31 votes

Danny Devito: Vote Yes on Prop 37


In November, Californians will vote on Prop 37 requiring that GE foods be labeled. Just as labels list fat, sodium and sugar, labels should tell the buyer whether or not the product includes genetically engineered ingredients (GMOs). Unfortunately, major corporations like Monsanto are pouring billions of dollars into this election in order to confuse voters, and protect their bottom line.

Comment viewing options

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

Agencies outside of

Agencies outside of government should, by definition, be privately funded. You cannot ensure the group is not bought out, but there is a MUCH better chance of that group doing what they say than the government. It is a GUARANTEE that the government is bought out. The manner in which bastardization of independent groups is largely prevented is by participation and funding from people that actually truly believe in the cause (voluntary association, not forced). This does not happen in government. As Ron Paul says, liberty means unending vigilance.

The reality is indeed government intervention, as that is what the proposal is seeking to do. Are you really comfortable with saying that is the state enforcing the will of the people? There are some pretty major problems with that statement. I don't disagree that the state is legally capable of doing this. I'm stating that it is a bad idea if you are interested in liberty, free markets, decentralization, and better food safety.

Again, how can you possibly have all the necessary information to state that ALL GMOs are bad? You don't have that information. You have the information that SOME GMOs are bad. That is indisputable. What about GMOs that increase production dramatically and do not have "frankenstein" genes in them that harm humans?

An independent watchdog agency is a better alternative to the force of government. It keeps the citizenry vigilant and knowledgable (and one with more freedom). When people assume that government has their backs, they will be in trouble. "My food is safe... this government sticker says so."

I think you mean it is perfectly "legal" for (state) governments regulate commerce. Whether or not it is "reasonable", is a matter of both opinion and scale.

The best system we have is communication among free Americans and the ability to spend THEIR money as they see fit. It is not government, as you state.

Your issue with gov't is that men are corrupt,

but you would give that same control to men and be comfortable with it because it is outside of government? Would corruption still not exist? At least with gov't, we have the option to influence. With private industry, we do not.

Let me give you a potential scenario. Many like minded people support and legitimize an organization through years of effort. That organization is now accept as forthcoming and is respected in the community. That organization is then bought, literally or figuratively, and is used to push a private agenda. What is your recourse? Stop funding it? It doesn't matter, it is well funded by the "purchaser". Will you initiate a campaign to discredit it? Will you do so with the same vigor as you put into legitimizing it? Will all of the others who helped you to build it up do the same? Chances are, you have just created a legitimized misinformation group and you have ZERO control over it.

Prop 37 doesn't propose to create a GMO Department, or anything like that. It is merely the people voting on whether or not private industry should display the information the people are asking for. Anyone who campaigned for Dr. Paul knows that public demonstrations are not very effective in the grand scheme of things.

In the end, we are still getting into the gov't vs. no gov't discussion. Gov't has a role. It does. The sooner you accept that we are not perfect, for the exact same reasons that politicians are not either, the sooner we can move towards LESS governance.

A friend of mine gave me a great analogy of libertarianism vs anarchism. It's like your car broke down in Georgia. You want to get it to Toronto to repair it. I am willing to help you push it to Michigan. You complain that I won't push it to Toronto. So, I ask you, do you want your car in Michigan, or in Georgia?

"At least with gov't, we have

"At least with gov't, we have the option to influence. With private industry, we do not."

This is simply not true. Private industry does not exist unless economically viable or unless it is given handouts from government. You have immense influence over private industry. If you don't like their product, don't buy. Review it online. Talk to your friends about it. You have options. Private industry doesn't force you to do things like government does. Yes, corruption will always exist, but I want it to exist where it has the least power of force (private sector).

Your money controls the private sector. Your government controls your money. Your government can throw you in jail. Walmart cannot.

It is not necessarily a government vs. no-government discussion. It is a discussion of both role and scale. "He who governs least governs best." I agree with that.

If you must use government, the more local the better. The federal government should only provide national defense and enforce contracts. Just because the constitution gives all powers not enumerated to the states OR TO THE PEOPLE, does not mean that the states SHOULD use that power.

But we aren't talking about private industry

We are (in this conversation) talking about a theoretical private watchdog group that would provide "information" to influence public opinion regarding a particular product. Of course, if a corporation wants to start one on their own, then they have that right. My point is that you are suggesting that the watchdog group would protect the consumer, when I submit that it would not.

Why do labels show calorie, sugar, and fat content? Because the PEOPLE requested it. In this scenario, the people are merely using the government as a conduit to achieve a result. Again, we are not talking about gov't intervention, or gov't influence. We are talking about the people of a state saying "We want to know what we are consuming" and right now, there is no way of knowing that. GMO's are EVERYWHERE. They are in products that you wouldn't even think about. How do you know what products to not buy? How do you know what stores to avoid? How do you know what restaurants carry foods made with GMO's? How can you as a consumer possibly make that decision without that information?

As I've said before, until we are all perfect beings, gov't has a role.

If there were a free market...

...then over time the free exchange of things and ideas would take care of it.

However, there is no free market in any country. All have more or less mixed economies.

Therefore, to counter the imbalance due to big business meddling with big government such "unlibertarian" measures might be necessary to recreate at least some balance until the original cause (big business owning big government) is removed.

Think of it as crutches. A healthy person does not need crutches. A healthy free market does not need high intruding government.

BTW, I am an anarchist who thinks local self-rule (meaning small entities like districts, counties or even smaller) is a good thing.

UFOs are real
4 Hour Witness DVD (radar operators, pilots, scientists, military)
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud49Gh9yYLs
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpHAxxRKksQ

Michael Nystrom's picture


Anyone who has complained about mandates at any point and supports prop 37 is a hypocrite.

This is an example of the kind of non-thinking, reflexive black-and-white decision making that many here fall victim to. There are good mandates, and bad mandates. Not all mandates are cut from the same cloth.

It is however still a form of government intervention.

Yes. And?

Are you one of those pie-in-the sky anarchists who thinks that all government is evil?

There is a role for government. Ron Paul has always said so.

Monsanto is a multibillion dollar corporation. If the government doesn't stand up to them, just who do you think will?

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

As to your last point, the

As to your last point, the consumer and consumer advocates can stand up to companies. This happens all the time.

This seems to dance on the

This seems to dance on the line of where it is 'recaptured'. The FDA at it's founding is the same principle "We need government to stand up and protect our food", a very easily corruptible idea as is obvious at this point. The seed of the idea is the same here, differences in scale aside.

Invoking Paul's stance on role of Government is valid, but I would be equally ready to invoke times that he discussed the ease of recapture of any government 'department' or process we add to them.

I would however agree in having action, but I'm ever weary of all the little details that sneak in when legislation, mandates, and more like this pass by. It cuts out to 3 'motives' for a decision, Morally, Tactically, or a motive seeped in Experience. Morally/Personally, I wish to see Monsanto in ruins for their sadistic practices. Tactically, this may do that(I refer to tactical decisions like 'tactical voting' in General election). But most of all, I can't shake the fears of what I've seen in experience.

I have enough hope in the American public that something like this would pass, but I'm not sure if I have enough hope that we would ALL remain vigilant, and never let whatever may be set up by prop-37 be bought out the same way it was with FDA, USDA, DoH, and more.

you want the government to stand up to Monsanto?


“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Notice they are democrats

Notice they are democrats


Knew this. Everyone should see "Foodinc"


This is disappointing. Do you have a case of progressivitis?

"There are good and bad mandates"

So which mandates are good and which ones are bad? Are you arguing that the ones that help the public are good? Jeez, I've never heard that line of thinking from progressives before. [headslap]

Isn't every mandate made by government in the name of helping the greater good? To throw your own quote back at you, this to me is "an example of the kind of non-thinking, reflexive black-and-white that many here fall victim to."

This mindset of 'GMOs are bad, let's use government force to get our way' is about as reflexive and primitive as it gets. From what I understand, this is exactly the type of government involvement Ron and Rand Paul OPPOSE.

cutting through ambiguity

Ron might oppose a national[government] ban on the use of GMOs in food, but would he oppose the people of California in their choosing to somehow mandate the indication of GMOs in their commercial food products?

I would guess yes he would oppose the mandate

Ron Paul the federal politician supports "state's rights," but he has given no indication that he would be a statist at the state-level.

Do you think as governor Ron Paul would try to prohibit drugs? Or do what Romney did in Mass. with an insurance mandate? I seriously doubt it.

Monsanto IS Monsanto BECAUSE

Monsanto IS Monsanto BECAUSE of the government. 37 wont stop Monsanto.

I stood in front of my central committee and spoke out FOR 37 in front of 20 plus people until I actually thought about it.

Santa Maria, Ca

No it Won't Stop Monsanto

But it's a start in the right direction. If they didn't care about prop 37 hurting them then why are they spending so much money to fight it?


Is it about revenge?

I thought this whole proposition 37 issue was supposed to be about health? It seems you and many others just want revenge on Monsanto in any way, shape, or form.

Proposition 37 will cost Monsanto money. And a lot of other companies who are also fighting the bill. Like all misguided government economic intervention, it will also negatively affect consumers.

But hey skippy d, get your REVENGE. Forget the basic tenets of voluntaryism.

It is not a regulation just a

It is not a regulation just a label. The cost is practically non-existent. Companies already label items with "May contain peanuts", or "wheat" or "soy". Some items are labeled "Kosher" or "no preservatives." Again, it is not a regulation by adding "May contain GMO" to the label.

For mothers with children that are highly allergic, this label will help them weed through the food maze and avoid foods that may trigger reactions in their vulnerable children. You do know that allergies to peanuts can kill people.

The majority of people don't know or care less about GMO so why are the companies so worried?

"With enough of us, around the world, we’ll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we’ll make it a thing of the past." ~ Aaron Swartz

Regulations require constant

Regulations require constant oversight and testing. Constant oversight and testing requires a lot of full-time employees and equipment. That is where the taxpayer comes in.

It is very well meaning, and

It is very well meaning, and it may have a positive, but short term effect(as some regulations have had in the past) but please, don't try to change the definition of the word. The principle of it being a Regulation is there, a prospect far more susceptible to corruption than one may think.

I used to think we were beyond Boycott's having any effect, that Legislation and regulation were the only choice besides a more violent reaction to Monsanto. But seeing the growing demand for Organic foods, I've got enough faith to at least make me debate the issue in my mind. Can we expand this Organic market enough to start to throw off the shackles of Monsanto and the FDA? I don't know... that's why I'm here...

"It is not a regulation just

"It is not a regulation just a label."

A label mandated by government force.

Santa Maria, Ca

our legal system is pathetically corrupt as is congress

Judges from the supreme court on down consistantly fail to uphold freedom and cater to corporate polluters and killers on a regular base.

Personally I want to know what is in food so labels are good and I'll vote yes on 37.

Hopefully the prop banning unions from contributing to campaigns passes too because politicians are too corrupt to say no to payoffs. Prison guards union is the biggest here in Cali and why 70% of prisoners are now nonviolent -usually low level drug consumers.

Government is supposed to protect our freedom, our property, our privacy, not invade it. Ron Paul 2007

GMO corn causes tumors in

GMO corn causes tumors in rats.

Could it be that the rats were given nothing but corn in their diet? Perhaps rats can't a healthy lifestyle on strictly corn. Idk...just a thought.

How much GN corn

The treatment group of rats were give 11, 22' or 33% of the GM corn. There were efforts to make the quantity of corn eaten be relatively normal for the rats. The following link has some more info. Http://www.examiner.com/article/genetically-modified-corn-ki...

http://riseforliberty.com/ For May 17 Money Bomb!

The point of 37 isn't arguing

The point of 37 isn't arguing whether or not GMOs are bad (i think they are personally), it's whether or not states should be interfering with the market.

Santa Maria, Ca

37 simplification

37 doesn't ask whether or not the people of California choose to mandate labels on food products. Labels with lists of ingredients are already mandated on packaging. We currently recognize wheat to be different from corn, and they are currently mandated to be listed separately. In essence, 37 proposes that the people of California recognize GMO-corn to be different from corn and that it should be listed separately.

Michael Nystrom's picture

States interfere with the market all the time

Reminder - this is not the federal government, which would have no jurisdiction in the area, but a state government, which, by the will of the people would, could and in my opinion, should.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

Yes Michael!

Those who come for a tea party with the notion to throw Thomas Jefferson overboard bear counterfeit invitations.

Response to Fitzgerald quote: ...but perhaps James Madison was too intelligent for our own good. :D

Dr. No

I'm with Dr. No. Forced speech is not free speech.

It puts the government in-between the seller and the consumer.

The sellers should only care about what consumers want, and consumers should form watchdog groups to make sure they don't cheat. Government doesn't do either of those things well.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Wait...Danny Davito?

Wait...Danny Davito?