2 votes

I oppose government mandated GMO labelling as it is not a libertarian or fiscally conservative position

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.

EDIT: As of right now (which is only 14 hours after making this post), I am down voted -7 and have a number of negative comments below, including one which is very rude. This is despite the fact that what I have written above is a direct quote from Ron Paul himself. I think this just shows how much so many people oppose Ron Paul's words when they don't apppear to be coming out of Ron Paul's mouth.




Comment viewing options

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

Yes. We are.

If Monsanto had their way, GMO's wouldn't even be called GMO's. How do you know what is in your foods? The ingredient list. What would happen if the ingredient list wasn't there? Would you be able to decide that you don't want to eat High Fructose Corn Syrup (used merely as an example)?

How could someone possibly make a decision when they are not exposed to the information with which to make that decision?

And quit trying to set up a straw man argument as though I was saying that people don't have the ability. You know what I meant, and you are just making yourself look like you are unable to actually defend your position.

Ron Paul was talking about Federal Regulations

Ron Paul was talking about Federal Regulations, this is a State issue

it's about the initiation of force

yes, the constitution allow the state to regulate that things, but it's not the paradigm for libertarinism, forcing someone to label something under the trheat of violence is not libertarian. I agree that if someone falsely label something can be prosecuted for fraud by the juridic branch.

There is no initiation of force.

The company still has the option of not using GMO's in their product. Pretty simple. Voluntarism. They can CHOOSE to use GMO's and label their product accordingly, or they can CHOOSE to NOT use GMO's and NOT label their food accordingly.

Seriously guys, we need to move beyond this first level logic. Absolutes do not often work in the real world.

what if I choose to sell without any label?

what if I choose to sell without any label to people indifferent of the content of gmo in, let's say, apples?
I sell apples GM to people wich don't ask, because they don't care, the exchange is totally volountary, an act of capitalism between consenting adults. what happen in that case?
You send the cops to take my money, if I don't give them the money they ask, they take me and put me in a cage, if I resist, they beat me up, if I'm strong or armed and resist anyway, they shoot at me and they eventually kill me. this is initiation of force.

If 37 passes

and you are outside of the state of California, where the people have not expressed their desire to know what you are selling, then no, none of that happens. We are talking about selling an apple to a populace that is NOT indifferent. We are talking about selling a GM apple in a market where the people have EXPLICITLY expressed their desire to know whether or not it is a GMO. If at that point, you choose to sell your apple without forewarning the buyer, then yes, you have violated the implied contract between yourself and the buyer and you have violated the law and you should be prosecuted.

Straw man gonna straw man. You are not representing reality in your hypothetical scenarios. Feel free to try again.

So how do we deal with Cartels?

Should the government be involved if Cartels (such as the Federal Reserve) are committing fraud? Well just as say, Bank of America is part of the banking Cartel known as the FED, Monsanto believe it or not is not the only bio-tech company, just the most well-known of the bio-tech Cartel. So how do you deal with Cartels that are using the force of Government to further their agenda?

edit: in response to your edit, the quote you posted was talking about FEDERAL mandates, this is a State issue. It may actually end up being a battle between the State and the FDA on this issue, I think Ron Paul would side with State rather than the FDA (Federal) being able to call the shots.

Cartels and monopolies can't

Cartels and monopolies can't exist without help from the state. I don't think giving the state more power over these cartels is the way to go.

even in the case of fraud?

So Cartels, including the Federal Reserve should be allowed free reign?

No they should be prosecuted,

No they should be prosecuted, but the judicial branch is just a fucked as the other 2.

looks like

you answered your own question :) see the problem

I do, but how is a govt.

I do, but how is a govt. regulation going to help? Honestly, I've had about enough the USA is f**cked

Commerce clause

Wickard v. Filburn was a disastrous fatally flawed decision granting Congress carte blanche to regulate anything, anywhere. That decision and many following need to be reconsidered.

Having said that, the commerce clause is written into the constitution. Congress does has authority to regulate interstate trade. Thus they do have federal authority to compel labeling on products that cross state lines.

As a constitutionalist, I think this is a topic that can be left to the states which desire to protect consumers and is not needed at the federal level. But I don't think federal GMO labeling would be unconstitutional (though I think federal preemption of state labeling laws would be).

As a libertarian, I think that mandatory labeling laws are not libertarian. But what is libertarian is a minimalist government giving tools to producers and consumers to level the playing field, to aid the free market, to PREVENT FRAUD, by making legal definitions for labeling: reserving words for their common, plain meaning. The government should enforce regulations on certain words like "natural" and "organic" until such time as private labeling laboratories for agricultural products find widespread use.

This graphic is the most telling. Who supports Prop 37 and who opposes? "Natural" foods from brands on the left can be expected to be toxic and unnatural.

http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/08/prop37/

Take back the GOP and Restore America Now.

How do you feel about being PROHIBITED from labeling?

The problem here is that I should be able to put "organic" on MY label, but I can't without the Fed's permission.
And for Pete's sake, Ron Paul is not right about everything. Monsanto is taking control of our food supply, and they need stopped.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

here's the referance:

"the FDA says it will not allow labels like "GM-free," "GMO-Free" or "biotech-free." The agency says guaranteeing a product to be free of GM material is virtually impossible (not true GMO corn and soy can be tested in a lab to be different) Instead the labels will have to say the food was not produced through bioengineering. The FDA said it may take legal action against companies that violate these guidelines.

source: www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/millenium/fdadisallowsgmo-fre...
part in ( ) is my addition

Thank you.

It is stunning to me that people use the "no regulations" excuse, when it is existing regulation that is the problem. I would love to see "no regulation" but for now, "fight fire with fire" is the best weapon at hand.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

and the OP quote is Rand Paul

not Ron Paul like is falsely stated and no one seems to care

please downvote me! or Mods delete my post

ha ha I've never said that before, this article is talking about both Ron and Rand, and got the two quotes mixed up, so downvote this since I can't delete it at this point that a reply was made. Or Mods if you could delete it for me
Again my bad

No, it is Ron Paul. Here's

No, it is Ron Paul. Here's Rand Paul's quote:

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 look 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.

I stand corrected

your right on this "compromise" (I just downvoted myself for the first time) Others please downvote me to hide this, please forgive me.

The part that remains true and the more important point that I was trying to make is that he was talking about the FDA, a FEDERAL Agency, this is a State issue

"I should be able to put

"I should be able to put "organic" on MY label, but I can't without the Fed's permission."

So you essentially want to solve a problem caused by regulation, with more regulation? What has you not being able to label your products as organic have to do with forcing businesses to label their products as GMO? Is this some kind of revenge?

It allows me to make give informed consent, or decline

With holding information from people who want it is bad business. If you want to deregulate so badly, get rid of the odious regulations that exist. In the mean time, I want to know, many producers WANT to tell me, but Monsanto has placed regulations PREVENTING the release of information that consumers want.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

Well, that should be our

Well, that should be our goal. Getting rid of current regulation, rather than trying to fix over regulation with more regulation.

When you buy anything, are you really giving informed consent? Isn't there a possibility the seller may be withholding information from you when you purchase any product? Are you suggesting we label everything?

This is a tough issue

When I have a tough decision I'm going to always go for the side of less govt vs more.
Monsanto needs to be exposed and efforts like this initiative are good for bringing about truth - too bad it takes an election for people to start talking to others about important things.

From FDA website:http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/ucm064228.htm

genetically engineered plant foods are produced from crops whose genetic makeup has been altered through a process called recombinant DNA, or gene splicing, to give the plant desired traits. Genetically engineered foods are also known as biotech, bioengineered, and genetically modified, although "genetically modified" can also refer to foods from plants altered through methods such as conventional breeding. While in a broad sense biotechnology refers to technological applications of biology, common use in the U.S. has narrowed the definition to foods produced using recombinant DNA.

How easy would it be for them to tinker with the definition, or use the broad sense definition to include my heirloom purple okra and cherokee tomatoes as genetically engineered?

Regulatory capture is a big problem. Once govt gets aholda of something it never lets go, and it always gets worse. Monsanto has already gotten aholda the FDA anyway. Who cares is they oppose the initiative, what would you expect? this is a win-win for them. and whats best is not much can change, and the voters aren't so uptight anymore.

Kudos to the OP

+1

Having Dr. Paul as my congressman off and on for the last few decades has primed me for just this sort of mental exercise ... I used to react poorly when Dr. Paul would vote in a seemingly illogical fashion.

EVERY SINGLE TIME I had this sort of doubt, Dr. Paul showed the true logic to his rationale and I came away that much better educated.

I appreciate difficult mental exercises such as this. If we are to be true to our principles, then we must be able to understand the full implication of those principles.

The DailyPaul has proven itself not to be a libertarian site

Well, at least the last several months.

There is nothing wrong with genetically modifying crops to improve yield--if farmers didnt, the world would starve. The types that want government forced GMO labeling would have been the same types that demanded that crops should not be grown in rows....

The entire idea of Agriculture always has been about improving yield and freshness. Clearly this is free market oriented.

And I havent even gotten to the ridiculous of having MORE california regulations. Just take a look at who supports it and that in itself is enough to vote NO.

I never thought of the DP as

a libertarian site. I thought it was a site to help spread the ideas posed by Ron Paul and promote liberty. Ron Paul is a Republican with small 'L' libertarian leanings. Why do you seemingly pose 'liberty' as something wanted only by libertarians? How elitist of you - and why I'd never be a libertarian.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

i'm voting no, and here's why

1) the most important, basic foods are exempt. dairy, eggs, meat, and poultry. http://www.noprop37.com/facts/exemptions/

2) i am against government regulations.

but, have no fear, supporters of forced labeling, if california voters can be counted on for one thing, it is to vote in favor of the state.

it will pass.

to truly beat the beast, one must produce their own food. or trade with those that do.

Where to begin?

You complain
1) 'the most important, basic foods are exempt', then name dairy, eggs, meat poultry and finish off by saying people should produce their own food or trade with those who do.
You could not have possibly thought it through before ending with that sentence. What do you expect people who don't produce anything to trade with? Fiat currency? Isn't that what grocery stores and supermarkets are all about? Or should everyone only buy at the organic market or drive out to some farm somewhere?
2) you're against govt regulations. Not all regulations are wasted efforts. Some regulation is necessary. Or do you like when people throw garbage around?
It's the state's right to pose this and the peoples' choice as to which way it goes. You should be happy that you at least get the chance to vote on it.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

sure.

and i vote no.

edit: i suppose i should have stated that i support the free market instead of being against government regulation. po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

i'm not about to go telling people how to trade or what to trade with. it's not my decision or business. feel free to feed yourself (which is entirely your responsibility) in the best way you see fit. for me, however, i'm not comfortable relegating the personal responsibility of feeding myself to bureaucrats. this rule won't save anybody from gmo's. instead it replaces personal responsibility with government dependance. when it doesn't work and prices go up, watch the government create another regulation to "fix" the problem.

and the idea that in a free market we would all be sitting around in piles of garbage is preposterous. we are reliant on state run programs. how much garbage do you see on the side of the freeway or in the streets? i don't know where your from, but here in cali, there is trash everywhere. so, what was your point?