29 votes

The GMO labeling ballot measure has been officially accepted onto the ballot in California!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The case for GMO labeling -

Even for those of us that believe in limited government and the free market.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036209_GMO_labeling_ballot_measur...

Some people are missing the

Some people are missing the point of any opposition against this bill--the opposition asks "should it be the government's job to require labeling of food products?" What do you think?

I find existing food labeling pretty convenient (ie. ingredients on the package, nutrient values), however I'm not sure I feel the government should be mandating this. If people demand it, and if the free market works (which we know it does), then companies would voluntarily label their products "GMO free," that is, if there are no laws against THAT labeling. Why don't we just keep government out of labeling so there isn't a convoluted labyrinth of labeling laws that muddle our chances of getting the truth out of our purchases?

We know lawmakers can be bought and sold. Because of that, I don't want them intimately involved with the foods I eat.

That is part of the point they don't allow voluntary labeling

of non GMO foods. Plus Monsanto and others have people in power that even block testing and voluntary discloser. Then when GMOs mix with your heirloom verities and pollute your crops they even have the nerve
to claim you owe them for the seed.

They know if they are labeled for people to see and know what is in there food they will be booted out of our country just like they have been in other countries hopefully before it is to late they are already controlling around 80% of the food supply.

So the solution for that is

So the solution for that is stop government mandated labeling. Then anybody can label anything they want... sounds scary, right? As consumers we need labeling to help us make educated decisions, you might argue. And yes, part of that is true. Where there's a demand, a supply will arise--in this case it is in the form of non-government organizations that review products. For example, the American Heart Association is a non-government entity that performs research and public health education, and you can oftentimes see their endorsement on certain food products. You as the consumer decide if you trust that endorsement, what it means to you and your decision to buy that product.

If that isn't a good enough explanation then I'll leave you with this--the government, as in the United States Department of Agriculture, labels "tomato paste" as a vegetable. With proclamations like that I most certainly do not trust the government to label or monitor my food products.

You have a valid point

But the way i see it GMO is a violation of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think GMO should be outlawed cause its poison in a matter of speaking. It is also like false advertising.. you think you are getting something healthy but you are actually getting something that is potentially detrimental to your health. GMO Bannanas and Bananas are as different as apples are to oranges. So we Have Fraud and Poison that could be claimed in the criminal laws. I see it only being positive forcing for companies to state whether their crops are gmo or not. It also makes sense because it gives the individual (aka individual liberty) more freedom of choice. Could a better way to avoid GMOS in a Liberty minded free market be a better alternative?.. YES....Will this mandate suffice for now....... YES

I hear ya, I think the only

I hear ya, I think the only people who are for the consumption of GMOs are the big companies that create them. And yes I agree, consuming GMO products interferes with the life and the pursuit of happiness, as it inevitably leads to human disease. Poison and fraud for trying to pass it off as natural food, in my opinion, yes absolutely. However, because this is still an emerging topic, and the line about what is actually "genetically modified" vs. what is "artificially selected" is not that clear, I say leave the government out of it. They cannot police the market, and they shouldn't. It's up to the consumer to educate themselves and make their choice.

It's a slippery slope once government gets involved--look at the FDA, for example. They don't monitor for safety, they only look to line pharmaceutical companies' pockets, evidenced by the fact that hundreds of drugs have been approved and later recalled because they're too dangerous. But then the FDA wants to ban the use of nutritional supplements though significantly fewer adverse effects have been reported with their use? I feel a similar administration monitoring GMOs would eventually smell like this too....

Though the one point I bet Ron Paul would agree with, is that by trusting the government to make sure that what we put in our mouth is safe, we create a "nanny state." We can't even decide for ourselves, we need the government to decide? "It's safe, the government says so." It's only a matter of time then before they start actually making us eat what they want (food, medications, etc.) instead of merely suggesting.

The federal government exists to back money up, to protect our country from foreign invasion, and to protect you from anyone doing you harm when you can't defend yourself. Your defense against these companies is not buying their products, learning who does not grow GMOs, and to buy that product instead.

Oh, here we go again

Calling all statists! Calling all statists! Please support the rank statism that is government mandated labeling.

http://www.dailypaul.com/236787/poland-beekeepers-kick-monsa...

http://www.dailypaul.com/224781/monsanto-threatens-to-sue-ve...

You fail to take reality into account

1) The founders never intended for corporations to have the power they do (remember the Boston Tea Party?), nor the rights they do, granted to us by our Creator (Reread Genesis. Quick quiz: on what day did God create the corporation?); nor did they intend for the people to lose the power we had over corporations not deemed to be operating in the public's interest. (Research the history of state charters.)
2) The founders never intended federal regulatory agencies to wield the power they do, rendering Congress irrelevant - no less agencies headed by those with a conflict of interest.
3) What you call "government-mandated" labeling, I call "the people's choice" - namely, responsible adults w/in a state wishing to protect themselves and their children from cancer, reproductive problems, nutritional deficiencies, and other health anomalies. Here are 50 harmful effects of genetically-modified foods. http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful.
4) Are you aware that in your Libertarian Utopia, you'd be living on oatmeal? If the pollinators die out (and they're going fast), we'll no longer have flowers, fruits, vegetables, or nuts.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

nonsense

1) On what day did God create Government? Your analogy to Biblical passage is irrelevant.

So you don't want corporations to have so much power? Awesome. DON'T BUY THEIR CRAP.

2) Wrong. The founders never intended to have federal agencies at all, with a few possible exceptions, e.g., the patent office.

In any event, you should be advocating the elimination of federal agencies (e.g., Ron Paul's proposal), NOT advocating more state government.

3) You can call it whatever you want. It's still statism. The "people's choice" would be for people to reject the product via the free market, not for government to intervene and force people to act a certain way.

4) Are you aware that I grow my own oats, fruits, flowers, and vegetables? Are you aware that the field adjacent to mine is round-up ready corn? Please. Your TSA fear-mongering doesn't work on me.

sense

1) God did NOT create government. WE create governments. Just like WE create corporations. We believe our human rights are unalienable because they are granted by our CREATOR. Similarly, our government has rights granted by its creator: US. And that's the way it used to be for corporations - for the first half of this country's history. See Santa Clara County vs. The Southern Pacific Railroad. As of that case, corporations began to enjoy rights intended for human beings.
2) Thank you! The founders did not intend for a federal agency to forbid a company from labeling its product with GMO in a circle w/a slash across it because it implied there was something wrong with GMO's.
I do advocate the elimination or curtailment of federal agencies.
3)I'll leave things to THE PEOPLE within a state to choose whatever protections they wish for themselves.
4)I wasn't attempting to scare you. You appear uninformed. I hope for your & your family's sake you'll check out the link I provided.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

1) Who is "we"? I didn't

1) Who is "we"? I didn't create government. I don't think "we" (a.k.a. "you") should be able to dictate the rules. I don't agree with your collectivist "we" mentality. I am an individual; I can make decisions for me without "we".

Further, the CA legislation is not limited to corporations. Instead, it "[r]equires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways."

2) Apparently you also advocate MORE state regulatory regime. This legislation includes "[p]otential increase in state administrative costs of up to one million dollars annually to monitor compliance with the disclosure requirements specified in the measure. Unknown, but potentially significant, costs for the courts, the Attorney General, and district attorneys due to litigation resulting from possible violations to the provisions in the measure."

3) You're in favor of "whatever protections they wish for themselves." What if 51% wish to outlaw smoking or drinking - these activities are touted as "protections for the people." More collectivist nonsense.

4) You appear to be a collectivist. Again, I'm not a fan of GMOs. I limit my intake. I also don't smoke cigarettes. That doesn't mean I think state government should ban the activity based on some notion of collectivist "people's protection."

Are you always so picayune?

1) By "we" I was referring to "people" - as opposed to God, as in the following: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

Aside from the history of state charters or derelict SC justices, I THINK it is self-evident that, if the founders felt we had the right to alter or abolish our GOVERNMENT (which, again, has no rights beyond those we confer it), they would certainly intend we had no LESS of a right to alter or abolish a CORPORATION guilty of the same (destructiveness).

In a SOCIETY, it's not realistic to think everyone can make up his own rules. That's anarchy. You're mistaken to think that anyone who is not an anarchist is a collectivist.

With respect to GMO's it is of no relevance to me whether it might be a corporation, limited partnership, or individual selling food, if the food contained genetically-modified plants or animals. PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW. This is serious, dangerous business. Kindly READ the info at the provided link. I'd be fine if GMO's were outlawed altogether.

2) Are you saying Ron Paul advocates "MORE state regulatory regime" by leaving the issue of, say, the legality of abortion, up to the states? Or eliminating the Department of Education, which means an additional cost for states?

3)I'm for the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I believe that the least power should be in the hands of the federal government, the most power in the hands of the individual; that any social, environmental, or other programs that a community of people deem necessary or desirable should be planned and executed at the most local level for which it is feasible.

4)You likely have no idea how much genetically-modified food you consume. But messing around with plant and animal genetics (which has an effect on our own DNA) - as dangerous as it is, is only part of the issue. The related issue is the toxic pesticides and herbicides that are used with such crops. I urge you do to some research. If you live next to a field of Roundup ready corn, I recommend you move.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

I think you make some good

I think you make some good points here about the danger of GMOs. It's a scary thought for sure, an even scarier reality that we live.

However, I don't agree with how you use the word "right"--
We have a right to abolish companies. ...well sort of. Through the power of the free market, yes.
We have the "right" to abolish government, sure, if by that you mean we are legally able to protest against and demand reform. The word "right" that you are using is, in my opinion, the wrong term to use. A right is something we're guaranteed, regardless of law, it is inherently what we deserve as humans--life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. That does not mention food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, honesty, toilet paper to wipe ourselves, someone to tuck us in at night--nor foods labeled how we think is best. Our rights do not include services that others provide us--take healthcare for example. You do not have a right to healthcare, because once the government says you do, someone has to provide that right, and the people providing get taken advantage of in the process.

I think what you're trying to say is we have the responsibility to abolish companies we do not like, an unacceptable government, to provide healthcare to ourselves and anyone else we feel morally obligated to, to insist on labeling products we deem are dangerous. The up side here is that the power is in the hands of the individual to choose and decide what is important to them, to put the pressure on companies, to form local organizations that help the needy. The downside here is that the power is in the hands of the individual, and people are lazy and want the government to coddle them.

Regulation at the state level I may see a case for, it's more local and its what the people of that region demand, if that is the case. Federally however, no way. The federal government is incompetent in this arena.

Your issue is with the founders, not me

Thank you for your reply. But as to my using the term "right" with respect to the abolition of government, I was not rendering an opinion but quoting the Constitution (emphasis mine):

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

I maintain it is therefore self-evident that: GIVEN that the founders devised a form of government in which we had the right (and if not stated, I'd agree ALSO the responsibility) to alter or abolish a destructive Government and institute a new Government, the founders would certainly have intended that we had no LESS of a right to alter or abolish destructive Corporations.

As to altering or abolishing a Government, I don't necessarily agree with the limitations you set as to the means by which that must done. And as to corporations, I certainly do not agree with the limitations you set. "Purchasing power" is but ONE option we initially had. The revocation of a state charter is another (along with, no doubt, less drastic punitive measures to be utilized first). Unfortunately, the revocation of a charter has now become tantamount to "capital punishment." To my knowledge, it's only been done twice in the last hundred years - once in New York by Eliot Spitzer when he was State Attorney General and once in California by the residents of a community.

I hope you'll check out the history of state charters and also the aforementioned court case "Santa Clara..." (which I first learned of via Culture Jam, by Kalle Lasn) - not that those are the only factors.

Here's the problem. Corporations came to wield the power they did OUTSIDE THE FRAMEWORK of how the founders foresaw the process operating. If admittedly simplistic, allow me to make an analogy. Let's say there's a long-distance race between two people: Runner A (the people) and Runner B (corporations). The rule is: they have to wear 100-lb backpacks. On your mark, get set, go! Okay, after a few hours, Runner B is allowed to throw off the backpack. Now let a few more hours go by and then freeze the picture. That's where we are now.

"That's not fair!" I cry. And you agree. So what's the solution? Basically, what you're saying: to make it fair, put the weight back on Runner B - well, at least a 50-lb weight, i.e., make it closer to the way it was supposed to be. Even if the runner had to put the 100-lb weight back on, re-instating the rules this far down the line hardly makes things fair. Given the UNFAIR ADVANTAGES to corporations that allowed them to grow to their monolithic size, with money and power to match, it's a fixed race regardless of whether or not we were to reinstate the rules NOW. To make things fair, there would need to be some sort of REDRESS.

It's why I can say with a clear conscience that I'd want the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to AT LEAST force Monsanto to LABEL GM PRODUCTS, although in all fairness to the people I think the responsible course of action is to BAN SUCH PRODUCTS indefinitely. I hope you also will check out the link summarizing the harmful, far-reaching, AND IRREVERSIBLE effects as shown by multiple studies - not only in labs but with PEOPLE serving as the grand science experiment, here and abroad. I hope you will also check out the documentary THE WORLD ACCORDING TO MONSANTO. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/ I can't think of a more evil company. The fact that it's tied to both Bill Gates and the United Nations only makes the GMO issue more unpalatable. This is about ONE COMPANY nicely, swiftly, gaining control over THE WORLD'S FOOD SUPPLY.

I'm not sure why you raised the issue of nationalized healthcare. But truly Obamacare has little to do with healthcare and much to do with establishing a socialist economic framework - one in which, too, (along with the NDAA and other policies) - gives the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT access to and control over personal information that is none of its business, a means of tracking the population. Regardless, I never argued that even bona fide healthcare was the responsibility of the federal government.

My argument with my friend anon1972 involved the issue of STATES, arising from the labeling issue having made it onto the ballot in California. I'll add here that Monsanto has already threatened to sue Vermont for attempting to get GMO's labeled - which put a quick damper on the passing of that legislation despite the fact that residents overwhelming supported it, BECAUSE the residents of the good state of Vermont don't have the kind of UNLIMITED FUNDS that Monsanto has as its disposal for a long, drawn-out LEGAL BATTLE.

Anyway, I'll admit that there are two schools of thought among those who are in agreement about federal regulatory agencies and social programs. One group doesn't want them, period. The other wants at least some of them, but planned and executed on as local level as possible. In this latter group are those who want them for moral reasons and/or because, in the long run, it's advantageous. For instance, education falls within the purview of the state.

Local schools are funded by local taxes. But (at least in theory) for the benefit of children in impoverished areas, state taxes taken from all residents DO redistribute a portion of wealth in order to provide a decent education for all. Some (myself included) consider it a moral responsibility. But also, it is advantageous on many fronts for a state to have an educated citizenry. But take this one: better educated people are less likely to end up in prison. The redistribution of wealth is going to happen either way! Which makes more sense? Pay state taxes for schools or for prisons?

But really, I'm far less concerned about federal regulatory issues or policies than what the GLOBALISTS are doing to destroy our national sovereignty altogether, with international bodies, namely, the United Nations and its many NGO's and partnerships, working DIRECTLY WITH states and local communities - ICLEI, for one, (working to achieve the goals of the UN's Agenda 21/Rio) and similar endeavors related to UNESCO.

That's why we need RON PAUL for PRESIDENT! He'll both eliminate or curtail the federal agencies, audit the Federal Reserve, stop the corporate lobbying, AND divest the country of myriad globalist alliances - putting a spotlight on that issue that would hopefully generate much-needed awareness to motivate people to put pressure on their states and communities to ban such alliances as well, as Alabama has now done.

Bottom line, these are not black & issues.

Oh, you mentioned something about getting tucked in at night. You don't have to worry about nanny-state federal bureaucrats trying to solve that one. Technology already has - according to corporate advertising that came out years ago already, touting that parents can now tuck their children in via webcam. But the dissolution of the family and consequences on children thereof is a different issue.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

You're trying to justify government force

1) The "we" in the Declaration of Independence did not refer to some nebulous group of people, as you seem to imply. Instead, the "we" specifically referred to the 56 signatories. I'll grant that "we" does not include "God."

Nonetheless, the rest of the discussion with regard to corporations is largely irrelevant to the matter at hand because, as noted earlier, the legislation is not so limited – which you recognize in paragraph four of your most recent comments.

Yes, "people have a right to know" what is in their food. This is why they should ask. If they're not satisfied with the answer, they procure goods elsewhere. This is the free market solution.

Finally, I understand that you think GMO are so dangerous that they should be banned, that individuals should be prevented by force of government from sowing GMO seed on their privately owned land. This is really no different than government banning drugs, cigarettes, or anything else in the name of "safety". (Remember, "second-hand smoke kills").

2) You're confusing law with policy. Leaving certain decisions up to the states is a good Constitutional LEGAL argument. It says nothing about policy.

For example, Ron Paul arguing for the elimination of federal agencies says nothing about constructing state regulatory regimes. Nonetheless, from a policy perspective, state bans and mandates aren't much better than federal bans and mandates.

3) I agree with you on the 10th Amendment, sort of. Again, I think you're confusing law with policy. I'm not arguing that California has no Constitutional authority to enact labeling mandates (or outright bans). I'm asserting that it's bad policy because it subverts the free market in favor of government force.

It's also worth noting that prior to incorporation of the Bill or Rights via the 14th amendment (and subsequent SCOTUS precedent) states could ban all sorts of stuff, at least as far as the federal Constitution was concerned.

4) Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that GMO foods are as bad as you think. As a matter of principle, bans and mandates should still be opposed – just as a ban on cigarettes or drugs should be opposed. Remember, these programs require government to intervene in personal affairs.

(My comments leave aside the issue of fraud, trespass, and other common law torts).

Wrong on so may levels...

I'm very surprised that a Ron Paul supporter would support this. It's wrong on so many levels.

I wrote a blogpost about this which reads in part:

"The latest push with regard to GM crops is the call for government regulations to require labeling. On the surface, this seems reasonable enough. After all, we have the right to know what we're eating, right? Never mind that most proponents of labeling don't trust the government any more than they trust corporations. Never mind that most of these folks are against more government regulation and favor the free market.

A logical free market approach would be for producers of non-GM crops to voluntarily label them as such - no government regulations required. If the demand for non-GM crops were as great as claimed, producers would label them without hesitation or the coercion of government regulations."

There are plenty of other reasons that this is not a good thing. You can find the entire post here:

http://moderately-epic.blogspot.com/2012/06/boogeyman-du-jou...

"The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident
which everybody has decided not to see."
— Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead)

you are forgetting producers of non-GM crops are not allowed

to to mention GMOs on the label now I would prefer the free market to but they have stacked the deck against the consumer and one of heads of Monsanto is a Zar already. The only thing this law would do is inform people about what is in there food.

This bill could be used against organic growers

This bill could burden organic growers with having to go to extraordinary lengths to prove that they've met disclosure requirements. Labeling law obviously should demand that anyone PROVE their disclosures.

It is already the goal of industry-controlled bureaucrats to bury family farms in paperwork and inspections. A bill like this is just one more tool.

I understand the frustration--the public doesn't care therefore companies are not motivated to voluntarily disclose. But I see it this way, if you don't claim (and have ability to demonstrate) that you are organic--then I assume the product is frankenfood.

(And given that you've posted on the Daily Paul, this bill is neither paleoconservative nor libertarian.)

Take back the GOP and Restore America Now.

A Very Bad Bill

A very bad bill.

This bill will continue to consolidate life.

Law to regulate life does just that. Please, advocates of such law, please recognize this law for what it is, a hoodwink for control.

Based on the direction of life, that it continues to be centralized and goes onto the digital grid where everything is tracked and recorded, if life reaches where everything external to you is legalized (read: made legal, consequently made illegal) -- which is to say you cannot provide for yourself -- because you refuse to go along with the system or the system more or less kicked you out, you will be sorry for this law, a law that limits.

And it is then you, an advocate of this law, might understand what was needed back when was law repealing attacks on you when you were trying to do for yourself.

This bill, a move to consolidate, will produce worse food quality whose coverage/consumption in America will be or on road to be vast, increased prices and additional regulation.

To tackle the GMO problem is to increase that innate ability learning. Go learn.

Think and act for yourself.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

Although i agree with telling the truth about whats in it

I dont believe that it should be required by law, if you want to know exactly what your getting? make it yourself. You dont have to buy thier food. Grow your own.

A business man myself, i would personally tell you exactly whats in my food i serve, especially because theres a lot of diabetics in my area. This kind of law however only brings more excuses to make more laws.

Next what will it be? You have to tell us the exact amount of metal in my motorcycle? or it has to be weighed exactly the same amount as the last one that came out of the machine?

If there is a market for telling the truth, which there is, then they will tell the truth. I see more and more people everyday marking organic signs on there products. Even people with FAKE signs that look almost identical to an organic symbol but say something else.

Forcing laws on people can possibly force kill markets. You should always leave it alone if your unsure of the consequences.

Adapt or Die, the only real slogan of a free market.

If this passes, I would be ashamed of my fellow Californians.

50 Harmful effects of Genetically-Modified Foods

You can't compare what might have an effect on someone with diabetes or someone who chooses to ride a motorcycle with something that has a deleterious effect on ALL AMERICANS WHO EAT FOOD, DRINK WATER, and BREATHE THE AIR. The issue of dying pollinators (honeybees, butterflies, bats...) should be enough: if and when they're gone, so go fruits, vegetables, and nuts (and animals that eat the same). But in a nutshell, like a really big nutshell, here are some additional reasons. http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful. P.S. Those most vulnerable are infants, but sadly, the effects of toxic pesticides and fertilizers (that go hand in hand with GMO's) are already measurable at harmful levels in fetuses.

To begin with, our founders did not intend for corporations to wield the power they now do. (For one, the founders did not intend for them to enjoy human rights.) Second, the people in California should be able to pass any legislation they want to protect themselves.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Let's see how this plays out.

If this bill passes -- which seems likely -- look for Monsanto and the rest of the GMO gang to prod their tame congresscritters to cobble together some kind of "National Food Safety" legislation. It will be about a thousand pages long. No one will read it before it is passed and signed into law. And somewhere in its fine print, it will exempt large, "reputable" national/international firms like Monsanto from the labeling restrictions that mere states might impose. It will probably entail the appointment of a Food Czar, who will be picked from the ranks of "the industry." Most likely one of Monsanto's Vice Presidents.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

They passed a food safety farm bill last year

I fought it.

Bump for importance

This is great news.

One cannot be said to have freedom if one isn't permitted to know whether they are eating built-in pesticide (to say the least).

Shared on FB

Thanks for posting! :)