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.

sorry, this comment was meant

sorry, this comment was meant for the thread about the user who thought rand was wrong in voting for the amendment.....but it still mostly applies. there are a million threads about this now.

I think it's important

to get control over the dialogue on this issue, and not let the leftists demagogue it the way they always do.

Right now, they are trying to set this straw man up, which is "If you don't want gov't intervention, then you want people to die".
And the other method is to invent new "rights". Like, you have a "right to health care" and a "right to know what is in your food", and so forth, which implies the GOV'T must protect this fictitious "right". It's a completely specious argument, but idiots actually do fall for it.
That's they way they work. They use the same tactic with socialist health care, and other socialist programs, as a fallacious emotional lever to con gullible people.
Just don't let them frame the discussion the way they want, which is ALWAYS in favor of more government.

The reason why the troll opened up the other thread on this GMO topic was to capitalize on the mindless emotional Rand-bashing going on here, where he could manipulate the easily-led Rand haters to jump on his bandwagon just to get another hate-dig in against Rand, and so it was the perfect audience to infiltrate.
Stir up the Rand-hate a little more, and get the stupid libertarians to start supporting the left's big-gov't agenda.
It actually was a perfect target, and you can even see who it worked on.

The other thing I see going on with this topic is that there are actual leftist members here who either don't realize they are leftists, or are trolling the membership to try to shift them to the left.

I don't know if I can swallow this one...

First, let me say I'm against federally mandated labeling... but not in this case at all. I also have a history of supporting Rand when he has these controversial moments.

Would it be legal to add poison to my food and not label it?

The GM is a characteristic of the product. IT IS GENETICALLY MODIFIED. This is not like a warning label on cigarettes for example. It's letting you know what you are EATING. This is required in almost every other country in the world now. I think the government DOES have the authority to regulate this because it is their responsibility to protect my life liberty and property. This "food" harms our lives, and it harms our property in some cases too (but that's a whole other subject). This happens without us knowing because it's not on the label. I am more aware of GM dangers than most folks and even I cannot distinguish the products at my grocery store. That is not fair to me. I'm not calling for a ban on GM foods either, but put Frankly, I think I have a right to know what I'm eating.

Food producers already have to tell us the ingredients of foods. Would we argue against that too? I'm all for tearing down the crazy regulations that strangle small farmers for example, but what is so hard about adding the letters GM in front of the word 'corn syrup' in the ingredients?

If you don't believe these foods harm us, do a Google search for "GMO linked to" and browse.

I you're selling other human beings food and listing out the ingredients, it needs to be accurate. These bastards should be in jail for what they are doing to us.

"should be leery of federally-mandated labeling because history shows that federal regulatory agencies are susceptible to ‘capture,’"

The FDA has already been 'captured' by the agricultural industrial complex (Monsanto) AND the Medical industrial complex (Phizer) as well. How do you think GMO foods got approved in the first place? I'm not sure I understand how requiring them to let me know what I'm consuming advances the relationship between the gov and big agra.

- Grow Mushrooms at Home

Denise B's picture

I think there are two different

questions that need to be asked here and they are:
1. Should the federal government play a role in requiring the labeling of GMO foods?


2. Would this Amendment have been effective in accomplishing this?

For me the answer is no and no, but even if you could convince me that the answer to the first question is yes (and that is a very big if) - the answer to the second would still have to be no.

Nowhere in this Amendment is anybody "required" to do anything. The amendment simply states that a state "may" require.... We should all know by now that words mean something, especially when used in laws. Simply by using the word "may", they've taken all the teeth out of the law right off the bat. Would you be happy if I owed you money and told you that I "may" pay you back next? Maybe I will, maybe I won't.

And why does anybody think that the state's need the feds permission to "maybe" do this anyway? Was there a state that was in the process of doing this already, but they were just waiting for permission from the FEDS? Which state was that?

Like I've stated before though, even worse than that is the fact that it then hands the regulation of the entire process (of the STATES "Maybe" requiring) to the FDA, and I'm sorry but their track record stinks on doing anything that is harmful to big business. They are more inclined to hurt the small guy every time. They have become nothing more than the thug type "enforcers" for Big Pharma and Big Agriculture.

IF want to sell poison in

IF want to sell poison in your food, then you also have to endure the consequences. You will be tried in a court of law by a jury of your peers. You could get the death sentence. And obviously your food brand will have NO reputation at all in the marketplace. No one will buy your products again.

You still want to sell poison in your food? Your rights are unlimited as long as you don't harm someone else or infringe on someone else's rights.

Not if your indemnified from the liability of side effects

As are the many of the pharmaceutical companies from the side effects from vaccines.

"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.

And look how that worked out for the vaccine industry.

That only further creates distrust and reveals how Federal Regulations will never benefit the common person. Now people everywhere are refusing to get vaccinated. If you distrust the product exercise your right to reject the inoculation.

We need to brainstorm about free-market solutions

...and not get upset at Rand Paul for voting (likely) like his father.

Find out more about non-GMO verified products at www.nongmoproject.org/. Shop at Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods and encourage other companies to follow their example of complete transparency on this issue.

We need to work together for creative free-market solutions to this problem and a whole host of others–and some of us need to try out our new libertarian and limited government muscles!

Check out http://iroots.org/
"If you’re into political activism, at least for Ron Paul if not for anyone else, I strongly recommend spending some time with iroots.org." - Tom Woods

The answer is simple. We as individuals must take responsibility

for our health and vote with our dollars for quality non-toxic food. The problem is that many-most Americans are addicted to a poisonous diet and a (poisonous government). The solution is a conscious awareness that toxic substances lead to disease. Replace the toxic substances with healthy nutritious foods (fruits and vegetables) Find and support local organic farm/ store/ co-op. Encourage friends and family to explore the cause-effect relationships between diet/ lifestyles and health.

Until we as a people take responsibility for our health, lifestyle and liberty no amount of government intervention is going to help. If left to the government or any of it's agencies the larger companies will all receive indemnity from liability to side effects, as did the pharmaceutical companies with vaccines, for example.

Health is simple. Disease can't live in a healthy environment. Pure and simple. The expanded definition of health and healthy refers to physical, mental, spiritual, emotional, financial, social, and political. Until we as a people individually take responsibility and replace our toxic choices with healthy, sustainable replacements then we will continue to live in a diseased manor.

"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.

Any of you who are familiar

Any of you who are familiar with Ron's stance on government influence know that his voting record is mostly 'purist' in regards to things like 'cost' or 'invasion of rights' as can be with all the "cocktail bills" floating around. That said, I know this is Rand, but I've learned to always take a second look at bills and the reasoning behind a vote. Rand definitely is not like his father(he's not as 'purist' in that regard), but this seems like something his father would have done. This is basically asking you to 'trust your government' in protecting you from themselves(since the FDA is pretty much Monsanto).

The response to this reminds me of the 'knee-jerk' response to things like holidays or memorials(the Martin Luther King day case with Ron Paul, it was not something the government should be doing and spending taxpayer dollars on). The automatic response to something like that is often, "Well, since the government and I align on this issue...", but that's the problem, it's a co-opt.

This is more than likely a co-opt by Monsanto, seeing as how they are the 'judge and jury' in this case.

Corporations are creations of the state.

They have no rights, regardless of the supreme court's current confusion. They can be regulated and interfered with mercilessly.

As I understand it, Rand voted to not allow states to require GMO labeling. Very confusing, but my bias is against Rand lately.

Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas

"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."

Those who buy that individuals lose their rights as a group...

Have been conned by the left into giving up the only way people outside of the government can get together, and pool their resources for a common cause. There would be no such thing as private charity without freedom of association, everyone would be 100% dependent on the government. Which is exactly why the left likes this view so much.

Corporations are creations of the state only in that corporate personage is a way for groups to collectively interact with the legal system. I'll repeat it one more time... corporate personage is what allows you to sue a corporation, and also what allows a private charity to own property collectively. Without such a device we'd be unable to form groups and get anything done, and corporations who misbehaved wouldn't be open to lawsuits either.

Although, historically some corporations were truly creations of the state (through charters), as they were basically granted state monopolies, but this is not what I'm advocating nor was SCOTUS advocating this in Citizens United v FEC. I'm simply saying that if people wish to come together for a common cause and pool their resources, they should be allowed to and any speech or property they own should be protected. Without corporate personhood this would be very cumbersome and again, you'd not be able to even sue a corporation without this legal device.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood:

"Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may sue and be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. This doctrine in turn forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are "people" in the literal sense, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens."

"In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction that allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and that protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association."

SCOTUS is confused on many things, but this is not one of them.

The Citizens United vs. FEC basically was all about the FEC trying to squelch political speech against those currently in power.

Citizens United was a non-profit organization which produced an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary film and the Federal Elections Commission tried to silence this free speech through federal election law. The Supreme Court simply ruled how they should have, that corporations (which include non-profit organizations and political groups y'know...) have the right to free speech as well.

However the left spun this decision as something which it wasn't. The sad thing is you fell for their spin of this decision hook line and sinker...

Protip: Without the legal device of "corporate personage", you wouldn't even be able to sue a corporation. Also, your local gun club and church wouldn't be able to own properly collectively. To deny the rights of a group of individuals who have formed a corporation, for profit or non-profit, is to deny the individuals who formed the corporation not only their right to freedom of speech but their right to freedom of association/assembly. Re-read the first amendment sometime.

I know for a fact Ron Paul agrees with the decision SCOTUS made re: Citizens United vs. FEC. If you believe this was a bad decision you aren't a libertarian, and you certainly have no respect for the first amendment either.

As for that bill which would "allow states to require GMO labeling" (which they already are allowed to), all it does is give more power to the FDA. The amendment Rand voted against was unconstitutional, not even to mention the other amendments in that block which were voted on at the same time.

Opposing view...

If you believe in an artificial government construct interjected into the free-market who is granted special privileges you might not be a libertarian.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

I never advocated giving them special privledges...

You put words into my mouth.

However people do have the same rights they normally would whether they are forming a group or not.

It's called "freedom of association", and it's protected by the first amendment.

FUCK corporate personhood

and FUCK all who pimp for that religion

IMO religions are based on beliefs.

A few have tried to establish a logical basis for religion but in the end it comes down to faith. Faith requires no supporting facts for most people, just a visceral rejection of opposing views, just as you have done here. No logic, no facts, just an f 'em rejection. It's clear to me who is "religious" on this issue.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Uh huh...

I guess then we should eliminate the legal device which allows us to sue a corporation and for your church to own property. I guess your church or favorite charity has no right to property or free speech, let's take the property its on and take the money in the offering plate, because the people who make up corporations don't have rights.

I'm assuming you also think the FEC was right in trying to prevent Citizens United from releasing their anti-hillary documentary because since they formed a non-profit corporation they forfeited their right to free speech? And I'm the one who belongs to a crazy religion?

Why did this suddenly get threaded in such a way...

That it looks like my above comment was in response to McClarinJ, when in reality I had replied to ecliptic? I agree with McCLarinJ... that the religious ones are who are just saying "f that" with no argument or facts to back up their position, and who downvoted all of the upvotes on my above comments on the matter without even bothering to try to form a rebuttal.

Edit: nevermind... now that the comment above it has made it to the second page the threading looks right again...


No groups have rights. Only individuals have rights. The individuals who own or a a part of the church or group have all of the same rights as we do. Corporate person-hood is the biggest perversion of the free-market and legal system we have going today.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

So then charities etc have no right to property?

And if you ever form a group you lose all your rights?

How are you supposed to even fund political documentaries if you lose all rights once you form a group to pool your resources?

Also, as I said before... you wouldn't be able to sue a corporation without "corporate personhood".

Rand may not be right but...

Rand may not be right. But he has a right to do what he feels will best suit his political and financial future.


You didn't even read the bill/amendment Did you?

Read section "e", which is unconstitutional, not to mention every other amendment in that block which were voted on at once.

A true libertarian would

A true libertarian would believe that the government has no right to use force against any company or person. People can do their own research if they want to eat this or that kind of food. And if they are to lazy to do it, then it wasn't an important issue to them.


Only people have rights. If they don't want to be regulated they can not become incorporated and take responsibility for their company. If they want all of the perks of a corporation they should have to deal with the consequences.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

What "perks"??

No one is saying corporations should have perks.

That's just ignorant.

People can do their own research? You are an idiot!!!!!!!!!!!! How the hell can I research what a corporation is putting in my food if they don't have to disclose what they are putting in the food? And why are you so quick to defend corporations which shouldn't be allowed to exist in the first place?

Next thing you know you will tell us that we can litigate any damages caused by GMO which would surely turn out well considering the millions in legal defense that Monsanto has at their disposal.

True libertarians are idiots when it comes to reality just like communists and democrats.

Oh govt, oh govt, please save

Oh govt, oh govt, please save me from Monsanto.

Hi there, FDA. Please save me from Monsanto. Oh no, yikes... the deputy commissioner of the FDA is Monsanto's attorney!

booohooo, wahhh... Oh well, hmmmm, I see there's some GMO-free labeled food over here. But I guess I'll just eat this non labeled food instead. Then I can get sick and die and at least complain that the govt didn't protect me.


government is the answer.

What in the world were we thinking?
How silly of us!