Stop Monsanto’s Secret Plan to Kill GMO Labeling Today

[libertygrl]

Last week Vermont passed the 1st "no strings attached" GMO labeling bill in the U.S. and now Monsanto and giant food companies are scheming behind the scenes with members of Congress to kill mandatory state GMO labeling efforts and replace it with a gutted version of a bill by Koch brothers' Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) to preempt states' rights and give the illusion of serious regulation.

This plan is so devious that it radically speeds up the approval process for new GMO crops, limits the FDA and USDA’s ability to extend premarket safety reviews, declares GMO foods “safe” and redefines genetically engineered foods as “bioengineered” in order to sanitize this deeply flawed technology to the American public.

Even worse, FDA Commissioner Hamburg is planning to go along with it - not only promising gutted "voluntary" labeling standards, but even going so far as to claim that GMOs are perfectly safe! Think they’re going to start telling the truth about GMOs now?

This is a blatant power grab to deny Americans their basic right to mandatory GMO labeling and protect flawed GMO products - and we can’t allow them to get away with it. We need your help today. Every voice counts!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EM78yAopZ8

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/stop_Monsanto_and_Big_Foods_secret_plan_to_kill_GM O_labeling/?t=3&akid=1207.519397.uQ4XVb


https://twitter.com/food_democracy

URGENT: We need everyone that wants #GMOs to be labeled to tweet #stopmonsanto #stopdarkact #stoppompeo RT!

RT #StopDarkAct

[specsaregood]

This is a blatant power grab to deny Americans their basic right to mandatory GMO labeling

Since when do americans have a right to force others to label anything?

[Natural Citizen]

Relevant thread... Koch ally to introduce Monsanto-backed bill to bar state GMO labeling laws (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?448892-Koch-ally-to-introduce-Monsanto-backed-bill-to-bar-state-GMO-labeling-laws&p=5480104&viewfull=1#post5480104)

Thanks for the update, libertygrl.

[Natural Citizen]

Since when do americans have a right to force others to label anything?

Have you read this bill? The terms of controversy are a tad bit broader than the argument you seem to want to make. This industry bill completely kills states rights and specifically makes it law that you can never know what you are eating and it also removes the states right to protect it's people from the fed. This removes choice. It removes the means to make a knowledgable choice and compete in the free market. What it does is that it protects the industry from the free market. This is mercantilism.

[specsaregood]

Have you read this bill? The terms of controversy are a tad bit broader than the argument you seem to want to make. This industry bill completely kills states rights and specifically makes it law that you can never know what you are eating and it also removes the states right to protect it's people from the fed. This removes choice. It removes the means to make a knowledgable choice and compete in the free market. What it does is that it protects the industry from the free market. This is mercantilism.

I'm not arguing about the bill or states rights, I took issue with the exact statement I quoted. You and I have no "basic right" to force others to label anything.

[CaptUSA]

I'm with ya, specs.

Labeling is nice. Mandatory labeling? Not so nice.

[Natural Citizen]

I'm not arguing about the bill or states rights

I am. I'd also argue in favor of a genuine free market. This bill establishes exactly the opposite. This bill establishes law to specifically protect the industry who wrote it from the free market. Through government...

[William Tell]

Labeling is not the way to go in my opinion, property rights is the answer. Although I hate GMO's. But this bill is a clear usurpation of power by the Feds.

[specsaregood]

I am.

I don't know why you quoted me then, what you said did not dispute or address my claim.

[specsaregood]

I'm with ya, specs.
Labeling is nice. Mandatory labeling? Not so nice.

Exactly, don't like something that is not voluntarily labeled non-gmo? don't buy it. I assume this bill doesn't require people to buy gmo products.

[Natural Citizen]

I assume this bill doesn't require people to buy gmo products.

How do you know that it isn't gmo? Essentially it is doing just that. It removes the consumers means to know what they are buying via law. Essentially voiding their participation in a genuine free market.

Gosh. Some of the so called libertarians seem far more dangerous to humanity than any dictator that I've ever heard about.

[specsaregood]

How do you know that it isn't gmo? Essentially it is doing just that.

I would assume it IS GMO if it contains ingredients where there is a gmo version available. which is why where it is important to me, I look for the voluntary (and lab tested/verified) non-gmo label. I find more and more products labeled such everytime I go to the store. If you produce a product without gmo ingredients I think its probably worth getting the private non-gmo label on your product. If a manufacturer fails to do so, like I said I just assume that is because it does have GMO in it. no mandatory labeling required.

[Natural Citizen]

Meh. This bill won't hold water anyhow. We're too far ahead of the crooks. But it's good to know which congressmen are corrupt as all heck. I think Pompeo received more money from the Koch network than any other politician during the last cycle. Actually, I'm sure of it. I compiled a list in the link that I shared to the other thread here.

[specsaregood]

It removes the consumers means to know what they are buying via law. Essentially voiding their participation in a genuine free market.

Gosh. Some of the so called libertarians seem far more dangerous to humanity than any dictator that I've ever heard about.

First of all, I am no libertarian, so I'd prefer you not insult me with such a label.
Secondly, can you point to me in this bill where it says that producers can not label their product non-gmo? And/Or seek and use 3rd party verification of this? Such as the popular non-gmo project label?

[Natural Citizen]

First of all, I am no libertarian, so I'd prefer you not insult me with such a label.
Secondly, can you point to me in this bill where it says that producers can not label their product non-gmo? And/Or seek and use 3rd party verification of this? Such as the popular non-gmo project label?


I'm not pointing you any place. The fact is that these industries aren't going to voluntarily label squat. And if you think they will then you're living in la la land. To do so would mean their demise. And they know it. Nobody is going to buy their warez if they know what it is. It's why we have them teaming up with political hacks like Koch and buying up congressmen to pass their industry penned legislation in the first place. This bill serves only to protect them from the free market.

[specsaregood]

I'm not pointing you any place. The fact is that these industries aren't going to voluntarily label squat. And if you think they will then you're living in la la land. To do so would mean their demise. And they know it. Nobody is going to buy their warez if they know what it is. It's why we have them teaming up with political hacks like Koch and buying up congressmen to pass their industry penned legislation in the first place. This bill serves only to protect them from the free market.

I can go to any of my local grocery stores and find plenty of products that have been labeled non-gmo. And not just whole foods. If you mean they aren't going to label their product as has-gmo then probably not; which is why you should just assume it is GMO. I don't know why you keep saying free market, mandatory labeling has nothing to do with a free market. exactly the process I described is the free market.

The truth is you think people are too stupid to figure out that anything not labeled non-gmo and containing corn, soy or other common gmo'd ingredients is probably gmo. More nanny-statism, you think you know what is best and smarter than the rest.

[Natural Citizen]

I can go to any of my local grocery stores and find plenty of products that have been labeled non-gmo. And not just whole foods. If you mean they aren't going to label their product as has-gmo then probably not; which is why you should just assume it is GMO. I don't know why you keep saying free market, mandatory labeling has nothing to do with a free market. exactly the process I described is the free market.

The truth is you think people are too stupid to figure out that anything not labeled non-gmo and containing corn, soy or other common gmo'd ingredients is probably gmo. More nanny-statism, you think you know what is best and smarter than the rest.

Do you NOT know what this industry bill does? It has everything to do with interfering with a genuine free market. It's very fruit is to do just that thing. This is Mercantilism in it's truest form. And as far as a nanny state, since when does Koch network and agribusiness get to team up with the feds and tell me or my state that we have no right to label or ever know what we consume if we so choose? Because that's exactly what they are doing here. Who the hell died and made them boss?


Aaaahhhhhh. I hate mercantilist, tyrannical minions...

[specsaregood]

Do you NOT know what this bill does? It has everything to do with interfering with a genuine free market. This is Mercantilism in it's truest form. And as far as a nanny state, since when does Koch network and agribusiness get to team up with the feds and tell me or my state that we have no right to label if we so choose? Because that's exactly what they are doing here. Who the hell died and made them boss?


Aaaahhhhhh. I hate mercantilist, tyrannical minions...

I'm no expert, but I get the impression that you have no idea what a free market is.

I agree with you that the feds shouldn't be telling the states they can't pass mandatory labeling laws but that doesn't mean I have to agree with mandatory labeling.

[Natural Citizen]

I'm not even debating it with you any more. I know how a free market should work. And I also know mercantilism when I see it. And that is exactly what this is. This country is so screwed. Politicians and PACs are teaming up with and repatriating it to multi-national interests more and more every day. There is just no loyalty to the American people any more.

[specsaregood]

I'm not even debating it with you any more. I know how a free market should work.

that's ok, I'm sure some dirty hippie so called libertarian tyrannical mercantilist anarchist will swing by this thread and explain the finer points to the both of us.

[Natural Citizen]

that's ok, I'm sure some dirty hippie so called libertarian tyrannical mercantilist anarchist will swing by this thread and explain the finer points to the both of us.

Specs, I understand your point. I do. I don't support mandatory labeling either. But this bill and the interests behind it are dangerous to the principles that our founders scribbled up. And people need to wake up. I negged you earlier in a complete spur of the moment, good old fashioned, pissed off at the entire thing, kind of way and certainly you didn't deserve to get that just because I was in a bad mood. And so, I'm sorry for doing that to you. I'll fix it when I spread some around. I never neg, for what it's worth.

[Natural Citizen]

that's ok, I'm sure some dirty hippie so called libertarian tyrannical mercantilist anarchist will swing by this thread and explain the finer points to the both of us.

I'd rather the ones who claim to defend science come along. Very few of us here are Phds in the fields and those who tend to defend "science" just to make noise are NOT. In any way. At ALL.

[libertygrl]

How do you know that it isn't gmo? Essentially it is doing just that. It removes the consumers means to know what they are buying via law. Essentially voiding their participation in a genuine free market.

Gosh. Some of the so called libertarians seem far more dangerous to humanity than any dictator that I've ever heard about.

Anything becomes dangerous when it becomes too extreme. You have to find a balance. But you'll never find a balance with the likes of Monsanto. If they don't want people to know which products are genetically modified, then I think they need to be forced to label them. They've been pushing the people and the people are shoving back. Afterall, aren't we being forced to consume food without knowing what we're eating? If you're manufacturing poison, by law aren't you required to label the dangers? GMO's are poison and if they're not going to label it so I can make an informed decision, then I think they should be forced to do so.

[specsaregood]

Afterall, aren't we being forced to consume food without knowing what we're eating?

Somebody is force feeding you food of unknown origin and content!?! Well who is this person? I think it should be stopped ASAP.

[CaptUSA]

Afterall, aren't we being forced to consume food without knowing what we're eating?

What specs said.

Listen, all kinds of corporations do things we don't like. The answer is to stop buying from them. Not to force them, through the use of a government, to do things the way you want. And the idea that you don't know what you're buying just falls flat. You can easily buy food that is labeled "non-GMO". If it is not labeled, and you feel strongly about it, either perform your own research or don't buy it.

I have greater confidence in the market than I do in government. I don't need a government-imposed warning label on cigarettes to know smoking is bad for me.

[specsaregood]

I have greater confidence in the market than I do in government.

And the free market option is even more reliable and trustworthy than the govt option in this specific example!
eg:
The private non profit non-gmo project label requires actual testing (where they actually check to see if the gmo genes are in the product) before it is approved to be used.

The govt USDA Organic label technically can't be used where there are gmo ingredients, however NO TESTING is performed. It requires explicitly on supply chain records and documentation to trust that the ingredients are non-gmo.

If one actually really cares about such a thing, I think it is clear that the govt label is not sufficient, whereas the private free market option goes much further.

[donnay]

What specs said.

Listen, all kinds of corporations do things we don't like. The answer is to stop buying from them. Not to force them, through the use of a government, to do things the way you want. And the idea that you don't know what you're buying just falls flat. You can easily buy food that is labeled "non-GMO". If it is not labeled, and you feel strongly about it, either perform your own research or don't buy it.

I have greater confidence in the market than I do in government. I don't need a government-imposed warning label on cigarettes to know smoking is bad for me.


Yeah, okay.

These 10 Companies Control Enormous Number Of Consumer Brands
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/585370/original.jpg
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/consumer-brands-owned-ten-companies-graphic_n_1458812.html


http://www.failingcivilization.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Organic-Industry-Structure.jpg

[Mr Tansill]

Anything becomes dangerous when it becomes too extreme. You have to find a balance. But you'll never find a balance with the likes of Monsanto. If they don't want people to know which products are genetically modified, then I think they need to be forced to label them. They've been pushing the people and the people are shoving back. Afterall, aren't we being forced to consume food without knowing what we're eating? If you're manufacturing poison, by law aren't you required to label the dangers? GMO's are poison and if they're not going to label it so I can make an informed decision, then I think they should be forced to do so.

^^^This.

What Monsanto has done, is created a situation where they have enabled misrepresentation by omission to be the default standard. Since when can someone sell a product without telling you what is in it? People in this country don't have the right to misrepresent their products; when such behavior is engaged in, we refer to that as false advertising. The fact of the matter is that labeling laws were developed back in an era before food products and other basic crops were genetically modified - i.e. when a label said that corn, spinach, or wheat was in something, that meant those crops were in it specifically. Now, things have changed, and the powerful corporations who want to avoid backlash would like the status quo to remain because it allows them to hide amongst "normal" products. Every argument regarding cost to implement such a scheme is completely specious - Monsanto has plenty of resources to track down simple farmers for "patent violations" (an equally ridiculous notion); it has plenty of resources to properly label their food.

The crux of the argument isn't that these corporations have to be forced to label their produces...just walk down any isle in the supermarket and you'll see that they already are. The crux of the argument is that food companies don't want to include certain ingredients on the label.

[donnay]

The sad thing is, the corporations are running the country. And no one seems to care. *SIGH*

[Working Poor]

There are a lot of food companies that label their food non GMO and Organic look for them and support them as far as I am concerned it is the only way to know. Monsanto is never going to allow for labeling it's products.

[specsaregood]

The sad thing is, the corporations are running the country. And no one seems to care. *SIGH*

And its comments like that ^ and others in the thread that make me think the push for these labeling laws is less about public knowledge and health and more of a desire to be punitive against those corporations.

[angelatc]

And its comments like that ^ and others in the thread that make me think the push for these labeling laws is less about public knowledge and health and more of a desire to be punitive against those corporations.


Absolutely right. A government mandate for anything on Ron Paul Forums is hypocritical . These are the liberals unmasking. They don't need reason, they just use force.

[donnay]

And its comments like that ^ and others in the thread that make me think the push for these labeling laws is less about public knowledge and health and more of a desire to be punitive against those corporations.

You really need to stop getting all butt-hurt when someone says; "Corporations." Have you ever done any research into former Monsanto employees in government positions? Right now I am picking on Monsanto (for good reason), but there are 5 other Biotech Corporations that have way too much intimacy with government for my liking as well.

Again, I had an S-Corp when I owned my business--most people are wise to incorporate their business for tax breaks and to separate business from personal property liability. If we had a truly free market, open to REAL competition and transparency these corporations wouldn't have a prayer.

References:
http://mises.org/library/monsanto%E2%80%99s-friends-high-places
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monsanto
https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/monsanto/news.php
http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-controls-both-the-white-house-and-the-us-congress/5336422
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/10006-monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government
http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/monsanto.html
http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/06/its-a-monsanto-government/
http://www.nationofchange.org/monsanto-has-taken-over-usda-1368111215
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/meet-monsantos-number-one-lobbyist-barack-obama/
http://www.whale.to/a/monsanto_revolving_door.html

[specsaregood]

You really need to stop getting all butt-hurt when someone says; "Corporations."

Well actually, that had nothing to do with my comment. A lot of the comments made in this thread and others make it sound like some want to use legislation as a punitive action against corporations they don't like. Using the market and simply not buying their products isn't enough...

[Natural Citizen]

Well actually, that had nothing to do with my comment. A lot of the comments made in this thread and others make it sound like some want to use legislation as a punitive action against corporations they don't like. Using the market and simply not buying their products isn't enough...

It looks to me like these corporations are penning law and infiltrating government to legislate their growth model upon the people. This corporate legislation is empowetring the fed over the state. And they're doing it by way of the fed. We call the merge of corporation and state fascism. We call it fascism because that is what it is in the real world.

Specs, you seem fond of criticizing comments but you don't seem to want to look at the issue here. In fact, your comments completely avoid the issue.

[Natural Citizen]

Absolutely right. A government mandate for anything on Ron Paul Forums is hypocritical . These are the liberals unmasking. They don't need reason, they just use force.

This bill is a corporate penned, government mandate that enables the Federal government to override the state and the people. A corporation penned this. And I think that you're one of the biggest hypocrites on the board. You're a fake. You have very little room to run your pie hole about others. At all.

[specsaregood]

Specs, you seem fond of criticizing comments but you don't seem to want to look at the issue here. In fact, your comments completely avoid the issue.

Because we are in agreement that the law discussed in the OP is bad, and shouldn't be passed and if people in states want to pass restrictive anti-freedom mandatory labeling laws then they should be allowed to do just that and the fed has no business overruling it.

I mean, I guess I could just post: "+thumbsup, stop this law" and then leave the thread. but I thought this was a discussion forum where anything other than personal attacks and porn was fair game.

[donnay]

Well actually, that had nothing to do with my comment. A lot of the comments made in this thread and others make it sound like some want to use legislation as a punitive action against corporations they don't like. Using the market and simply not buying their products isn't enough...

These corporations are in the pockets of legislatures to go against us!

How do you propose a boycott when no one knows what's in their food? I have mentioned many times before (as well as many other posters) the strangle-hold the 10 major food corporations have on people's will. How about the 6 major Biotechs who control agriculture and legislature? <---This is the REAL problem. Not only that, those farmers who do not want to do business with these evil bastards have to worry about their food becoming contaminated by those who want to grow GMO's and use their nasty pesticides and herbicides. I am talking about our air and our ground water being poisoned, as well. These are not isolated concerns in any way, shape, or form.

The only way to stop this madness is by making people aware of these practices so that they can investigate for themselves and make the educated decisions to stay away from Big Agra's deceptions and try to go local (not global) and make sure the farmers and ranchers, in their area, are aware as well.

I just hope people wake up quickly because these bastards are set to destroy our food sources--and once that happens we are totally screwed.

“Con*trol oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.“
~ Henry Kissinger

[specsaregood]

These corporations are in the pockets of legislatures to go against us!

And the answer is more government from the same legislatures.



How do you propose a boycott when no one knows what's in their food?

I know what is in my food. If the food you are eating has: Corn, Soy, Canola, Sugarbeet, Papaya, or Squash in it and it is not labeled Organic or Non-GMO (or other independent labels), then it is GMO. How hard is that?



I have mentioned many times before (as well as many other posters) the strangle-hold the 10 major food corporations have on people's will.

And yet I can go to any of the grocery stores in my area and buy a weeks worth of groceries and easily avoid ALL foods with gmo in them.



The only way to stop this madness is by making people aware of these practices so that they can investigate for themselves and make the educated decisions to stay away from Big Agra's deceptions and try to go local (not global) and make sure the farmers and ranchers, in their area, are aware as well.

It is already quite possible for anybody that actually cares. The problem is you don't like that people don't actually care, you want to ram it down their throats and would probably be happy forcing them to put skull and crossbones icons on any foods containing gmo.

If you need help finding non-gmo products at the store, if I'm ever up in NH I would be more than happy to go the store with you and point out all the stuff that is free of gmo.

[CaptUSA]

I know I'm going to piss some people off, but this is what I've been hearing on this board lately:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EJIPhThGGy8/UgqH4kO2nCI/AAAAAAAABWk/tLshmneFsdE/s1600/CorporateState.png

Believing "Corporations are evil" does NOT mean that "Government needs involved". Government will not make them any less evil; it will only increase the power of both. Mandatory labeling is not necessary.

[donnay]

And the answer is more government from the same legislatures.

No. But what it does is let the legislatures know we are exposing them.



I know what is in my food. If the food you are eating has: Corn, Soy, Canola, Sugarbeet, Papaya, or Squash in it and it is not labeled Organic or Non-GMO (or other independent labels), then it is GMO. How hard is that?

USDA certifies labels for Organic. They also lowered the bars to allow certain things in so by virtue of being label "Organic" does not necessarily mean it is GMO-free.


And yet I can go to any of the grocery stores in my area and buy a weeks worth of groceries and easily avoid ALL foods with gmo in them.

So you know that the eggs you buy in the grocery store are not fed any GMO corn or soy? You know the beef you buy has not been given any GMO alfalfa, corn or soy? Or the milk you buy? You know this without a doubt?



It is already quite possible for anybody that actually cares. The problem is you don't like that people don't actually care, you want to ram it down their throats and would probably be happy forcing them to put skull and crossbones icons on any foods containing gmo.

LOL---it's interesting you think I am ramming stuff down people's throats, but the International Corporations aren't. :rolleyes: Oh and the skull and bones remark not a bad idea. :p



If you need help finding non-gmo products at the store, if I'm ever up in NH I would be more than happy to go the store with you and point out all the stuff that is free of gmo.


The nice thing about NH, Specs, is we have local farms and ranches; lots of Co-Op's and CSA and a great awareness of GMO's in our community. I very seldom need to go to a grocery store. So if you're ever in NH you are in for a REAL treat.

[specsaregood]

./

[donnay]

Yeah I remarked about that earlier in the thread as an example about how the free market non-gmo label is more reliable than the govt one.


I do know that. "without a doubt?" well the only way you could be without any doubt is if you grow all the stuff yourself. Heck, my egg bought in store are labeled non-gmo even. Here is the photo of the eggs current in my fridge, that I eat every day except sunday (organic bacon day). notice the big obvious NON-GMO wording in multiple places on the carton.
http://i744.photobucket.com/albums/xx84/specsaregood/eggs_zpsd4cfd8fd.jpg
And from their website:

That's pretty indepth and trustworthy (without a doubt) for me. no govt force required!

And for milk/cream we like organic valley which also says right on the front of the cartons that they don't use gmo feed. I don't feel like taking another photo, so you'll have to trust me. And they seem pretty trustworthy about it given they have a whole page setup on their site dedicated to it: http://www.organicvalley.coop/why-organic/gmos/

I'm not any big fan of many big corporations, but they don't force me to buy/consume their products. I just avoid them. I think what really upsets you is that the majority of people don't care about this stuff and you want to scare them into caring. I'm more of the mind of, screw them, if they don't care about their health then neither do I.


Funny thing about the "garden state", we have that stuff available a well and with PA next door as well. But for the bulk of my goods, we have excellent stores with ever expanding sections of organic and clearly labeled non-gmo products available to any consumer that gives a shit. Maybe you just don't realize that the information and products ARE available at regular ole grocery stores because you dont' go to them.

I actually like to stand outside the grocery stores and scare the patrons in my spare time. <s>

There is a sea-change happening--thank God for the internet and the good activist who have been planting the seeds of truth.

[libertygrl]

Somebody is force feeding you food of unknown origin and content!?! Well who is this person? I think it should be stopped ASAP.


Glad you agree! :rolleyes:

When there's a monoploly of GMO's in our food, damn straight I feel like I am being forced to consume their frankenfood. I can't always afford to buy everything organic. I'd like to make an informed decision. I'd like to know that whatever food alternative I'm choosing is safe. But I can't do that because it's not labeled as being a GMO product. We're not just talking about a handful of different brand name foods. It's becoming a monopoly. That's why I feel affordable healthy food choices are becoming more and more limited.

How do I know if I'm consuming a frankenfood if it doesn't say so? It's not right. People wouldn't be demanding mandatory labeling from the government if Monsanto wasn't creating this situation in the first place. I say treat GMO foods like you would a pack of cigarettes. There should be some sort of warning label on them. Yeah, I know, fat chance of that happening since they INSIST that it's safe for us. I have no problem "infringing" on Monsanto or any other corporation's freedoms because they don't give a rat's ass about the welfare of other human beings.

Just keep in mind that this is all part of Agenda 21:


So, what does all of this Agenda 21 evil have to do with GMOs and our growing poisoned food supply?

Well as it stands, Agenda 21 espouses the total nonsense that there are too many people on the Earth today, and while we do our best to cull the numbers, the only way to feed everyone in the meantime is to genetically modify our food supply with toxins. (This is seen by many to ALSO be a culling method) Never mind that science has proven that man is not warming the planet or that if every man/woman/child alive today all had the living space of the average New Yorker they could all fit easily into the state of Texas, for these facts simply can be ignored by a population that is as dumbed down as they currently are.

So as we toxify our food sources to feed the masses, what exactly is it that we are ingesting? While the whole globe suffers from the ill effects of Agenda 21 to some degree or another, the United States of America seems to have it the worst in this regard. According to Babble.com, 80% of prepackaged food that is sold in America is actually banned in other nations.

In that article, you will discover terrible facts regarding things like Olestra that is often put into low fat or fat free foods. Olestra has been linked to MANY gastrointestinal dilemmas and that is why it is banned in both the United Kingdom and Canada. Many popular colas contain brominated vegetable oil that has been made illegal to use in over 100 nations (!) because it has been tied to cancer, autoimmune issues, and just about every other unwanted health scenario that one can think of. However, in America, it is in use, marketed and fed to children and sports fans.

Yellow #5 and #6 that is found in many Kraft products such as Mac and Cheese and is known to lead to cancer, has been linked to a slew of allergies, and is one of the many toxins that we have all been warned about that lurk in our shampoos. Yes, both yellow poisons are used in shampoos and cereal on a regular basis.

Singapore has a 15-year prison sentence and a $500,000 fine awaiting those that use azodicarbonamide in food products, while in America these toxins are used to make yoga mats, is present in our bread products and in our frozen foods. Sure, most of Europe has wisely banned it, but that should not affect anything at all, should it?

Look up how BHA causes awful cancers as Kellogg’s, Post, and Quaker serve it up in each serving of cereal. Look it up, and you may begin to wonder why companies are even using it. There are many other things that also can be used. We know this because these vile companies have managed to find substitutes in other nations where they also do business, so why is the United States different? Many argue that Agenda 21 is set on destroying America's sovereignty and also set on seeing the population begin the aforementioned culling in numbers by killing off Americans in this way. To what degree that this is true can be debated, but the use of things like BHA in the American food supply does certainly lend credence to such views.

In closing, let’s take a closer look at pop. After all, most Americans love their pop, so what is it that we are drinking? Again, GMO's are the biggest part of the problem and this is proven in two ways; 1) most organic stores have sodas of many kinds that are much less problematic than their big name regulars and 2) we did not see these kinds of health issues like diabetes and cancers when sugar was used in place of high fructose corn syrup, which is of course made with corn that often times Monsanto has injected bug sprays into. Today, "mainstream" pop is best avoided or at least relegated to a rare treat.

A recent US Heath article indicates clearly just how bad drinking soda can be for someone when they reported on how a 31-year-young woman had her heartbeat irregular after spending 15 years drinking a couple of two liters a day.[2] Her potassium levels were dangerously low and she almost died like others mentioned in the piece had prior to that. Now some will argue that they do not drink 2 two liters of pop a day to which it can be said, ‘Okay, but this lady was only 31 and if one drinks even one two liter every couple of days and live to see 60 or 65, might the damage not be close to equal at some point’?

It is a sad reality that Agenda 21 is not about a warming planet, a large population, or progress but is rather about taking the power from the people and killing off those who are seen as expendable. Our leaders will use lies, false data, and outright tyranny to meet the evil demands of Agenda 21. To defeat it we must learn what the lies are and we must inform all of those who will listen. To do otherwise is to drink the Kool-Aid....or soda.

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/06/what-does-agenda-21-have-to-do-with.html

[CaptUSA]

I have no problem "infringing" on Monsanto or any other corporation's freedoms because they don't give a rat's ass about the welfare of other human beings.


And you see that's where we part ways. First off, the utility of it doesn't work - it only makes problems worse. Second of all, this is the same justification that has been used every time someone wants to restrict liberty, libertygrl. "I don't care about taking more of that guy's money; he doesn't care about me." "I don't care about making that guy wear a helmet; I don't ride bikes."

The proper place to handle this is in civil courts. Demonstrate damages, and then sue the pants off 'em. Pull together a class action. But please don't advocate for more government regulation.

[Natural Citizen]

Because we are in agreement that the law discussed in the OP is bad, and shouldn't be passed and if people in states want to pass restrictive anti-freedom mandatory labeling laws then they should be allowed to do just that and the fed has no business overruling it.

I mean, I guess I could just post: "+thumbsup, stop this law" and then leave the thread. but I thought this was a discussion forum where anything other than personal attacks and porn was fair game.

The entire issue is geo-political now, specs. What we discuss here is basically irrelevant. The fact is that the only nation on the planet where government is designed to allow multi-nationals to run amok is the U.S. And so it is no coincidence that they would use government to defend their increasingly opposed model all around the world.

Here are some good reads on the phenomenon if we really want to debate it in more relevant terms of controversy. These are other threads around the board where we've actually been paying attention to the geo-political relevance.

Monsanto in US Foreign Policy (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415950-Monsanto-in-US-Foreign-Policy)
TPP in America: Judge blocks County from implementing law that would harm corporate profit (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?463308-TPP-in-America-Judge-blocks-County-from-implementing-law-that-would-harm-corporate-profit&p=5705198&viewfull=1#post5705198)
72 points of BRICS Summit Declaration (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?456224-72-points-of-BRICS-Summit-Declaration)
Trans-Pacific Trade Talks Resume With Almost No Media Coverage (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?464544-Trans-Pacific-Trade-Talks-Resume-With-Almost-No-Media-Coverage&p=5725879&viewfull=1#post5725879)
Koch ally to introduce Monsanto-backed bill to bar state GMO labeling laws (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?448892-Koch-ally-to-introduce-Monsanto-backed-bill-to-bar-state-GMO-labeling-laws&p=5480104&viewfull=1#post5480104)
Farmers Abandoning GMO Seeds: Non-GMO is more profitable (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444117-Farmers-Abandoning-GMO-Seeds-Non-GMO-is-more-profitable&p=5417595&viewfull=1#post5417595)

Actually, there are several more beyond those. I just don't feel like bumping them until relevance presents itself. Some of them, I will bump maybe next week once some of these nations that we've been monitoring make some moves.

But, yes. I do agree that not much good comes from personal attacks. But I can't stand the other one. She's very mean spirited and provokes bad energy, and, frankly, I'm just tired of being nice to her in spite of that. We get people who don't want to actually debate the issue itself but choose instead to completely ignore and avoid the substance of the threads and then re-steer the discussion into a left-right kind of paradigm which is the very seed for personal attacks to evolve. Cripes, I can go back and link to dozens of threads where she's done just that thing. And for no other reason than to avoid broader discussion of the issues themselves. And so if we want to talk about "unmasking" then we can certainly talk about that.

[Mr Tansill]

You really need to stop getting all butt-hurt when someone says; "Corporations." Have you ever done any research into former Monsanto employees in government positions? Right now I am picking on Monsanto (for good reason), but there are 5 other Biotech Corporations that have way too much intimacy with government for my liking as well.

Again, I had an S-Corp when I owned my business--most people are wise to incorporate their business for tax breaks and to separate business from personal property liability. If we had a truly free market, open to REAL competition and transparency these corporations wouldn't have a prayer.



The entire issue is geo-political now, specs. What we discuss here is basically irrelevant. The fact is that the only nation on the planet where government is designed to allow multi-nationals to run amok is the U.S. And so it is no coincidence that they would use government to defend their increasingly opposed model all around the world.



How do I know if I'm consuming a frankenfood if it doesn't say so? It's not right. People wouldn't be demanding mandatory labeling from the government if Monsanto wasn't creating this situation in the first place. I say treat GMO foods like you would a pack of cigarettes. There should be some sort of warning label on them. Yeah, I know, fat chance of that happening since they INSIST that it's safe for us. I have no problem "infringing" on Monsanto or any other corporation's freedoms because they don't give a rat's ass about the welfare of other human beings.

(emphasis added)

Exactly right. This is a critical point to understand and make as often as possible: When a corporation benefits through government legislation, they implicitly accept the rights, privileges, AND RESPONSIBILITIES that are attendant to that power; they are no longer simply a "company" operating in the free market being "unfairly" imposed upon. This simple fact makes them accountable to the people in a way which is distinct from a company or group that has no special privilege or benefit.

[Natural Citizen]

(emphasis added)

Exactly right. This is a critical point to understand and make as often as possible: When a corporation benefits through government legislation, they implicitly accept the rights, privileges, AND RESPONSIBILITIES that are attendant to that power; they are no longer simply a "company" operating in the free market being "unfairly" imposed upon. This simple fact makes them accountable to the people in a way which is distinct from a company or group that has no special privilege or benefit.

Reminds me of what Dennis Kucinich was just saying about the skullduggery.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6FY3YlxND4

[Suzanimal]

Not sure if this belongs here but I thought it might be of interest to y'all.


City Council panel backs away from GMO ban it previously supported

ree days before Los Angeles lawmakers voted on a proposal to ban genetically modified crops, the world's largest biotechnology trade group hired three top City Hall lobbyists to stop it.

The matter had sailed through a meeting weeks before with only one City Council member expressing doubt.

But when a council committee sat down to vote again this month, three of the five members came out strongly against it — though they said lobbyists had nothing to do with it.

The action shocked Councilman Paul Koretz, who co-authored the proposal and expected his colleagues to rubber-stamp it as they had many times before.

"Since nothing else had changed ... it clearly was heavy lobbying," Koretz said later.

Such a ban would be largely symbolic in L.A. because there are currently no known genetically modified organisms, known as GMOs, grown within the city.

Nevertheless, before this month, L.A.'s 15 council members had voiced almost no opposition to the ban. In October, the council approved the ban with only one opposing vote.

Opponents of the proposal said the shift on the City Council came after members received more information and had more time to spot possible problems with the ban.

"The city is going to be better off making a decision with a lot of information, rather than just emotion," said lobbyist George Kieffer, who represented critics of the ban. "Their statement, if they choose to make it, will be just as important in three months as it is today."

Kathay Feng, executive director of the nonprofit government watchdog California Common Cause, said it's not unusual to see lobbyists exert influence at any level of government. The smack- down of the GMO ban at City Hall, she said, is "just sort of small anecdotal evidence of something that happens on a fairly regular basis."

Koretz's ordinance sought to prohibit the growth of genetically modified organisms — plants or animals whose genetic material has been altered to make them bigger or resistant to pests and herbicides. GMO supporters say such crops are needed to boost food production, while opponents say not enough research has been done to tell if the products are harmful to humans.

The four councilmen at the committee meeting this month — one was absent — had only to OK the ban's final language so it could be officially adopted.

At the beginning of the session, Councilman Joe Buscaino — the member who voted against the ban in October — said that he didn't think the city was the right entity to enforce such an action and that it didn't have the resources to shoulder extra responsibilities.

Then Councilman Gil Cedillo listed his own problems with the ban, including enforcement and cost. Then Councilman Tom LaBonge agreed.

Kieffer, a prominent Los Angeles attorney and City Hall lobbyist, was at the meeting along with lobbyists John Ek and Howard Sunkin.

Kieffer spoke and identified himself as representing the Biotechnology Industry Organization. In a subsequent interview, he confirmed that Ek and Sunkin were also on the team, although they declined to comment to The Times.

The council committee tabled the ban for more study, leaving Koretz to fear that it had been effectively killed.

In an interview, Kieffer said he dropped off materials at the council offices on the morning of the meeting. He said he wanted to show that the proposed ban was based on "wrong science." His colleagues, he said, reached out to various other council offices.


Cedillo said neither he nor anyone from his staff talked to any of the lobbyists. LaBonge said he didn't speak with them either, although one of his staffers talked to a lobbyist in the hall outside the meeting. Buscaino said he was always against the ban but had spoken to Ek before the meeting about the issue.

Kieffer says he and his colleagues will continue to lobby against the proposed GMO ban.

Joanne Poyourow, a local environmental activist in favor of a GMO ban, called the council's reversal "horrifying." She said her volunteer coalition had met with council members' staffs and thought almost all were supportive of the ban. Though disappointed, Poyourow said she wasn't surprised by the professional lobbyists.

"I've been working with GMOs for long enough that I knew that at some point we would get resistance," she said.


Jaime Regalado, professor emeritus of political science at Cal State L.A., said it's fairly unusual for the philosophically progressive L.A. council to be strongly influenced by lobbyists. He said it's possible that the council members were never that supportive of the ban.

The GMO turnabout also reveals where city ethics regulations fall short in tracking the effect of lobbyists at City Hall. Lobbyists are required to report who they work for and how much they are paid — but sometimes not until months after they've completed their work.

Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor who's on the city's Ethics Commission, said that can mean when an issue is being discussed the public won't "have the information necessary to see a full picture."

Even when a lobbyist's presence is known, Common Cause's Feng notes, existing reporting requirements just "don't tell you the whole story." It's still hard to tell what happened, she said, because lobbyists aren't required to disclose which staff members they meet with, or how often, when and for how long.

For example, city records now don't show anyone working as a lobbyist for the biotechnology group.

Karen Batra, communications director for the Biotechnology Industry Organization based in Washington, declined to confirm that her group hired the Los Angeles lobbyists. The trade group represents companies such as seed maker Monsanto as well as universities that conduct related research.

She would not talk about the group's lobbying strategy beyond saying that the ban in L.A. would set "an enormous precedent for areas of the country that may not be familiar with the benefits of the technology."

Its members, she said, want to "make sure that policy makers are made aware of how damaging a policy like this could be."

http://www.latimes.com/local/cityhall/la-me-gmo-ban-20141229-story.html

[CaptUSA]

The problem isn't with the lobbyists; it's with the fact that the lawmakers have the power ban something they don't like.
“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.”
― P.J. O'Rourke

[Suzanimal]

The problem isn't with the lobbyists; it's with the fact that the lawmakers have the power ban something they don't like.

Ain't that the truth. ^^^

[Natural Citizen]

Yeah, lobbyists are just the bees knees. Right? We like corporate repatriation. :)

[donnay]

The problem isn't with the lobbyists; it's with the fact that the lawmakers have the power ban something they don't like.


The lobbyist help grease the wheels--the legislators are easily bought and paid for that way.

[CaptUSA]

Yeah, lobbyists are just the bees knees. Right? We like corporate repatriation. :)

Not what I'm saying at all. The fact the there is a need for lobbyists is the bad thing. The legislators have too much power. The goal should be to take away their power so that there is nothing to buy. Has nothing to do with corporate repatriation.

[TheTexan]

Can they make genetically modified food that has the nutrition of asparagus, but tastes like chocolate fudge? Or is that still being worked on

[Danke]

Can they make genetically modified food that has the nutrition of asparagus, but tastes like chocolate fudge? Or is that still being worked on

I think they have come up with adding Asparagusic acid to chocolate, not sure the nutritional value, but it makes for a funny gift to your gf.

[osan]

Since when do americans have a right to force others to label anything?

If you are going to assume the privileges of the corporation, you may then be required to toe various lines of conduct. This should be obvious to you. That it is apparently not, I find a little disturbing.

Your view is lopsided. Why? Because you have not asked the equally salient question: "Since when do Americans have a right to provide others with virtual immunity from accountability for their actions?"

HELLO. Seriously, d00d - you need to be circumspect if you are going to throw opinions around as you have, above. It is a valid question, but it is only half of the issue and that other half is at least as important as the one you address.

So, to state the logic more explicitly, we may say this:


If we are to tolerate the presence and operation of corporations such as they currently exist, and wherein the owners and officers of such legal entities are afforded special privileges and immunities for their behaviors as such owners and officers, then we may also require of them certain other behaviors that balance the scales of said immunities and privileges against the rights of the individuals those specially sanctioned acts might otherwise violate.

If I did not know you by anything other than that which you posted here, I would have to conclude that you were a raging statist lunatic seeking the protection of corporate entities above the rights of the Individual. Take care in what you express and how - a lesson in which we are well behooved to take strong heed.

[osan]

Labeling is not the way to go in my opinion, property rights is the answer.

This tells me nothing. Please elaborate in painful detail what this actually means in practice.

[angelatc]

This tells me nothing. Please elaborate in painful detail what this actually means in practice.

It means let the market decide. Let farmers grow what the market demands. And let the labels be optional, so people that don't care about it do not need to pay for it.


Lobbying = we have a right to petition our government.

[Natural Citizen]

It means let the market decide. Let farmers grow what the market demands. And let the labels be optional, so people that don't care about it do not need to pay for it.


Lobbying = we have a right to petition our government.

These industries are hitching up with congressmen and using them to introduce industry penned legislation that specifically removes the consumers mechanisms to be able to make an informed choice and to actually participate and guide a free market. What they are doing is using government to protect themselves from a free market.

That's mercantilism. That isn't a free market in any way. And we've been through this before. Right? We even produced specific cases where these industries have teamed up with congressmen to specifically pen and introduce legislation that voids citizens and states rights. It's really happening. And no matter some prefer to sugar coat it in order to avoid discussing the reality of what is going on there it doesn't make it actually go away.

Market can't decide anything if the market isn't functional.


Mercantilism = we merge with government to enforce our legislation that protects us from a genuine free market

[osan]

It means let the market decide.

That is nearly meaningless in practice when the markets are rigged.


Let farmers grow what the market demands.


If only it were that simple. People tend to allow the dishonest side of their personalities come forth when stakes and profits are perceived as high. The artificially established dependence aspect of these markets - captive markets in a sense - also taints the well. Perhaps we should let things go this way and let those people who are too lazy to do the diligence of assuring they are not poisoning themselves die of whatever maladies these toxic food-substitutes cause.

But if we are going to seriously consider the virtues of the free markets, and acknowledge that our current markets are heavily rigged, then the cycle of self-reinforcement of the established order needs to be broken. True free markets in a truly free land would directly necessitate the elimination of all corporate entities. No more veil of protection for anyone. You sell a product that kills people, you stand personally accountable.

Can't have it both ways. We are either free or we are something else.


And let the labels be optional, so people that don't care about it do not need to pay for it.


This only works when there are viable options. At this point, I would assess the food markets as providing insufficient options for people. This may be due to people's lazy stupidity. But it might also be the result of positive steps by the biggest players to eliminate competition.


Lobbying = we have a right to petition our government.

I am not convinced that this "lobby the government" thing has any place in a free land. All the lobbying - petitioning - appears mostly for special dispensations, rather than the redress of real grievances.

[osan]

Afterall, aren't we being forced to consume food without knowing what we're eating?

In a sense, yes, we are.


Somebody is force feeding you food of unknown origin and content!?! Well who is this person? I think it should be stopped ASAP.

Not somebody - come on now, you cannot be that stupid, and I don't take you as disingenuous. I must therefore conclude you are being careless in your reasoning.

It is not someONE forcing us, but rather someTHING. That thing is "circumstance". We could go on all day about how we ought not have allowed ourselves to become so dependent upon the products of others in order to affect our means for basic survival on a day-by-day basis, but we will rather focus on the fact that we are here. Nobody in a NYC apartment is reasonably capable of providing his own foodstuffs such that he is independent of any manufacturer's products. That is the reality with which we live at this time. It may change at some point, but that is not likely to be the case for a very long time to come.

This dependence upon the product of third parties arose by whatever means and causes - call it laziness, necessity, what have you. But one thing that can be said that is beyond argument is that this rise was made possible in large part in NECESSARY part - by the attendant element of trust. I cannot overemphasize the central and utter significance of this factor. Without trust, the large food manufacturers would never have come to exist because nobody would have bought their wares. Trust is implicit with the very marketing of their products and they OWE us based on that. "We" gave them our trust and what arose from that circumstance is a new and altered reality where people no longer buy because they choose to (in the broader sense of "choice") but because they have no other means of providing themselves with most, if not all, of their daily sustenance. The trust that was once given based on a purely voluntary basis cannot be unilaterally discarded, disregarded, and violated once the modified circumstance that has lead to dependence arises, now effectively forcing people to come back for more.

An analog example: you get rid of your wood stove in favor of gas. The gas company, in the dead of the worst winter in history and seeing you are become utterly dependent upon their gas to survive the cold nights, increases your bill 100 times, threatening to cut off your fuel supply if you do not pony up. Applying your basic reasoning, the gas provider would be within his rights to do so, given the current general state of affairs WRT such arrangements. I hope that no explanation is necessary to make clear to you why this is NOT alright.



Listen, all kinds of corporations do things we don't like. The answer is to stop buying from them.
That is the simplistic, naïve answer. The practical answer is far more subtle and in some cases, complicated.

You appear to be ignoring the fact that where principles may be endlessly simple in their essences, there are times when their practical expression becomes difficult. Such difficulties do not invalidate the principles, but only confirm that implementation is not always a bunnies-and-light affair.


Not to force them, through the use of a government, to do things the way you want.

Your point is well taken, but I must also make it clear that here you speak in a vacuum. We do not live in that vacuum. The reality is that we have been painted into a corner. The fault is perhaps all our own, but just because "we" fucked up, it does not follow that we should be treated unjustly as the result. This shit happened - the circumstance of dependence, I mean - and we are responsible for it. But that does not mean we give a "corporation" the green light to further damage us. If nothing else, we might want to force this labeling thing pending a change in circumstance such that we have extricated ourselves from the web of dependence such that we then have real alternate choices. At the very least we must not be allowing the passage of bills that pretty well guarantee the large player's ability to continue to damage us with impunity.

You are here advocating free-market principles in a lopsided and decidedly unfree market, to be applied only by those who are the buyers. What you are advocating as a solution is actually a non-solution in this environment. Restore the markets to actual freedom and I would agree with you. Our markets are nowhere nearly free enough to allow for this strategy of yours to work. On top of that, legislation such as that under discussion further assures the position of companies such as Monstanto, allowing them to further constrict choice.

You say we should buy products that are labeled "non GMO". All fine and well, but what about all the attendant potential for "unfair" competition where companies such as Monsanto manage passage of bill that erect barriers to entry for those seeking to compete? What of those bills that might effectively ban such labeling? Shit like this happens ALL THE TIME. Subtle twists in language that seem innocent enough... until matters end up in courts and the judges render opinions and rulings that put the competition at distinct disadvantage in the best case and completely out of business in worse.

Your notions of free markets - my notions - are irrelevant in this world of rigged, mercantilist markets. So long as we are not in a free market circumstance, we cannot rely on the free choice of the consumer with any dependability because their choices are not, in fact, quite free enough to affect the sorts of change to which you refer.

Consider this: when the large banks and investment houses faced ruin in 2008, what result did we all get to enjoy? TARP, and other bailouts. Now, if as you suggest, we were able to get 180 million Americans to say "fuck you" to Monsanto and put them seriously on the ropes, do you really believe that Monstanto would not go on a rampaging campaign to criminalize all efforts to bring them down? People like this do not go quietly into the night.


Well, I had a lot more reply than this and the fucking piece of shit vBulletin software screwed me in the ass... again. Pardon me, but FUCK vBulletin.

[angelatc]

That is nearly meaningless in practice when the markets are rigged.



If only it were that simple. People tend to allow the dishonest side of their personalities come forth when stakes and profits are perceived as high. The artificially established dependence aspect of these markets - captive markets in a sense - also taints the well. Perhaps we should let things go this way and let those people who are too lazy to do the diligence of assuring they are not poisoning themselves die of whatever maladies these toxic food-substitutes cause.

But if we are going to seriously consider the virtues of the free markets, and acknowledge that our current markets are heavily rigged, then the cycle of self-reinforcement of the established order needs to be broken. True free markets in a truly free land would directly necessitate the elimination of all corporate entities. No more veil of protection for anyone. You sell a product that kills people, you stand personally accountable.

Can't have it both ways. We are either free or we are something else.



This only works when there are viable options. At this point, I would assess the food markets as providing insufficient options for people. This may be due to people's lazy stupidity. But it might also be the result of positive steps by the biggest players to eliminate competition.



I am not convinced that this "lobby the government" thing has any place in a free land. All the lobbying - petitioning - appears mostly for special dispensations, rather than the redress of real grievances.

Eat organic and stuff labeled "GMO Free." But trying to use to government to make my food cost more for some "right to know" that has suddenly materialized out of thin air isn't freedom.

[Weston White]

Eat organic and stuff labeled "GMO Free." But trying to use to government to make my food cost more for some "right to know" that has suddenly materialized out of thin air isn't freedom.

Well being that you love to stuff GMO down your gobbler--whenever you're not busy scheduling your next yummy vaccination--it would seem that you have little to worry about.

[osan]

Eat organic and stuff labeled "GMO Free." But trying to use to government to make my food cost more for some "right to know" that has suddenly materialized out of thin air isn't freedom.

"Organic" label has been politically co-opted by large producers who refused to compete with actual organic producers that were beginning to take a goodly bite out of their market shares. "Organic" labels no longer mean anything, necessarily.

How do we know "non-GMO" labeling can be trusted? The GMO issue, taken in its broadest context, is enormous and almost impossibly subtle. A company can use the label and claim they did not know there was GMO in some of the ingredients of their products. This shit happens all the time and the claim is very plausible. Those who supply that producer could make the same claim. "oh, well, that was not supposed to happen..e we don't know how it could have... sorry, our bad and we won't do it again.
" Case closed.

Your solution is simplistic and in no way assures that one will not be eating things they do not want to eat.

The best answer is to roll your own, but this has become a practical impossibility for the vast majority of people. And even for those who do there are no reasonable assurances. GMO pollen flies with the rest. This has been a proven problem with corn crops. Farmer Al is two miles from a 100K acre agribusiness operation. The pollen from their corn is taken up by bees, who then hit his fields and guess what; Farmer Al's 500 acre corn field is now contaminated.

We could go on with more example of how this is bad juju all around, but methinks the point is made.

At this point, we do not know nearly enough to say that we are not playing Russian roulette with 5 loaded chambers. What an amusingly satisfying irony it would be to one day find that the 1% have doomed their own children through their blind and maliciously morbid greed.