real problem so they think they can speed it up by using more government force and it NEVER works out the way they want. Why on earth, given the track record, would you think that THIS time government will use its new power for good rather than evil? With all that you know about how corrupt government is, don't you think it is a bit naive to think that "Oh, THIS time it will be okay!"

You people suffer from battered citizen syndrome. You keep going back to the same government that beat you up because "this time it will be different." It won't EVER be different. Ever. You are fooling yourselves.

Stop being lazy and solve the problem the right way - with education, boycotts, etc. Trying to take the immoral shortcut of force is going to backfire on you.

[Carlybee]

The answer is never more government power. Giving government too much power is how we got into this situation. The answer is to unwind government power, not add another layer. But that seems too hard so everyone wants to take the easy road and pass another law. That's ALWAYS the way it goes and that is why we are so screwed. People are too lazy to solve the real problem so they think they can speed it up by using more government force and it NEVER works out the way they want. Why on earth, given the track record, would you think that THIS time government will use its new power for good rather than evil? With all that you know about how corrupt government is, don't you think it is a bit naive to think that "Oh, THIS time it will be okay!"

You people suffer from battered citizen syndrome. You keep going back to the same government that beat you up because "this time it will be different." It won't EVER be different. Ever. You are fooling yourselves.

Stop being lazy and solve the problem the right way - with education, boycotts, etc. Trying to take the immoral shortcut of force is going to backfire on you.

that is what the march against monsanto was about but govt really doesnt care and neither does monsanto so asking for labeling is more of a pressure tactic...of course most of us here do not want to expand govt power but neither is there time to wait for them to untangle their alliances with their corporate butt buddies while we need to know what we are consuming

[helmuth_hubener]

If you think this qualifies as a rational argument, you are hopeless.

He typoed. He meant if you're for mandatory GMO labeling you're a statist, end of story. If you read the rest of the post, that's the only way it makes sense.

[Acala]

that is what the march against monsanto was about but govt really doesnt care and neither does monsanto so asking for labeling is more of a pressure tactic...of course most of us here do not want to expand govt power but neither is there time to wait for them to untangle their alliances with their corporate butt buddies while we need to know what we are consuming

Being in a hurry is not an excuse and government WILL NOT solve this problem. You cannot make government work the way you want it to because it is inherently corrupt. It cannot be made non-corrupt.

Besides, it isn't that hard to avoid gmo products. Most of them are bad for you even when not gmo. I eat virtually none.

[Acala]

He typoed. He meant if you're for mandatory GMO labeling you're a statist, end of story. If you read the rest of the post, that's the only way it makes sense.

Oooooh. I apologize. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Carlybee]

Being in a hurry is not an excuse and government WILL NOT solve this problem. You cannot make government work the way you want it to because it is inherently corrupt. It cannot be made non-corrupt.

Besides, it isn't that hard to avoid gmo products. Most of them are bad for you even when not gmo. I eat virtually none.


So you telling people what to eat is not nanny-ish how? We shouldn't HAVE to spend time and money trying to discern what is NOT toxic just because most of it probably is. And it is our place to ensure that government GETS un-corrupt. Unless you are an anarchist. Which granted...given the state of this government it's not a stretch to become one. That being said what Monsanto and the government are doing is not only criminal but almost a form of eugenics and not everyone is empowered to parse through what is GMO and what is not. They guy who can only afford to eat Ramen noodles has just as much right to poison free food as those of us who can buy organics.

[Danan]

Is it okay for Monsanto to dictate to farmers what kind of seeds they can use and have it backed up by our government ergo dictating what kind of foods are available for consumption? How is that libertarian? They want all seed stock to be round up ready and heirloom seeds to be eradicated. Which is why they are being sued. However with former Monsanto execs in positions of power within the administration how do you think that will work out? They are fighting the consumer every step of the way as well as using tax dollars to promote their policies around the world. Please explain how supporting that is a libertarian position.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5051486&viewfull=1#post5051486


http://www.naturalnews.com/031532_Monsanto_lobbyists.html

I'm not a friend of Monsanto. They are not a free market company and nobody said they were.

However, this evil should be fought at its roots. The problem with Monsanto is not that grocery stores are not required to label the food they sell properly. As a movement, libertarians should fight the violations of the free market in the agriculture sector, not destroy what's left of free markets in the trade sector in order to "combat" other problems.

For instance the ridiculous process of patenting food DNA. Get rid of intellectual property and Monsanto could deflate to a non-problematic size or even vanish.

[Carlybee]

I'm not a friend of Monsanto. They are not a free market company and nobody said they were.

However, this evil should be fought at its roots. The problem with Monsanto is not that grocery stores are not required to label the food they sell properly. As a movement, libertarians should fight the violations of the free market in the agriculture sector, not destroy what's left of free markets in the trade sector in order to "combat" other problems.

For instance the ridiculous process of patenting food DNA. Get rid of intellectual property and Monsanto could deflate to a non-problematic size or even vanish.

And how do you propose to do that when Monsanto is not only in bed with the government through lobbying but has tentacles holding government offices not to mention a former friend on the Supreme Court?

[Danan]

And how do you propose to do that when Monsanto is not only in bed with the government through lobbying but has tentacles holding government offices not to mention a former friend on the Supreme Court?

Then how would mandatory labeling ever pass? If it's impossible to change the fact that Monsanto is in bed with government and is lobbying them to enact terrible anti-free market laws, why would you expect this law, that supposedly hurts Monsanto, to pass?

And if it is possible to enact mandatory labeling in order to hurt Monsanto, why is it impossible to change the real root of the problem, while not violating libertarian principles in the process?

Mandatory labeling either never going to pass anyway or the wrong approach.

[Acala]

And how do you propose to do that when Monsanto is not only in bed with the government through lobbying but has tentacles holding government offices not to mention a former friend on the Supreme Court?

And this is exactly why your approach of passing yet another law is doomed to fail. Don't you see the logical disconnect in making the above statement and then saying "that another law enforced by that same government will fix the problem government created in the first place?

[Carlybee]

Then how would mandatory labeling ever pass? If it's impossible to change the fact that Monsanto is in bed with government and is lobbying them to enact terrible anti-free market laws, why would you expect this law, that supposedly hurts Monsanto, to pass?

And if it is possible to enact mandatory labeling in order to hurt Monsanto, why is it impossible to change the real root of the problem, while not violating libertarian principles in the process?

Mandatory labeling either never going to pass anyway or the wrong approach.

I actually would prefer no manadatory labeling for reasons you mention but perhaps the push for it would incite voluntary labeling. The problem is there are so many products now containing GMO why would the producers cut their own throats? I do think that keeping up the pressure about Monsanto might eventually scare the crap out of those looking for votes the next election. And regardless of how it happens, we still need to know what is in our food. How do you propose we find that out without it being on the label? Just take their word for it? I never said it wasn't a conundrum.

[Carlybee]

And this is exactly why your approach of passing yet another law is doomed to fail. Don't you see the logical disconnect in making the above statement and then saying "that another law enforced by that same government will fix the problem government created in the first place?\\

Obviously government needs to be pressured to cut ties with Monsanto. It is as corporatist a relationship as the one they have with the banking industry. Do you know how to make that happen?

[familydog]

And this is exactly why your approach of passing yet another law is doomed to fail. Don't you see the logical disconnect in making the above statement and then saying "that another law enforced by that same government will fix the problem government created in the first place?

So, let me ask this...if corn or soy based ingredients were not required to show up on mandatory nutrition labels, would you be against adding them to the list? No libertarian or even conservative claims this will fix anything. The real issue here is consistency. Why waste your time speaking against a complete labeling system when you could be speaking against mandatory labeling in general?

[Acala]

So you telling people what to eat is not nanny-ish how?

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. You are free to ignore my advice. Most people do! But stop bitching that you are being poisoned. You don't have to eat gmo products if you don't want to.


We shouldn't HAVE to spend time and money trying to discern what is NOT toxic just because most of it probably is.

You want government to take care of that for you! Hahahahahaha! That has worked so well in the past, what could go wrong?


And it is our place to ensure that government GETS un-corrupt.

That will ONLY happen by pulling its teeth, not giving it more.


The guy who can only afford to eat Ramen noodles has just as much right to poison free food as those of us who can buy organics.

I don't buy the argument that only the rich can eat healthy. You don't have to eat organic to avoid gmo. Stop eating grain and legume products and you are about 98% there.

Look, the problem is that the vast majority of people don't agree with you about gmos. If they did, market forces would change the market. The majority of people don't even know what gmo means, and of those who do most don't care. But instead of trying to educate them, you want to use force to change the market. That is the lazy way and the lazy way won't work. But it is ALWAYS the way when someone can't get society to agree with them, they resort to force. oh, they always have some compelling reason why it needs to be done THIS time, just like you do. But it is the wrong way.

[Acala]

So, let me ask this...if corn or soy based ingredients were not required to show up on mandatory nutrition labels, would you be against adding them to the list? No libertarian or even conservative claims this will fix anything. The real issue here is consistency. Why waste your time speaking against a complete labeling system when you could be speaking against mandatory labeling in general?

I oppose mandatory labels. I believe the FDA should be abolished. I do not support adding a single line of laws or regulations.

[Acala]

\\

Obviously government needs to be pressured to cut ties with Monsanto. It is as corporatist a relationship as the one they have with the banking industry. Do you know how to make that happen?

I object to the corporate business form entirely. I would like to see the personal income tax phased out and the corporate income tax increased steadily to make up the loss. I also support an end to all new corporate charters and all new corporate land acquisitions. That, plus the abolition of the department of agriculture and the FDA should take care of the Monsanto problem.

[familydog]

I oppose mandatory labels. I believe the FDA should be abolished. I do not support adding a single line of laws or regulations.

Advocates of mandatory GMO labeling are not the enemy. They didn't create the fascistic food industry. They didn't create the rules. They are merely responding to corrupt and oppressive corporation-written regulations that have tangible and harmful consequences on peaceful individuals. No individual is harmed by adding a few characters to a ingredient label which is already mandatory. The only harm comes to a corporations bottom line which is indirectly stolen from small and local producers. The reality is that mandatory nutrition and ingredient labels are not going away anytime soon. Fighting against adding the words "contains GMOs" does nothing to advance the cause of liberty.

[Acala]

Advocates of mandatory GMO labeling are not the enemy. They didn't create the fascistic food industry. They didn't create the rules. They are merely responding to corrupt and oppressive corporation-written regulations that have tangible and harmful consequences on peaceful individuals. No individual is harmed by adding a few characters to a ingredient label which is already mandatory. The only harm comes to a corporations bottom line which is indirectly stolen from small and local producers. The reality is that mandatory nutrition and ingredient labels are not going away anytime soon. Fighting against adding the words "contains GMOs" does nothing to advance the cause of liberty.

Liberty stands or falls on principle. Either you advocate the use of government force against people to make them do what you think they should do with their own lives and property or you don't. As soon as you say that it is sometimes okay to invade people's freedom at gunpoint, you have lost the battle, even if you really don't like the people and are really offended by what they are doing. If you act to broaden the scope of government force - even by a gnat's ass - you have compromised the principles and you ARE working against liberty. If you say that MORE government is the answer here, you have essentially said that liberty fails.

[jllundqu]

Liberty stands or falls on principle. Either you advocate the use of government force against people to make them do what you think they should do with their own lives and property or you don't. As soon as you say that it is sometimes okay to invade people's freedom at gunpoint, you have lost the battle, even if you really don't like the people and are really offended by what they are doing. If you act to broaden the scope of government force - even by a gnat's ass - you have compromised the principles and you ARE working against liberty. If you say that MORE government is the answer here, you have essentially said that liberty fails.

Done.... /thread +++ REP

Now was that so hard?

[Carlybee]

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. You are free to ignore my advice. Most people do! But stop bitching that you are being poisoned. You don't have to eat gmo products if you don't want to.



You want government to take care of that for you! Hahahahahaha! That has worked so well in the past, what could go wrong?



That will ONLY happen by pulling its teeth, not giving it more.



I don't buy the argument that only the rich can eat healthy. You don't have to eat organic to avoid gmo. Stop eating grain and legume products and you are about 98% there.

Look, the problem is that the vast majority of people don't agree with you about gmos. If they did, market forces would change the market. The majority of people don't even know what gmo means, and of those who do most don't care. But instead of trying to educate them, you want to use force to change the market. That is the lazy way and the lazy way won't work. But it is ALWAYS the way when someone can't get society to agree with them, they resort to force. oh, they always have some compelling reason why it needs to be done THIS time, just like you do. But it is the wrong way.

The government is using force right now and trying to use force to keep GMO ingredients off labels. Labeling is already mandatory. If I am being forced to eat em they should be forced to tell me if they are in there altho yes would prefer the force be market driven otherwise without busting their chops its the fox and henhouse scenario. I don't care what you say you cannot avoid them altogether and they are not just in grains. They are in fruits and vegetables and most prepared items. I do avoid them as much as I can.

[better-dead-than-fed]

It seems to me you are trollishly (with all due respect) advocating for an entirely free market system.

Only idiots cry troll.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Who has given them the right to decide when something ceases from being one thing into another? (especially in the case of pig-matos and the religious consequence some may feel)

You're free to make up your own definitions for words, and then sue yourself, claiming you've been defrauded by your own idiosyncratic definitions.

[better-dead-than-fed]

I've heard that they are ... contaminating non GMO crops then suing those farmers on IP infringement grounds - just more aggression to me.

I've heard of nothing stopping you from contaminating their crops and then suing them on IP infringement grounds.

[better-dead-than-fed]

The government is using force right now and trying to use force to keep GMO ingredients off labels.

That rumor has been debunked.


If I am being forced to eat em

That premise can't be taken seriously.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Advocates of mandatory GMO labeling are not the enemy. They didn't create the fascistic food industry. They didn't create the rules. They are merely responding to corrupt and oppressive corporation-written regulations that have tangible and harmful consequences on peaceful individuals. No individual is harmed by adding a few characters to a ingredient label which is already mandatory. The only harm comes to a corporations bottom line which is indirectly stolen from small and local producers. The reality is that mandatory nutrition and ingredient labels are not going away anytime soon. Fighting against adding the words "contains GMOs" does nothing to advance the cause of liberty.

Fighting government-overreach by advocating government-expansion.

[helmuth_hubener]

They guy who can only afford to eat Ramen noodles has just as much right to poison free food as those of us who can buy organics.

If the grain in ramen were not high-yield semi-dwarf, the ramen would be a lot less affordable. Just saying...

There are economic realities to consider here. If the anti-GMO statists' dreams came true and all the states of the world suddenly banned the predominant strands of wheat, corn, and soy (all of which are GMO) a massive food shortage seems pretty likely. Even with a gradual "phase-out" ala light bulbs I think there would be massive starvation. These new strands are more efficient. There's a reason they've taken over --they make good economic sense. Yes, the gov't goons have helped too, but even in a free market they'd likely have taken over.

[better-dead-than-fed]

But regarding your claims about taxonomists and bananas, I have a friend who has a Ph.D. in biology, and I've sent him an email asking him if what you say about taxonomy, and what a banana is to taxonomists, is accurate.

Thanks in advance for posting his reply.

[Carlybee]

The FDA and USDA are not going to be abolished anytime soon. Just like they blackballed Ron Paul the ptb are not going to support or advance any legislation like that so either get realistic or provide proof there is anything like that being introduced with a snowballs chance in hell of advancing.

[Neil Desmond]

I've heard of nothing stopping you from contaminating their crops and then suing them on IP infringement grounds.
Yeah, good idea! That'll solve everything. :rolleyes:

[Neil Desmond]

Thanks in advance for posting his reply.
You're welcome.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Yeah, good idea! That'll solve everything. :rolleyes:

'k

[better-dead-than-fed]

How do you propose we find that out without it being on the label?

this (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5052110&viewfull=1#post5052110)

[better-dead-than-fed]

asking for labeling is more of a pressure tactic...of course most of us here do not want to expand govt power

Most of who where don't want to expand government power? The March Against Monsanto and numerous RPF posters are calling for government-expansion (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5052060&viewfull=1#post5052060).

[kcchiefs6465]

Only idiots cry troll.
You probably have 300 posts on this topic having your mental gymnastics circle jerk yet I'm the idiot? At best, your time could probably be better spent. I have no doubts that you'll continue these threads until your word is last. Probably bumping multiple times down the road to pat yourself on the back.

If you read, now this is good so try to stay with me, I did not call you a troll. I compared you to a troll for your mental, self patting on the back, circle jerk.

But by all means, carry on.

[kcchiefs6465]

You're free to make up your own definitions for words, and then sue yourself, claiming you've been defrauded by your own idiosyncratic definitions.
Or I could go with the tried and true world over definition of what a tomato is.

Then you go and look at what a tomato is not.

The hell would I care what the taxonomist has to say for when they clearly are not the same? A small child would know there is difference.

[kcchiefs6465]

I've heard of nothing stopping you from contaminating their crops and then suing them on IP infringement grounds.
Not everyone is an asshole.

That's aside from the clear fact of government collusion with Monsanto and the likeliness you'd lose.

[better-dead-than-fed]

You probably have 300 posts on this topic having your mental gymnastics circle jerk yet I'm the idiot? At best, your time could probably be better spent. I have no doubts that you'll continue these threads until your word is last. Probably bumping multiple times down the road to pat yourself on the back.

If you read, now this is good so try to stay with me, I did not call you a troll. I compared you to a troll for your mental, self patting on the back, circle jerk.

But by all means, carry on.

I'm merely comparing you to an idiot, for introducing personal attacks into an argument about politics.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Or I could go with the tried and true world over definition of what a tomato is.

There are 2 million monsanto-marchers who might back you up, but 7 billion other people who probably won't.


Then you go and look at what a tomato is not.

The hell would I care what the taxonomist has to say for when they clearly are not the same? A small child would know there is difference.

If a small child can tell the difference between a pig-mato and tomato, it would take a pretty incompetent adult to confuse the two, so what court is going to rule that the incompetent adult was "defrauded".

I'm not telling you to care what taxonomists say. By all means, I'd like to see you make up your own definitions and then file in court when the world fails to adopt your odd definitions.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Not everyone is an asshole.

Just give them a taste of their own medicine. It might even motivate Monsanto's lawyers to seek a court-ruling declaring that farmers shouldn't be blamed for stuff that blows onto their property. How is that being an asshole, especially compared with all the monsanto-marchers advocating violence to force their peculiar, idiosyncratic personal values on the rest of world.

[familydog]

Liberty stands or falls on principle. Either you advocate the use of government force against people to make them do what you think they should do with their own lives and property or you don't. As soon as you say that it is sometimes okay to invade people's freedom at gunpoint, you have lost the battle, even if you really don't like the people and are really offended by what they are doing. If you act to broaden the scope of government force - even by a gnat's ass - you have compromised the principles and you ARE working against liberty. If you say that MORE government is the answer here, you have essentially said that liberty fails.

You're missing the point. It's not about "more government." Government does not get bigger because a couple of words are added to an already mandated label. Again, we didn't make the rules. We are playing by rules set forth by government. If you don't think there should be any rules, then that's fine. Your outrage should be at the idea of mandatory labels in the first place. Nitpicking does not help anyone.

[better-dead-than-fed]

You're missing the point. It's not about "more government." Government does not get bigger because a couple of words are added to an already mandated label. Again, we didn't make the rules. We are playing by rules set forth by government. If you don't think there should be any rules, then that's fine. Your outrage should be at the idea of mandatory labels in the first place. Nitpicking does not help anyone.

Are you willing personally to cover all costs for adding a couple of words to already-mandated labels? Isn't that the obvious solution under your analysis?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Are you willing personally to cover all costs for adding a couple of words to already-mandated labels? Isn't that the obvious solution under your analysis?

The costs for adding a couple words? There are no costs for adding a couple words. At all. There's none at all. You go into photoshop, type (Genetically modified) after the ingredient, save it, and send it to the printer to print that label instead.

[better-dead-than-fed]

The costs for adding a couple words? There are no costs for adding a couple words. At all. There's none at all. You go into photoshop, type (Genetically modified) after the ingredient, save it, and send it to the printer to print that label instead.

So you are willing personally to cover all costs of mandatory GMO-labeling? There'd be GMO-labels by now, if only you'd offered to fund the program sooner.

[kcchiefs6465]

I'm merely comparing you to an idiot, for introducing personal attacks into an argument about politics.
That's better.

[ClydeCoulter]

Are you guys still allowing better-than.. run you around in circles? It's no use, he's not interested in real debate here, he appears to be just enjoying the mind-masturbation aspect that this whole circle-jerk provides.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Are you guys still allowing better-than.. run you around in circles? It's no use, he's not interested in real debate here, he appears to be just enjoying the mind-masturbation aspect that this whole circle-jerk provides.

Not that your post says anything about the issue of state-mandated GMO-labeling, but what evident basis is there for your personal attack here? If you meant to show that Monsanto-March types tend to be hateful, deceitful, and ignorant, I think that was already clear.

[familydog]

Are you willing personally to cover all costs for adding a couple of words to already-mandated labels? Isn't that the obvious solution under your analysis?

Again, I don't support mandatory labeling and most others here don't either. I don't know what you're talking about. I simply don't understand the outrage about adding a couple of words to an already mandated label. It's irrelevant, pointless and obfuscates the real issue of fascism in the food industry. But I'll bite and answer your question and say no. Monsanto's stolen profits are more than enough to cover the cost.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Again, I don't support mandatory labeling and most others here don't either. I don't know what you're talking about.

I'm talking about your stated positions:


No individual is harmed by adding [FDA regulations mandating GMO-labeling]


Government does not get bigger because a couple of words are added to an already mandated label.
-----------------------------------

I simply don't understand the outrage about adding a couple of words to an already mandated label. It's irrelevant, pointless and obfuscates the real issue of fascism in the food industry. But I'll ... answer your question and say no.

Adding words to an already mandated label is the topic of this thread, so I don't buy your assertion that its discussion in this thread is irrelevant, pointless, and obfuscatory.

Why aren't you willing personally to cover all costs for adding a couple of words to already-mandated labels? If the Monsanto-Marchers sought you out in person and used force to steal your money to cover the labeling costs, could you then understand objections to the government-expansion advocated by the Monsanto March and some on RPF (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5052060&viewfull=1#post5052060)?

[Neil Desmond]

I'm talking about your stated positions:







Adding words to an already mandated label is the topic of this thread, so I don't buy your assertion that its discussion in this thread is irrelevant, pointless, and obfuscatory.

Why aren't you willing personally to cover all costs for adding a couple of words to already-mandated labels? If the Monsanto-Marchers sought you out in person and used force to steal your money to cover the labeling costs, could you then understand objections to the government-expansion advocated by the Monsanto March (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5052060&viewfull=1#post5052060)?
Suppose the statist bastards do get their way and companies are mandated to label GMO products; what if they pass the cost on to the consumer? That's gonna be what, somewhere in the vicinity of a whole penny for every $10k or so? :eek:

[kcchiefs6465]

Why aren't you willing personally to cover all costs for adding a couple of words to already-mandated labels? If the Monsanto-Marchers sought you out in person and used force to steal your money to cover the labeling costs, could you then understand objections to the government-expansion advocated by the Monsanto March and some on RPF (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5052060&viewfull=1#post5052060)?
Well seeing that my money already funds Monsanto in the form of the subsidies they receive, I really wouldn't much care if some of that money, which will be taken regardless, is used to label their deceptive food.

We can talk about being robbed to pay for their labels after we cease from being robbed to pay for their chemicals and 'corn.'

As I'm seeing it, it wouldn't cost the American taxpayers any more. Monsanto could decide how to spend our money to make it work.

It is a matter of principle, I understand that. Two wrongs might not make a right. If I am sold something that is advertised as is, it ought be what it is marketed as. Perhaps we'll never agree on that. (that a 'tomato' with added animal genes is not the same as a tomato, or that a sterile eel-fish is not the same as a salmon) That's fine. But there is a good portion of people who would, taxonomists be damned, say that when you introduce pig genes into a tomato, for example, it ceases from being a tomato as the world knows it. Whether you can visually tell the difference or not.

Monsanto's subsidies need ended. That is something that I'm sure we both can agree on?

[kcchiefs6465]

Suppose the statist bastards do get their way and companies are mandated to label GMO products; what if they pass the cost on to the consumer? That's gonna be what, somewhere in the vicinity of a whole penny for every $10k or so? :eek:
Quite honestly if GE foods were cheaper than the regular their profits would probably go up. Could be the difference of buying chicken/pork hotdogs and beef. I think there are other reasons why they do not want their food labelled and do not want other company's food labelled as "GMO free." It could have to do with health consequences if people started to realize correlations. (just some speculation) It really wouldn't be a bad thing (GE food) if they'd get out in front of it. (some of their practices aside)

The subsidies need to end. The government collusion as well. I'd very much like to see the FDA abolished as much as the next. I want clear cut legislation that states that these creations are not the same as the regular world over understanding. You've had some very good wording of how this could be stated, Gunny has offered some good posts on how it could happen Constitutionally.

While they are forcing the labelling anyways, I think this is an insignificant side-step. They take our monies anyway. When we cut that off and abolish the FDA, then we will better posed to talk about the means of restitution should you buy something that is not what it claims to be. (something I'd like to see touched on) It is very much a violation of person.

[DamianTV]

What would be the problem against companies doing this VOLUNTARILY? Do they have something to hide? Oh yeah, they want to piss on our backs and make sure we are not allowed to know that it is not rain. As much as I am fully against GM foods, if any maufacturer were to actually come clean and be willing to VOLUNTARILY share that information with us, they'd actually earn my respect for the sake of being HONEST with their customers.

Now, what if CELL PHONE CONTRACTS were HONEST?

What if EULA's were HONEST and not written in LEGALESE?

What if CREDIT CARD AGREEMENTS were HONEST?

What if BANKS were HONEST?

What if CORPORATONS were HONEST?

What if POLITICIANS were HONEST?

If ANY of the above were actually true, the world would be a much better place. But these entities do not survive by being honest. They survive by being deceptive. They take advantage, manipulate perception, exploit legal loopholes, deceive, extort, intimidate and threaten their clients who are often forced into accepting a service or product by one of these mega giants against their will. Required to buy Car Insurance, and Health Insurance.

But my question still remains. Why wont any of these entites even make an effort to make a name for themselves by being HONEST with their customers? I could only imagine that an HONEST entity would actually go quite far.

[Natural Citizen]

Adding words to an already mandated label is the topic of this thread

And it's the wrong topic. It is that way because people are pissing their pants over the fact that the world is saying no to exposing themselves to a glorified science experiment and the folks who are saying yes to the tyranny are scrambling to change the terms of controversy thus prolonging some grain of relevance in the process of change. And that's fine, really. Perfect, actually.


bdtf, listen. Do you hear that? It sounds like thunder off in the distance. Clouds are turning grey....wind is picking up....

Oh, yes. A storm is coming. :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ifa33dLp6OA

[better-dead-than-fed]

Suppose the statist bastards do get their way and companies are mandated to label GMO products; what if they pass the cost on to the consumer? That's gonna be what, somewhere in the vicinity of a whole penny for every $10k or so? :eek:

As long as it's done one penny at a time, what's the problem with increasing the income-tax rate to 100%? And what's the problem with the initiation of force against companies who decline to add labels with the information you personally and idiosyncratically choose?

P.S. What's the status with your query to the taxonomist?

[better-dead-than-fed]

Perhaps we'll never agree on that. (that a 'tomato' with added animal genes is not the same as a tomato, or that a sterile eel-fish is not the same as a salmon) That's fine. But there is a good portion of people who would, taxonomists be damned, say that when you introduce pig genes into a tomato, for example, it ceases from being a tomato as the world knows it. Whether you can visually tell the difference or not.

What's the evidence that a "good portion" of the world sees it your way?


Monsanto's subsidies need ended. That is something that I'm sure we both can agree on?

But if I agreed to that, I'd be opening myself up to accusations of "mind-masturbation aspect that this whole circle-jerk provides" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?416020-The-Libertarian-Case-AGAINST-Mandatory-GMO-Labeling&p=5054611&viewfull=1#post5054611); "posts on this topic having my mental gymnastics circle jerk"; having the "last word"; "bumping"; and "patting myself on the back" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?416020-The-Libertarian-Case-AGAINST-Mandatory-GMO-Labeling/page20&p=5053817#post5053817).

[helmuth_hubener]

Suppose the statist bastards do get their way and companies are mandated to label GMO products; what if they pass the cost on to the consumer? That's gonna be what, somewhere in the vicinity of a whole penny for every $10k or so? :eek:

Baby steps. It's baby steps, my friend. Are you wanting to take baby steps towards freedom, or towards control?

The cost of the label, anyway, is fairly minuscule compared to damage caused by the attitude of the activism. You anti-GMO activists are taking the following, very common strategy:

We see Problem X. (In this case, people being ignorant of the GMO issue)

We should solve Problem X. (Sensible enough)

We shall solve Problem X by getting our nation-state apparatus to "Do Something"(TM).

Success! Now our nation-state has solved our problem!

You see the problem? It's just the wrong way of going about things. It's the wrong thought process. It plays into the perpetual attitude that everyone has that problems can be solved by the state. Your actions implicitly communicate that you think that the state is too small. We need bigger government. Right? I don't think that's what you actually believe. You are undermining your larger belief system, the larger cause if freedom, by following the process above.

People in general assume that any problem can be solved by government. This implies that the problem must have been caused by insufficient state intervention. Intervene more: problem solved. People in general, however, are totally wrong about this. Let's not be wrong with them! :)

[better-dead-than-fed]

And it's the wrong topic.

So why aren't you boycotting this thread?


It is that way because people are pissing their pants

You mean the Monsanto Marchers explicitly advocating state-mandated GMO-labeling (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5052060&viewfull=1#post5052060)?


bdtf, listen. Do you hear that? It sounds like thunder off in the distance. Clouds are turning grey....wind is picking up....

Oh, yes. A storm is coming.

Sink or swim. :)

All I hear is hippies crying.

[Qdog]

So I can make my own brand of food, with Rat poison in it... and you guys don't want anything to be done to me? Just let the free market sort it out? What about the poor few who ate my brand and died?

Now lets pretend that I have FDA, and government protection against lawsuits and prosecution like Monsanto does. I think something needs to be done. Labeling, or let the people hang those bastards from a tree.

[familydog]

Why aren't you willing personally to cover all costs for adding a couple of words to already-mandated labels? If the Monsanto-Marchers sought you out in person and used force to steal your money to cover the labeling costs, could you then understand objections to the government-expansion advocated by the Monsanto March and some on RPF (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5052060&viewfull=1#post5052060)?

With all due respect, your lack of reading comprehension is only matched by the lack of critical thinking on this subject. I don't need morality lectures considering I made it clear I don't support mandated labels of any kind. If it makes you feel good about yourself defending a quasi-state institution whose existence is dependent on regulations, then more power to you.

[helmuth_hubener]

Just let the free market sort it out?

Yep. The free market works. Government doesn't. It just doesn't. The solution to a problem, any problem, even a problem so monumental as rat poison, is never, ever, ever the government. Not if you want a solution that works, that is. Because government doesn't work.

[better-dead-than-fed]

... As much as I am fully against GM foods, if any maufacturer were to actually come clean and be willing to VOLUNTARILY share that information with us, they'd actually earn my respect for the sake of being HONEST with their customers. ...

... Why wont any of these entites even make an effort to make a name for themselves by being HONEST with their customers? I could only imagine that an HONEST entity would actually go quite far.

I find it remarkable that companies are declining to add labels saying:


This food is not from recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion, gene deletion or doubling, introduction of exogenous genetic material, alteration of the position of a gene, or similar procedure,

Apparently, companies are free to put this on labels (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates&p=5046825&viewfull=1#post5046825), and if they're not doing that, it's because Monsanto-Marchers are misdirecting their demands (i.e., "pissing their pants" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?416020-The-Libertarian-Case-AGAINST-Mandatory-GMO-Labeling&p=5055341&viewfull=1#post5055341)).

[better-dead-than-fed]

With all due respect, your lack of reading comprehension is only matched by the lack of critical thinking on this subject. I don't need morality lectures considering I made it clear I don't support mandated labels of any kind. If it makes you feel good about yourself defending a quasi-state institution whose existence is dependent on regulations, then more power to you.

Really I was only addressing your admitted failure to "understand" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?416020-The-Libertarian-Case-AGAINST-Mandatory-GMO-Labeling&p=5055255&viewfull=1#post5055255) objections to government-expansion.

[helmuth_hubener]

If it makes you feel good about yourself defending a quasi-state institution whose existence is dependent on regulations, then more power to you.
You have the correct position, familydog. Indeed, all labeling laws must be repealed, and all agricultural intervention as well.

But to agitate for government action to solve the problem undermines your libertarian message. If you hate Monsanto because of the state's intervention in propping them up, then proposing a solution which consists of state intervention completely muddles any libertarian message you may have been trying to spread. It then seems you're not against state intervention at all, you're just against Monsanto.

Opposing the government-agricultural complex is a perfectly libertarian position. It's just the specifics of this labeling issue which is technically anti-libertarian in the policy prescription and totally anti-libertarian and lousy as an activist strategy.

[better-dead-than-fed]

So I can make my own brand of food, with Rat poison in it... and you guys don't want anything to be done to me? Just let the free market sort it out? What about the poor few who ate my brand and died?

Are you suggesting that producing, selling, and buying rat-poison should be criminalized; and everyone taxed for enforcement of the prohibition; innocent bystanders downed in shoot-outs between black-market rat-poison cartels and a new Federal Department instituted to wage war against the cartels?

[better-dead-than-fed]

double-post deleted

[GunnyFreedom]

Yep. The free market works. Government doesn't. It just doesn't. The solution to a problem, any problem, even a problem so monumental as rat poison, is never, ever, ever the government. Not if you want a solution that works, that is. Because government doesn't work.

The objection is really that you have some stranger selling oranges, ripe from the tree. Only he doesn't tell you that he injected them all with a tiny little bit of rat poison because it hooks you and it will keep you coming back until you are dead. He sold them as "oranges." wouldn't that be an aggression? If you wanted to buy arsenic you would have asked for the arsenic oranges. The whole sale was based on a lie. That's not free market, especially when that lie is protected in court by the federal orange grower board.

[better-dead-than-fed]

The objection is really that you have some stranger selling oranges, ripe from the tree. Only he doesn't tell you that he injected them all with a tiny little bit of rat poison because it hooks you and it will keep you coming back until you are dead. He sold them as "oranges." wouldn't that be an aggression? If you wanted to buy arsenic you would have asked for the arsenic oranges. The whole sale was based on a lie.

Not a lie, because the "oranges" label was never meant to mean any more than what they FDA says it means. No one's being forced to pay attention to labels written in the FDA's language.

[GunnyFreedom]

Not a lie, because the "oranges" label was never meant to mean any more than what they FDA says it means. No one's being forced to pay attention to labels written in the FDA's language.

The FDA never got involved with my stranger on the side of the road. :)

Well, only to protect the lie. like fascism does.

[better-dead-than-fed]

The FDA never got involved with my stranger on the side of the road. :)

Well, only to protect the lie. like fascism does.

Great to leave the FDA out of the transaction, but that doesn't mean it's justified to assume that "orange" implies "GMO-free".

[kcchiefs6465]

What's the evidence that a "good portion" of the world sees it your way?

My conjecture.



But if I agreed to that, I'd be opening myself up to accusations of "mind-masturbation aspect that this whole circle-jerk provides" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?416020-The-Libertarian-Case-AGAINST-Mandatory-GMO-Labeling&p=5054611&viewfull=1#post5054611); "posts on this topic having my mental gymnastics circle jerk"; having the "last word"; "bumping"; and "patting myself on the back" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?416020-The-Libertarian-Case-AGAINST-Mandatory-GMO-Labeling/page20&p=5053817#post5053817).
Accusations? There's a 60 something page thread majorly of your posts of insulting insinuations and back and forth bullshit. Sentence responses and "na na" rhetoric. I'd hate to see what I haven't read. I'm sure we agree on aspects of this. Your point is in not wishing to expand FDA power and not wanting to be forced to pay for labelling?

Seems agreeable. Now you are for ending the subsidies? Because we'd first have to end the subsidies to even argue about taxpayer dollars paying for this or that. They are paying already.

You took 'trollishly' offensively even with my serious note that I meant it with all due respect. That was directed towards your single word or sentence responses and the back and forth ridiculousness that made it into a 60+ page thread. My post quoted above, was serious. It seems you will continue this on til no end, needing the last word while going in circles with people who by and large agree with you. You're speaking of your problems with the march. I am glad they are even marching. Especially considering the majority of people I encounter could not give two shits less about any of this. By 'any' I mean the direction of the country.

[GunnyFreedom]

Great to leave the FDA out of the transaction, but that doesn't mean it's justified to assume that "orange" implies "GMO-free".

Do I not have the freedom of my own conscience to believe that rat poison could kill me? And thus the right to avoid it secreted into my orange, whether it ended up harming me or not? I don't think the amount of harm is relevant to my own freedom of conscience, WHICH IS the freedom of religion that our founders fought and died to win.

[Natural Citizen]

Do I not have the freedom of my own conscience to believe that rat poison could kill me? And thus the right to avoid it secreted into my orange, whether it ended up harming me or not?

If you're scientifically literate, the world looks very different to you and that understanding empowers you. This is where the base is lacking with this whole Monsanto thing. This is what we need from prospective representatives. Until we have a route for hearing and evaluating these representatives positions on the actual applied sciences themselves that are coming from Monsanto we'll be at the mercy of tired political narrative. Nothing practical will come from that. If you review the bulk of the debate what we see are people defending what they surmise as a free market scenario and then placing it into context with liberty yet the fact of the matter is that this is a government controlled market where Monsanto is playing both sides of the fence and writing legislation. So my question is liberty for whom? If one were to approach it from a purely political premise. Define government in the context of what role Monsanto has assumed for itself here through our elected representatives.

I agree with the rat poison analogy but would place it into more specific/relevant language. The correct route is to demand why our prospective representatives agree with Monsanto in that they can rightfully experiment with human genes from an elevated position of writing legislation. What position do these representatives have on the sciences that would make them feel as if they were leading their base in their best interest by allowing Monsanto to write legislation that enforces these glorified science experiments on the human species?

[better-dead-than-fed]

Do I not have the freedom of my own conscience to believe that rat poison could kill me? And thus the right to avoid it secreted into my orange, whether it ended up harming me or not? I don't think the amount of harm is relevant to my own freedom of conscience, WHICH IS the freedom of religion that our founders fought and died to win.

Everyone has the right to inject rat poison in oranges, and you're protected by your right not to eat them.

[GunnyFreedom]

Everyone has the right to inject rat poison in oranges, and you're protected by your right not to eat them.

Injecting rat poison into an orange and then handing it to me as though it were an orange, would be a kind of aggression. Least of all by fraud. Possibly attempted murder.

[kcchiefs6465]

Everyone has the right to inject rat poison in oranges, and you're protected by your right not to eat them.
This is a perfect example of 'trollishly.'

[better-dead-than-fed]

My conjecture.

Unsupported conjectures are a dime a dozen.


Now you are for ending the subsidies?

How are my wishes relevant?


There's a 60 something page thread majorly of your posts of insulting insinuations and back and forth bullshit. Sentence responses and "na na" rhetoric. ... You took 'trollishly' offensively even with my serious note that I meant it with all due respect. That was directed towards your single word or sentence responses and the back and forth ridiculousness that made it into a 60+ page thread. My post quoted above, was serious. It seems you will continue this on til no end, needing the last word while going in circles....

I never typed "na na". Link to it, or it never happened, and you're fabricating quotes deceitfully.

Where have I "gone in circles"? Link, or it never happened.

What's your personal definition of "trolling"? As I've seen the term used, it's always foolish to accuse someone of trolling. It would have been clearer if you'd simply accused me of "single word or sentence responses"; but that would have highlighted your hypocrisy. What's your objection to "single word or sentence responses"? When you see them, why don't you use the ignore function instead of crying troll?

If you don't want me to "continue this on til no end, needing the last word" why are you asking my position on subsidies? That's entrapment.

Why are you holding me singularly responsible for both the "back" and the "forth"? That's retarded.

[better-dead-than-fed]

This is a perfect example of 'trollishly.'

Do you mean that my post was a single sentence (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?416020-The-Libertarian-Case-AGAINST-Mandatory-GMO-Labeling&p=5055563&viewfull=1#post5055563) (like your own)? Or that I posted anything at all? What definition of "trollishly" are you using? Yours is a perfect example of the foolishness of crying troll.

[GunnyFreedom]

This is a perfect example of 'trollishly.'

I dunno man, I suspect he genuinely believes that.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Injecting rat poison into an orange and then handing it to me as though it were an orange, would be a kind of aggression. Least of all by fraud. Possibly attempted murder.

Now you're confusing the issue. The issue here is not the mode in which the orange is handed; the issue, in your own words, is:


He sold them as "oranges."

[GunnyFreedom]

He sold them as "oranges."


The objection is really that you have some stranger selling oranges, ripe from the tree. Only he doesn't tell you that he injected them all with a tiny little bit of rat poison because it hooks you and it will keep you coming back until you are dead. He sold them as "oranges." wouldn't that be an aggression? If you wanted to buy arsenic you would have asked for the arsenic oranges. The whole sale was based on a lie. That's not free market, especially when that lie is protected in court by the federal orange grower board.

[better-dead-than-fed]

He sold them as "oranges."



And they were oranges. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?416020-The-Libertarian-Case-AGAINST-Mandatory-GMO-Labeling&p=5055478&viewfull=1#post5055478)

[kcchiefs6465]

Unsupported conjectures are a dime a dozen.
Probably cheaper.



How are my wishes relevant?
How are anyone's views 'relevant?' I was asking your personal opinion so as to gauge where exactly you are going with all of this.




I never typed "na na". Link to it, or it never happened, and you're fabricating quotes deceitfully.
Might as well have.



Where have I "gone in circles"? Link, or it never happened.
Circular circles (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415565-March-Against-Monsanto-Updates)



What's your personal definition of "trolling"? As I've seen the term used, it's always foolish to accuse someone of trolling. It would have been clearer if you'd simply accused me of "single word or sentence responses". What's your objection to "single word or sentence responses"? When you see them, why don't you use the ignore function instead of crying troll?

My personal definition of a troll is someone posting simply to get an emotion from someone. One who intentionally is argumentative with vague and meaningless retorts. I hardly use the word 'troll.' (one of those words that's losing meaning) You've been acting trollishly. Posting bullshit responses hoping for a reply, feeling superior for what it is you've been calling debate.

Even if I knew how to use the ignore feature I would not.



If you don't want me to "continue this on til no end, needing the last word" why are you asking my position on subsidies? That's entrapment.
To gauge your meaning in these unending threads.

Indeed.



Why are you holding me singularly responsible for both the back and forth?
Pretty much everything that could be said has been said.

[GunnyFreedom]

And they were oranges. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?416020-The-Libertarian-Case-AGAINST-Mandatory-GMO-Labeling&p=5055478&viewfull=1#post5055478)

with rat poison, secretly injected into them, and then given to you. With a smile, and a thank you for your business. :)

[helmuth_hubener]

The objection is really that you have some stranger selling oranges, ripe from the tree. Only he doesn't tell you that he injected them all with a tiny little bit of rat poison because it hooks you and it will keep you coming back until you are dead. He sold them as "oranges." wouldn't that be an aggression? If you wanted to buy arsenic you would have asked for the arsenic oranges. The whole sale was based on a lie. That's not free market, especially when that lie is protected in court by the federal orange grower board.Right, very true, it's not a market transaction, it's aggression. But the market is better at handling, punishing, minimizing, and generally "sorting out" aggression than the state. "Better at" is an understatement. The market can actually do it. The state can't. The state does the opposite. The state is incompetent against, in fact encourages, foments, and engages in aggression on a super-massive scale, all while all its customers are wanting it to be opposing aggression. Because it doesn't work.

[better-dead-than-fed]

with rat poison, secretly injected into them, and then given to you. With a smile, and a thank you for your business. :)

Now you're confusing the issue, again (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?416020-The-Libertarian-Case-AGAINST-Mandatory-GMO-Labeling&p=5055574&viewfull=1#post5055574).

[GunnyFreedom]

Right, very true, it's not a market transaction, it's aggression. But the market is better at handling, punishing, minimizing, and generally "sorting out" aggression than the state. "Better at" is an understatement. The market can actually do it. The state can't. The state does the opposite. The state is incompetent against, in fact encourages, foments, and engages in aggression on a super-massive scale, all while all its customers are wanting it to be opposing aggression. Because it doesn't work.

All I want to do is cut government all the way back down to the Constitution and then allow it to demonstrate it's own genius. Once it does, and as we as a people come to a deeper understanding of liberty, then amend the Constitution to make it even better. Right now, fraud is a crime and it is constitutionally empowered at the State and federal level.

Once we stuff Washington back into it's Constitutional box, then we can actually see the parts within the Constitution which do and do not work, and work to amend it from there.

The US Constitution if taken perfectly is the closest thing to a voluntaryist document in principle that the world has every created for a Constitution. It has been corrupted in a couple places, but it can only be repaired and improved once we are upon it.

This government has become so corrupt that it commits aggression against us.

[GunnyFreedom]

1864

[GunnyFreedom]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Jpl1J0l8Q

[better-dead-than-fed]

Pretty much everything that could be said has been said.

So why are you still here?


I was asking your personal opinion so as to gauge where exactly you are going with all of this.

Where I'm going is irrelevant to the question of what policy is best. I'm not asking you to attend me personally, so if you do that, it's on you.


My personal definition of a troll is someone posting simply to get an emotion from someone. One who intentionally is argumentative with vague and meaningless retorts. I hardly use the word 'troll.' (one of those words that's losing meaning) You've been acting trollishly. Posting bullshit responses hoping for a reply, feeling superior for what it is you've been calling debate.

What's your objection to being "argumentative" in a discussion about politics on a forum about politics. You don't mind appearing hypocritical?

Your emotional reaction is your responsibility alone. Only an idiot would presume to know my motives, intent, feelings, or hopes; only an obsessive buffoon would trip head over heels for character-strings he perceives as "vague and meaningless bullshit". If you choose to dedicate yourself to me, you will be by no stretch the first; but that's on you.

[helmuth_hubener]

All I want to do is cut government all the way back down to the Constitution and then allow it to demonstrate it's own geniusThat'll be a long wait for a train that don't come. Giving a group of people a monopoly on resolving disputes, including disputes they themselves are a party to, is not genius. It's a recipe for serial genocide. Government does not work. It never has worked. It never will work. Everything it does, has done, or will do is a complete disaster and failure and waste. You cannot deny this. We all know this. We can see it every day.


Right now, fraud is a crime and it is constitutionally empowered at the State and federal level. Nope. There is no authority delegated in the Constitution to make legislation regarding fraud. Not there. Doesn't exist. A1 S8.


The US Constitution if taken perfectly is the closest thing to a voluntaryist document in principle that the world has every created for a Constitution. It has been corrupted in a couple places, but it can only be repaired and improved once we are upon it.
Have you studied the Articles of Confederation?

This government has become so corrupt that it commits aggression against us.That's true. It does. That's what it means to be a government. If you don't aggress on people, you're not a government.

[GunnyFreedom]

That'll be a long wait for a train that don't come. Giving a group of people a monopoly on resolving disputes, including disputes they themselves are a party to, is not genius. It's a recipe for serial genocide. Government does not work. It never has worked. It never will work. Everything it does, has done, or will do is a complete disaster and failure and waste. You cannot deny this. We all know this. We can see it every day.

Nope. There is no authority delegated in the Constitution to make legislation regarding fraud. Not there. Doesn't exist. A1 S8.

Those that are not delegated or denied are reserved to the States or the people.


Have you studied the Articles of Confederation?
That's true. It does. That's what it means to be a government. If you don't aggress on people, you're not a government.

I like that we the States have a weapon and a shield against fedgov when they come to aggress against us. That was the American form of government. It is why we were once free, and now are not.

It is what the Constitution says.

[Neil Desmond]

Quite honestly if GE foods were cheaper than the regular their profits would probably go up. Could be the difference of buying chicken/pork hotdogs and beef. I think there are other reasons why they do not want their food labelled and do not want other company's food labelled as "GMO free." It could have to do with health consequences if people started to realize correlations. (just some speculation) It really wouldn't be a bad thing (GE food) if they'd get out in front of it. (some of their practices aside)

The subsidies need to end. The government collusion as well. I'd very much like to see the FDA abolished as much as the next. I want clear cut legislation that states that these creations are not the same as the regular world over understanding. You've had some very good wording of how this could be stated, Gunny has offered some good posts on how it could happen Constitutionally.

While they are forcing the labelling anyways, I think this is an insignificant side-step. They take our monies anyway. When we cut that off and abolish the FDA, then we will better posed to talk about the means of restitution should you buy something that is not what it claims to be. (something I'd like to see touched on) It is very much a violation of person.
Woah, back up; are you saying that they're actually trying to prevent companies from labeling their products as GMO free? A statist ban on being allowed to label one's own products with the facts/truth? Such a thing would be a 1st Amendment infringement.

Well, whatever the case may be, my point was that it's not a big deal at all to me to pay an extra 1 cent for every $10,000 worth of food to let me know that it's real or fake. I care about getting specifically what I'm after, not some cheap, phony, altered, off-track imitation that I have no idea how unhealthy or maybe even how dangerous it is. If it's real, meaning it's not GE, go ahead and charge me the extra 1 cent for every $10,000 worth of food. I don't mind paying for that; it's information that helps me navigate through and avoid what I want to avoid & I have a fundamental right to engage in trade by paying to get information that the entity I'm trading with is willing to provide.

It's better than throwing away $10,000 on garbage that's probably unhealthy, harmful, or doesn't provide nearly the same amount of nourishment or fulfillment of dietary needs. I'd probably end up having to toss something I bought that doesn't taste any good, because I didn't know it was GE when I bought it because they didn't disclose this, or in other words falsely claimed it was something else. Without access to the necessary information, I wouldn't be surprised if people end up wasting more money because the market is plagued with unlabeled genetically engineered stuff. That's terrible for the economy.

[Neil Desmond]

What would be the problem against companies doing this VOLUNTARILY? Do they have something to hide? Oh yeah, they want to piss on our backs and make sure we are not allowed to know that it is not rain. As much as I am fully against GM foods, if any maufacturer were to actually come clean and be willing to VOLUNTARILY share that information with us, they'd actually earn my respect for the sake of being HONEST with their customers.

Now, what if CELL PHONE CONTRACTS were HONEST?

What if EULA's were HONEST and not written in LEGALESE?

What if CREDIT CARD AGREEMENTS were HONEST?

What if BANKS were HONEST?

What if CORPORATONS were HONEST?

What if POLITICIANS were HONEST?

If ANY of the above were actually true, the world would be a much better place. But these entities do not survive by being honest. They survive by being deceptive. They take advantage, manipulate perception, exploit legal loopholes, deceive, extort, intimidate and threaten their clients who are often forced into accepting a service or product by one of these mega giants against their will. Required to buy Car Insurance, and Health Insurance.

But my question still remains. Why wont any of these entites even make an effort to make a name for themselves by being HONEST with their customers? I could only imagine that an HONEST entity would actually go quite far.
I don't mind what they do as long as they're not being dishonest. It's all this dishonesty that's ruining society. I guess the only way to get people to stop the decay of society is to try to get as many people as possible to start caring about it.

[Neil Desmond]

As long as it's done one penny at a time, what's the problem with increasing the income-tax rate to 100%?
Huh? What do taxes or a particular rate have to do with this discussion? I don't see the connection.



And what's the problem with the initiation of force against companies who decline to add labels with the information you personally and idiosyncratically choose?
:facepalm: I'm perplexed. Maybe I'm an idiot. For some odd reason I was under the apparently wrong impression that you comprehended the situation. The initiation of force in such situations is itself the problem; it's a problem that results from statist mandates. People are opposed to such things because they're bad for the economy, meaning bad for society. My position is that false advertising is also bad for the economy, meaning the same thing: it's bad for society.


P.S. What's the status with your query to the taxonomist?
So far I haven't heard back from him.

[Neil Desmond]

Baby steps. It's baby steps, my friend. Are you wanting to take baby steps towards freedom, or towards control?
I'm not sure what you mean by freedom or control, but if by "freedom" you mean liberty, and by "control" you mean forcing people to do something a certain way, regardless of whether or not it's the best or only way to do that something, then I'm for freedom and opposed to control.


The cost of the label, anyway, is fairly minuscule compared to damage caused by the attitude of the activism. You anti-GMO activists are taking the following, very common strategy:

We see Problem X. (In this case, people being ignorant of the GMO issue)

We should solve Problem X. (Sensible enough)

We shall solve Problem X by getting our nation-state apparatus to "Do Something"(TM).

Success! Now our nation-state has solved our problem!
I might happen to be anti-GMO, but I don't consider myself an anti-GMO activist. I would be more accurately attributed as being anti-false-advertising.


You see the problem? It's just the wrong way of going about things. It's the wrong thought process. It plays into the perpetual attitude that everyone has that problems can be solved by the state. Your actions implicitly communicate that you think that the state is too small. We need bigger government. Right? I don't think that's what you actually believe. You are undermining your larger belief system, the larger cause if freedom, by following the process above.

People in general assume that any problem can be solved by government. This implies that the problem must have been caused by insufficient state intervention. Intervene more: problem solved. People in general, however, are totally wrong about this. Let's not be wrong with them! :)
I'm not an activist for nor even in favor of state-mandated labeling of GMO products.

[Neil Desmond]

Now you're confusing the issue, again (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?416020-The-Libertarian-Case-AGAINST-Mandatory-GMO-Labeling&p=5055574&viewfull=1#post5055574).
If someone is selling oranges without rat poison injected into them, then they may label them rat-poison-free oranges. They may also simply label them oranges without the "rat-poison-free" part, since it is not necessary to label something with what it isn't or doesn't contain. On the other hand, if someone is selling oranges with rat poison injected into them, then they must not label them oranges without also disclosing that they had rat poison injected into them. Here's an alternative way an orange with rat poison injected into it can be labeled that doesn't require explicitly stating that the object in question has rat poison injected into it: "DO NOT EAT THIS OR FEED TO ANIMALS THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO KILL!"