-11 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?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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


Of course Monsanto trying to ban labeling is wrong. However, two wrongs do not make a right.

Maybe it is a bit unrealistic to expect everyone to test their own food. However, I don't see why you couldn't start a business which did keep track of this sort of stuff for consumers and charge a small fee for the info.

As far as labeling is concerned if the consumers demand it, they will get it. The government getting involved isn't the answer. It will only lead to captured regulators and the labeling laws will end up being no big issue to the big guys while they end up hurting their smaller competitors.

SteveMT's picture

What happens in the meantime? Nothing?

If the labeling issue is stonewalled by the Monsanto-owned senators for years or longer, what happens?

You just described the entire history of administrative law

in one reply. Wow.

And you also exposed to everyone the mentality of people who clamor for government solutions to market problems and why that ALWAYS backfires.


Yes you can...

If you bothered to take responsibility for yourself and did some research.

All of the things you mentioned can be personally tested. If so many of you are concerned about what's in your food you could always form a non-profit corporation, pool your resources, and test lots of products out there and help inform yourselves and the public. If people find your service valuable, they can donate... Or... even better, you could make a profit off of your service and become entrepreneurs! You'd be contributing to the economy and creating jobs, while providing a valuable service to your customers! Oh... but then you'd just be a "greedy evil" corporation... *sigh*. Life for your type must be hard, eh?

Well you could always just call them up and ask if you're that lazy... but instead you'd force everyone else to pay to do it for you... pay for the government to do a horrible job at it too...

Voting Nay is the correct vote!!

Forced speech is slavery. Remember the fifth amendment. Forced labeling is not libertarian!!!!!!
Labeling is part of advertizing. If I have a great product that people want i.e non-GMO I would love to let everyone know. If I stay silent then I am either a fool or in this case the food is GMO. Producers already label their foods as non GMO.
You should all know this as you put up your Ron Paul signs!!!


I also noticed there is no effort from the hysterical faction

to encourage people to GROW their own food. That way, you know if it's GMO or not. (at least you can control it if you know how)

Sure, that might be a pain in the ass to some. But Liberty isn't cheap. No one ever claimed responsibility could be someone else's job.

Each of us is responsible for what we put into our own bodies.

While it would be NICE to know where prepackaged food came from, if it isn't possible for me to know and I really want to make sure it is safe for me to eat, then I have to take matters into my own hands and either ONLY buy products I know and trust are NOT GMO, and/or grow everything I need/want myself.

If I am unwilling to do those two things, then I am abdicating responsibility and putting myself at the mercy of others. And then, I have no right to bitch or complain when others don't do what I want.

Lol.. the downvotes must be because I spoke of making a profit

And those who push the OP's agenda side with socialists... makes sense.

Negative numbers?

A bunch of Rand sheeple who can't think for themselves, So everyone who voted neg. should a company sell you poison and call it food? that's what you fu**in idiots are arguing for

Look in the mirror. You are supporting Trojan Horse legislation

The bill is not about labeling. It is about taking presumption of authority away from the States and giving it to the FDA which is controlled by the very vermin you so detest.

Why do YOU want to give the FDA more power than they have now?

States can already pass labeling laws. Why do you want the FDA to restrict State power to do so?

READ THE DAMNED BILL. And try to ween yourself off of superficial talking points.

I dont support giving FDA more Authority

Congress can write a law banning GMO's and make it a felony for someone to sell it, and if they get caught we could have them arrested, and sue Monsanto, this case would have to be federal, otherwise Monsanto could buddy up with the Feds and make the state that fights them pay big, trade wars and litigation, or we could just sit on our hands applaud Rand and continue eating poisons and giving poisons to our kids, which is apparantly what you want


Yes, from your posts, you either didn't read the bill or you support giving the FDA far more authority. Take your pick.

Eric Hoffer

SteveMT's picture

Can the states fight a $41.5B company like Monsanto?

The states are bankrupt.

Oh... and I thought I was the one making personal insults..?


Didn't catch that part of

Didn't catch that part of Article I Section VIII where Congress shall pass laws warning American citizens of foods with dangerous ingredients. Oh right, that is a function of the market. Do your own research and buy accordingly. This law would only make the creation and packaging of foods more expensive making it harder for smaller businesses that may offer healthier foods to get into the business, thus protecting "BigAG" even more.

I didn't either

That's why we need an Amendment to the Constitution, Amending the Constitution is Constitutional, Ron Paul has said the same thing

Ron Paul has certainly said

Ron Paul has certainly said amending the Constitution is constitutional. However, a man as wise as him knows amending it to leave food labeling requirements to the inefficiencies and corruption of government would be foolhardy at best and a nightmare at worst.

This, again, is a function of the market. Do your own research, buy accordingly.

Doesn't this also encroach on States Rights?

Although on the surface it appears that Rand made a poor decision however upon further review there's much more to it. The Federal Government has specific duties and if this were passed, it definitely oversteps those duties. This is a States rights issue and although I thoroughly agree that we need must have this labeling but it must be done by the individual states not the Federal Government.

A Patriot in VA

Why waste time and loot more

Why waste time and loot more taxpayer dollars creating individual laws and regulatory agencies in each state to enforce something the free market does much more efficiently and at no direct cost to tax payers? People want to live and parents want their children to be healthy; they can do research and buy foods with healthier ingredients. Consumer groups, for example JD Power & Associates with cars, can rate companies' foods which are the healthiest. If we as consumers tend to buy healthier foods, companies will transition over to healthy foods.

Regulations only protect big companies from competition. If there is less competition, there will be fewer choices of healthier food. You should read The Real Crash by Peter Schiff he explains this basic principle flawlessly.

Rand was Right you dummy!

He's following the commonly known principle of "buyer beware"! If you want Monsanto to go down you got to fight them in court and get these "patents on life" to die! There should be no such thing as a "patent on life" because they never created that life!!

SteveMT's picture

So there were 73 'nays' including Rand's on this bill.

Are there 73 libertarian-minded senators on this issue?
How many of those senators are PAC-money owned by Monsanto?
Wouldn't Monsanto have voted the same way on this bill?

Conclusion: They got Rand's vote for free, I guess. He voted the same way as the Big Pharma-bought Senate was lobbied to vote. This was a win-win for the Statists, and a lose-lose for Liberty, IMO.

Now that you can't form a coherent argument, you're back to Rand

So, now that you can't form a coherent argument, you're back to Rand bashing, eh?

I'll re-iterate my argument one more time. Since you continually distract from it and keep changing the subject.

Rand voted "no", just like Ron Paul would. Ron Paul has stated his position on this back in 2008. The reasoning behind voting "no", is that this bill does not empower the states, it merely gives more power to the FDA. The FDA is an unconstitutional entity that has former Monsanto executives working for them.

The reason why the FDA is captured can be explained by Public Choice Theory. In Public Choice Theory, "Regulatory Capture", is where the government, especially government bureaucracies such as the FDA become captured by the very industries they are supposed to be regulating. The reasoning is that the FDA has been given power which corporations such as Monsanto would want to capture. As long as you give the government such power, private corporations will almost always capture it. On the other hand, if the government power was limited to simply enforcing laws against fraud, you have courts, judges, and juries entering the equation, which while not 100% immune from capture are much more resistant to it than a bureaucratic agency that requires no such precautions and can dictate whatever rules and enact whatever prior restraint it wishes.

The reason why Congress and the President are bought out by the banks is the same reason why the FDA is captured by Monsanto. They have been given so much power over the banks, those who own banks have every incentive to capture Congress along with any agencies which are supposed to be regulating them.

SteveMT's picture

You are confusing a coherent argue with a fact.

Rand Paul voted No, just like 72 other senators did. That is a fact. He voted the same as other libertarian senators and the senators who are owned by Monsanto/Big Pharma voted. It's just a fact, an observation. That's all. There is nothing to argue about.


Do I even need to point out the logical fallacy here or is it self evident to most posters on this board?

Eric Hoffer

Only about one third of what you said is fact..

The rest of it is merely opinion. The only fact is the voting record.

It is not a fact that any of those senators did it for truly libertarian reasons (except probably for Rand, but again this is OPINION, not fact). It is also not a fact that they necessarily voted that way because they are bought out by Monsanto.

It is my opinion that those who voted Yes were voting for Monsanto, not the other way around. Again, this isn't fact, just like your opinion isn't fact either.

But I'm still waiting for your counter-argument to my argument re: regulatory capture which you keep avoiding. I guess I'll never get it, eh?

SteveMT's picture

There WAS only one fact written, the voting record. You got it.

That was THE fact.

Your opinions as far as why they voted the way they did...

Is merely conjecture though.

SteveMT's picture

Do you believe that Monsanto wanted this bill to pass?

Accurate labeling would put them at a disadvantage for sure. They wanted this bill to fail, and they used their power to get what they wanted.

That's completely beside the point really...

Plus we've already been over this pretty well when I outlined the best and worst case scenario the amendment could have offered.

SteveMT's picture

This IS the only point, the bottom line. Monsanto won.

If Big Pharma won, someone must have lost. Who lost? Answer: The people lost. Monsanto greased the palms of the Senator's hands, and presto...the bill was defeated handily by the same senators who took the Monsanto money.

There are not only two players here.

The issue you keep missing is not labeling.

It was State power.

The States won this time.

You are presenting a false dichotomy side show about a talking point.

Let's get back to basics here.

Federalism survived yet another attack with this vote.