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."



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

TO: Mark Lundgren----just some friendly advice

...I would remove your photo. It's not a good idea to advertise what you look like to the Fed, the CIA, the FBI who frequent this website. A photo imprints your image DAILY in their minds. You don't want that. And, if this is your real name, you might want to put a pseudonym up instead. Just trying to be helpful. I know they know a lot about all of us, but why broadcast it. :)

I will not be silenced by fear

The day I have to resort to anonymity because of their power is the day our society is truly lost.

Everyone should use their real names. I feel sorry for those who are afraid to speak the truth.

I never called you a braindead zombie

must be the drugs playing tricks with your mind.

The guy is braindead.

Probably from all the damage he has done to his feeble brain. That's why I don't respond to his idiotic posts anymore.

Herp a derp a derp a herp a derp

Rawwerhhhzz

Herp a herp a herp a herp a derp.

LOL. Okay dude.

Perhaps its the other way around....

By the Feds giving Monsanto a pass NOT to label their ingredients ( as years and years of private property case law against fraud has ruled over time )....

Perhaps its me, perhaps I have reasoned this out the wrong way but I have tried to reason it out starting from Individual Rights to LLP and the NAP and taking a longer look at historical fraud laws all the way to how products are represented and fraud is viewed today .....and so it seems to me the FEDs are stepping in, thanks to Rand Paul and others, against long held private property fraud laws found in courts...

See my other replies on the other thread here which provide some analogies: http://www.dailypaul.com/241603/rand-paul-votes-no-on-gmo-la...

In peace & liberty,

Treg

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

I can't say that I have given this a lot of thought.

But even assuming that the grocery store was selling arsenic laced apples, how is that "fraud"? Unless they were labeling them "Arsenic free apples"?
And even if it were fraud you can sue the grocery store, sue the wholesaler, sue the orchard, etc.

Why do we need another law?

And even if we "needed" a law, why a federal law?

Sorry, I am usually all for getting philosophical, but this is pretty straight forward.

What I think bothers the anti-GMOers (the ones that aren't just using this as an excuse for another Rand hate fest) is that a lot of people don't agree with their paranoia about GMO's. That's why they are willing to use EVERYBODY'S tax money to impose their opinion on the majority.

What bothers ME is that so-called libertarians all of a sudden so willing to use

******************************
The Virtual Conspiracy

I have spent months online researching Gmo's and Systemic

pesticides. This is what is killing all the Honey Bees. I could really care less about GMO's, it is actually the systemic pesticide used on the GMO's that is deadly to the bees and all insects. When a bee visits a blossom of a systemic plant it will die from the nectar that was suppose to be the food. The plant will then reproduce this pesticide hundreds of times stronger than any farmer sprays it on. This continues as long as the plant is alive, and these systemics are past on to weeds. So eventually the bee is going extinct, no way around it.

When this happens all fruits, nuts, and vegetables will skyrocket in price because we need the Honey Bee to pollinate approximately 80% of what we eat. Can we say starvation coming our way soon!

I would suggest that Monsanto should not be able to patent live, strip them of their patent rights. Patenting life as in seeds is pure lunacy. This would break up the monopoly Monsanto has on the whole farming business. Monsanto is operating as a socialist company.

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

Too bad we have to even worry about such nonsense.

This is helpful:

Recognize fruit and vegetable label numbers.

If it is a 4-digit number, the food is conventionally produced.

If it is a 5-digit number beginning with an 8, it is GM. However, do not trust that GE foods will have a PLU identifying it as such, because PLU labeling is optional. [5]

If it is a 5-digit number beginning with a 9, it is
organic.[6]

http://www.wikihow.com/Avoid-Genetically-Modified-Foods

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

No Harm Principle and Fraud

AFAIK, GMO foods have been shown to cause harm, right? Specifically, the harm toward our personal property--our body. People can only make competent decisions when they are properly informed, and this can only come about when companies label ingredients that may cause harm.

We have a choice in refusing to buy products from companies who do not label GMO foods, but they have a duty as a business to be honest with their customers about what is being bought. GMO foods are essentially fraud if they're not labeled as such; it is the role of govt to prevent fraud.

So should Twinkies be

So should Twinkies be stickered with a "Bad Food" label? We all know they do our bodies harm.

Hostess, "they have a duty as a business to be honest with their customers about what is being bought."

No... they have no duty. The duty is force. Neither does Monsanto or GMO-using companies. It is our job as free people to find out what ingredients are in our food.

Columbus, Ohio

Not sure how it's fraud...

If you can just call them up and ask them, and they'll tell you. It's nobody's fault but your own if you are too lazy to do so.

This was the WRONG bill to vote yes on

We need a bill to limit the FDA. Currently the FDA has banned the labeling of a product with "GMO FREE" or the like. Clearly by doing so, the FDA shows that it is compromised in everything they approve. They are bought and paid for by companies like Monsanto and the corn industry. Stevia is another example. Stevia if you don't know is a natural sweet plant which is perfectly safe and has no effect on blood sugar. FDA first banned it from being imported. Then Later FDA said ok it can be imported but it must be labeled "food supplement" and not "sweetener". FDA calls it an unapproved food additive and not recognized as safe. The sugar and aspartame lobbies are hard at work against stevia as you can see.

If we strike down the restriction of labeling the FDA has put on products then the market can take over. If companies are FREE to label their products "GMO Free" then the consumers can drive the market by only buying such products.

If a product remains unlabeled then you could assume GMO's are present.

Freedom is the answer NOT FORCE.

We don't need the FDA. We need to abolish it and let multiple consumer groups pop up to review and analyze products to report on.

it would help if there was a link to the bill

in question. Because all the things I have been reading lately are amendments to the farm bill that they (>70%, not my senators) voted no on. One of which was something that ALLOWED people to label as GMO-free. Which I think they should be able to do.

and yeah, ask Rumsfeld how nutra-sweet got approved. They are all a bunch of crooks.

Denise B's picture

Thank you!

Very well said!

Hogwash - The amendment to the bill was clear

Seriously, Should WE have the right to know what is in that can before you eat it? Of course! This was nothing more than labeling it GMO or not. Take POLITICS out of it and actually read it! This was a good thing.

For you naysayers, do you believe we should reverse the labeling of ingredients in food and trust your food vendors to do the right thing?

You go right ahead and do that, you eat from the cans with no ingredients on it, I sure would not want to do that. While we are at it, let's make sure not to list possible allergens so those with food allergies can choke to death on your stupidity.

On page 1009, after line 11, add the following:

SEC. 12207. CONSUMERS RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD ACT.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Consumers Right to Know About Genetically Engineered Food Act''.

(b) Findings.--Congress finds that--

(1) surveys of the American public consistently show that 90 percent or more of the people of the United States want genetically engineered to be labeled as such;

(2) a landmark public health study in Canada found that--

(A) 93 percent of pregnant women had detectable toxins from genetically engineered foods in their blood; and

(B) 80 percent of the babies of those women had detectable toxins in their umbilical cords;

(3) the tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly reserves powers in the system of Federalism to the States or to the people; and

(4) States have the authority to require the labeling of foods produced through genetic engineering or derived from organisms that have been genetically engineered.

(c) Definitions.--In this section:

(1) GENETIC ENGINEERING.--

(A) IN GENERAL.--The term ``genetic engineering'' means a process that alters an organism at the molecular or cellular level by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes.

(B) INCLUSIONS.--The term ``genetic engineering'' includes--

(i) recombinant DNA and RNA techniques;

(ii) cell fusion;

(iii) microencapsulation;

(iv) macroencapsulation;

(v) gene deletion and doubling;

(vi) introduction of a foreign gene; and

(vii) changing the position of genes.

(C) EXCLUSIONS.--The term ``genetic engineering'' does not include any modification to an organism that consists exclusively of--

(i) breeding;

(ii) conjugation;

(iii) fermentation;

(iv) hybridization;

(v) in vitro fertilization; or

(vi) tissue culture.

(2) GENETICALLY ENGINEERED INGREDIENT.--The term ``genetically engineered ingredient'' means any ingredient in any food, beverage, or other edible product that--

(A) is, or is derived from, an organism that is produced through the intentional use of genetic engineering; or

(B) is, or is derived from, the progeny of intended sexual reproduction, asexual reproduction, or both of 1 or more organisms described in subparagraph (A).

(d) Right to Know.--Notwithstanding any other Federal law (including regulations), a State may require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale in that State have a label on the container or package of the food, beverage, or other edible product, indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.

(e) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out this section.

(f) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall submit a report to Congress detailing the percentage of food and beverages sold in the United States that contain genetically engineered ingredients.

Seems you missed section "e"

(e) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out this section.

Thank you for outlining SEC. 12207. BUT what was in the other

1206 sections of the bill?

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

By supporting Big Government

you are supporting Big Business. If you really want to protect people from dangerous GMO products (and everything else) you need to support getting Government out of the way and allow people to sue for these (and other) dangerous and very harmful practices. With the help of Government they can continue with no real risk.

Government is always the problem - not the solution.

What's more toxic than GMO's?

Allowing the federal government to "protect" us from them.

******************************
The Virtual Conspiracy

Sacehabitats and Big T...... are you 100% sure that you have

the right libertarian argument on this? Please don't be too quick to demagog anyone with a differing opinion as automatically coming from the Left or Rand bashing or using the issue, etc.

Lets think it through and address the issue head on. Lets take at least a day or two of thinking this issue through. Lets not be so cocksure... and let us all keep an open reasoning mind ... for a least a couple days. Lets try to think it through from the principles that we do agree on: Individual Rights to LLP and the NAP.

After all, can we both agree that both Ron Paul and Rand Paul have not be 100% perfect all the time in their reasoning? I disagree with Dr Ron Paul on evolution and several things and I disagree with Rand on economic sanctions against Iraq & gitmo. Reasonable libertarians can disagree without being unreasonable.

To that end, I will not repeat my arguments that its an issue of fraud and that both Force & Fraud two sides of the nonaggression principle ---- just jump over to the other thread to find my examples and arguments here: http://www.dailypaul.com/241603/rand-paul-votes-no-on-gmo-la...

In peace and liberty my friends,

Treg

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

Yes, we're sure.

It's basically the same fear-mongering as the "War on Terror", but from the left.
The neocons have the "boogeymen" which are Muslim countries and their response is to use big government and the military to fight their War on Terror. It's a ruse to expand the power of government.
The left have their "boogeymen" too. Their boogeymen are "corporations", or any part of the economy which is not already under total government control.
Their response is "war on corporations" by big government and regulations. It's a ruse to expand the power of government.
They are the same things, but different boogeymen.

Notice both of these use demagoguery to fear-monger, and propose big gov't "solutions" to "protect us".

Some people have proclivities to believe the left, so they buy that lie.
Others have proclivities to believe the right, so they buy that lie.
Both lies end up with bigger govt, with both sides believing they are being "protected", even as they both slide further and further into gov't slavery.

It's something I expected people here to understand.
Government is not going to "protect you from Monsanto". Government is going to use your fear of Monsanto to empower itself, and it will never be any other way.
If you want to be "protected from Monsanto", you are going to have to protect yourself.

Well, A reason for a sudden

Well, A reason for a sudden and sure response can also be that it has been tried before... This is not the first time something like this has happened. And as before, whenever you ask the 'government' to protect you from themselves, something went amiss somewhere. The FDA telling you they'll protect you from Monsanto is pretty much the first red light for this bill and it's intents. The FDA IS Monsanto for all intent's and purposes, so there in lies the suspicion...

There are many ways this could be used against Monsanto's competitors(from small things like labeling costs to bigger things like falsely labeling their competitors).

This IS the libertarian argument for this, this bill affords more power, EVEN IF it was for a 'good cause', it's no better than the NDAA and Obama's promise that he wouldn't use it. We're giving more power to government on their 'promise' they won't use it negatively.

The highest bidder will get

The highest bidder will get the waiver. heh,heh...

since we're stuck with an FDA

since we're stuck with an FDA for the time being, the least they can do is properly label foods.

Don't hold your breath

Don't hold your breath waiting... the FDA's deputy commissioner is the attorney for Monsanto!

Since we have the traffic

Since we have the traffic cameras up, they might as well steal citizens money....

Columbus, Ohio

nah...

Very salient point, Spacehabitats,

which some people seem to be overlooking.

The organization that

The organization that spearheaded the whole labeling craze is a Merck and Rockefeller funded organization: The Organic Consumers Association. They hyped up labeling to divert activists attention from more effective things like...ending subsidies to the biotech industry, or reigning in their monopolistic intellectual property. They are like the moveon.org of the anti-biotech movement. The executive of the organization also frequently trashes John Mackey, a Ron Paul supporter and CEO of Whole Foods.

This is a weird issue. You would probably have more people on your side in this thread if you conflated this with auditing the fed instead of trying to tie it in with individualist-libertarian ownership principles. Maybe even the fact that the industry wouldn't even exist without subsidies. However, labeling isn't going to accomplish much. We need to end subsidies and abolish intellectual property for this industry first and foremost.