I oppose government mandated GMO labelling as it is not a libertarian or fiscally conservative position
Submitted by compromise on Sun, 11/04/2012 - 12:47The 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.
- Login to post comments
I don't think it protects our
I don't think it protects our basic Constitutional right, but I completely agree with the forced labeling of tobacco.
Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:
Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...
Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a
Yeah I've made that argument before and it seems
pretty clear to me too.
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
In an absolute moral sense,
In an absolute moral sense, the OP is right. If consumers really want labeling of their food, then they will demand it of from producers and it will happen.
In a practical sense, he is wrong. Most people are not even educated about GMOs; many do not care. That means that people who want to eat healthy are in the minority; the market can be harsh to this kind of minority.
We always say in government, that the whims of the majority should not trample upon the rights of the minority. I feel that even in a free market, people should have a right to know exactly what they are eating. Just because 95% of the people don't care what they stuff in their faces, it is wrong to force other people to operate under that paradigm.
Ultimately, that lack of caring is why these companies are against labeling; they don't want someone to see the label, start to question the product, do research, and then refuse to buy it. By not mandating labeling, companies can hide behind misinformation, false research, smokescreens, etc. Producers also know that if they dig in, consumers will eventually relent and purchase the food without labeling. Just through misinformation, without labeling, it can get very hard to know exactly what you eat; you end up compromising out of sheer exasperation. In addition, the big food producers can all band together and universally decide to not label their food, forcing the consumer in one direction.
Now one could argue that if companies engage in misinformation, collusion, and bad research in order to trick the consumer, government can then call them out on it. They can prosecute them, etc. Individuals can take them to court, etc. Of course, unless you are an anarcho-captalist and believe the government has no role, even in the prevention of fraud. Back to my point, I feel that this method is less efficient. What was most effective in making people know that cigarrettes were bad for you was the government mandates, not the court system.
Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:
Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...
Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a
So, you're making a
So, you're making a utilitarian argument for the progressive position on this issue. The same can be made for the fiscal conservative position on this issue.
- Regulation is easy to evade due to eventual regulatory capture, that benefits the big corporations and disadvantages those smaller businesses involved in the trade
- Labeling costs money and therefore hurts taxpayers
- Labeling hurts the farmers, who have to go through even more bureaucracy before they can sell their products, which ends up driving up the cost of food
- Prop 37 in particular is full of loopholes and exemptions, including one for foreign GM food
Let me suggest this to you.
Let me suggest this to you. If 99% of the population wants their society/government to be run in a utilitarian, pragmatic sort of way, and you want it to be run in a principled, absolutist sort of way, what right do you have to force your view upon them? Personal morality aside, don't we all have the ability to make our own decisions, and to use that power collectively?
"Regulation is easy to evade due to eventual regulatory capture, that benefits the big corporations and disadvantages those smaller businesses involved in the trade"
It isn't inevitable. Look at how big tobacco was thrown out of Congress. Unfortunately, our culture has changed since then. Although since prop 37 is at the state level, this actually might work.
"Labeling costs money and therefore hurts taxpayers"
Labeling costs, very, very little money. It costs the money of applying the label to the food providers. Labeling may cost money that it may lower demand for a product when people find out what is in it...which will lower supply and thus increase prices more than what the lowered demand would lower them. However, this is the EXACT point of the legislation. Economically, individuals will just move their money into GMO-free food, bringing prices down in the exact opposite effect.
"Labeling hurts the farmers, who have to go through even more bureaucracy before they can sell their products, which ends up driving up the cost of food"
Tough. Firstly, how much more bureacracy is really there? It is fairly simple: if you have GMOs, label you food. There may be a little dispute about what constitutes GMOs, though my gut would be that if you are trying to hide it, it is probably unsafe.
According to downsizinggovernment.org, federal regulation accounts for 14% of the food industry's costs...this includes everything. For example, milk without federal regulation would costs around 20 cents cheaper than regulated milk. Not a huge difference.
"Prop 37 in particular is full of loopholes and exemptions, including one for foreign GM food"
Makes sense since the regulation of foreign food would fall into a federal area. In any case, the answer is not to not pass 37; the answer is to close the loopholes and exemptions.
Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:
Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...
Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a
I don't think most of us are so nieve
to think that prop 37 will magicaly fix everything, you make some valid points, I was not aware that foreign GM foods were exempt?
One thing that we all can agree on is we should be using the free-market approach first and foremost. This means:
1) let Companies know you do not want GMO's in your food www.respgonsibletechnology.org
2) this includes calling and emailing companies you buy food from, if they agree with you demand #3
3) demand voluntary labeling like the non-GMO project: www.nongmoproject.org
4) start growing your own food or buy/barter it from a farmer you trust (ask what variety it is to verify it's not GMO)
I have decided this year that
I have decided this year that I oppose Daylight Savings. Who says we have to ove our clocks forward and backward twice a year?
some Amish don't
change their time.
BTW what does this have to do with GMO's?
...mandatory regulation...
Yes, I went to make an Amish pick up this morning and had to ask if my timing was ok as I explained the English time change...they already knew about it.
The only thing it has to do with GMO's is more government regulation...mandatory regulation...
Buy Amish...I don't even have to wonder if my potatoes have been irradiated!
You don't have to
change your clock if you don't want to.
That is the exact thing my
That is the exact thing my husband said to me this morning. I said, yes, but I will still have to get up an hour earlier to get the kids off to school during daylight savings... I though of those words he said to me as I typed my comment above :)
Chuckling here.
Arizona does not participate in Daylight Savings Time.
Yup, here in Arizona we found
Yup, here in Arizona we found out that Daylight Savings Time changes neither the amount of daylight nor the amount of time in a day.
:)
Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl
We had that conversation too...
...were you listening?
I hear flat screens can listen nowadays: Seems like someone had a post about it recently.
I think your down votes are because of the title.
I support GMO labeling. but I don't support the Federal Government requiring it.
Ron's quote above is just that - he is talking entirely within the context of Congress passing a law.
He doesn't say he doesn't support labeling itself.
Certainly, he says it is a State issue.
Yet, your title, while I'm sure it was meant to be incendiary, is not entirely accurate, or else what you have presented, doesn't fully support it.
Are you telling us that if a State were to require GMO labeling that you wouldn't support that either?
Are you telling us that if a grocery store required GMO products to be labeled before they appeared on their shelves, you wouldn't support that either?
Are you telling us that if GMO companies voluntarily labeled their products as GMO you wouldn't support that either?
Are you telling us you don't want to know and you don't want anyone else to know, what is GMO and what is not?
Your title states you don't support GMO labeling of any kind at any level.
Change the title and I'd bet your votes will be different.
In answer to your
In answer to your questions:
Are you telling us that if a State were to require GMO labeling that you wouldn't support that either?
I don't think the federal government should interfere, but I would not support that on a state level.
Are you telling us that if a grocery store required GMO products to be labeled before they appeared on their shelves, you wouldn't support that either?
Absolutely not, the grocery store is private property and the people whom to which it belongs can do whatever they want. They can even refuse to sell GMO, as many stores have.
Are you telling us that if GMO companies voluntarily labeled their products as GMO you wouldn't support that either?
I would support that, but that's not actually going to happen.
Are you telling us you don't want to know and you don't want anyone else to know, what is GMO and what is not?
I want people to know what is GMO through educating themselves about the products they buy and not just being ignorant, buying anything and then complaining it's GMO. I want people who oppose GMO to shop at stores that do not sell GMO or stores that voluntarily label, rather than adding more pointless regulation.
Okay, that clears up some questions, but then do you
or do you not oppose GMO labeling?
You see, that's what my questions were trying to illustrate. Your title is poorly chosen. That's why you have so many down votes.
By the answers to my questions, you don't even agree with your title.
What do you mean? I am for
What do you mean? I am for voluntary labelling but against government labelling.
Then why does your post title state unequivocally that you
are against GMO labeling?
You make no distinction there.
Your statement is categorical.
It can be read no other way.
Make it clear that you do not support MANDATORY labeling and maybe perception of your post would improve.
You were wondering why the down votes.
That is why.
Done, although I'm doubtful
Done, although I'm doubtful that I'll get upvotes.
Coincidence?
There's no way to tell why your votes are climbing, but you were down to -9 when you changed the title, now you're up to 0. I suspect you'll eventually hit positive territory. Maybe that has to do with the title change, maybe not.
But is he really radically
But is he really radically different when it comes to the state government?
Isn't everything he said also true for states? A state regulatory agency is also prone to regulatory capture.
Ron Paul is a federal legislator, so he always talks about issues on a federal level. On fiscal issues such as this, I'm sure he has the same view at the state level.
All good things can be and are abused.
Just because men are not angels doesn't mean that the good thing is not good. A wife can be abused, but that doesn't mean that there should be no wives. Marriage and children can be abused, but that doesn't mean that there should be no marriage and children. Food can be abused but that doesn't mean that we should not eat.
Judges can be bought, but we still need them. The law against premeditated murder can be abused by someone who frames another man that he wants eliminated. The law against murder is a good thing, but that it can be abused doesn't mean it is not a good thing.
The same concept holds with truth in advertising and labeling.
RP, as member of Congress,
calls the Congress to obey the Constitution, which means not passing laws that they have no right to pass because of Article 1 Section 8. The states are not bound by that. RP said that the states are quite within their right to pass anti-abortion laws. States have every right to pass labeling truth laws, too. The states are meant to be independent republics; the feds are meant to have very limited duties in making the union of the states work.
What we have I think are people that rail against any action
taken by government but when you ask them should we just do away with government all together, they cringe.
So I say which is it? No government or a small government? They usually say "small government" but but but but.....
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
Isn't Ron Paul is one of
Isn't Ron Paul is one of those people? He's neither an anarcho-capitalist, nor a progressive.
He's small government first
then anarcho-capatilist when we get to small government.
I think what he realizes is the lack of morality in business and government is the main issue with this or any country. We could no more have a move to Anarcho-Capatilism than we could get the RNC to treat us correct without a change of course in how our people in government and business see morality.
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
And there are people that believe if you never
argue for anarcho-capitalism - aka true laissez faire, then you'll never get to that intermediate step of small government - not peacefully anyway.
You have to always push for more than what you are willing to settle for. If you only push for what you are willing to compromise to, you'll never get even that.
I didn't say states didn't
I didn't say states didn't have the right to do that. I never proposed having the Feds go after California. I said I oppose this on every level. I assumed, based on his justifications for his opinion that could apply equally to a state government, that because Ron Paul opposed labeling on the federal level, he would also oppose labeling on the state level.
He has stated on many occasions his personal dislike
for something that the states might do but he has never stated it was not their Constitutional right.
If abortion was pushed back to the states and my state was pro-abortion then I would have a problem with that and act but I would never say they didn't have a right to do it.
So you'd have to ask him personally if he was actually for the labeling outside of the Federal.. anything but an answer to that is a flimsy speculation.
Edit: Do you understand the object of pushing things back to the states?
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.