93 percent support mandatory labeling of GMO foods.

[jim49er]

Despite strong opposition from many food companies and an apparent lack of political will, the tide may finally be turning toward policies that support consumers’ right to know what’s in their food. A new poll, conducted earlier this year by The New York Times and released Sunday, found that three-quarters of Americans are concerned about the number of genetically modified or engineered foods, and a staggering 93 percent support mandatory labeling of GMO foods.

The nationwide telephone poll of 1,052 adults, conducted over three days in January, found that 26 percent of those worried about GMOs believe the foods are not safe to eat and 13 percent worried about environmental problems genetic engineering might be causing. Perhaps most surprising was the widespread awareness of GMOs, with nearly half of those polled saying they knew that a large amount of their food is genetically modified.

http://news.yahoo.com/turns-nearly-everyone-wants-gmo-labeling-220732988.html

[RCA]

Flashcard libertarians to respond about free market choices in...5....4.....3.....2.....1

[Peace Piper]

Despite strong opposition from many food companies and an apparent lack of political will, the tide may finally be turning toward policies that support consumers’ right to know what’s in their food. A new poll, conducted earlier this year by The New York Times and released Sunday, found that three-quarters of Americans are concerned about the number of genetically modified or engineered foods, and a staggering 93 percent support mandatory labeling of GMO foods.

This (F)raud of a pResident supported that too, until he no longer felt the need to lie about yet another thing.

See 06:35


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJO7ZFcSwkM

Barack Hussein Obama: The Biggest Con Artist to ever hold the presidency.

[mad cow]

Flashcard libertarians to respond about free market choices in...5....4.....3.....2.....1

Blastoff!
Non flashcard libertarians will no doubt support the government forcing small local farmers,fishermen,butchers and bakers and roadside produce stands at gun-point to spend thousands of dollars annually certifying that their products meet certain standards that their customers never asked them to meet and will raise the price of the few producers that it doesn't drive out of business.

[eduardo89]

There is nothing libertarian about mandatory labels.

[Dr.3D]

There is nothing libertarian about mandatory labels.

Yep it's better to just let those who are GMO free label their produce as such if they wish and perhaps if they did, they would sell more of that product.

[eduardo89]

Yep it's better to just let those who are GMO free label their produce as such if they wish and perhaps if they did, they would sell more of that product.

They can.

http://gmoawareness.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/usda-organic-non-gmo-project.jpg

[familydog]

Well, obviously 93% of people are evil for wanting to know what is in their food. Shame on them.

[better-dead-than-fed]

How much are they willing to pay for a labeling program? Why didn't the New York Times ask that as part of the poll?

[RCA]

Blastoff!
Non flashcard libertarians will no doubt support the government forcing small local farmers,fishermen,butchers and bakers and roadside produce stands at gun-point to spend thousands of dollars annually certifying that their products meet certain standards that their customers never asked them to meet and will raise the price of the few producers that it doesn't drive out of business.


There is nothing libertarian about mandatory labels.

Supporting Ron, Rand or any politician is IN ITSELF a contradiction of libertarian ideals. At least I'm trying to avoid being forced to eat GMO's unknowingly, which is also a compromise, like supporting politicians and claiming to want freedom.

[Dr.3D]

They can.

http://gmoawareness.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/usda-organic-non-gmo-project.jpg

That's how it should be. No need to force anything.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Well, obviously 93% of people are evil for wanting to know what is in their food. Shame on them.

How much prison time would you be willing to do for failing to disclose whatever information I personally want to know about you?

[heavenlyboy34]

That's how it should be. No need to force anything.
This!^^

[familydog]

How much prison time would you be willing to do for failing to disclose whatever information I personally want to know about you?

Your question assumes I am for mandatory labeling. I've made it quite clear that I am not.

[eduardo89]

Supporting Ron, Rand or any politician is IN ITSELF a contradiction of libertarian ideals.

Well I'm not a libertarian, but I disagree with that.


At least I'm trying to avoid being forced to eat GMO's unknowingly, which is also a compromise, like supporting politicians and claiming to want freedom.

No one is forcing you. You can buy USDA-certified organic produce or go with food certified by the Non-GMO Project, which is a non-profit non-government organization which certifies products as being GMO-free.

http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/

[RCA]

That's how it should be. No need to force anything.

How about taxation? Can that be forced?

[FrankRep]

Non-GMO foods should brag about being Non-GMO.

The free market will reward you.

[FrankRep]

Supporting Ron, Rand or any politician is IN ITSELF a contradiction of libertarian ideals.

Thankfully I'm a constitutionalist, not a libertarian.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Your question assumes I am for mandatory labeling. I've made it quite clear that I am not.

The 93% didn't say they'd be satisfied with simply knowing what's in their food. What they want is mandates:


93 percent support mandatory labeling of GMO foods.

[RCA]

I hope all the libertarian purist responses are coming from complete anarcho-captialists or else you are not taking yourself seriously. If you are, then at least you can claim to be consistent.

[RCA]

Thankfully I'm a constitutionalist, not a libertarian.

Well, at least you're honest about it.

[green73]

Flashcard libertarians to respond about free market choices in...5....4.....3.....2.....1

What are you trying to say?

[green73]

Blastoff!
Non flashcard libertarians will no doubt support the government forcing small local farmers,fishermen,butchers and bakers and roadside produce stands at gun-point to spend thousands of dollars annually certifying that their products meet certain standards that their customers never asked them to meet and will raise the price of the few producers that it doesn't drive out of business.

This

[green73]

There is nothing libertarian about mandatory labels.

Thank you

[mad cow]

Libertarian-Republican Constitutionalist here.Like Ron Paul.

[green73]

Yep it's better to just let those who are GMO free label their produce as such if they wish and perhaps if they did, they would sell more of that product.

yes

[green73]

Supporting Ron, Rand or any politician is IN ITSELF a contradiction of libertarian ideals. At least I'm trying to avoid being forced to eat GMO's unknowingly, which is also a compromise, like supporting politicians and claiming to want freedom.

There are countless new acaps thanks to Ron Paul's efforts.

[RCA]

What are you trying to say?

A large percentage of libertarians have quick reference flashcard style responses to common topics (bless their hearts, they're still far more intelligent than Boobus). For instance, "the rich are good" or "I support the free market" without examining the issues on deeper levels. For instance, a large portion of rich people ARE NOT good including politicians, lobbyists, corporate CEO's, and on and on. It's the same group that tends to use Atlas Shrugged as one of the ways to show support for the rich despite half of the characters in the novel were rich and caused ruin and destruction. Only a small portion of the virtuous characters in Atlas were rich. Most of the wealth was channeled to the corrupt, as in modern day life. For every true entrepreneur, there's 100 corrupt rich assholes out there. Supporting a corrupt corporation because one is pro "free market" is like supporting the death penalty because they are "pro-life".

[Cabal]

Well, obviously 93% of people are evil for wanting to know what is in their food. Shame on them.

I wouldn't go as far as evil, but they are quite clearly ignorant of economics, and may also have questionable, inconsistent ethics.

[eduardo89]

Supporting a corrupt corporation because one is pro "free market" is like supporting the death penalty because they are "pro-life".

There is nothing contradictory about being pro-life and pro-death penalty. Those of us who are against murdering innocent children are not against executing murderers.

There's a big difference between an innocent unborn child and a convicted murderer.

[Peace Piper]

It's possible to be a libertarian and think that the contents of a package of food should be labeled. It's an allergy issue, as well as just plain knowing what the eff one is putting in their bodies. The labeling laws could be scrapped altogether, and how soon would it be before nothing was labeled at all. Not knowing what one is eating isn't just dumb, it can be deadly.

Americans shove damn near anything into their mouths without a second thought, just look around. It's a crisis.

[Dr.3D]

How about taxation? Can that be forced?

I would rather it wasn't.

[RCA]

There is nothing contradictory about being pro-life and pro-death penalty. Those of us who are against murdering innocent children are not against executing murderers.

There's a big difference between an innocent unborn child and a convicted murderer.

I said supporting the death penalty BECAUSE they are pro life. I didn't say supporting the death penalty AND also being pro life. It's a subtle difference. Remember I was saying the flashcard crowd siding with corrupt corporations BECAUSE they are free market.

[Cabal]

It's possible to be a libertarian and think that the contents of a package of food should be labeled. It's an allergy issue, as well as just plain knowing what the eff one is putting in their bodies. The labeling laws could be scrapped altogether, and how soon would it be before nothing was labeled at all. Not knowing what one is eating isn't just dumb, it can be deadly.

Americans shove damn near anything into their mouths without a second thought, just look around. It's a crisis.

It is possible to be a libertarian and prefer that the your food products which you choose to purchase are properly and accurately labeled. When you start forcing such practices by waving around the gun in the room, then you tend to encounter problems with the aforementioned claim of libertarianism.

[RCA]

I would rather it wasn't.

So you are an ancap?

[RCA]

It is possible to be a libertarian and prefer that the your food products which you choose to purchase are properly and accurately labeled. When you start forcing such practices by waving around the gun in the room, then you tend to encounter problems with the aforementioned claim of libertarianism.

We have 9,000 other battles to win before we need to start applying the gun in the room on ourselves, especially for such a serious health issue. When they put the guns down, then we can talk about us being equally as pure. Can we at least get rid of the federal income tax, the TSA and the Fed before we say GMO knowledge should be left to the free market?

[Dr.3D]

So you are an ancap?

Let's just say I would like to contract my own trash pickup, snow removal, firefighting services, law enforcement and school services and pay them myself. It would tend to cut the cronyism of bureaucrats hiring their friends for those services and making me pay for them.

[eduardo89]

I said supporting the death penalty BECAUSE they are pro life. I didn't say supporting the death penalty AND also being pro life. It's a subtle difference. Remember I was saying the flashcard crowd siding with corrupt corporations BECAUSE they are free market.

I support the death penalty precisely because I am pro-life.

[GunnyFreedom]

They can.

http://gmoawareness.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/usda-organic-non-gmo-project.jpg

You still pushing that fantasy?

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

FDA only allows a small select group of preferred companies to label GMO free, and never before the GMO counterpart has achieved market dominance.

[GunnyFreedom]

Numbers are WAY off. 93% do not support mandatory GMO labeling. Mandatory labeling is not the answer anyway.

[eduardo89]

You still pushing that fantasy?

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

FDA only allows a small select group of preferred companies to label GMO free, and never before the GMO counterpart has achieved market dominance.

Not true. To be certified organic you must be GMO-free.

Also, the FDA does not regulate the Non-GMO Project.

[RCA]

Let's just say I would like to contract my own trash pickup, snow removal, firefighting services, law enforcement and school services and pay them myself. It would tend to cut the cronyism of bureaucrats hiring their friends for those services and making me pay for them.

Well at least your consistent. Now, as an ancap, how do you justify supporting a politician, especially with money?

[GunnyFreedom]

Non-GMO foods should be allowed to brag about being Non-GMO.

The free market will reward you.

fify

[green73]

A large percentage of libertarians have quick reference flashcard style responses to common topics (bless their hearts, they're still far more intelligent than Boobus). For instance, "the rich are good" or "I support the free market" without examining the issues on deeper levels. For instance, a large portion of rich people ARE NOT good including politicians, lobbyists, corporate CEO's, and on and on. It's the same group that tends to use Atlas Shrugged as one of the ways to show support for the rich despite half of the characters in the novel were rich and caused ruin and destruction. Only a small portion of the virtuous characters in Atlas were rich. Most of the wealth was channeled to the corrupt, as in modern day life. For every true entrepreneur, there's 100 corrupt rich assholes out there. Supporting a corrupt corporation because one is pro "free market" is like supporting the death penalty because they are "pro-life".


I disagree with your numbers completely. For every fascist, government connected crony there are hundreds of entrepreneurs in the market, unaffiliated to government, surviving nonetheless.

[eduardo89]

fify

They are allowed to brag that they are GMO-free. They can get USDA Organic certified or get certified by the Non-GMO Project and add their logo to their product.

[GunnyFreedom]

Not true. To be certified organic you must be GMO-free.

Also, the FDA does not regulate the Non-GMO Project.

Except the FDA will come after you with raids and guns if you label GMO Free and are not on their payoff list. Don't you remember what happened with rBGH free milk?

[GunnyFreedom]

They are allowed to brag that they are GMO-free. They can get USDA Organic certified or get certified by the Non-GMO Project and add their logo to their product.

I'm guessing you don't try to buy GMO free, nor do you talk to the companies who desperately want to label GMO free but do not for fear of FDA raids?

[eduardo89]

Except the FDA will come after you with raids and guns if you label GMO Free and are not on their payoff list. Don't you remember what happened with rBGH free milk?

So which of the 6,000 products who participate in the Non-GMO Project have been raided or shut down by the FDA?

[Cabal]

We have 9,000 other battles to win before we need to start applying the gun in the room on ourselves, especially for such a serious health issue. When they put the guns down, then we can talk about us being equally as pure.

If you contend that the mafia is evil only to then turn around and make use of it and its violence whenever it suits you, then you tend to undermine your own message and cause.

The State will never put the guns down, that's what makes them the State.

[GunnyFreedom]

So which of the 6,000 products who participate in the Non-GMO Project have been raided or shut down by the FDA?

Why don't you label a salmon "GMO-Free" and try selling it. See how long you stay out of prison.

[GunnyFreedom]

So which of the 6,000 products who participate in the Non-GMO Project have been raided or shut down by the FDA?

LOL that's like asking "how many masons are disallowed from entering the masonic lodge." :-p

I can make all the fancy symbols I want and hand them out to my best friends. All that means is I know how to make labels and hend them to my friends.

[RCA]

They are allowed to brag that they are GMO-free. They can get USDA Organic certified or get certified by the Non-GMO Project and add their logo to their product.

So, let me get this straight. A private business selling healthy food has to PAY the State for a State-created official label so other companies selling unhealthy food don't have to put another State-created official GMO label on their own product without paying a fee? How is this in anyway logically consistent?

[GunnyFreedom]

Mandatory labeling is NOT the answer, but I swear this one issue is where way too many of our people get awfully anti-liberty. It's like people don't even care that the FDA gets to decide who labels what and how. We hate government regulation of pretty much EVERYTHING but come around GMO and all the sudden our folk want to worship the feet of the FDA and the USDA. And if those of us who want to avoid GMO don't like it, TOUGH. SMH

[RCA]

If you contend that the mafia is evil only to then turn around and make use of it and its violence whenever it suits you, then you tend to undermine your own message and cause.

The State will never put the guns down, that's what makes them the State.

So you want the State to stop preventing murder, rape, theft and other problems in society right now? Notice: I said right now and not in some utopian libertarian future. If you don't want the State to stop preventing these bad things, then how are you not using the gun to get what you want as well?

[GunnyFreedom]

So, let me get this straight. A private business selling healthy food has to PAY the State for a State-created official label so other companies selling unhealthy food don't have to put another State-created official GMO label on their own product without paying a fee? How is this in anyway logically consistent?

and revoked at a whim!

The FDA sends notice threatening companies with fines raids and shutdowns who dare to label GMO Free without official stasi permission and payoffs to the regulators, and some people thinks that just alright with them. :(

Media doesn't cover it, and now all the sudden on THIS ONE ISSUE people believe the f'n media.

You gotta be careful around these parts. Mention "GMO" and everybody loses their minds.

[69360]

If 93% really supported mandatory labeling, the market would be correcting itself right now.

[Eagles' Wings]

http://www.traderjoes.com/about/customer-updates-responses.asp?i=4

The store I usually visit is very busy, especially after this announcement.

[green73]

Mandatory labeling is NOT the answer, but I swear this one issue is where way too many of our people get awfully anti-liberty. It's like people don't even care that the FDA gets to decide who labels what and how. We hate government regulation of pretty much EVERYTHING but come around GMO and all the sudden our folk want to worship the feet of the FDA and the USDA. And if those of us who want to avoid GMO don't like it, TOUGH. SMH


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

[eduardo89]

So, let me get this straight. A private business selling healthy food has to PAY the State for a State-created official label so other companies selling unhealthy food don't have to put another State-created official GMO label on their own product without paying a fee? How is this in anyway logically consistent?

The Non-GMO Project is not government operated or affiliated.

[RCA]

Mandatory labeling is NOT the answer, but I swear this one issue is where way too many of our people get awfully anti-liberty. It's like people don't even care that the FDA gets to decide who labels what and how. We hate government regulation of pretty much EVERYTHING but come around GMO and all the sudden our folk want to worship the feet of the FDA and the USDA. And if those of us who want to avoid GMO don't like it, TOUGH. SMH

Until companies are freely allowed TO put Non-GMO on foods, and as you clearly pointed out that is not the case, then there's no shame in wanting GMO's labeled. If there were no restrictions on listing Non-GMO, then of course I'd be against mandatory labeling out the gate. When the game is rigged, it's rigged no matter how one tries to polish it up.

[angelatc]

Well, obviously 93% of people are evil for wanting to know what is in their food. Shame on them.

No, 93% of the people are retarded because they believe government intervention will help them.

[green73]

Until companies are freely allowed TO put Non-GMO on foods, and as you clearly pointed out that is not the case, then there's no shame in wanting GMO's labeled. If there were no restrictions on listing Non-GMO, then of course I'd be against mandatory labeling out the gate. When the game is rigged, it's rigged no matter how one tries to polish it up.

SMH

[GunnyFreedom]

If 93% really supported mandatory labeling, the market would be correcting itself right now.

It's not 93%, but it is pretty high. The market is not correcting because it's being distorted by the government.

distortions that are just fine with most of the people around here.

[RCA]

The Non-GMO Project is not government operated or affiliated.

But as Gunny stated, it's still not that easy to do.

[angelatc]

Until companies are freely allowed TO put Non-GMO on foods, and as you clearly pointed out that is not the case, then there's no shame in wanting GMO's labeled. If there were no restrictions on listing Non-GMO, then of course I'd be against mandatory labeling out the gate. When the game is rigged, it's rigged no matter how one tries to polish it up.


You must be too young to remember what happened to organics the last time the 93% got their legislation pushed through. The stupid never ends.

[GunnyFreedom]

The Non-GMO Project is not government operated or affiliated.

Let them try to put "Non-GMO" on a salmon and see how long they stay out of prison.

[mad cow]

So, let me get this straight. A private business selling healthy food has to PAY the State for a State-created official label so other companies selling unhealthy food don't have to put another State-created official GMO label on their own product without paying a fee? How is this in anyway logically consistent?

And yet you want all private businesses to pay the State for a State-created official label and pay for the inspections and certifications in order to do so if the private business and their customers have absolutely no desire whatsoever to have armed State enforcers mandating regulations they neither want,need or desire?

[RCA]

If we're going to "play by the rules" we need to make sure we know ALL the current rules and then decide if we still keep playing by the rules.

[eduardo89]

But as Gunny stated, it's still not that easy to do.

No private product certification is easy to do. And that's how it should be, that way you have assurances that the product is what it says it is.

[RCA]

You must be too young to remember what happened to organics the last time the 93% got their legislation pushed through. The stupid never ends.

Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. Do you care to expound or did you want to beg the question?

[GunnyFreedom]

But as Gunny stated, it's still not that easy to do.

It's way beyond 'not easy.' Products are not allowed by the FDA or the USDA to label "GMO-Free" until their GMO counterparts saturate the markets, making the production of the non-GMO version horribly expensive if not impossible. Ever try to produce non-GMO corn in the US? You have to do it in a greenhouse with HEPA filters. NOW they are allowed to label corn GMO-Free.

It's absurd the power government has here, and even MORE absurd that we have people in the liberty movement defending that fascism.

[eduardo89]

Let them try to put "Non-GMO" on a salmon and see how long they stay out of prison.

They already do:

http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/?catID=17

[RCA]

No private product certification is easy to do. And that's how it should be, that way you have assurances that the product is what it says it is.

The FDA isn't private certification. It's public certification. As far as the Non-GMO, the reasons why it's so hard are due to the thuggery, not the process itself.

[GunnyFreedom]

No private product certification is easy to do. And that's how it should be, that way you have assurances that the product is what it says it is.

so you claim. The companies I talk to face to face who actually try to do it say different.

I will believe the actual producers over just someone with opinion every day of the week.

[Cabal]

So you want the State to stop preventing murder, rape, theft and other problems in society right now? Notice: I said right now and not in some utopian libertarian future. If you don't want the State to stop preventing these bad things, then how are you not using the gun to get what you want as well?

The State is not in the business of prevention--it never has been. Response and 'prosecution' of 'crimes' should not be confused with prevention of crimes.

I'm also not sure what utopia you're referring to, nor do I even begin to understand how you could possibly blame me (or anyone else) for other acts of violence perpetrated by other people.

[eduardo89]

The FDA isn't private certification. It's public certification. As far as the Non-GMO, the reasons why it's so hard are due to the thuggery, not the process itself.

I'm not talking about FDA. Learn to fucking read.

I'm talking about the Non-GMO Project's certification. http://www.nongmoproject.org/

[RCA]

It's way beyond 'not easy.' Products are not allowed by the FDA or the USDA to label "GMO-Free" until their GMO counterparts saturate the markets, making the production of the non-GMO version horribly expensive if not impossible. Ever try to produce non-GMO corn in the US? You have to do it in a greenhouse with HEPA filters. NOW they are allowed to label corn GMO-Free.

It's absurd the power government has here, and even MORE absurd that we have people in the liberty movement defending that fascism.

Exactly, for everyone who is AGAINST mandatory labeling, they should also be AGAINST the current rules and system. But they seem to leave that part out.

[GunnyFreedom]

They already do:

http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/?catID=17

You seriously believe that this market is not horribly distorted by the FDA and the USDA?

The 93% number is bollocks, but somewhere around half would be relatively accurate. The demand is there, why is it not being met?

Do the math. The only way there is a demand in the free market that is not being met is that someone, somewhere is distorting it. And the market is not free.

[RCA]

The State is not in the business of prevention--it never has been. Response and 'prosecution' of 'crimes' should not be confused with prevention of crimes.

I'm also not sure what utopia you're referring to, nor do I even begin to understand how you could possibly blame me (or anyone else) for other acts of violence perpetrated by other people.

Using the State to prosecute these crimes is still using the gun to your advantage. Semantics, but you got me old pal!

[angelatc]

so you claim. The companies I talk to face to face who actually try to do it say different.

I will believe the actual producers over just someone with opinion every day of the week.

Sometimes the producers might lie to you, just because they don't actually want to do the work.

Just wait until you see what the government does with it. They'll either set the bar so high only the corporate farmers can afford to meet it, or dilute it so much the label won't mean anything.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm not talking about FDA. Learn to fucking read.

I'm talking about the Non-GMO Project's certification. http://www.nongmoproject.org/

Yeah, one store brand, and one brand nobody has ever heard of that isn't available anywhere. :rolleyes:

I'm sure the gentleman knows how to read, maybe you need to learn to think.

[RCA]

I'm not talking about FDA. Learn to fucking read.

I'm talking about the Non-GMO Project's certification. http://www.nongmoproject.org/

No, I read, but on TWO counts you didn't read. For starters, you addressed both the USDA and Non-GMO here:


They are allowed to brag that they are GMO-free. They can get USDA Organic certified or get certified by the Non-GMO Project and add their logo to their product.

So, when I was addressing the public certification I was addressing your USDA inclusion. As far as you telling me about Non-GMO, I also referenced that in my same response where you told me to learn to fucking read.

[GunnyFreedom]

Sometimes the producers might lie to you, just because they don't actually want to do the work.

Just wait until you see what the government does with it. They'll either set the bar so high only the corporate farmers can afford to meet it, or dilute it so much the label won't mean anything.

I do not advocate mandatory labeling. You have me confused with somebody else.

Which people ALWAYS do for some bizarre reason whenever this debate comes up.

[mad cow]

The State is not in the business of prevention--it never has been. Response and 'prosecution' of 'crimes' should not be confused with prevention of crimes.

I'm also not sure what utopia you're referring to, nor do I even begin to understand how you could possibly blame me (or anyone else) for other acts of violence perpetrated by other people.

I'm not blaming you for anything unless you are in favor of ordering people at gun-point to label a product that two individuals come to a voluntary agreement to trade between themselves and neither party wants or needs or asks for or wants to pay for a government mandated label on that product.

[GunnyFreedom]

I will never understand how RPF's hates fascism for every little thing, but suddenly GMO comes up and EVERYBODY loves fascism. Whether it's the pro-labelers who want government force to mandate labels, or the anti-labelers who see nothing wrong with the force government is already using to manipulate and distort the markets. I will never understand this. :(

[specsaregood]

Let them try to put "Non-GMO" on a salmon and see how long they stay out of prison.

Better tell all these guys then:
http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/search-by-name/
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/2461/380x.png

You are wrong on this gunny. Point us to one instance of the govt coming down on somebody using the private non-gmo label. thanks in advance.

[RCA]

I do not advocate mandatory labeling. You have me confused with somebody else.

Which people ALWAYS do for some bizarre reason whenever this debate comes up.

But you are at least acknowledging the game is rigged unlike many of the flashcard peeps. And that's all I'm doing in my "support for GMO labeling". I don't actually support it, but when the game is so unbelievably fucked up, I'm willing to throw caution to the wind until AT LEAST the playing field is leveled again. Until then, fuck it.

[eduardo89]

You seriously believe that this market is not horribly distorted by the FDA and the USDA?

I never said otherwise. I'm just calling you out on your claim that no one is able to label their products as GMO-free and you claimed that if people label salmon GMO-free they'll go to prison. I just proved your claim to be false.

[better-dead-than-fed]

I will believe the actual producers over just someone with opinion every day of the week.

No link to testimony from actual producers has been posted. Since all we have is hearsay, there's no reliable way to determine why these particular producers believe what they believe.

[eduardo89]

Yeah, one store brand, and one brand nobody has ever heard of that isn't available anywhere. :rolleyes:

I'm sure the gentleman knows how to read, maybe you need to learn to think.

Uhh...365 available at every single Whole Foods.

[angelatc]

You seriously believe that this market is not horribly distorted by the FDA and the USDA?

The 93% number is bollocks, but somewhere around half would be relatively accurate. The demand is there, why is it not being met?

Do the math. The only way there is a demand in the free market that is not being met is that someone, somewhere is distorting it. And the market is not free.

Maybe the reason that the demand is not being met is because it's not a priority item for most people, and it's just a manufactured crisis. There's no evidence that GMO modified foods harm consumers, so there's no reason to vehemently insist that the food be labeled as such.

In the real world, 93% of the people don't actually care about this even though internet hysteria is at a crescendo. Much like gay marriage.

[angelatc]

Better tell all these guys then:
http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/search-by-name/
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/2461/380x.png

You are wrong on this gunny. Point us to one instance of the govt coming down on somebody using the private non-gmo label. thanks in advance.

Those people aren't allowed to label their salmon as non-GMO.

[GunnyFreedom]

I never said otherwise. I'm just calling you out on your claim that no one is able to label their products as GMO-free and you claimed that if people label salmon GMO-free they'll go to prison. I just proved your claim to be false.

No, you demonstrated that there are exceptions to the FDA Cabal. The same FDA that sends SWAT raids on Rawsome Foods.

There are a LOT of people who want GMO Free who are not being served by the market because the market is fascistic.

You showed one store brand for a company who was just bought out because they are going out of business, and one brand that nobody has ever heard of. That is not the response of a free market to a strong demand.

[mad cow]

Sometimes the producers might lie to you, just because they don't actually want to do the work.

Just wait until you see what the government does with it. They'll either set the bar so high only the corporate farmers can afford to meet it, or dilute it so much the label won't mean anything.

Are you accusing our government of not being fair?They will charge Mom&Pops Produce Stand the same $30,000/year that they will charge WalMart for this mandatory inspection,certification and labeling.
Perfectly fair!

[familydog]

The 93% didn't say they'd be satisfied with simply knowing what's in their food. What they want is mandates:

You must have missed the part where corporate-government entities are spending tens of millions of dollars lobbying governments to prevent it, even at the voluntary level. The people's outrage is understandable.

[angelatc]

No, you demonstrated that there are exceptions to the FDA Cabal. The same FDA that sends SWAT raids on Rawsome Foods.

There are a LOT of people who want GMO Free who are not being served by the market because the market is fascistic.

You showed one store brand for a company who was just bought out because they are going out of business, and one brand that nobody has ever heard of. That is not the response of a free market to a strong demand.

365 is the Whole Foods store brand. I think almost all the food snobs recognize it.

[RCA]

Uhh...365 available at every single Whole Foods.

Holy shit, you're right, the system ISN'T rigged at all! I think I'll go back to 2004 now. Thanks old pal!

[eduardo89]

Those people aren't allowed to label their salmon as non-GMO.

And they're all in jail.

[angelatc]

Holy shit, you're right, the system ISN'T rigged at all! I think I'll go back to 2004 now. Thanks old pal!


That proves you know absolutely nothing about the Whole Foods supply chain.

[green73]

I will never understand how RPF's hates fascism for every little thing, but suddenly GMO comes up and EVERYBODY loves fascism. Whether it's the pro-labelers who want government force to mandate labels, or the anti-labelers who see nothing wrong with the force government is already using to manipulate and distort the markets. I will never understand this. :(

Come on Gunny, plenty here are on your side, the right side. Sadly, most the alternative media who cultivate the thought on this issue are statists, and that opinion gets amplified here by people not well versed in libertarian thought. We have a lot of those people here and on other liberty sites, but they are not everybody. The cream rises to the top, and the cream continues to grow.

[angelatc]

And they're all in jail.

Go to Whole Foods, pick up the 365 salmon, and look for the label. It isn't there. Savvy consumers can check the web site to see if the brand is certified, but the brand can't put the certification on the packages.

[RCA]

You must have missed the part where corporate-government entities are spending tens of millions of dollars lobbying governments to prevent it, even at the voluntary level. The people's outrage is understandable.

Ahh, so refreshing! Finally a non-flashcard response that is seeing the larger picture at work. I was losing hope for a minute. :-)

[GunnyFreedom]

Better tell all these guys then:
http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/search-by-name/
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/2461/380x.png

You are wrong on this gunny. Point us to one instance of the govt coming down on somebody using the private non-gmo label. thanks in advance.

I am not wrong on this, and I've already posted the story where the FDA was cracking down. People have selective seeing around here.

Labeling rBGH free milk is "deceptive" http://www.purefood.org/rbgh/oakhurst101003.cfm

A history of prohibiting GMO-Free labeling http://generationgreen.org/2010/09/truthiness-and-fairness-on-gmo-labels-at-fda/

FDA Threatens companies to prevent GMO Free labeling http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/18/fda-labeled-free-modification/

GMO Advocates agreeing with the FDA's prohibition https://www.fshealth.com/blog/fda-right-gmo-foods-safe-labeling/#.UfmfyGQ4WWE

[FrankRep]

You still pushing that fantasy?

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

FDA only allows a small select group of preferred companies to label GMO free, and never before the GMO counterpart has achieved market dominance.

Are you talking about the Non-GMO Project (http://www.nongmoproject.org/)?

If so, please provide examples.

[angelatc]

I will never understand how RPF's hates fascism for every little thing, but suddenly GMO comes up and EVERYBODY loves fascism. Whether it's the pro-labelers who want government force to mandate labels, or the anti-labelers who see nothing wrong with the force government is already using to manipulate and distort the markets. I will never understand this. :(

Because this is a bullshit side issue. If we ever got anything close to my dream government, the FDA would cease to exist. Until then, bitching about what the FDA does and doesn't do is just a distraction.

[GunnyFreedom]

Come on Gunny, plenty here are on your side, the right side. Sadly, most the alternative media who cultivate the thought on this issue are statists, and that opinion gets amplified here by people not well versed in libertarian thought. We have a lot of those people here and on other liberty sites, but they are not everybody. The cream rises to the top, and the cream continues to grow.

I dunno about that. I am both anti-mandatory labeling, and fascist market anti-status-quo. Every time this debate comes up I get slammed by both sides. :(

[specsaregood]

365 is the Whole Foods store brand. I think almost all the food snobs recognize it.

I would think anybody interested in avoiding gmo foods would recognize it since every single one of the 365 brand products is nongmo certified. and has the label boldly printed on the container. im sure they are all lining up to go to jail...

[angelatc]

Ahh, so refreshing! Finally a non-flashcard response that is seeing the larger picture at work. I was losing hope for a minute. :-)

Wah. Life is so unfair when you're poor. Always the victim....

[eduardo89]

No, you demonstrated that there are exceptions to the FDA Cabal. The same FDA that sends SWAT raids on Rawsome Foods.

They weren't raided for labeling as non-GMO. They were raided for selling raw milk, which is against federal law.


There are a LOT of people who want GMO Free who are not being served by the market because the market is fascistic.

That's why supermarket chains like Whole Foods are growing...


You showed one store brand for a company who was just bought out because they are going out of business, and one brand that nobody has ever heard of. That is not the response of a free market to a strong demand.

lol Whole Foods is going out of business?

http://i.imgur.com/qTgmM45.jpg

They have 400 stores in the US and are still expanding.

[Cabal]

Using the State to prosecute these crimes is still using the gun to your advantage. Semantics, but you got me old pal!

I'm not sure what your point is.

You seem to be equating initiation of violence (murder, rape, theft, etc.) with presumably non-aggressive, non-violent business practices (failure to adequately label products per personal preferences). When the former is committed, there is no longer a necessary obligation to not use force in response. With the latter, it is the State initiating the force by way of mandate. You're seemingly comparing apples and oranges for some reason.

Further, the State has a monopoly on 'justice' and law--there are no other alternatives that do not also make you a criminal in the eyes of the State.

[GunnyFreedom]

Because this is a bullshit side issue. If we ever got anything close to my dream government, the FDA would cease to exist. Until then, bitching about what the FDA does and doesn't do is just a distraction.

Correct, the FDA should not exist AT ALL. Until then we need to defang their power to prevent Non-GMO and rBGH-Free labeling. Pretending like the FDA doesn't have or doesn't exercise that power is absurd.

[specsaregood]

Go to Whole Foods, pick up the 365 salmon, and look for the label. It isn't there. Savvy consumers can check the web site to see if the brand is certified, but the brand can't put the certification on the packages.

I'll have to do that, I would never buy canned salmon but next time I'm there I'll check. Its on every single other 365 brand product.

[angelatc]

Correct, the FDA should not exist AT ALL. Until then we need to defang their power to prevent Non-GMO and rBGH-Free labeling. Pretending like the FDA doesn't have or doesn't exercise that power is absurd.

Yeah, right. Let's pretend we can defang the FDA even if the size and scope of government remains unchanged otherwise.

[better-dead-than-fed]

You must have missed the part where corporate-government entities are spending tens of millions of dollars lobbying governments to prevent it, even at the voluntary level.

I read about that in unsubstantiated propaganda disseminated by communists, but I did miss the part where the propaganda was substantiated by any evidence. No link has been posted to any evidence. ("Controversial informational claims should include a verifiable source of the information or note that the information is 'unverified'." (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989-Usage-Guidelines))


The people's outrage is understandable.

The poll indicates nothing of the sort.

[RCA]

That proves you know absolutely nothing about the Whole Foods supply chain.

There you are begging the question again. You do realize begging the question is a logical fallacy? Or maybe that's your thinly veiled way to respond without responding?

[angelatc]

I'll have to do that, I would never buy canned salmon but next time I'm there I'll check. Its on every single other 365 brand product.

Ah - maybe the key is canned salmon. It's the fresh salmon that can't be labelled.

[angelatc]

There you are begging the question again. You do realize begging the question is a logical fallacy? Or maybe that's your thinly veiled way to respond without responding?

Here's a hint - my husband was a Whole Foods exec for a lot of years.

[green73]

I dunno about that. I am both anti-mandatory labeling, and fascist market anti-status-quo. Every time this debate comes up I get slammed by both sides. :(

What don't you know? Surely, you can agree that proper libertarians don't attack you.

[GunnyFreedom]

I would think anybody interested in avoiding gmo foods would recognize it since every single one of the 365 brand products is nongmo certified. and has the label boldly printed on the container. im sure they are all lining up to go to jail...

http://media.fooducate.com/products/images/180x180/4EA9144D-F91B-CDA2-45E4-AFFB3F34260D.jpeg

[Cabal]

I'm not blaming you for anything unless you are in favor of ordering people at gun-point to label a product that two individuals come to a voluntary agreement to trade between themselves and neither party wants or needs or asks for or wants to pay for a government mandated label on that product.

I tend to universally disapprove of all State imposed mandates. Read my signature, it's there for a reason.

[GunnyFreedom]

What don't you know? Surely, you can agree that proper libertarians don't attack you.

libertarians attack pretty much everybody.

[specsaregood]

Ah - maybe the key is canned salmon. It's the fresh salmon that can't be labelled.

well I dunno, i'll check it out both ways. im interested. is it that its tough to attach a label to a piece of fish?

[RCA]

Because this is a bullshit side issue. If we ever got anything close to my dream government, the FDA would cease to exist. Until then, bitching about what the FDA does and doesn't do is just a distraction.

Christ, you have a DREAM government? At least the founders called it a necessary evil.

[FrankRep]

You still pushing that fantasy?

FDA only allows a small select group of preferred companies to label GMO free, and never before the GMO counterpart has achieved market dominance.

Actually, it's not a fantasy.



USDA approves voluntary GMO-free label (http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2013/06/25/usda-approves-voluntary-gmo-free-label/)


CNN.com
June 25th, 2013


The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) recently approved a label for meat and liquid egg products that would inform consumers about whether the product contains genetically modified ingredients. The approval marks the first time the department has approved a non-GMO label from a third party.

The verification seal comes from the Non-GMO Project (http://www.nongmoproject.org/), a non-profit organization “committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers and providing verified non-GMO choices.” The seal allows consumers to know if the animal product they’re about to consume was fed genetically engineered crops like soy, corn and alfalfa. (The FDA has not approved any genetically modified animals for the food supply, but some animals do eat GMO feed.)

Genetically modified foods were approved for human consumption in the United States in 1995, but the FDA never required them to be labeled as such.

The FDA responded to the Non-GMO Project's labeling efforts in April: “The FDA supports voluntary labeling for food derived from genetic engineering. Currently, food manufacturers may indicate through voluntary labeling whether foods have or have not been developed through genetic engineering provided that such labeling is truthful and not misleading.”

The USDA adopted the Non-GMO Project’s requirements, auditing process and standard. The USDA also must approve all labels before the product is delivered.

According to the Non-GMO Project website, label verification is also offered to entire restaurants and delis for select dishes and individual ingredients.

Chipotle Mexican Grill became the first fast food chain to voluntarily label menu items that contain GMOs; Whole Foods and Ben & Jerry’s have since followed suit.

[angelatc]

They weren't raided for labeling as non-GMO. They were raided for selling raw milk, which is against federal law.



That's why supermarket chains like Whole Foods are growing...



lol Whole Foods is going out of business?

http://i.imgur.com/qTgmM45.jpg

They have 400 stores in the US and are still expanding.


That can't be right. Walmart is driving everybody else out of business, didn't you know that?

[GunnyFreedom]

http://media.fooducate.com/products/images/180x180/4D47FD32-8299-F7A2-444B-ADD8D6944184.jpg

[specsaregood]

http://media.fooducate.com/products/images/180x180/4EA9144D-F91B-CDA2-45E4-AFFB3F34260D.jpeg

It usually on the back next to the ingredients and nutritional info. Like I said, I'll check next time i'm there. I'd be surprised if it wasn't there.

[familydog]

I read about that in unsubstantiated propaganda disseminated by communists, but I did miss the part where the propaganda was substantiated by any evidence. No link has been posted to any evidence. ("Controversial informational claims should include a verifiable source of the information or note that the information is 'unverified'." (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989-Usage-Guidelines))

You poor soul. Your corporate masters are very pleased with the work you do. They will be beaming you new talking points shortly. After Monsanto has no more use for you, Halliburton and Academi eagerly await your steadfast and blind defense.

[RCA]

Wah. Life is so unfair when you're poor. Always the victim....

Now, you're just speaking batshit nonsense.

[GunnyFreedom]

As you can see, such labels are put in front:

http://allnaturalannie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/365_organic_coconut_milk.jpg

[eduardo89]

As you can see, such labels are put in front:

Probably an old picture. Whole Foods still hasn't moved their entire product line to non-GMO. They'll have that done by 2018.

[green73]

Ahh, so refreshing! Finally a non-flashcard response that is seeing the larger picture at work. I was losing hope for a minute. :-)

It doesn’t seem like you're an acap. You're seem part of the same silly strain who want to focus on the symptoms of the disease rather than the vector: government.

[RCA]

Probably an old picture. Whole Foods still hasn't moved their entire product line to non-GMO. They'll have that done by 2018.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what was the story about 6 months ago that Whole Foods had "caved" into the GMO lobby? Something about the ingredients. Was that related to this discussion?

[RCA]

It doesn’t seem like you're an acap. You're seem part of the same silly strain who want to focus on the symptoms of the disease rather than the vector: government.

And it's precisely that government that raids these companies for "non-compliance".

[eduardo89]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what was the story about 6 months ago that Whole Foods had "caved" into the GMO lobby? Something about the ingredients. Was that related to this discussion?

http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/blog/three-month-update-gmo-labeling

[angelatc]

You poor soul. Your corporate masters are very pleased with the work you do. They will be beaming you new talking points shortly. After Monsanto has no more use for you, Halliburton and Academi eagerly await your steadfast and blind defense.

That's pathetic, not evidence.

[GunnyFreedom]

It usually on the back next to the ingredients and nutritional info. Like I said, I'll check next time i'm there. I'd be surprised if it wasn't there.

Even if you were to find one brand that had a label, that doesn't mean the FDA is not distorting the market. You have people who want GMO Free and find it nearly impossible, and you have people who want to provide GMO Free and there are too many hoops to jump through.

Bottom line is there is a market, there is a demand, there are suppliers who want to meet the demand, and yet it is nearly impossible.

The fascism wherewith these markets are controlled IS NOT OK.

[RCA]

http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/blog/three-month-update-gmo-labeling

Maybe this was what I was thinking about. It was longer than 6 months.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22449.cfm

[specsaregood]

As you can see, such labels are put in front:


Often if they are certified organic you want see the nongmo label since technically usda organic is supposed to be nongmo.
I haven't bought much for canned goods in the past year, but found this in my cabinet. (good thing cuz it expires next month)
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8770/ww3x.png

[green73]

libertarians attack pretty much everybody.

Not proper libertarians. That's why it's important to focus on philosophy and disassociate ourselves from the fog mongers of Reason and Cato, etc.

[GunnyFreedom]

Yeah, right. Let's pretend we can defang the FDA even if the size and scope of government remains unchanged otherwise.

Or we can just roll over and not care while people eat things they detest because the FDA is against us and not for us.
Or better yet, we can just laugh at people who are passionate about avoiding thing they consider poison. :(

[RCA]

For the "there's no evidence GMO's are bad crowd", has there not been many studies released showing the opposite? Didn't Russia ban GMO corn or something based on a study?

[FrankRep]

Even if you were to find one brand that had a label, that doesn't mean the FDA is not distorting the market. You have people who want GMO Free and find it nearly impossible, and you have people who want to provide GMO Free and there are too many hoops to jump through.

Bottom line is there is a market, there is a demand, there are suppliers who want to meet the demand, and yet it is nearly impossible.

The fascism wherewith these markets are controlled IS NOT OK.

Have you seen this yet?

USDA Approves Voluntary GMO-Free Label - Non-GMO Project
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?422945-USDA-Approves-Voluntary-GMO-Free-Label-Non-GMO-Project

[GunnyFreedom]

Have you seen this yet?

USDA Approves Voluntary GMO-Free Label - Non-GMO Project
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?422945-USDA-Approves-Voluntary-GMO-Free-Label-Non-GMO-Project

That's pretty recent news. I had not seen it before. Still WHY THE FK do we need USDA 'approval?' That's the problem I'm talking about. :mad:

[RCA]

Have you seen this yet?

USDA Approves Voluntary GMO-Free Label - Non-GMO Project
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?422945-USDA-Approves-Voluntary-GMO-Free-Label-Non-GMO-Project

"recently approved a label for meat and liquid egg products"

[GunnyFreedom]

For the "there's no evidence GMO's are bad crowd", has there not been many studies released showing the opposite? Didn't Russia ban GMO corn or something based on a study?

See I don't give a damn whether it's bad, healthy, or if there is evidence either way. Nobody is arguing that pork is fundamentally unhealthy, but if the government were using it's power to make it hard to know if pork juice was in matzo balls people would be freaking out.

It's called "liberty" and at best this current market is deceptive. Which is anti-liberty.

People who make this out to be whether it's healthy or not are going back to the statist argument for a nanny state. It doesn't freaking matter if it's healthy or not. If Joe don't want it, he shouldn't be deceived into eating it, particularly when backed by government fascism.

[dannno]

It sounds like what we need to do is legalize GMO/non-GMO labeling, not require it.

I would also stick a provision in there not to prosecute any companies making less than $20mil/year in revenue for mis-labelling GMO/non-GMO. I actually don't really care if they mis-label or not because I prefer private agencies to keep track and hold them accountable. Or they may not have the resources to be able to tell whether it is GMO or non-GMO, which is where private agencies come in. I only want the legislation there for the big companies who are sucking government teet and have the resources to ensure GMO or non-GMO in their food labeling. That way when it becomes popular to put non-GMO on foods and bigger companies start to follow the trends of buyers, they will actually have to tell the truth.

[green73]

For the "there's no evidence GMO's are bad crowd", has there not been many studies released showing the opposite? Didn't Russia ban GMO corn or something based on a study?

Has that crowd been vocal in this debate?

[dannno]

It sounds like what we need to do is legalize GMO/non-GMO labeling, not require it.

I would also stick a provision in there not to prosecute any companies making less than $20mil/year in revenue for mis-labelling GMO/non-GMO. I actually don't really care if they mis-label or not because I prefer private agencies to keep track and hold them accountable. Or they may not have the resources to be able to tell whether it is GMO or non-GMO, they can make their best guess and then this will be where private agencies come in. They can help correct the smaller companies, who will want to be truthful and correct mistakes they are making so they can create a trusted brand. I only want the legislation there for the big companies who are sucking government teet and have the resources to ensure GMO or non-GMO in their food labeling. That way when it becomes popular to put non-GMO on foods and bigger companies start to follow the trends of buyers, they will actually have to tell the truth or be held accountable.

I don't think anybody here wants to create a new government agency, we just realize the situation is a bit more fucked up than you do.

[GunnyFreedom]

It sounds like what we need to do is legalize GMO/non-GMO labeling, not require it.

I would also stick a provision in there not to prosecute any companies making less than $20mil/year in revenue for mis-labelling GMO/non-GMO. I actually don't really care if they mis-label or not because I prefer private agencies to keep track and hold them accountable. Or they may not have the resources to be able to tell whether it is GMO or non-GMO, which is where private agencies come in. I only want the legislation there for the big companies who are sucking government teet and have the resources to ensure GMO or non-GMO in their food labeling. That way when it becomes popular to put non-GMO on foods and bigger companies start to follow the trends of buyers, they will actually have to tell the truth.

This would seem to solve everybody's problems. Were this to happen without needing USDA or FDA 'permission' then all KINDS of private market watchdog groups would pop up to police that, and the companies who 'passed' would proudly label for having passed.

It would be a lot like kosher certification.

The FDA and the USDA don't get to tell the kosher people what the can and cannot label. And guess what? IT ACTUALLY WORKS!

[mad cow]

I tend to universally disapprove of all State imposed mandates. Read my signature, it's there for a reason.

Sorry.I replied to the wrong post. :p

Isn't the first time and unfortunately,prolly not the last.

[paulbot24]

libertarians attack pretty much everybody.

Oh whatever. Think you're all badass hiding behind your monitor as you type that. Pussy.:D

[FrankRep]

It sounds like what we need to do is legalize GMO/non-GMO labeling, not require it.


Done.

USDA Approves Voluntary GMO-Free Label - Non-GMO Project
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?422945-USDA-Approves-Voluntary-GMO-Free-Label-Non-GMO-Project

[GunnyFreedom]

Done.

USDA Approves Voluntary GMO-Free Label - Non-GMO Project
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?422945-USDA-Approves-Voluntary-GMO-Free-Label-Non-GMO-Project

Maybe you missed the part where it says "Approves"

[GunnyFreedom]

The power to approve is the power to deny. Anything "approved" by government is regulated by government. USDA "Approval" is the problem. It's called 'fascism.'

[RCA]

Done.

USDA Approves Voluntary GMO-Free Label - Non-GMO Project
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?422945-USDA-Approves-Voluntary-GMO-Free-Label-Non-GMO-Project

How in the shit is this "done"?

"recently approved a label for meat and liquid egg products"

Wishful think much?

[RCA]

It sounds like what we need to do is legalize GMO/non-GMO labeling, not require it.

I would also stick a provision in there not to prosecute any companies making less than $20mil/year in revenue for mis-labelling GMO/non-GMO. I actually don't really care if they mis-label or not because I prefer private agencies to keep track and hold them accountable. Or they may not have the resources to be able to tell whether it is GMO or non-GMO, which is where private agencies come in. I only want the legislation there for the big companies who are sucking government teet and have the resources to ensure GMO or non-GMO in their food labeling. That way when it becomes popular to put non-GMO on foods and bigger companies start to follow the trends of buyers, they will actually have to tell the truth.

This is of course the most logical scenario. Unfortunately we are many lights years away from this happening.

[GunnyFreedom]

This is of course the most logical scenario. Unfortunately we are many lights years away from this happening.

Not as far as you think. It may take a different approach. Kosher certification is done pretty much exactly how dannno describes it. If we argue it as a conscience (or a religious) issue, we will stand to gain more ground in persuading Congress to go 'hands off' on GMO and let the free market do as it pleases on the issue. More people in the US want GMO-Free than those who care about Kosher certs. If we simply change the approach we could get it done.

[FrankRep]

How in the shit is this "done"?

"recently approved a label for meat and liquid egg products"

Wishful think much?


meat and liquid egg products?

http://simplyfrugalliving.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/non-gmo-sign.png

http://www.undergroundhealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/non-gmo-project-foods.jpg

[GunnyFreedom]

meat and liquid egg products?

http://simplyfrugalliving.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/non-gmo-sign.png

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/37768073.jpg

THIS time.

[eduardo89]

Not as far as you think. It may take a different approach. Kosher certification is done pretty much exactly how dannno describes it. If we argue it as a conscience (or a religious) issue, we will stand to gain more ground in persuading Congress to go 'hands off' on GMO and let the free market do as it pleases on the issue. More people in the US want GMO-Free than those who care about Kosher certs. If we simply change the approach we could get it done.

Kosher certification is such a scam and racket here in Mexico. Even Dr. Pepper is "kosher certified" here. Absurd.

[GunnyFreedom]

Kosher certification is such a scam and racket here in Mexico. Even Dr. Pepper is "kosher certified" here. Absurd.

Mexican soda is WAY more likely to actually be Kosher than American soda, actually. And do you really think the government will do a better job than the private market?

[presence]

I support GMO labeling on

a fraud level.

If you're selling bananas that contain genes from monkeys

then you're "false advertising" to claim they are simply bananas.

[eduardo89]

Mexican soda is WAY more likely to actually be Kosher than American soda, actually. And do you really think the government will do a better job than the private market?

Mexican soda is all HFCS.

[GunnyFreedom]

Mexican soda is all HFCS.

o.O

LMAO no it's not

Now you are just making stuff up.

[GunnyFreedom]

I support GMO labeling on a fraud level. If you're selling bananas that contain genes from monkeys then you're "false advertising" to claim they are simply bananas.

I would support adding such to the definition of fraud.

[presence]

Mexican soda is all HFCS.

Actually there is a new trend in NYC to sell Mexican Coke in restaurants at high prices because it actually contains sugar unlike the US equivilent. In Mexico there isn't a corn subsidy so sugar is actually cheaper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Coke

[eduardo89]

o.O

LMAO no it's not

Now you are just making stuff up.

I'll go to 7-11 later tonight and buy a couple different sodas and take pictures of the ingredients list. They ALL say "jarabe de maíz alto en fructosa"

[RCA]

Actually there is a new trend in NYC to sell Mexican Coke in restaurants at high prices because it actually contains sugar unlike the US equivilent. In Mexico there isn't a corn subsidy so sugar is actually cheaper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Coke

Sam's Club even sells this Coke.

[eduardo89]

Actually there is a new trend in NYC to sell Mexican Coke in restaurants at high prices because it actually contains sugar unlike the US equivilent. In Mexico there isn't a corn subsidy so sugar is actually cheaper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Coke

Mexico buys US corn tariff free. I'll buy some Mexican soda later tonight and show you the ingredients list.

[RCA]

Mexico buys US corn tariff free. I'll buy some Mexican soda later tonight and show you the ingredients list.

But you said Mexican soda is all HFCS. So, you'd have to buy a can of each Mexican soda to prove your point.

[torchbearer]

the Mexican "Coca-Cola" products that are sold locally, are bottled- and made with sugar cane.

[GunnyFreedom]

Actually there is a new trend in NYC to sell Mexican Coke in restaurants at high prices because it actually contains sugar unlike the US equivilent. In Mexico there isn't a corn subsidy so sugar is actually cheaper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Coke

Well, yes and no. Most Mexico Coke does use cane sugar, but of all brands they are most likely to allow HFCS into their Mexican product unlabeled. They have lower quality control standards for logistic shipments to and from bottling companies in both countries. Mexican Pepsi is more reliable, but Jarritos is basically guaranteed. One of the problems is that Coke imported from Mexico tends to sit around longer until the sugars invert and you don't get glucose in any significant presence. It does taste better than the HFCS versions we get in the US, and it doesn't bypass the satisfaction reflex like our HFCS drinks do, but I don't trust Coca Cola brand from Mexico as much as I do, well, everything else.

tl;dr Coca-Cola from Mexico is probably sweetened exclusively with cane sugar, but there is company-specific room for doubt that some HFCS may find it's way into the product unlabeled.

[jim49er]

It sounds like what we need to do is legalize GMO/non-GMO labeling, not require it.

I would also stick a provision in there not to prosecute any companies making less than $20mil/year in revenue for mis-labelling GMO/non-GMO. I actually don't really care if they mis-label or not because I prefer private agencies to keep track and hold them accountable. Or they may not have the resources to be able to tell whether it is GMO or non-GMO, which is where private agencies come in. I only want the legislation there for the big companies who are sucking government teet and have the resources to ensure GMO or non-GMO in their food labeling. That way when it becomes popular to put non-GMO on foods and bigger companies start to follow the trends of buyers, they will actually have to tell the truth.

This

[GunnyFreedom]

I'll go to 7-11 later tonight and buy a couple different sodas and take pictures of the ingredients list. They ALL say "jarabe de maíz alto en fructosa"

Why in the frell would Coca-Cola sell HFCS Coke inside Mexico, and every drop of Mexico Coke imported to the US be cane sugar??

[GunnyFreedom]

Mexico buys US corn tariff free. I'll buy some Mexican soda later tonight and show you the ingredients list.

I'm guessing you are seeing American Coke that has been imported to Mexico then, because Mexican Coke is made with Cane Sugar. It's even on the ingredient label in spanish that way. Let me see if I can find an empty around here somewhere....

[Christian Liberty]

I don't support mandatory certification, but I do think if you're selling me corn, and the common definition of corn implies actually, you know, being corn, I think you should have to tell me if you're selling me something that isn't real (Genetically modified) corn.

I don't support laws requiring you to verify it wit anyone, but if its proven that you lied, you could be convicted of fraud.

[Dr.3D]

Why in the frell would Coca-Cola sell HFCS Coke inside Mexico, and every drop of Mexico Coke imported to the US be cane sugar??
The last time I was there, I saw a lot of sugarcane being harvested.

[torchbearer]

The last time I was there, I saw a lot of sugarcane being harvested.

the american sugar cane former choose the dole of the government over free market competition.
now, we all suffer.

edit: i have told this to local cane farmers.

[GunnyFreedom]

19451946

[GunnyFreedom]

Last I checked, "Azucar" means sugar.

[Dr.3D]

Last I checked, "Azucar" means sugar.

Hey, maybe they sell theirs here and the US. Pepsico sells ours there. That way the gringos get the sugar they are looking for and the Mexicans can have HFCS like their friends up north usually have.

:D

[GunnyFreedom]

Hey, maybe they sell theirs here and the US. Pepsico sells ours there. That way the gringos get the sugar they are looking for and the Mexicans can have HFCS like their friends up north usually have.

:D

LOL!

Also, Pepsi has started selling sugar Pepsi in glass bottles here in the US. They actually carry sugar Pepsi and Mountain Dew (Not Throwback!!) in glass bottles in our local Wal-Mart now. This is brand new in the last 6 weeks. Sugar Pepsi and Mexico Coke work WAY better for mixed drinks than anything HFCS.

[eduardo89]

Last I checked, "Azucar" means sugar.

It says "azucares" which means sugars. HFCS counts as sugar. Anyway, I took a couple pictures and will post them once my laptop is done converting the Rand/Lee/Cruz thing for youtube.

I bought Coke, Pepsi, 7 Up, and Dr. Pepper. All list HFCS.

[Danan]

But you are at least acknowledging the game is rigged unlike many of the flashcard peeps.

I find that to be an unfair assertion. Nobody says that the food industry is a beacon of the free market right now. That doesn't change the fact that mandatory labeling doesn't improve the situation at all.

It would be a similar argument to be in favor of mandatory public health insurance and than attack those of us who are against it for "not understanding" that the current health insurance market is rigged. Well then let's work on make it less rigged, rather than making things even worse.

If the private labeling business is really hampered by the government, let's focus on getting rid of that and not on enacting more anti-libertarian mandates.

[GunnyFreedom]

1947194819491950

[GunnyFreedom]

It says "azucares" which means sugars. HFCS counts as sugar. Anyway, I took a couple pictures and will post them once my laptop is done converting the Rand/Lee/Cruz thing for youtube.

I bought Coke, Pepsi, 7 Up, and Dr. Pepper. All list HFCS.

There is no "es" after "Azucar" on this label.

ETA: Do you live in a place that a lot of Americans visit or something? Only thing I can think of is you are buying tourist soda.

ETAA: 1951

[Dr.3D]

1947194819491950
Wow the formula listed on the Pepsi Cola bottle matches that of an old bottle from the '60s.

The HFCS stuff and even the Throwback didn't have that formula from what I can remember.

[GunnyFreedom]

Wow the formula listed on the Pepsi Cola bottle matches that of an old bottle from the '60s.

The HFCS stuff and even the Throwback didn't have that formula from what I can remember.

It's GOOOOOOD too! :D I'd be stocking the stuff for the apocalypse if I could afford to. :p Makes a better mixed drink than even Mexico Coke.

[Dr.3D]

It's GOOOOOOD too! :D I'd be stocking the stuff for the apocalypse if I could afford to. :p Makes a better mixed drink than even Mexico Coke.
Yeah, as I recall, the fizz is fizzier than the HFCS stuff we've had for so long.

[Keith and stuff]

So at the very most, 7% of the US population support pretty principled liberty. Lol. And some people think that if liberty activists just keep doing what they are doing we will solve the problems...

[GunnyFreedom]

Yeah, as I recall, the fizz is fizzier than the HFCS stuff we've had for so long.

It really is. Significantly so. I have to pour it into a glass to drink it it's so fizzy. :p

[GunnyFreedom]

So at the very most, 7% of the US population support pretty principled liberty. Lol. And some people think that if liberty activists just keep doing what they are doing we will solve the problems...

Meh, 1) the 93% figure is clearly wrong, 2) I am confident there is a better way to solve the problem than mandatory labeling, and 3) the issue is not nearly as simple as you are making it out to be.

Just because you do not want a given liberty yourself, does not mean that it's ok to deny that to others. That would be like the non pot smoker saying it's OK to criminalize marijuana just because he, personally didn't care to smoke it.

If some group of private citizens were to kidnap Ron Paul and hold him ransom in a private prison, would our principles require us to just leave him be because we could not trespass on the prison's private property? I think not. We also have to consider the impact on Ron's liberty and weigh it against the prison's property rights, and in all likelihood conclude that a prison break was just fine.

I think the thing that disgusts me the most about this whole subject is the people who treat it like it's all so obvious and black and white when it is obviously not. I don't support mandatory labeling, but I recognize that there is a conflict of personal liberty of self ownership to know what people are eating, and to not be lied to and defrauded in the market, and corporate liberty to label or not label GMO's according to their free will.

The people horrified at GMO are entitled to liberty also. Just because it's not a liberty that YOU care about does not mean it isn't a valid concern, just like Juan McFake doesn't have a right to criminalize cannabis just because HE PERSONALLY doesn't care for the stuff.

Like I said earlier in this thread, this one issue makes everybody in this damn movement blitheringly insane.

[better-dead-than-fed]

... I ... think if you're selling me corn, and the common definition of corn implies actually, you know, being corn, I think you should have to tell me if you're selling me something that isn't real (Genetically modified) corn.

How do you figure that the "common definition of corn" excludes "Genetically modified" corn? Webster's disagrees with you:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corn

The FDA disagrees with you. When you see food labeled "corn" in the U.S., why would you expect that term to mean something different from what the FDA declares it to mean?


The current court-system would defer to the FDA's authority; so the court would reject: "if someone is selling oranges with GMO injected into them, then they must not label them oranges without also disclosing that they had GMO injected into them." We have fair warning that labels are currently governed by the FDA, and we have fair warning that the FDA allows a GMO-orange to be labeled simply "orange"; so I wouldn't see fraud in the case of a GMO-orange labeled simply "orange".

Your point of view, about fraud, assumes that "orange" means something different from what the FDA declares it to mean. The courts wouldn't see it your way.

Taxonomists disagree with you.


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.

Is your "common definition of corn" written anywhere I can see it?

[GunnyFreedom]

Monsanto is using the guns of government via captured regulators to hold the truth hostage. That some people are willing to pull out their own guns in order to free the truth is no surprise to me. What does surprise me is the utter lack of empathy for their dilemma coming from some quarters around here.

[GunnyFreedom]

This is NOT a human being no matter what it looks like or how it moves:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIsJ42BsPcQ

[better-dead-than-fed]

You must have missed the part where corporate-government entities are spending tens of millions of dollars lobbying governments to prevent it, even at the voluntary level.I read about that in unsubstantiated propaganda disseminated by communists, but I did miss the part where the propaganda was substantiated by any evidence. No link has been posted to any evidence. ("Controversial informational claims should include a verifiable source of the information or note that the information is 'unverified'." (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989-Usage-Guidelines))You poor soul. Your corporate masters are very pleased with the work you do. They will be beaming you new talking points shortly. After Monsanto has no more use for you, Halliburton and Academi eagerly await your steadfast and blind defense.

But why are you so firmly attached to a belief that is supported by no evidence?

[mad cow]

How do you figure that the "common definition of corn" excludes "Genetically modified" corn? Webster's disagrees with you:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corn


From your link:

Rhymes with CORN

born, borne, bourn, horn, lorn, morn, mourn, Norn, Orne, porn, scorn, thorn, warn, Zorn

A man could write a pretty good rap song using that.Especially if he called himself DJ Zorn.

[GunnyFreedom]

From your link:


A man could write a pretty good rap song using that.Especially if he called himself DJ Zorn.

"corn" obviously includes green moon cheese. Websters doesn't deny it, therefore I win. :p :D

[XTreat]

What % support free ice cream on Fridays?

[better-dead-than-fed]

"corn" obviously includes green moon cheese. Websters doesn't deny it, therefore I win. :p :D

But Webster actually does deny it.

What's the point in pretending that a word has some "common" definition, when there's no evidence that it does? If you want to make up your own definitions for words, that's your right; but your only case in court is going to be that you defrauded yourself by pretending that your made-up definitions were "common".


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.

[GunnyFreedom]

One should always take the word of the head philosophunculist at face value. A lack of denial indicates positive proof, and blatant counterindications are irrelevant to predisposed agendas. We don't much care about truth or reality here. /s

I don't give a damn if the Pope himself writes ex-cathedra that frogs are now allowed to have sex with potatoes. Stringing a bunch of fallacies together until they resonate does not make a rational argument. Argument Ex Silentio, Appeal To Authority, There Is No Alternative, Appeal to Common Practice, Bandwagon, and Popularity.

So what if taxonomists tell us that a tomato-fish hybrid is just a tomato. All that means is that the taxonomists are wrong. It wouldn't be the first time that science has been perverted in pursuit of an agenda.

If you are looking for people who bow and scrape because some lab-coated 'expert' makes a dubious claim, then you are looking at the wrong people. Ben Bernanke can tell me all day long how printing money makes for a sound currency and all day long I'm going to tell him to stick it where the sun don't shine.

Today, we find megacorps like Monsanto perverting science in an attempt to murder common sense. Fish don't breed with tomatos, monkeys don't breed with corn, and humans don't breed with rice.

Androids aren't people, and just because a horse can mate with a donkey doesn't make either one a mule.

I don't care if someone has thirty degrees from MIT and tenure at Harvard, if he tells me that a frog-tomato hybrid is really just a tomato, then I'm gonna know that he's not really all that bright. :)

[better-dead-than-fed]

We don't much care about truth or reality here. /s

But a definition is neither true nor false. It is just a mentally constructed association between a term and a meaning.


I don't care if someone has thirty degrees from MIT and tenure at Harvard, if he tells me that a frog-tomato hybrid is really just a tomato, then I'm gonna know that he's not really all that bright.

Is this relevant to the question of whether fraud is being committed? How?

There's no evidence that the definitions you prefer are "common". How bright would it be to assume that the person who labeled a food in the U.S. had disregarded the definitions codified by the FDA and taxonomists? How would you convince a jury that you had a reasonable expectation the label was not written in the FDA's language?

[GunnyFreedom]

LOL I don't care if you trot 535 members of Congress, 9 members of the Supreme Court, and the President himself out to claim that a fish-tomato hybrid was really just a tomato, all 545 of them would be wrong. Truth is not contingent on popularity, no matter how popular the story may be.

[GunnyFreedom]

At one point, every single human being alive thought the world was flat. That didn't make the world actually flat.

[better-dead-than-fed]

At one point, every single human being alive thought the world was flat. That didn't make the world actually flat.

And your believing that your personal definitions are "common" doesn't make them actually common. You may convince a jury that your definitions are smarter than the FDA's; but that would be irrelevant to the question of fraud. You're not even pretending to have a reasonable expectation that the person writing the labels would be disregarding the FDA's definitions. So congratulations on being smarter than the FDA, but sorry you can't claim you're being defrauded.

[fearthereaperx]

"Wild caught" label implies non-gmo. Plus, Gmo salmon has not been approved yet by the FDA.

[better-dead-than-fed]

You must have missed the part where corporate-government entities are spending tens of millions of dollars lobbying governments to prevent it, even at the voluntary level.

In my earlier response (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?422932-93-percent-support-mandatory-labeling-of-GMO-foods&p=5152657&viewfull=1#post5152657) I forgot to mention, independent labs are totally free to inform consumers about food content. Neither Monsanto nor the government is preventing this in any way. It would be happening already, if consumers wanting information had organized to petition the private sector, instead of spending their time parroting communist disinformation.

[presence]

"Wild caught" label implies non-gmo. Plus, Gmo salmon has not been approved yet by the FDA.


On 25 December 2012, the FDA published a draft Environmental assessment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental_Policy_Act#Environmental_as sessment) for Aquadvantage salmon.[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_salmon#cite_note-FOOTNOTEFDADecember_2012-24)
The FDA also published a preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental_Policy_Act#Finding_of_No_Si gnificant_Impact).[25] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_salmon#cite_note-FOOTNOTEFDAMay_2012-25)
There was to be a 60 day period for the public to comment before the FDA reviewed Aquadvantage salmon again.[26] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_salmon#cite_note-FOOTNOTEFederal_Register2012-26)[27] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_salmon#cite_note-Reardon1-27)

As of May 2013, the public comment period officially ended.

The FDA is now scheduled to finalize its assessment.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_salmon#cite_note-FOOTNOTELedford2013-7)



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_salmon

[Danan]

There already are laws against fraud. If you buy a genetically modified banana and believe you've been defrauded you can already sue the seller for false labeling. A judge will then decide whether or not your claim that GMO-bananas are not really bananas is valid.

And even if there are some terrible laws in the books right now preventing you from doing that, then that's the real problem. You don't need a special legal law saying that only non-GMO food may be labeled with its common name. Such a law law would be anti-liberty.

If judges usually wouldn't agree with you that just because something has been genetically modified in a lab rather than through selective breeding you may not call it by its common name doesn't change any of this. That's how law is supposed to work.

[GunnyFreedom]

And your believing that your personal definitions are "common" doesn't make them actually common. You may convince a jury that your definitions are smarter than the FDA's; but that would be irrelevant to the question of fraud. You're not even pretending to have a reasonable expectation that the person writing the labels would be disregarding the FDA's definitions. So congratulations on being smarter than the FDA, but sorry you can't claim you're being defrauded.

I never said the definition was 'common,' only that it was true. Distorting my argument until it fits into the logical fallacy of Appeal to Popularity is a good trick but it's not going to work. I could be the only person on the planet out of seven billion souls who maintains that frog DNA does not make a tomato, and then I will be the only person on the planet who is correct. :)

Selling me a frog and calling it a tomato is fraud.

[GunnyFreedom]

There already are laws against fraud. If you buy a genetically modified banana and believe you've been defrauded you can already sue the seller for false labeling. A judge will then decide whether or not your claim that GMO-bananas are not really bananas is valid.

And even if there are some terrible laws in the books right now preventing you from doing that, then that's the real problem. You don't need a special legal law saying that only non-GMO food may be labeled with its common name. Such a law law would be anti-liberty.

If judges usually wouldn't agree with you that just because something has been genetically modified in a lab rather than through selective breeding you may not call it by its common name doesn't change any of this. That's how law is supposed to work.

Why is it that we in this movement distrust the government, the laws, and the just-us system, until it comes to this one issue and then all the sudden we put this faith in them to match every other tv-zombiefied American running around telling us how free we are? Is it just because you, personally, don't really care so therefore the freedom to avoid frankenfruit shouldn't be afforded to anybody because you, personally don't care?

[Danan]

I never said the definition was 'common,' only that it was true. Distorting my argument until it fits into the logical fallacy of Appeal to Popularity is a good trick but it's not going to work. I could be the only person on the planet out of seven billion souls who maintains that frog DNA does not make a tomato, and then I will be the only person on the planet who is correct. :)

Selling me a frog and calling it a tomato is fraud.

Definitions can't be true or false by default. If I define the word "tree" to mean my monitor that's not wrong. It's just completely uncommon and stupid. That's why in cases of fraud it is actually very important to find out if the word on the label was "common" to describe the good or if there was a reasonable expectation not to be sold GMO-food (which can only be determined by looking at particular cultural norms).

[Danan]

Why is it that we in this movement distrust the government, the laws, and the just-us system, until it comes to this one issue and then all the sudden we put this faith in them to match every other tv-zombiefied American running around telling us how free we are? Is it just because you, personally, don't really care so therefore the freedom to avoid frankenfruit shouldn't be afforded to anybody because you, personally don't care?

I don't know what you're talking about. I have the exact same position on every other issue too.

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't know what you're talking about. I have the exact same position on every other issue too.

You believe that right and wrong and justice should rely on the courts as-is?

[Fredom101]

There is nothing libertarian about mandatory labels.

True. There is also nothing libertarian about forcing people to pay for defending some other people thousands of miles away. Israel comes to mind.

[Fredom101]

Why is it that we in this movement distrust the government, the laws, and the just-us system, until it comes to this one issue and then all the sudden we put this faith in them to match every other tv-zombiefied American running around telling us how free we are? Is it just because you, personally, don't really care so therefore the freedom to avoid frankenfruit shouldn't be afforded to anybody because you, personally don't care?

Exactly. As libertarians, we need to understand that there is ALWAYS another way than government force to solve problems. 93% want labeling? Great! Don't buy ANY company's food that does not label. They will start labeling REALLY fast. No force involved, just voting with feet.

[GunnyFreedom]

Definitions can't be true or false by default. If I define the word "tree" to mean my monitor that's not wrong. It's just completely uncommon and stupid. That's why in cases of fraud it is actually very important to find out if the word on the label was "common" to describe the good or if there was a reasonable expectation not to be sold GMO-food (which can only be determined by looking at particular cultural norms).

Sorry, if you define the word "tree" to mean your monitor that would be wrong. There is such a thing as objective truth. The truth is not dependent on individual perspectives, and culture does not dictate what is right and wrong, regardless of expectations. In 1940 Germany, it was the cultural norm to round up Jews and send them to Auschwitz. Popularity has no bearing on rightness, wrongness, liberty, or justice.

[Danan]

You believe that right and wrong and justice should rely on the courts as-is?

I believe that if there ought to be legal laws at all (which I don't believe to be necessary) then only those who are compatible with libertarianism should exist (for instance a very unspecific law against fraud).

Subsequently the justice system, not the legal system, is supposed to judge whether or not particular individual cases constitue fraud (or murder, theft, etc.) and thus a common law system based on natural rights emerges.

So I didn't say anything about "courts as-is". Courts today are bound to judge based on the legal laws made by politicians. I don't like that system at all. What I'm proposing is to get rid of all laws with regards to fraud, other than maybe one saying, "Fraud is illegal." (which wouldn't even be necessary as long as have libertarian property rights and the NAP from which it follows that fraud is a violation of rights anyways).

Subsequently the justice system is supposed to take care of these cases. If for whatever reason they are not fit to do their job, then fix the justice system, rather than enacting laws against GMO food being sold without specific labeling.

[Eagles' Wings]

http://gmo-awareness.com/2013/02/02/is-trader-joes-organic-gmo-free/

Must read article about Trader Joe's that alludes to the bigger picture of WHO is involved in our food production.

http://www.cornucopia.org/who-owns-organic/

[GunnyFreedom]

Exactly. As libertarians, we need to understand that there is ALWAYS another way than government force to solve problems. 93% want labeling? Great! Don't buy ANY company's food that does not label. They will start labeling REALLY fast. No force involved, just voting with feet.

I oppose mandatory labeling, but the issue is not as simple as you make it out to be. There are two sets of liberties in direct conflict here, and to just ignore either one is to not see the whole picture.

If your best friend were kidnapped off the street by a ransom cartel and held hostage on a private compound, would you say that libertarian principles against the violation of private property prevent any kind of rescue effort? No, you would recognize that the cartel's private property rights must be weighed against your friend's right to liberty, conclude that your friend has the greatest claim, and then assemble a posse and go rescue him.

Likewise in the GMO debate there are conflicting sets of rights.

Monsanto is using the guns of government via captured regulators to hold the truth hostage from a people who want to know it in the range of 33-50%. Some people advocate taking up their own guns to rescue the truth from the clutches of Monsanto (State by state mandatory labeling initiatives). I am confident there is a better way, but I recognize that there is a conflict of natural rights here.

You can clearly see that there is strong passion amongst a lot of people to avoid GMO, so pretending it's not an issue is an abdication of reason. When captured regulation is deployed to prevent knowledge that would otherwise have been revealed, it is a fascistic governmental practice that is being levied against those who want to be GMO free. The activism surrounding GMO Free reveals a sizeable market demand that until now the market has not provided to meet because it has been distorted by the Federal Government, and is only now by sheer force of will bulling through the federal red tape and starting to provide for that demand, albeit extremely fettered by the FDA and the USDA requiring 'official permission' for every cert and decision.

I GET that you, personally don't care about GMO. That's OK - I personally don't care about drugs, or torrents, or sodamy laws. Nevertheless, I fight against those injustices because it doesn't matter if a given liberty affects me or not -- if I am willing to stand by and watch others stripped of their liberty merely because I do not care about that issue, then I neither deserve, nor will I have liberty myself.

BOTH sides of this debate have legitimate liberty claims. The companies have a liberty claim over labeling their own product. Whether it is the freedom to label as they please or the freedom to not label as their please. The consumers have a liberty claim under the freedom of conscience to avoid eating something they consider not merely poison, but a violation of natural laws on the order of blasphemy, which thing has heretofore been secreted into their food unawares, and using the guns of government to enforce that lack of awareness. Their claim to liberty is no less valid than that of a political prisoner locked in a gulag.

When we dismiss other people's right to be free in something just because we, ourselves, do not care about that something, then we will neither have, nor deserve to be free ourselves.

[Danan]

Sorry, if you define the word "tree" to mean your monitor that would be wrong. There is such a thing as objective truth. The truth is not dependent on individual perspectives, and culture does not dictate what is right and wrong, regardless of expectations. In 1940 Germany, it was the cultural norm to round up Jews and send them to Auschwitz. Popularity has no bearing on rightness, wrongness, liberty, or justice.

You are incorrect. It's true that there is objective truth. For instance, it would be objectively true to say that the word "tree" is commonly defined to mean a plant with roots, a trunk, branches and leafs or needles.

A definition is not in the realm of objective truth. You can't define something in such a way that it is wrong - per definition that's impossible.


In formal languages like mathematics, a "stipulative" definition guides a specific discussion. A stipulative definition can only be disproved by showing a logical contradiction.[2] A stipulative definition might be considered a temporary, working definition. On the other hand, a "descriptive" definition can be shown to be "right" or "wrong" with reference to general usage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition

[Eagles' Wings]

@Eduardo

Since there is very little about our food production that we can be truly sure of, we continue to enjoy our beautiful Catholic prayer of blessing over our meals each time we gather.

"Bless us, Oh Lord, and these Thy gifts, which we are about to receive, from Thy bounty through Christ Our Lord. Amen."

[presence]

I hold that if you put anything on the label you should have to put everything on the label. If you want to sell a box of unlabelled shit for $10 fine. But

if you put a label on it

and say

in print

that this "box contains: horse shit" and you sell it

knowing full well

its full of "bullshit". Then that's

fraud.


Bananas that contain genes from monkeys are not bananas any moreso than horse shit is bullshit. So if you want to stick them on the shelf and sell them... fine do so... but don't label them bananas, don't price them as bananas, don't advertise them as bananas. You can call them GMO bananas, banana shaped fruits; you can call them banana like substance; banana flavored fruit product. You can call them biotech bananas... or whatever PC promotional name you'd like to attach to them, but don't call them "bananas": They're not and its fraud to imply they are.

[GunnyFreedom]

I believe that if there ought to be legal laws at all (which I don't believe to be necessary) then only those who are compatible with libertarianism should exist (for instance a very unspecific law against fraud).

Subsequently the justice system, not the legal system, is supposed to judge whether or not particular individual cases constitue fraud (or murder, theft, etc.) and thus a common law system based on natural rights emerges.

So I didn't say anything about "courts as-is". Courts today are bound to judge based on the legal laws made by politicians. I don't like that system at all. What I'm proposing is to get rid of all laws with regards to fraud, other than maybe one saying, "Fraud is illegal." (which wouldn't even be necessary as long as have libertarian property rights and the NAP from which it follows that fraud is a violation of rights anyways).

Subsequently the justice system is supposed to take care of these cases. If for whatever reason they are not fit to do their job, then fix the justice system, rather than enacting laws against GMO food being sold without specific labeling.

First and foremost, who says that a law defining the purveyance of GMO as though it were natural would be unspecific?

Secondly, the justice system makes rulings not according to gut feeling but according to law. If there were not a law defining the selling of arsenic as though it were medicine was fraud, it wouldn't matter what a judge 'felt' the guilty party would be set free.

Thirdly, without some guidance on what constitutes fraud, the justice system would be several orders of magnitude more chaotic and arbitrary than it is today.

Your suggestion was that if someone believed they were being defrauded by purchasing a GMO product sold as though it were natural, they should take it to court and battle it out. That suggestion is absurd, because there is no statutory guidance for GMO fraud so the case would never be considered in the first place. The implication being that if you can't make progress in the courts therefore you were not really defrauded. Therefore you were relying on the courts as they are currently composed to argue that purchasing GMO products as though they were natural is not fraud.

You can't have it both ways. Either the courts are broken and such a decision is without merit, or the courts are fine and their decision carries weight.

[GunnyFreedom]

You are incorrect. It's true that there is objective truth. For instance, it would be objectively true to say that the word "tree" is commonly defined to mean a plant with roots, a trunk, branches and leafs or needles.

A definition is not in the realm of objective truth. You can't define something in such a way that it is wrong - per definition that's impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition

Truth is not subject to popularity or the lack thereof. Therefore 'commonness' is irrelevant. Indeed, there are at least three formally recognized logical fallacies around that fact.

[Danan]

Bananas that contain genes from monkeys are not bananas any moreso than horse shit is bullshit.

The crux of the issue is whether or not genetically modified bananas are still bananas and may be labeled in such a manner. Just because you say no so doesn't make it true. I'm not saying that it's necessarily right or wrong. But I'm also not going to say that I have the knowledge required to make that decision. That's why judges, with the help of taxonomists, biologists, linguists, etc. should decide on those issues, not politicians.

[Danan]

First and foremost, who says that a law defining the purveyance of GMO as though it were natural would be unspecific?

Secondly, the justice system makes rulings not according to gut feeling but according to law. If there were not a law defining the selling of arsenic as though it were medicine was fraud, it wouldn't matter what a judge 'felt' the guilty party would be set free.

Thirdly, without some guidance on what constitutes fraud, the justice system would be several orders of magnitude more chaotic and arbitrary than it is today.

Your suggestion was that if someone believed they were being defrauded by purchasing a GMO product sold as though it were natural, they should take it to court and battle it out. That suggestion is absurd, because there is no statutory guidance for GMO fraud so the case would never be considered in the first place. The implication being that if you can't make progress in the courts therefore you were not really defrauded. Therefore you were relying on the courts as they are currently composed to argue that purchasing GMO products as though they were natural is not fraud.

You can't have it both ways. Either the courts are broken and such a decision is without merit, or the courts are fine and their decision carries weight.

That's untrue. Common law systems worked in exactly this manner for hundreds or even thousands of years and there was no problem with them. In fact, the only reason why we drifted away from them is because our dear rulers one day realized that the common law system is an annoying boundary on their power and slowly but surely got rid of it.

[GunnyFreedom]

The crux of the issue is whether or not genetically modified bananas are still bananas and may be labeled in such a manner. Just because you say no so doesn't make it true. I'm not saying that it's necessarily right or wrong. But I'm also not going to say that I have the knowledge required to make that decision. That's why judges, with the help of taxonomists, biologists, linguists, etc. should decide on those issues, not politicians.

That's not how ANY government works. Judges render decisions based on the law, and the law is written by legislators. If there were no statutes governing murder, then judges would set murderers free for a lack of a crime on which to convict them. Laws are not written by judges and scientists. Not in this, or any nation on the planet.

[Danan]

Truth is not subject to popularity or the lack thereof. Therefore 'commonness' is irrelevant. Indeed, there are at least three formally recognized logical fallacies around that fact.

Who decides what a "true" definition is? How do you test the truthfullness of a definition? If I call my monitor "tree" how in the world are you going to tell me that this is objectively wrong (other than showing me that the common definition of these words is different)?

If tomorrow people started to use the terms "tree" and "monitor" exactly the other way around and continued to do so until the end of time do you seriously believe that people in a few hundred years would be objectively "wrong" to say "tree" to their monitors? On what basis, other than on former common use of the terms?

[Danan]

That's not how ANY government works. Judges render decisions based on the law, and the law is written by legislators. If there were no statutes governing murder, then judges would set murderers free for a lack of a crime on which to convict them. Laws are not written by judges and scientists. Not in this, or any nation on the planet.

And that's exactly the problem with todays society. Politicians write laws. That's what's supposed to change.

[GunnyFreedom]

That's untrue. Common law systems worked in exactly this manner for hundreds or even thousands of years and there was no problem with them. In fact, the only reason why we drifted away from them is because our dear rulers one day realized that the common law system is an annoying boundary on their power and slowly but surely got rid of it.

Common law largely regards precedents that were set in the adjudication of civil law.

If the King of England and his Parliament had not originally decreed that murder was illegal, then there would not have been common law precedent surrounding the adjudication of murder.

[Danan]

Common law largely regards precedents that were set in the adjudication of civil law.

If the King of England and his Parliament had not originally decreed that murder was illegal, then there would not have been common law precedent surrounding the adjudication of murder.

So until the first king ruled that murder was unrightful, people had no idea that murdering other human beings was a violation of their natural rights?

[GunnyFreedom]

Who decides what a "true" definition is? How do you test the truthfullness of a definition? If I call my monitor "tree" how in the world are you going to tell me that this is objectively wrong (other than showing me that the common definition of these words is different)?

If tomorrow people started to use the terms "tree" and "monitor" exactly the other way around and continued to do so until the end of time do you seriously believe that people in a few hundred years would be objectively "wrong" to say "tree" to their monitors? On what basis, other than on former common use of the terms?

That's why we study logic, to progress from premises to conclusions while avoiding formal or informal fallacies.

You would define a tree as a living organism in the plantae kingdom with certain characteristics, and then you would define a monitor as a manmade device with a certain purpose and characteristics, identify logical contradictions between the two items, and use formal logic to demonstrate that the one cannot be the other.

If the other party in the debate cannot agree on the premise of what is a tree, then you do not have the common foundation for a proper debate, and there would be no point to the exercise.

[presence]

And that's exactly the problem with todays society. Politicians write laws. That's what's supposed to change.

Lobbyists from the cartels write law to reflect the truth found in paid scientific shill studies.
Politicians just just sign off to keep the campaign contributions flowing.

[GunnyFreedom]

And that's exactly the problem with todays society. Politicians write laws. That's what's supposed to change.

Sorry, I am a constitutionalist. The Constitution provides for a legislative body. Obviously Congress has been woefully perverted, but to advocate the abolition of Congress is not a premise I share.

[GunnyFreedom]

So until the first king ruled that murder was unrightful, people had no idea that murdering other human beings was a violation of their natural rights?

Well, that goes back well before England of course, but essentially yes. It was some ~4000 years ago that the Code of Hammurabi recognized murder as a crime; and some of the Judeo-Christian persuasion (like myself) point to Genesis 9 as the origin of the definition of murder as wrong. From that point it was considered 'law,' and all kingdoms that formed afterward formally recognized it as law that murder was wrong, including the King of England and his Parliament.

[GunnyFreedom]

Lobbyists from the cartels write law to reflect the truth found in paid scientific shill studies.
Politicians just just sign off to keep the campaign contributions flowing.

Correct, politicians do NOT write the laws, they merely advocate for the lobbies and the special interests who DO write the laws. The politicians who actually DO write their own bills, such as Ron Paul, do not find their bills passed into law because the special interests and the lobbies oppose them. This, obviously, is what is broken in our system today.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Who decides what a "true" definition is? How do you test the truthfulness of a definition? ... On what basis, other than on ... common use of the terms?


Truth is not subject to popularity or the lack thereof. Therefore 'commonness' is irrelevant. Indeed, there are at least three formally recognized logical fallacies around that fact.

And so you see, people who speak Spanish and French aren't just speaking other languages, they are using the objectively wrong words for virtually everything. I have had a thousand Mexicans try to tell me that an orange is a "naranja", but I knew better. I knew that it was really an orange.

I don't give a damn if the Pope himself writes ex-cathedra that frogs are now allowed to have sex with potatoes. Stringing a bunch of fallacies together until they resonate does not make a rational argument. Argument Ex Silentio, Appeal To Authority, There Is No Alternative, Appeal to Common Practice, Bandwagon, and Popularity.

So what if Mexicans tell us that an orange is a "naranja". All that means is that the Mexicans are wrong. It wouldn't be the first time that science has been perverted in pursuit of an agenda.

If you are looking for people who bow and scrape because some lab-coated 'expert' makes a dubious claim, then you are looking at the wrong people. Ben Bernanke can tell me all day long how printing money makes for a sound currency and all day long I'm going to tell him to stick it where the sun don't shine.

Today, we find nations like Mexico and France perverting language in an attempt to murder common sense. Bananas aren't oranges, and neither are naranjas.

I don't care if a Mexican has thirty degrees from MIT and tenure at Harvard, if he tells me that an orange is a "naranja", then I'm gonna know he's using the objectively wrong word.

[FrankRep]

Just a reminder

GMO free products can label themselves Non-GMO.

http://www.vivapura.biz/VP2/Non-GMO_Project_files/NON-GMO%20LOGO.jpg (http://www.nongmoproject.org/)

[GunnyFreedom]

Just a reminder

GMO free products can label themselves Non-GMO.

http://www.vivapura.biz/VP2/Non-GMO_Project_files/NON-GMO%20LOGO.jpg (http://www.nongmoproject.org/)

Only with official stasi permission.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Bananas that contain genes from monkeys are not bananas any moreso than horse shit is bullshit.

So you are speaking a different language than the FDA is, at least when it comes to the word "banana". That's your prerogative, and you are not the first person to make up his own language. I have seen it before:

http://youtu.be/Kuzla1IYUGA?t=7m9s

But why would you expect the person writing the labels to use your language, instead of the FDA's language? You should know that the people writing the labels are going to use the FDA's language. If you pretend not to expect this, then it is you who is committing the fraud.

[GunnyFreedom]

The FDA is as bad as the Federal Reserve Bank. I don't know why anybody in the liberty movement would trust anything that the FDA has to say.

[better-dead-than-fed]

I don't know why anybody in the liberty movement would trust anything that the FDA has to say.

When the FDA says something, it would be foolish to deny that the FDA has said it; and it would be sinful, deceitful propaganda to construe an observation of the FDA's conduct as "trust in the FDA".

If a person pretends not to expect label-writers to use the FDA's language, then he is sinning and committing fraud.