-10 votes

Rand Paul was wrong to vote NO on GMO labeling.

So, our body is the most valuable property we own. When we consume toxic "food" we are vulnerable to what the food does to our body. If it is tainted or altered it can destroy our body/property. Similar to pollution. We have a right to know what companies are putting into our environment. This effects our property. We don't live in individual bubbles. How can Rand Paul vote NO on GMO labeling? How are we supposed to protect our body/property without any information about the products we are consuming? Has Rand gone full neo-con? Sure this vote helps the corporations that use cheap GMO crops to make their products. It also leaves our population with a dangerous lack of information. Thanks AGAIN Rand.

*Once farmers, communities and states become dependent on GMO seeds and products for revenue, do you really expect the local and state government to jeopardize their economy? You don't think GMO activists have tried for YEARS to educate and work with their local governments. This type of entrapment is part of Monsanto's business model. That's why their seeds are being burned around the world by farmers that know better. If local governments lack the courage to do what's right and protect the safety of the consumer, how can you blame Americans for going to the Feds? Why isn't your anger directed at the failures of the state government?

Comment viewing options

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

More reason

to support GMO labeling. All the GMO labeling opponents say that these companies can be sued for fraud if they mislabel their product. You say that there are laws against false advertising and we can "research" to find out what is in our food. But what you anti-informationalists fail to consider or realize is that by selling a GMO product without disclosure is false advertising and fraud in itself. And that is what these GMO companies are engaged in.

If you sell a GMO apple as a normal apple then you are committing fraud and that is what they are doing and that is why labeling should be mandatory. Otherwise you are advocating fraud and false advertisement.


Why should the government be

Why should the government be regulating them, why not allow the free market to do it?


it's nice to know so many members here agree with me.

Looks like Rand isn't so popular anymore.

LOL! Good Lord, freetoroam,


Good Lord, freetoroam, lol. Are you and I reading the same thread?

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

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

yes I am.

When the thread first started I had lots of support and great comments from lots of members. They even started their own threads. It has now degenerated into a ranting mess by many of the same members that post on this thread over and over. To make sure their Pro-Rand cheerleader like comments are on top. It's childish. Rand is becoming more and more unpopular and he will soon reveal his neo-con colors again. Just watch. This is just the beginning.

What don't you like about

What don't you like about Rand? I think he's doing fine. His endorsement of Romney is gamesmanship to set himself up for success four years later. I disliked his endorsement, but I understand why he did it: USA is full of asleep people. To sum up my belief about Rand, I have difficulty believing he is not Ron's son. Someone who grew up under Ron's influence is likely going to mirror Ron's judgments 95-plus percent of the time. As you said, just watch. Meanwhile, let me know why you dislike Rand.

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

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

Smoking is bad for us too do

Smoking is bad for us too do you want rand to out law that too? hey lets have him outlaw pop too!
you progresive!

Yeah, man! its stupid to know what's in the

products you use. Only progressives want that, man. Commies everywhere on this site.... I'm for freedom and liberty, man. Government sucks.

Looks like we have a few

Looks like we have a few liberals taking advantage of the fact that many here are not happy with Rand endorsing Romney. That with the the intense dislike of GMO and Monsanto is confusing many liberty minded people.

There should be a lot more down votes for this post since it is pushing big government solutions, since there are many good answers to show those that don't understand Rand's decision.

The two or three obvious liberal trolls seem to be possibly Monstanto / GMO shills, since they have refused to answer any questons about why they would want Monsanto to be writing regulations about labeling food (via the FDA that they basically own).

nail on the head.

I'm not American but I am anti-gmo (well more anti-monsanto than gmo) and at a surface level someone voting against gmo labelling seems like a bad idea but when you see the perverse reality and double speak with these bills, it's obvious Rand did the right thing.

If any good came out of the patriot act it's that a lot of people woke up to the fact the bills tend to do the opposite you'd imagine they would.

tbh I was very impressed at the knowledge of gmo on here and not just from the monsanto crew. A couple of years ago, no-one seemed to know what gmo was. Then again, it could just be the dp crowd are more knowledgeable than most.

So who is going to do the

So who is going to do the labeling? The FDA? Im glad the fda regulates big pharma. Because of the FDA, bad plants have been removed from medicine cabinets and only good chemicals make it into our body. Wolf watching the henhouse chicken eggs or however the analogies go. Rand made the right decision. Labeling would be a false sense of security.

One world, under government, with power and money for the elite

Clear Path to Sue Now, Difficult to Sue when GMO Labels Applied?

Hi, everyone, a few questions on mandated GMO labels:

1. Wouldn't suing whoever sells GMO foods become difficult once GMO labels are put onto foods' packing? (Wouldn't this label legitimize GMO foods, a protection against retribution?)

2. Wouldn't that difficulty be proportional to the number of GMO foods sold, where the more GMO foods there are, the more pervasive the acceptance of GMO food is because the food looks, feels and tastes what they're used to? This acceptance excludes advertising and marketing, both of which would smooth this food's transition into the mainstream.

3. Referring to my comment's title: If GMO food sellers are selling GMO foods how they sold food before they sold GMO foods, that packaging, maketing and so on is without evidence of the change in food constitution, doesn't this nonidentification, this non-notification, beg for lawsuits against these companies? In short, the fraud argument could be used, couldn't it?

If the answers to these questions are yes and this legislation becomes law, this law would further warp food as we know it and then destroy it by ushering in nano technology in food and its packaging, a topic that is sequential and consequential to (read: result because of) GMO food. This consequence, nano technology in food and its packaging, would be presented as the or a "solution" to GMOs health problems, to me revealing GMOs to be but a precursor, a testing grounds, er, no, a set-up, for nano technology in food.

-repeal laws that attack the individual doing what he wants
-get to suing GMO food sellers if their packaging, advertising and marketing of GMO foods is what they were before those sellers sold GMO foods. Piece of cake. Just get to it
-uphold judicial attack on coercion and fraud

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

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

Since this topic drifted to the top of the thread-heap

I'll just post a link to a better summary of the situation than the one you gave:

"Home is where it's hardest."


this isn't about freedom from government!

Any company who uses GMO's should have their corporate charter revoked. They are poisoning the population with GMO's and should be stopped.

Rand is a CORPORATE LIBERTARIAN, not a friend of ours ...he should look into what the founders said about corporations IMO

you got it.

We will now see Rand protect corporations more and more.

This OP is another example of people flying off the handle about

something they aren't educated about. The MO is to take a talking point and pound it, but NEVER go deeper than the surface issue.

This bill was NOT about GMO labeling and voting yay does not mean you support such labeling, and voting nay does not mean you oppose it.

Right now, States have power to pass laws requiring food labeling. (the Congress does not, except perhaps, by a stretch, with ONLY interstate commerce)

Thus, this bill has failed and nothing has changed.

That means States STILL have the power to pass such laws. If you want them passed, I suggest you lobby your State Legislators. Congress is not the appropriate vehicle for passing STATE law.

Now, had this bill passed and been signed into law. It would not have made anything possible at the State level, with regard to GMO labeling, that doesn't exist now. What it would have done, was inserted language into current law that shows a PRESUMPTION that States CANNOT currently pass such laws and thus need special PERMISSION from Congress via the FDA to do so. (along with all the attendant restrictions, caveats, exemptions, and special privileges for big pharma and agribusiness.)

In short, supporting this bill because you support GMO labeling is akin to being a "useful idiot." (look up the term)

It was a Trojan Horse in the truest sense of the term.

I'm not happy with Rand with respect to his endorsement of Romney. But this was a HORRIBLE bill.

It would have done SEVERE damage to our Republic.

The problems with this bill have NOTHING to do with the surface issue of food labeling and EVERYTHING to do with the INHERENT issue of federalism.

A "nay" vote was the correct one on this bill.

I agree...

Furthermore, as with any legislation, if it isn't not in article 1, section 8, then the Federal government does not have the authority to dictate. That is the issue we fight here continually.

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

You Said

That is the issue we fight here continually.

Really. This battle gets tiresome. Why can't freedom folk just agree to do what they want with whomever wants to do with them and if problems arise then resolve the problems on their own? After all, it's what 99.99% of all individuals did and, despite the centralization of life, do today still, person-to-person interaction. Heck, our using the DP is one instance of involvement in freedom: A person considered using the DP, signed up and communicates with whomever while able to cease that communication at any time. That DPers quarrel on freedom is strange. The only thing I can assign to the quarreling is incomprehension of freedom.

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

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

You Misunderstood my meaning.

...I meant WE are here, coming together to fight tyranny. I was not referring to the infighting that goes on on this site. In spite of that we have a common enemy, those who would subjugate us.

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

Ah, so what you meant was:

Ah, so what you meant was: This issue is what we here fight daily?

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

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton



If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

Cool! You know, I think I


You know, I think I found a better way to write it:

We here fight this issue daily.

Yay, nay? lol. Anyway.

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

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

I'll call my editor...LOL!

I'll call my editor...LOL!

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

Very good! I was one and a

Very good! I was one and a writer once, before a health issue took me away from my life, making simple mental and physical exercises into trials. Avoid dentistry, lbelle. Avoid it not because it's like a plague but because it is a plague. Got questions on it, let me know. Otherwise, let me know what your editor recommends. lol.

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

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

But, you're my editor! ;-D

But, you're my editor! ;-D

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

Ha ha! In that case, send me

Ha ha! In that case, send me your compositions before they're published. lol. :-P OK, Lb, take it easy and see you around.

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

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

I agree. People that support

I agree. People that support this would have to also support Bloomberg's ban on soft drinks...and at least that was Constitutional!

Ventura 2012

We could do it this way,

but I'm afraid sooner or later every thing in the stores will have a sticker.


I personally think, any food subsidized by the government, we pay for through our taxes, we can demand labeling of that food. Or the farms can stop accepting the money, which would be good too.

"The United States federal government paid American farmers $12.3 billion in 2009 to boost crop production. While this number may seem high, it is actually nearly the lowest amount paid to farmers in the past 10 years. The reason farmers are paid to grow certain crops is to ensure that they grow more for the country while at the same time making the same amount of money. What some people aren’t completely aware of is the huge impact that the subsidies have on what ends up on our plate – in plain sight or otherwise. Corn alone took in a whopping $77.1 billion from the government between 1995 and 2010. The U.S. government continues to be a major player in the national food business, with subsidies continuing to grow. Here are the top 9 food products that the government most heavily subsidizes:
Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/9-foods-the-u-s-government-is-payi...

Someone who cared about liberty wouldn't take your position...

They'd want the subsidies to be ended instead.

thats why I said

Or the farms can stop accepting the money, which would be good too.