-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.

He's barely gotten started.

Prior to each of his previous bannings, he churned divisive threads like this for 3 months straight. It gets to the point where if he loses a point, he just starts over at the top of the page as if nothing happened, and just repeats himself over and over.
You haven't even seen anything yet. I have lived thru the last three debacles he created here.

It's Official: Pro-GMO Groups are part of AGENDA 21!

Watch video describing how the move to block GMO labeling is part of Agenda 21:


maybe someone already asked this question..

Why do some think its okay to demand transparency from the "private" federal reserve, but not from from the private food suppliers?

Anyway good post and conversation. I have a lot of friends who are shocked that I would support GMO food labeling because I support Ron Paul/Rand Paul. How dare I stray from my libertarian roots, and form my own opinion on an issue, lol.

This comparison doesn't make sense...

The federal reserve isn't a fully private entity...

It has a special charter from the government which grants it a monopoly, so it is essentially a branch of government regardless of who owns it.

for sake of the argument

I think the comparison is there, Big Agra/Monsanto and our government are in bed together. They have quite a lot of influence in policy making.

WikiLeaks: More Evidence of Monsanto's Bullying and Influence-Buying

Monsanto employees in the halls of government

Leaked documents reveal US diplomats actually work for Monsanto

At the very least, I feel any food that was grown with ingredients subsidized by the federal government or imported from other nations, we should demand to know the background of that food.
Top 9 foods subsidized by the federal government Corn,Wheat,Soybeans,Rice,Beer,Milk,Beef,Peanut Butter,Sunflower Oil.
Have any of these ever been bio-engineered?

This is Americas food supply and it should be transparent, safe and not influenced by Monsanto lobbyists or ex employees now working in our government.

The OP is just mad

that Rand is more libertarian and free market oriented than him...and of course your "rebuttal" is that he must be then a "full blown neo-con" because he doesnt agree with you.

On a side note, i tend to not to believe the GMO hype anyways.

I swear, are there any sane Paul people left on these forums?

Or was I just trolled?

SteveMT's picture

Do libertarians endorse neocons?

That is a logical question from a sane Ron Paul person.

What does GMO food do to people? Stop eating it, now.

It's called playing politics...

I can't help it if you're paranoid and delusional. Look at his voting record... other than the sanctions on Iran I can't find any issues with it to be honest.

He's not perfect, and I don't agree with his decision to endorse Romney, but if he wants to have any future in politics he made the right choice.

The only thing I can figure is that the left is truly afraid of the Pauls because they see how many votes are taken from them... and that the Pauls actually take more votes from democrats than republicans in many polls.

So they are here to try to turn off as many former paranoid democrats who believe government can solve their problems, even though that very government and government agencies which would be enforcing these labeling laws are fully captured by Monsanto and Big Pharma etc.

SteveMT's picture

Do libertarians play politics? Don't think so.

Your name calling does nothing except to show your desperation about this issue.

I think you're confusing libertarianism

With political strategy, which are two different things. Regardless, this stuff about Rand is a distraction, isn't it? I thought it was the GMO you were so concerned about? Oh wait... that's right... you're just looking to bash on Rand... I forgot.

Considering Ron Paul would have voted the same way, would you be concern trolling about his vote on this too?

Also, I may have called you the wrong thing. It's possible you're just a troll, not paranoid or delusional. In which case you're only agenda is to try to throw a wrench into our growing political movement.

SteveMT's picture

Do libertarians just keep on attacking with malice?

That seems to be your intent, since you keep on doing so whenever there is disagreement.

yeah, I'm mad at Rand because

he is a great "Libertarian", except for the time he appeared on Hannity's show and endorsed another neo-con for President. A show hosted by a super neo-con that regularly attacks and tries to humiliate Ron Paul and the Liberty Movement. Now he wants to campaign for Romney. But I'm mad at him for being a better libertarian than me :)

In an absolute moral sense,

In an absolute moral sense, Rand was right. If consumers really want labeling of their food, then they will demand it of from producers and it will happen.

In a practical sense, Rand is wrong. Most people are not even educated about GMOs; many do not care. That means that people who want to eat healthy are in the minority; the market can be harsh to this kind of minority.

We always say in government, that the whims of the majority should not trample upon the rights of the minority. I feel that even in a free market, people should have a right to know exactly what they are eating. Just because 95% of the people don't care what they stuff in their faces, it is wrong to force other people to operate under that paradigm.

Ultimately, that lack of caring is why these companies are against labeling; they don't want someone to see the label, start to question the product, do research, and then refuse to buy it. By not mandating labeling, companies can hide behind misinformation, false research, smokescreens, etc. Producers also know that if they dig in, consumers will eventually relent and purchase the food without labeling. Just through misinformation, without labeling, it can get very hard to know exactly what you eat; you end up compromising out of sheer exasperation. In addition, the big food producers can all band together and universally decide to not label their food, forcing the consumer in one direction.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

SteveMT's picture

I agree with you what you say.

I haven't agreed much with what you have said before, but I agree with this. The issue is far too big for the people or even a state to fight.


Thanks. Some issues supercede ideology...

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Yea, well net neutrality

Yea, well net neutrality sucked too.

Looks good at first, then as you peel away the veneer, you see the substance at the heart is completely rotten.


The Mises institute has a great quote as their motto:

Tu Ne Cede Malis, "Do not give into evil", it continues, "but proceed ever more boldly against it".

To want labeling is to promote coercion against private company. Use whats left of the market, not force.

Know your stuff, learn real history and economics @LibertyClassroom.com

yes labelling is evil

but genetically modifying 75% of all food stuff isn't.

eugenics = good
traffic lights = pure evil

can you believe these guys?

They will let corporations create their food in labs and lobby to hide it all in the name of the "free" market. Someone wants to know what's in their toxic soup and they attack them as being for big government. This is insane.

can an evil make a good?

can an evil make a good?

Know your stuff, learn real history and economics @LibertyClassroom.com

I don't think cigarette warnings

have done much harm? That's labelling mandated by government and therefore 'evil' as you'd say. I don't see the harm in the state (state not feds) putting up road signs warning of impending danger either.

If someone was poisoning my food for the last 20 years and doing everything in their power to hide the fact then although in your strict libertarian views that's not evil, it's still evil.

I suppose a rapist could father someone who went on to be a great person too.

Lots of examples of evil making good. If you are hoping for something good to come out of a corporation trying to monitize you and take ownership to the intellectual property of all living things then good luck with that.

While you are having philosophical musings on the essence of evil you are eating and drinking poison.

Thirteen years ago when GM soya and rapeseed was introduced in Canada (and in the US) the Corporations and Government told farmers that GM would increase yields, be more nutritious, use less chemicals, and feed a hungry world. Now we will always have a sustainable agriculture, they claimed. The Canadian Department of Agriculture figures states canola yields have decreased at least ten percent and soya at least fifteen percent [4], but worst of all, farmers are using three to five times more chemicals because of the GM superweeds that have developed. The reality is that the nutritional content of all crops are down fifty percent of what they were before GMOs were introduced and now we have less yields and more chemicals used, exactly the opposite of what Monsanto promised.

Poisoning food is covered by

Poisoning food is covered by other laws... You sue the producer for damages... If everyone got together and boycotted say oranges in all forms until the markets produced Non GMO. Then moved on to another product and on and on. Maybe we could change what is offered at the stores.

Generally government regulations simply make it legal for a few and illegal for the rest. Example pollution. Have they stopped it? What they have done is give some industries free passes. The rules that allow some industries to pollute also make it next to impossible to sue that industry for damages. Anyone with a better way to produce maybe with much less or no pollution can't get into the industry because of all the regulations and red tape in place. In the end the very regulations that are meant to protect end up protecting the polluter even from competition.

Do you know what you are

Do you know what you are eating? Most Americans simply do not understand that the FDA actually allows rat excrement, maggots and insect heads to be put into their food. The FDA only allows a small amount of these things, but they do explicitly allow them. You don't believe this? Well, you can read it for yourself. The FDA has published a pamphlet entitled “The Food Defect Action Levels: Levels of Natural or Unavoidable Defects in Foods That Present No Health Hazards for Humans” that tells food producers exactly how many "natural contaminants" are allowed in our food. The following are just some examples of the allowable levels of "natural contaminants" that the FDA lists in the pamphlet.....

Peanut Butter - Average of 30 or more insect fragments per 100 grams

Tomato Paste, Pizza And Other Sauces - Average of 30 or more fly eggs per 100 grams OR 15 or more fly eggs and 1 or more maggots per 100 grams

Wheat - Average of 9 mg or more rodent excreta pellets and/or pellet fragments per kilogram

Here's the link to this pamphlet

Interesting stuff.

It's useful to remember that all our food grows in the dirt, and SOME level of insect & rodent contamination is inevitable, without prohibitively expensive inspections. The FDA guidelines tell us what levels of contamination they regard as dangerous to our health.

I am not a fan of the FDA, but I recognize that ANY food inspection service would have to use standards such as these in their ratings. At least they define what standards they're using.

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

Then the label should read

Then the label should read 97% pure with %fly eggs.... I can produce a crop with Zero extras... But each and every item is hand inspected and washed. Yes the cost would be much greater but, I should not have to compete with the above being called 100% pure. If the truth was on the labels I bet I could sell mine for 50 times more. Can you imagine 99 percent pure 1% maggots... How many would buy that? If you are allowed to advertise 100% even if it is not why would a producer spend the money and effort to keep it pure?

Includes objectionable matter such as sticks, stones, burlap bagging, cigarette butts, etc. Also includes the valueless parts of the raw plant material, such as stems.

Cigarette butts? I would hate to know what the etc.... is?

Woooooah, what is this?

Since when have you trusted the government? Oh but now you would trust their labels? Makes sense.

Pottawattamie County Iowa

"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism." -Dr. Ron Paul

Respondents here need to recognize

that "freetoroam" the OP is a multiple-banned returning troll, who's historical pattern has been to come here and open hot divisive topics and churn them to disrupt the site and pit members against each other.

Just look at what he's doing here, with this thread he opened, and the churning behavior of the posts below.

The site staff have been alerted.
Please don't feed these trolls. We have so many important things to be doing.

It's failure on our part...but I'm not giving up.

Listen BigT,

It's a good debate to have. When people challenge the ideas of small govt and disregarding the constitution we need to be able to articulate that the Constitution works.

If we can't win the debate on the DP, how can we expect to win over America??!!! Be courteous and articulate your thoughts well. The fact that DP members are keeping this thread positively rated reflects a CLEAR failure on our parts to be able to articulate the ideas of freedom, liberty, the constitution, small govt, and the enumerated powers of the Federal Govt under Constitutional law.

There's no reason why this thread shouldn't be in the negative teens.


It's been articulated many times on these threads.

And ignored just as many times.

Nope. Your argument only

works in your fantasy world. The rest of us are at battle with a global corporation with a very nasty agenda. Sitting back and pontificating on the virtues of small government, blah, blah, blah, while we watch local and state governments FAIL to protect us from threats like Monsanto is unacceptable and pathetic. Activists have tried to work with local and state governments and were met with massive corruption and now the threat that Monsanto is seeking to get ALL labeling banned. You boys go cheer for Rand and his new buddy. We will fight to protect our food supply and for our right to know what's in it.