51 votes

Rand Paul Was Right to Vote Against Mandatory GMO Labeling

Rand Paul’s recent NO vote on a bill requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods is causing quite a stir in the Ron Paul community. Over at the Daily Paul, a very heated exchange is underway including comments like,

He (Rand Paul) is a disaster and votes like this drive good Americans away from the Liberty movement...

Another trusted libertarian site, The Humble Libertarian, posted the following,

"As if Rand Paul’s credibility with liberty activist isn’t already badly tarnished, he voted NO on a bill to require GMO food labeling. This is a very important issue and an issue that crosses party lines. Folks have an 'absolute right' (emphasis mine) to know what they are eating."

Read more: http://iroots.org/2012/06/23/was-rand-paul-right-to-vote-aga...

An “absolute right,” seriously?

When did the federal government gain such a great track-record that we would trust them to tell us when food items are safe? This might be a good time to remember just why Dr. Paul earned that nickname of “Dr. No.” (Here’s a hint. He didn’t get it by voting for feel-good legislation in the name of “safety.”) I’m unaware if Ron Paul has commented on this issue recently, but I see no reason to believe he has reversed his position since providing the following comments to vote-tx.org in 2008,

"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." - Ron Paul

Read more: http://iroots.org/2012/06/23/was-rand-paul-right-to-vote-aga...

(Before commenting or voting up/down, please go and read the entire article--including the video from Token Libertarian Girl and some proactive free-market solutions...)

UPDATE: Rand Paul recently linked to this article (up at www.iroots.org ) and added the following statement.

"I am an opponent of the FDA's war on natural foods and farmers. I've stood up for raw milk, hemp and natural supplements. I fought to take power AWAY from the government on these issues. So while there is evidence we should be concerned about GMOs, we should also be careful not to lose our constitutional perspective simply because the end result is one we may desire. That's what we fight against. That's what the statists do. Take a loot at a pretty thorough rundown on the recent GMO amendment. There were many more problems with it, including the potential the FDA could have assumed broad new rulemaking authority if this badly written amendment had passed."

Comment viewing options

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

I'm not letting the government define anything...

Fraud is fraud and property is property, it's that simple.

I've never been in favor of letting the government define either of these things.

But I now see what you are trying to say...

Property is property,

Property is property, huh?

What if an airplane is flying over your house at 50,000 feet. Is that a violation of your property? What if it at 50 feet?

If a coal plant in Pennsylvania is damaging the air, even minutely affecting the air quality around your house in Salt Lake City, is the coal plant violating your property?

If a girl scout comes to your door selling cookies, are you allowed to shoot her because she is violating your property?

If you are so uneducated and destitute that a company can prey on you by selling your unhealthy food, is it fraud? Is it fraud if the company doesn't mention the unhealthiness; is it not fraud if they do?

Again, these are difficult and tough questions. The line must be drawn somewhere, and that is what society does through law.

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

All of these questions are easy to answer...

>What if an airplane is flying over your house at 50,000 feet. Is that a violation of your property?

No

>What if it at 50 feet?

If I can prove they are causing some sort of damage to me or my property in a court of law.

>If a coal plant in Pennsylvania is damaging the air, even minutely affecting the air quality around your house in Salt Lake City, is the coal plant violating your property?

Sure, if I can prove it in a court of law.

>If a girl scout comes to your door selling cookies, are you allowed to shoot her because she is violating your property?

No, not unless she was breaking and entering or broke the lock on my fence.

>If you are so uneducated and destitute that a company can prey on you by selling your unhealthy food, is it fraud? Is it fraud if the company doesn't mention the unhealthiness; is it not fraud if they do?

No. Just because you are ignorant doesn't mean someone has defrauded you. I also find your use of the word "prey" to be highly hilarious. I guess hostess is "preying" on me by selling me twinkies. LOL!

>Again, these are difficult and tough questions. The line must be drawn somewhere, and that is what society does through law.

Difficult my ass.

Why isn't flying an airplane

Why isn't flying an airplane at 50,000 feet over your house a violation of your property?

In either case, what if there is noise pollution?

Proving things in a court of law, under the law that the court abides by. Which may not be an absolutist "property is property". Under such ideology, no industry could exist unless it got the permission of every human being on the planet.

In the case of the girl scout, why that line? She entered your property. Doesn't matter if she was breaking in or not. Why don't you have the right to expel her from that property in any way you want?

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

I feel like you're really grasping at straws...

>Why isn't flying an airplane at 50,000 feet over your house a violation of your property?

How is it violating my property? If the noise pollution was so bad I'd sue over it, at 50,000 feet though I'm not sure I'd notice much noise though.

>Proving things in a court of law, under the law that the court abides by. Which may not be an absolutist "property is property". Under such ideology, no industry could exist unless it got the permission of every human being on the planet.

Not sure why this would be true at all, maybe you could explain it to me?

>In the case of the girl scout, why that line? She entered your property. Doesn't matter if she was breaking in or not. Why don't you have the right to expel her from that property in any way you want?

That would be like shooting anyone who dared come to ring your doorbell, that's just absurd. As far as I know, this more of a jurisprudence sort of thing that has been dealt with over hundreds of years, not so much a legislative thing, correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, aren't we getting totally off-topic here?

I waiting for Rand's bill to allow

businesses to label their products NON-GMO. Right now it is not allowed by the FDA.

Actually..

It is allowed, but they must use a disclaimer. So you're being very misleading here.

Good point.

Good point.

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

Frankenstein's farm: transgenic agriculture twists property righ

Frankenstein's farm: transgenic agriculture twists property rights as well as DNA
by Joel Salatin; American Conservative, The / Dec, 2011

Corporations owning life. Scientists taking DNA out of plants and putting it into animals, or vice versa. Shooting electron cannons into genes to split off or insert strange chromosomes. Pigs without stress genes. Pollen wafting across fields, sterilizing neighbors' crops. Folks, this ain't normal.

Read more:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7060/is_12_10/ai_n5857...

I'm not sure

whether you are just utterly confused about this issue, or if you are purposely demagogic about it.
As if you think that gov't is the solution to your fears?

You seem to think that increasing gov't can have any beneficial effect whatever on anything, which has been soundly disproved by the very fact that the gov't power which you worship has in fact created the monster which you fear.

All it shows is that you have blind faith in gov't power, and that they are actually "good".
It's laughable.

Surely you are responding to

another's comment, Big T, there is zero in panax's comment alluding to anything in your response, nor in the article he provided.

It's purely educational, nothing about legislation.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

Perhaps

the wrong comment was picked to place my reply.

However, if you read his plethora of other postings, it will be clear that my post was delivered to the person intended.

The question is not about GMO, good or bad.
The issue is if the gov't regulations being demanded on these threads could be effective in doing anything more than making matters worse.

I can understand that they don't want GMO.
What I can't understand is why they think government could be "the answer", when gov't is so obviously "the problem".
It reveals a massive disconnect in logic, which could only be present in a person who is actually from the hyper-statist left, and never had any real affiliation to the limited gov't principles espoused by RP. In other words, moles.

...

“pharma-plants”... There are six major types of drugs now being produced by GM plants, including prescription vaccines, industrial enzymes, blood thinners, blood clotting proteins, growth hormones and contraceptives, all known to be much more dangerous than conventional drugs.

Sure there's ways to fight it, but the govt BE DAMNED! They're nothing but foolish, stupid, co-conspirators.

The Govt created this life threatening problem, it's up to individuals, to get us out: Free Markets, Dollar Power, Courts...

and the most important of all-education.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

freedom of choice in labeling

Rand is correct. There should be no law forcing private companies to label their products in a certain way.

Now it's time for Rand to initiate the process of repealing laws which make it illegal for dairy sellers to label their products as being free of bovine growth hormone.

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/mar08/rBGH-free_labeli...

freedom of choice?

How do you feel about keeping the government out of our personal lives and legalizing abortion?

Same thing.

Presently the only choice you have in which you are guaranteed to be eating a GMO free diet is not to eat. Are you really for killing the child, and the mother and the father through starvation to make a point?

Problem with most of the posts here is that the "posters" (and the Senator) haven't a clue about the heart of this issue and what the challenges are and because I'm a self employed farmer I don't have time to educate everyone. Stop being lazy and start thinking for yourself and stop pushing your views, products and pollen on my property!

Could you be

a little more clear, panax...? Are you for govt interference vs none, or are you not? Regarding, GMO labeling.

I applaud your attempts here in this thread to educate, but I am having a hard time discerning where you stand on the Fed. govt's roll. Please advise, TY.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

pollen

What does labeling have to do with pushing pollen onto your property?

Presently the only choice you have in which you are guaranteed to be eating a GMO free diet is not to eat.

What is stopping food sellers from labeling their product as "non-GMO"?

Had a little time on my hands and since the suspense was

killing me, I looked up some links to the Pork Act, aka, Farm Bill and its amendments. THERE COULD BE NO MORE EVIDENCE THAN THIS BILL THAT GOVT IS THE PROBLEM:
S.3240:"Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012" http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s3240es/pdf/BILLS-112s...

Roll Call votes on S. 3240 http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2012/s/164

Here are the Amendments voted on...those submitted by Republicans including, Rand Paul, Rubio, DeMint, M. Lee, Toomey, Thune and others, unfortunately, tho not surprisingly, if you read them, were rejected. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_m...

Snippet from AFP on S 3240:What’s worse, this whole package is masquerading through Congress under the guise of being a Farm Bill. But in 2011 almost 80% of the funding went to food stamps and other supplemental nutrition programs. With less than a quarter of the spending in this bill actually going to farm programs, perhaps it would be more appropriate to call this the Food Stamps Bill.

The bill also claims to end direct payments to crop producers but it puts in a whole new program called “shallow loss” where Congress guarantees big agribusinesses’ revenues will never fall below 90% of their average revenues over the last five years. If a crop has a bad year or if prices fall, Uncle Sam is there to make up the difference. It’s a guaranteed minimum income and it’s just as bad as direct payments.

So, Congress not only has bought into the so-called benefits of GMO crops, they're subsidizing Big Ag.

The below article talks all about the little farmers, organic and otherwise, and how GMO crops have ruined, contaminated, their crops. [and then they are sued for patent infringement!!!] IMO, it's more of an eye-opener than any double-blind test could ever be.
https://thegranddisillusion.wordpress.com/monsanto-vs-farmer/

There's another article on Monsanto's strategic purchase of the largest Bee Research and Laboratory, if I can find it I'll update .

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

Submitted by tdd4ron on Mon,

Submitted by tdd4ron on Mon, 06/25/2012 - 08:18. Permalink

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

The FDA has made it legal to call this stuff 100%... Legal fraud... I could start producing with the added expense of filtering my food truly 100% pure... Yet this other stuff is allowed by law to claim to be 100% pure....

Lord knows I have no confidence in Rand, but he's right on this

Sound reasoning, and consistent with an understanding that the hopelessly corrupt FDA is morally and practically incapable (and unauthorized Constitutionally) of forcing merchants to label (or not label) in any particular manner.

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

Labels are useless... I'm not

Labels are useless... I'm not right up to date but, a few years back you could have up to 10% crap in a grain elevator and still call it 100% pure... Mixed into the corn rats, bugs, a workers finger, ect... FDA label 100% pure... The government legalizes fraud....

drink unlabeled bleach

and tell me how you feel.

If it didn't say bleach on

If it didn't say bleach on the bottle I wouldn't have purchased it... TNo government needed... My wallet rules..

Also I don't need a label to tell me not to drink it... Those who would drink it are to young to read the label anyway.. They are counting on parents to have a few brain cells and keep it out of reach...

Also how was that food you ate that was labeled 100% pure with 10% rat ground up into it? Well some of the processing will filter the rat body out... his droppings... Why do you never see a label 7% rat droppings? I can promise you they are in it...

Also say they have over 10%

Also say they have over 10% bugs in a grain bin.... do you think they try to filter it out? No way to much time and expense... They add cleaner grain to dilute it below 10% and now it is 100% pure!

This is why the whole foods are so much better. If you can process a whole food yourself you can control the (cracker Jack) extras.

?

you make no sense. I would like to know if the food I'm purchasing is GMO. Monsanto wants to ban all labels. Real simple.

I would also like to know how

I would also like to know how many fly eggs I eat when I consume a can of tomatoes but, the current system allows them to be included with nothing on the label... How does that work for the average vegetarian?

This post is about Rand's

This post is about Rand's vote... It is about creating a law to force GMO producers to label GMO products... Instead of forcing one group to label how about let the markets decide? No trouble let the government remove all label laws... Producers can voluntarily label products (labels falling under contract law). When we go to the store we can make the choice... no label or labeled... I will choose the labeled how about you?

No, its about GMO producers getting around

years and years of private property case law that leads to full disclosure. Its about getting around case law on fraud and tort and misrepresentation, all by using the fed govt.

While reasonable people can disagree, what concerns me as a life long libertarian is getting down to the bottom of the private property issue. All our libertarian philosophy, ethical, political, economic all comes down to private property, fraud and tort. Years and decades and centuries of case law has built the case for private property.

Sellers must disclose what something IS. Hersheys sells Chocolate bars. I buy it and if it turns out its not chocolate, a fraud has been committed. If Gary Johnson farms sells "peaches" and it turns out these are not normal peaches, but peaches with human & fish DNA, this was not disclosed. These are not normal peaches. Monsanto wants to get around full disclosure. Rand Paul's vote helped them in this goal by getting big govt in the WAY.

From how i currently see the issue, unless convinced otherwise, it seems to me that GMO foods is getting a big exception to private property fraud law. "Let me sell my fake chocolate as Chocolate".... It tastes like chocolate, but its not. Fraud. It tastes like a normal peach, but its not. Standard product practice is to label what it IS, because if it is not what it is, you can be sued for fraud. And this practice causes honesty in the marketplace, a good thing. Private Property is respected. But if we allow products be sold legally as something it is not, or make an exception for one product, it shows disrepect for private property and allows confusion by allowing in fraud.

Finally, if any libertarian like myself here at DP has been paying attention to the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY is NOT REAL PROPERTY threads, you would know that libertarians (most) do not think that CODES, FORMULAS, PLANS, DNA, RECIPIES etc are property. See those threads. See Jefferson's candle and the flame analogy to zero in on why something is and is not "property". So the govt again creates a Monopoly Grant system Patents and that system is granting "ownership" to genes essentially and these genes, now patented, are GMO foods.

These GMO foods are dangerous to non GMO foods. Genes migrate, spread, and seeds travel. Pleanty to be concerned with here as a libertarian who is concerned about respect for private property and sees polution as a private property transgression.

There is much to be concerned about. Most of all, we libertarians can agree to disagree without being disagreeable towards eachother. We all have freedom as our goal. Personal insults and smart remarks do not assist us all getting to the bottom of this issue. Name calling, punditry talk, deflecting onto other side issues, all may work with Sean Hanity and Randi Rhodes, but it has no place here among freedom lovers. Give everyone the benefit of the doubt that we all mean well, and do not ascribe other imaginary motives. Get to the heart of the private property issue. Start from there.

I for one see the issue as Monsanto using congress to get around private property product case law about fraud and tort. About their desire to NOT label what their product IS.

Your friend in liberty,
Treg

PS... If anyone is up on how the Tobbaco industry really understood that they were selling nicotine sticks, that they had the issue down to a real exact science....as in when does the spike in nicotine in the brain give rise to the greatest addiction and at what amounts....you will know these companies where acting evil. Still are I believe.

Now, lets say that adding certain genes to GMO foods causes a chain of events that cause you to crave GMO peaches, GMO tomatoes,...that is, they are intentionally causing a craving inside of you. Further if the company "owns" the corn you crave, the GMO foods that you cannot live without, where are you? Free? Notice that genes can "jump" and genes can "activate". Right now medical "gene therapy" is all about this. This can be a good thing or a bad thing, it is all about how we use the technology. And to use it wisely, we must intergrate it wisely into our legal system of private property rights which spell out fraud and tort. Rand's vote that GMO foods do not have to label what it is, goes against all other product laws on the books. Its big federal govt interference.

My point is that your right to know ahead of time what is GMO and what is not GMO is a right to take very seriously.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

So you prove the point

So you prove the point government forced labels are not the answer... We have laws on the books that cover advertising one thing and selling another. When they sell you a GMO peach as a peach sue them. Your argument is not about labels. You will have to make the case for why a GMO peach is not a real peach.

Meanwhile those who grow non GMO peaches should let it be known by labeling it as such.

The real problem is this is smoke and mirrors to real issues.. NWO, NDAA ect... Look at the stupid people worried about labels on the food while we build the gas chambers... I can hear the bilderbergs now.

Bottom line..... We need to

Bottom line.....

We need to create a huge market for non GMO... Then the producers of non GMO need to label as such "GMO FREE" If it does not have the label assume it is GMO....

No government involved...