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.

food is food. chemically

food is food. chemically altered food is not food and is deception and they are lucky they can even sell that garbage. it MUST be labelled, heck I'd outlaw it completely. it is NOT food.

Food Inc. Movie: http://www.hulu.com/watch/75991

free market?

Thats not an issue here, what we are dealing with is cronyism which allows GMO abominations to be sold as if they were normal food.

Yes, free markets

The question at hand is whether the government should force companies to label their GMO food products. A free market is a market absent all such government intervention, a market where all interactions are voluntary.

If you want to do something about GMO foods, you should be working to eliminate the FDA, which gives companies like Monsanto competitive advantages, and working to eliminate intellectual property, which is nothing but a State-granted monopoly privilege, and which is the basis for much of Monsanto's power - as opposed to calling for more government intervention in the form of mandatory labeling.

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

perhaps a popsicle made out

perhaps a popsicle made out of antifreeze is good for you?

then they label it "made WITH natural flavors" since 1% of the flavoring is natural?

Is THAT ok with you?!?!??!?!!?

What the heck is wrong with you people?!?!?!

Free market

is also based on the government that enforces contracts and protects from fraud (by giving the ability to the affected party to file a lawsuit in case they were a victim of fraud). Like I said in my previous posts - I don't care about mandatory labeling enforced by the government. But I want this not to be defined as "food" by the government (as it is right now) and want to be able to sue any seller or manufacturer that tries to peddle this crap as food. One or two such lawsuits and they would be labeling this themselves and would be focused on trying to market it as "cheaper food alternative" to those who want to buy. That's a free market solution. Unfortunately, right now , thanks to this being LABELED as food, and the fact that it spreads and infects on its' own , there is no free market solution. Doing nothing in regards to this is not a free market solution as you're:

a) being cheated out of your ability to sue in court for fraud, again due to the fact that this is already labeled as "food like any other" by the government

b) being cheated out of protection of your property (one of the very pillars of free market) due to the fact that this will infect your crops, which will then become theirs and further eliminate choice, until there is none anyway.

Mandatory labeling is not my ideal option, but in the interim, until the anti-market legislation that's currently there is gone, I'd take it over doing nothing.

That's why I don't consider

That's why I don't consider myself to be a doctrinaire libertarian. Free markets need somewhat more regulation than the libertarians think. I have been in countries that didn't have food labeling laws. Libertarians would have you believe that in such countries Underwriters Laboratories-like companies would spring up to provide consumers with information about what's in their food, and to certify food as fructose free, MSG free, or whatever. No such thing happens. People simply buy cans of soup or TV dinners with no idea of what's inside.

free market

is regulation

"Free markets need...more regulation than...libertarians think"

No, they don't.


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

The California proposition is

The California proposition is a state, not a federal law, and nothing in our Constitution prohibits states from making proper labeling of food mandatory.

I believe that free markets can work only when we have an informed citizenry. Knowing what's in our food is an important part of the information we need. Who opposes this law? Monsanto, and other corporations that want to pull the wool over your eyes.

Just because it's done at the state level

... doesn't mean it's good. It only means we're relieved that it wasn't done federally and made several times worse.

You said: "I believe that free markets can work only when we have an informed citizenry."

The problem is that too many so-called libertarians on the DP (and apparently even GJ, but not RP) believe that it is government's job to do the informing. And we all know what a great track record it has in education, and other regulation.

If there are laws which prevent companies from labeling their products as GMO-free, then they should be repealed. But let's not go overboard and demand that the government enforce a mandatory label. The court of public opinion and consumer choice will lead companies to label their products voluntarily.

If you believe the consumer has that power in all but this particular case, you have no business being a libertarian.

As I have already said, that

As I have already said, that does not happen. In countries without mandatory labeling of ingredients companies *do not* voluntarily provide the information. The government is not doing the informing, it is merely requiring that businesses tell the truth about what they're selling. That libertarians are so much against this is the reason why libertarians so often come across as extremist zealots to the majority of people. Some people don't care whether they're eating GMO food and they will keep eating it whether it is labeled as such or not. The reason Monsanto and other agribusiness corporations fight tooth and nail against GMO labeling laws is not because it costs any significant amount to add a little extra ink to the label, but because they know a lot of people won't buy their product if they know what's in it. So you are taking the side of those who want to lie to their customers.

I didn't read the comments,

I didn't read the comments, but its crazy to be at -17 downvotes for quoting Ron Paul. I have definitely heard him take this position in the past.

again Ron Paul is being quoted commenting on a Federal

law, this is a state issue! This quote was taken out of context much like the mainstream media does, it is said to see it happen here.

Again, state level does not equal good

The imposition of government force on individuals and the market by enforcing a mandatory label is the removal of liberty. RP is relieved it isn't being done at the federal level, but it is still the removal of liberty, even if only limited to a single state.

I wish people would get it through their heads that giving all power not itemized in the Constitution to the the states was NOT to ensure good decisions. It was done to limit the effects of bad decisions.

Another thing

Voting 'no' is not the fiscally conservative thing to do either.

There's the 'seen' and the 'unseen.'

The estimated expenses you are seeing in the commercials are, first off, based on lies.

But suppose for the sake of argument is 100 percent true, they still do not, and can not ever, factor in externalities such as your medical bill, medications, and funeral expenses will be in decline offset by the fact that many consumers who will choose non gmo leaving them alive, vibrant, and feeling well.

But all of the costs you cite

But all of the costs you cite are born by the consumer, not innocent third parties. So the government shouldn't be involved.

What third party?

The only added cost goes to the consumer who, if the commercials are true, will have to pay for the extra ink it takes to say whether or not your corn flakes are made out of gmo corn or not.

This has nothing to do with the FDAs existence which we already acknowledge is a terrible social expense that shoud be eliminated. And if eliminating the FDA is on the ballot then I will vote for that too.

I meant all of the potential

I meant all of the potential consequences, not the literal costs. If a consumer is fine with buying food not knowing if it has GMO in it or not he should be allowed to do so and the government shouldn't make it illegal for him to do so.

This is a more principled

This is a more principled position than you are getting credit for. I can understand people having a difference of opinion, but I don't really understand why you are being downvoted so much.

Personally, I find information-forcing legislation/mandates to be among the least harmful government overreaches. Far better that the feds require a label than they ban GMOs altogether. Or am I being too defeatist here?

I am apposed to the current federal law,

forced in by Monsanto, which prohibits the labeling on NON-GMO foods. I would pay double for those products but I can't because it is currently illegal to label your food NON-GMO.

The mere fact that I would pay double for it is exactly why it is illegal and NOT economic. If they charged double for NON-GMO it would send out the message that these GMO foods are either not safe or possibly not safe. It would eventually force NON-GMO pushers to PROPERLY TEST THEIR CRAP OR GO OUT OF BUSINESS. Monopolizing the market by forcing a ban on labeling is the opposite of a free market.

I am not sure how Ron Paul or anyone else gets this issue so confused. Has anyone here seen a label in the last 20 years that says 'NON-GMO'? Have they ever? They don't exist. They're illegal. And the American people look horribly obese and sick.

Yes, there's a label in my freezer that says NON-GMO

On my Seapoint Farms edamame (soybeans). They are not part of the Non-GMO project, so they don't have their label, they have their own symbol, with a picture of a plant and it says "NON-GMO" below it.

That said, according to www.nongmoproject.org, such a label is not legally defensible because they can't guarantee that their product has not been contaminated by GMOs. They also say that only Non-GMO Project Verified products have actually been tested for GMOs. Incidentally, I just checked the label again -- Product of China. Since Monsanto does or has in the past grown soybeans in China, they very well could be contaminated.

In any case, the labels do exist. I look for them when I grocery shop, and assume if it's not there on any product that contains corn, canola, cottonseed, soy and a few others, that the product contains GMOs.

RonPaulSwede said it very well -- as a libertarian I oppose mandatory labeling, and as a capitalist I will only support those who label (sorry if I mangled your quote, but I think that was the gist of it).

That's funny.

I just bought some egg roll covers that were labeled non-gmo. I wonder if other countries that require labels are allowed to keep them on here. Besides these two incidents I have not heard of labels for non-gmos. They are prohibited. I can work my way around it but I would rather have them because I do not trust all of them.

good quote RPSwedey!

In My Opinion It is Truth in Marketing

and I would think that any common sense Libertarian would demand truth in the market place, don't you?

How can the market accurately reflect and support demand if fake goods are masquerading as real goods? Get real!

If Ron Paul is against GMO labeling, then I have an argument with Ron Paul on this topic. It's not the first time I've disagreed with the illustrious and beloved statesman.

Gwen Kraft

"Personal Liberty & Personal Responsibility" -- Dr. Ron Paul

"A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom." -- Bob Dylan

I believe the argument is

I believe the argument is that consumers should be able to decide for themselves whether buying a product without a no-GMO label is worth the risk. There is of course the complicating factor that such a label is illegal under federal law.

I was drawn to Ron Paul

because of him stating he hates fascism. In your edit you say your post comes from Ron Paul. This maybe so, but why didn't you tell the whole story. If Ron Paul were President Monsanto wouldn't exist the way it does now.

Monsanto is protected by Congress! They are alway passing new laws favoring Monsanto!

I am 100% in favor of removing any regulations regarding GMO's, but you must also remove all the protection given Monsanto. Lets remove their IP rights on seeds while we're at it! this was never allowed in the first 200 years of our Republic! The founding Fathers would have laughed at Monsanto for trying to patent life!

In 2008 my Congressman Colin Peterson got a $10,000 donation from Monsanto! What did he vote for to get that type of donation from Monsanto?

Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed




you're correct, but how do you solve this issue?

The manufacturers LIE!! How do you know they are lying?

Jackson County Georgia

War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.
Thomas Jefferson

Link to peer-reviewed scientific study on Monsanto GMO corn


This is the study that recently came out of France about the toxicity of Monsanto GMO corn.

Be sure to check out the photos on page 6 of the study....

Cuimhnigh orm, a Dhia, le haghaidh maith.

check your link?

I couldn't get it to work

Try this link:


Cuimhnigh orm, a Dhia, le haghaidh maith.