-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.

He's a troll.

He just repeats the same points over and over even after he's been soundly defeated in argument.

He's not adding anything to the debate past 5 or so minutes in, everything after that is him repeating things and never addressing the counter arguments to his position.

Thanks Mark. It seems you missed all the members in this thread

that AGREE with me. We are having a great conversation. When you are done violating the rules of this website and control your personal attacks, how about you join in and tell us why Americans can't know what food is toxic and what food is not. God Bless.

your logic of forcing a

your logic of forcing a private company to disclose ingredients on a label would most likely not save the same people who are to lazy to research the company who puts the labels on the contaminated food. its like poor fat people complain they have to eat fast food because it cheaper when i just bought a weeks worth of new york steaks and potatoes and rice and salad for the same price as the fast food eaters.... people are just lazy and do not like to take the blame so they cast it on others and say " hey why are you not taking care of me " like a child

░░░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ----------------O

I feel for you freetoroam

and wonder if it's worth debating some people on here. it's amazing how some folks on this website would sooner kill themselves than go against what they think is "constitutional". it's like they feel comforted by an idea that will never be again yet can't comprehend anything outside of it.

And why can't people answer the following (very valid) questions rather than just attack you?

How is my body, which is my property, not worthy of protection?

Why should a corporation (who cares about profits and no more) have free reign to pollute my body (property)?

It's so strange. They rant about people "being responsible"

and "researching" what they eat, blah, blah, blah. A group of Americans tries to make sure information is available so this can be possible and some members attack this group of Americans. Is this what it means to be a Libertarian? Where do they think the information about the product should come from?

have you ever bought a

have you ever bought a vehicle? did you research the quality of the brand? I sure hope you did! its called researching. it helps to do that to all products you consume. and if its not labeled dont buy it! simple

░░░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ----------------O

and research requires information

and that is what labels provide. I hope that's easy to understand.

if you saw a can on the shelf

if you saw a can on the shelf at the store without any labeling at all including the brand..... just bare tin.... would you buy it? i sure hope not! YOU CAN NOT FORCE ME TO TELL YOU WHATS IN THE FOOD I HAVE FOR SALE. YOU HAVE A "CHOICE" TO DO BUISNESS WITH ME. ITS CALLED FREEDOM ....... research it...

░░░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ----------------O

Your body is your own to do with as you see fit,

but if you don't take the time to personally research what is and is not GMO-dreck, then that is your issue to take up with yourself, local and possibly state, /not/ the FEDERAL government.

Tales of Vesperia - Resolution of the People ~ from 'Ring a Bell'

They don't...

You're just espousing the typical leftist dogma.

I agree

GMO's are bad news on many levels.

I would like to see Rand stand up to Monsanto.


I'd like to see Rand stand up to Monsanto, too.

Monsanto has sued many a farmer when their GM crops have turned up on the farmer's fields even though the farmers say they never planted them. For an alarming expose of Monsanto's legal battles with American farmers see the report Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers.
For more see Goliath and David: Monsanto's Legal Battles against Farmers.


Top 10 Facts YOU Should Know About Monsanto

No GMO Labeling Laws in the USA!
Lack of Adequate FDA / USDA Safety Testing
Monsanto Puts Small Farmers out of Business
Farmer Suicides After GMO Crop Failures
Monsanto Products Pollute the Developing World
500,000 Agent Orange Babies
Monsanto Blocking Government Regulations
Monsanto Guilty of False Advertising & Scientific FRAUD
Consumers Reject Bovine Growth Hormone rBGH in Milk
GMO Crops Do NOT Increase Yields
Monsanto Controls U.S. Soy Market
Monsanto's GMO Foods Cause NEW Food Allergies


Ron Paul seems to agree with you, freetoroam.

Since Monsanto won a lawsuit making it so the makers of genetically-engineered food can legally fraudulently market their products, and it it IS the duty of the State "to protect each individual from aggression", Ron Paul has said, "...makers of genetically-engineered food should be held legally responsible if they fraudulently market their products or harm anyone."

His own words say otherwise...

He means "legally responsible" in court, but not that prior restraint be used, Troll.

How do you know what he means?

Are you a professional interpreter?



Paul: The federal government lacks constitutional authority to mandate labeling of products containing genetically-modified food. Furthermore, those who do not wish to consume genetically-modified products should be leery of federally-mandated labeling because history shows that federal regulatory agencies are susceptible to "capture," where the regulators end up serving the interest of the business they are supposed to control. In the case of labeling, federal agencies could redefine the meaning of �modified� to allow genetically-engineered food on the market without fully-informing consumers of the presence of genetically-engineered ingredients. Instead of federal regulation, consumers should demand that manufactures provide full information and refuse to buy those products that are not fully labeled. Once producers see there is a demand for non-genetically-engineered products they will act to fulfill that demand. Of course, makers of genetically-engineered food should be held legally responsible if they fraudulently market their products or harm anyone.
Source: Ron Paul (02/26/2008)

Someone quoted him directly on this earlier...

Also, unlike you I actually understand his interpretation of the constitution and I can predict how he votes because he's just that predictable and consistent.

This guy pretty well explains it here:


and timmay makes another personal attack

and violates the rules of the website with no consequences.

You consider calling someone out as a socialist

For pushing socialist policies, a "personal attack".

Oh, and calling out an obvious troll as a troll. All one has to do is look at Jump Up's comment and post history to see he's a troll, just like you.

I've called one person a "nut", once... and I've called you and Jump Up "trolls". Yeah, I'm so horrible. What about the three dozen times you've personally attacked Ron Paul's son?

Everything is genetically modified

When we started selective breeding hundreds of years ago, we were in turn genetically modifying things. Organisms are genetically modified naturally as well, just by existing. Not sure why people are so worried about stuff like this. I certainly disagree with using it to create monopolies like Monsanto does, but I think the health and environmental effects are overblown.

I'm a lab assistant and work on barley genetics. Modifications are made with genes such as rice, not fish genes or anything like that. I'm not trying to troll or anything like that, but genetically modifying things has a lot of benefits: higher yields, disease resistance, etc.

Gene splicing between non-compatible species, not same.


Free includes debt-free!

The way I see it is...

That genetically modified crops can be good or bad and the consequences could go either way.

So the people who want to ban or force labeling laws etc seem nothing more than lobbyists for the "organic food" industry.

I also think Monsanto has some bad business practices, and I don't particularly like them. However... again... that isn't reason to deny them due process or to use prior restraint against them.

Banning "genetically altered", seeds sounds very very bad imo, because I'm sure there are many good things that could be done through genetic alteration such as making them resistant to diseases. I would LOVE to have tomato and cucumber plants which were resistant to cucumber mosaic virus, because I literally can't grow anything in my yard because of this damned disease... and it's passed through so many different vectors there's pretty much no way I can defend against it short of a genetically modified plant which is resistant to it.

Wishful thinking, and unintended consequences.

What if these changes are being sought because of depleted soil, mono-cultures and other failures of our USDA driven agricultural policies.

A gene splice that includes a powerful toxin for the mosaic virus will also be a powerful toxin that the liver will have to handle.

If the GMOs could be proven safe by independent labs or groups, why hasn't it been done.

Probably the same reason it was not done for vaccines, aspartame, fluoride, sucrolo. It can't be done, honestly and openly.

Send in the attorneys, seek FDA approval and the indemnity that brings.

Free includes debt-free!

Great post, Paul.


And you would deny my right to choose

If I thought the risks were worth it or not for myself.

>A gene splice that includes a powerful toxin for the mosaic virus will also be a powerful toxin that the liver will have to handle.

LOL. And how do you know this? Did you just make it up on the spot? Besides, I never said it should contain a toxin, I just wish for it to be more resistant to the virus. You know how some people are genetically predisposed to be resistant to some diseases while others are not? Are their bodies producing "toxins" which make them immune? I don't think so. You're a nut. Seriously.

Choose away. Don't worry about brain toxins.

You've dodged the issue, ignored the fact that liver toxin is one technique being used to "protect" crops. And that there is no evidence that these foods provide health benefits that exceed the deleterious effects of the product.

If government has to indemnify a product, it likely that the risk must be higher than the cost of lobbying.

The little smear at the end was a nice touch. I wonder if you are serious, or if your paid to post here.

Free includes debt-free!

Which issue did I dodge exactly?

Seriously, I'm not sure which issue I dodged at all. I feel more like you're the one dodging the issues. You act like I don't have a right to choose if I should be able to eat hybrid plants or not and then dodge this by just saying "choose away".

What liver toxin are you even talking about? When does genetically altered automatically mean it has liver toxins in it?

Also, if they are so dangerous then where is the double blind scientific studies proving they are even dangerous? Maybe I could hop on the anti-GMO bandwagon if you could produce such a study, but so far all I see are unsubstantiated claims. If they are so dangerous it should be easy to prove with a double blind, controlled study, right?

What about the unintended consequences of the laws you want passed?

How can I choose?

You want to ban genetically altering plants. You've destroyed my choice.

As for the liver toxin thing I've never heard of it. However, my point still stands, there's more than one way to genetically alter something to make it resistant to a virus.

As far as your next point I don't even understand what you're trying to say.

Also, what issue did I dodge exactly?

we live in a democratic

we live in a democratic republic, you can't have 100% of your choice fulfilled.

That doesn't even make any sense...

The idea of a republic is to protect the minority against the whims of the mob. Which basically means I should have EVERY choice I want without prior restraint. However, if I do injure someone I am culpable legally in a court of law. This does not mean the government can use prior restraint against me though.