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.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I know Prop 37 is not

I know Prop 37 is not federal, that was the point of my comment in regards to my preference of States mandating GMO labeling. I was agreeing with you about Prop 37.

My comments regarding the federal government were due to this discussion being about the federal government's role in GMO labeling.

...

.

.

You make a great argument

accept for one thing. It is the Government that is behind GMO's.

Now you might say, well you don't have to buy it and that is true, but don't you as a consumer have a right to know something about the product you are buying?

You have the right to research a car you are going to buy. If a manufacturer listed nothing about the car, it performance etc, etc, you can chose to go buy one that does.

In this case it is the food we are consuming. We don't have a choice on whether or not we can eat.

I would like to see how fast your opinion would change if you or a loved one with a peanut allergy died because peanut flour was not listed on the product and they died from eating it. That's when it gets really personal.

In the world you would create we would walk into a supermarket and go into a cereal isle and all the boxes would be labeled cereal, nothing else. To be fair, that would mean no foods would have to be labeled, not just GMO's

Free Market

Let the free markets decide (i.e. You and I), not the government. If people band together to not buy GMO products then the bottom line of the companies profits will take a hit, therefore they will reconsider their way forward.

The federal government does a poor job of almost everything.

I can obviously see in a state like California why they would want the government to do such labeling.

Please..

Dr. Paul is wrong if he even took a stand against labeling of GMO's as he sure as hell is wrong on his idiotic statement released reguarding Net Neutrality...

Both of those should and need to happen. Considering these mega billion dollar companies benefited from our printed money and tax havens (Monsanto, General Mills, Nabisco, Sprint, ATT, Verizon,Comcast, Time Warner, etc,etc,etc)

You damn right they're out of control.. Most of the time I agree with Dr. Paul. But I'm no where in anyway even close to agreeing with them on there backing of absurdity!!

Sorry, common sense prevails.

(Did anyone with any type of technical background even read the Rand & Ron's press release regarding Net Neutrality and Internet freedoms? Just ass backwards!!!)

I'm sorry sue someone for wanting to know what is GMO and what isn't. It's already been tried numerous times and the "corporations" have found idiotic and mundane ways around labeling already, so it's not really even true to begin with. 100%, All Natural, Organic.. You think those words would mean what they mean. But they DO NOT! Who's the idiots and who's the attorney's?

pssssshhhht

The issue is that the US

The issue is that the US Constitution does not give the federal government authority to act on these issues.

The Constitution should not be violated when it is convenient to do so or when it suits your needs. It should never be violated.

There are two options still remaining, though. Either amend the US Constitution to give the fed gov such authority OR abide by Amendments 9 & 10 which specify that these issues are for the States to decide upon.

...

You just described

The rationale every liberal and big government hack uses to justify federal regulation. Congratz.

State issue, no doubt

The fact that self described constitutionalists disagree with you just shows a grave measure of hypocrisy. Especially since most people on this page regularly write off any type of federal regulation without reviewing its possible benefits. Correctly so, I might ad.

GOYIM

The Trolls are out tonight.

.

i don't share you sentiment.

i don't share you sentiment. Why? Because the role of the federal government is to protect it's citizens...correct? GMOs are poison. So, the federal government does have the right, and obligation, to see that it's citizens are not fed poison. That is my take on it.

Forcing food labeling isn't protecting

True - the role of any just government formed by man is to protect the weak from the strong.

Is GMO the strong oppressing the weak, causing a need for government intervention?

(I think it is but...)

To be determined.

Until then, I'll side with Ron Paul on this one.

Chris Indeedski!

Daily Paul cured my abibliophobia.

Its a criminal act

It's a criminal act! It is poisoning people and the environment. Even an anarchist society will act collectively to defend itself from harm against a common enemy. It is one of the few legitimate tasks of government no matter how informal government might be...

It's not a free choice issue millions are being willfully criminally harmed with impunity. They don't even know they are being poisoned and fed disease causing organisms how the hell can they make a free choice?

The biotech industrial complex should be rounded up and tried for attempted mass murder, destruction of property, and malice and hanged!

We don't have a free market so the only option is to use the current government to force these criminals to at least inform people...

You can't selectively apply some free market principles in a little corner of a socialist interventionist society and expect it to work like it would in a true free society. So we have to do the only thing we can to protect ourselves with what we have to work with.

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

I voted no as well...people

I voted no as well...people can do their own research for GMOs. No need for government to step in.

I Voted No on 37

I'm a 99% of the time vegan who does it for health and not ethical reasons. I feel it's okay to have lean protein from fish or chicken every once in a while. I am very much against GMOs and think the Monsanto/FDA connection are the most corrupt in our entire government.

The No on 37 ads are the most misleading of the election here in CA as well. They ask "Why does soy milk need labeling, but not cow's milk?" It's a very simple answer - Soy is GMO, cows are not. They used the same tactic with Steak/Dog Food (dog food has GMO grain filler) and a few other examples. It obscures the issue so much to distract/deceive voters.

With that being said, I voted against Prop 37 because I don't trust a government agency enough to truthfully label foods. Who is supposed to enforce Prop 37? Will they be in bed with Monsanto and deceptively label them?

Look at the "Free range" and "organic" labels in stores now. It is all deception so consumers think they are doing the right thing. They might eat "organic, free range chicken" but it's all cornfed and pumped full of hormones and antibiotics.

The FDA is an absolute failure. They're supposed to "keep our food safe" but they just react after outbreaks of salmonella happen. How is issuing recalls of tainted food keeping us safe? The recalls would happen with or without the FDA. I don't think we need more government in our food system.

The only way to really effect change is education and to make people aware of where their food comes from. Most people don't care about this at all. If we can educate people and they demand non-gmo food, it will come.

If we educate people on the Monsanto/FDA revolving door, then they will invoke change and vote those people out of office. The corruption will end once we care enough to end these ties.

I agree with not wanting to eat GMO foods. I just don't think Prop 37 is the way to go. I think the awareness this is raising is a step in the right direction and that eventually we can get comprehensive reform.

In theory I agree with you

Government regulations rarely help. However, in this instance there is no real government oversight by the food and drug administration. There is no main stream media publishing the truth about GMO's so that the masses listen or understand. The corn companies and Monsanto lobbies RUN the FDA and are swallowing up small farms everywhere. This kind of environment changes everything.

In a perfect America, we wouldn't have FDA and all food would be localized and monitored by the market. Food safety would be about safety and not who paid the biggest kickback.

We live in a damaged America that is being poisoned daily RIGHT NOW. I call this bill a flawed band-aid for a flawed weeping infected system. It's a temporary patch until we can fix this mess.

you guys come on. seriously?

you guys come on. seriously? Monsanto paid a lot of money stop it why do you think they bothered? So, I guess you voted with Monsanto then. great job.

...and the

...and the corn-syrup-drink-industry paid some money to run ads against Bloomberg's large-soda-ban.

Does this necessarily mean that the ban was right just cause the soda companies were against it?

This is my biggest problem with the DP... a lot of people on here dont know what they stand FOR... they have no understanding of their own political ideology, save for being AGAINST things (corporations, globalists, banksters, etc).

Take a break, read a book about political philosophy and what liberty really is and revisit this issue. (Actually reading other people's thoughts isn't necessary if you just sit quietly and think these things through from their very beginning to their very end).

I think you misunderstand my post

I was supporting the labeling of GMO's because we are in such a mess. However, in a perfect world we would abolish the fda and prevent protections for companies like monsanto. I'm saying, in a perfectly constitutional America where we actually followed the constitution, we wouldn't need this law nor would it be constitutional.

But as things are....IT's necessary

For Christ Sakes!

Poisoning people is a crime and doing it against and without our consent or knowledge is pure sociopathy and de-humanizing.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

i agree and I do think GMO's are poison

..

Troll.

.

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Monsanto gone wild

The anti-labelers here fail to consider the critical time constraints before Monsanto takes over the food supply. There is a “Monsanto rider” which if passed with the FY 2013 Agricultural Appropriations bill would eviscerate any free market attempt to level the playing field for farmers and consumers; it would give Monsanto immunity. An update from anyone who knows more about this bill would be appreciated. Meanwhile Canadian farmers are already prohibited from filing a class action lawsuit against Monsanto. Not only have private property rights been infringed upon by crazy patent laws that give Monsanto ownership claims to any GMO seed that drifts over to a farmer’s property, the farmer may incur the loss of his own crops when the “terminator (suicide) gene” Monsanto has engineered prevents the farmer’s own crops from regerminating once they are contaminated. The cost to the farmer and threat to his chosen livelihood (unless he plays ball with Monsanto) far exceeds in moral equivalence as well as monetarily the so-called ‘cost of labeling.’ The No on 37 Committee appears to have committed a felony by flagrantly posting the FDA seal on a trumped up FDA claim. So, the tenets of the free market argument are trumped by a rigged system. Ergo how do you inform the consumer when all he sees are false claims made and grassroots orgs don’t have the financial resources to challenge a big multinational company in bed with lobbyists and politicians? How do you protect a farmer’s private property rights when patent laws favor Monsanto’s proprietary claims? How do you hold Monsanto liable when the legislative bodies unwittingly give Monsanto immunity, the last straw blocking any recourse or accountability? At that point how do you ensure free market choices when organic farmers lose control of their farms via a Monsanto gone wild? Even as a conjecture, it begs the question, not if, but when does Monsanto become unstoppable?

FOCUS: Is Monsanto About to Gain Immunity From Federal Law?
www.readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/12295-focus

“If this provision passes, it will allow unrestricted planting of potentially dangerous crops, exposing other safe and non-GMO crops to risk of contamination...consumers and farmers will lose what little control we have now over what we plant and what we eat.”

Monsanto Funded Anti-GMO Labeling Campaign Gets Away with Impersonating Govt. Agencies. (a felony)
www.naturalsociety.com/monsanto-funded-anti-gmo-labeling-fda

I agree with Mike Adams who argues for mandatory GMO labeling - even if you believe in limited government because the situation is too urgent and dire as necessitated by a system rigged in favor of Monsanto et al.
www.dailypaul.com/241730/the-case-for-mandatory-gmo

I was beginning to think all DPers have gone brain dead

on this issue!

Thanks so much for your comment!

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

Thanks for yours

and seeing the bigger picture.

I am living the big picture

sadly 2012 maybe my last year as a beekeeper, I can no longer afford to keep changing out combs that become to polluted with GMO's.

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

So you would rather allow POISON FOOD TO THE MASSES???

There are LIMITS!!!!!! COME ON!!!! This is a KILLER!!!! STOP POISONING THE WORLD AND OUR SOIL!!! NO MORE FAKE FOOD!!! NO MORE KILLING!!!! REALLY??? Better think this one through??? Poison and kill the world or EXPOSE THE MOTHA F'ER"S!!! AND BANKRUPT MONSANTO!!! YES ON 37 CALIFORNIA AND BEYOND~~~~~~

So you would rather FEARMONGER and APPEAL to EMOTION

...using ALL CAPS and LOTS of EXCLAMATION!!!! POINTS!!!

..than have a rational conversation?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

He was having a gangsta

moment

cut'm some slack for godsakes

How can anyone claim to be free market

If there is nothing but fraud running rampant in a system that lies and tricks the consumer into buying redefined "food" under the guise of freedom?

Not even the staunchest Austrian could defend fraud as a matter of practice if your only hope that the market will correct itself. That rather democratic theory is one hundred percent based on the premise that the consumer is rational and makes the right choice for them so long as it is an unadulterated decision. But what chance does the market have if we aren't allowed to know the truth?

Our minds are so fixated on some imaginary utopian anarchist society, that given the opportunity, we won't even vote ourselves out of slavery. To some of you, anarchy can only be achieved by one big bang, and no amount of incrementalism will ever be acceptable.

I even wonder if the free market doesn't correct this MINOR NUISANCE of not knowing what you are eating, then if some of you people would argue the truth is not worth knowing? I honestly do.

Face it. Voting no will not help you eliminate the FDA any more than voting yes.

So vote yes on 37. Put it on the fsking green beans and carrots and soup and cat food, before you tie yourself into a philosophical knot.

No libertarian can support mandatory labelling...

...doesn't matter whether it's at the federal or State level. A federal law would be worse, but a State law is no good either. That this thread is at -17 as of now tells me there are lots of people on the DP who aren't libertarians.

Educate yourselves: www.mises.org

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."