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.

Even if you support GMO

Even if you support GMO labeling, Prop 37 conveniently permits foreign biotech corporations to do what American ones cannot.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

I agree with this in theory,

but this stance would be like the LP party getting 5% of the popular vote and walking away from federal funding in 2016.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm just well-informed

This

This, Prop 37, is an easy solution to a difficult problem. Too many people want to go with the easy solution instead of doing what's right.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

monsantan's evil products are their private property

Monsantan's evil products are their private property and you voluntarily buy them, so what right do you have to tell someone what they can do with their property? It's your responsibility to know what you're buying. Regulations violate private property rights and depend on violence and aggression to enforce. I oppose GMOs but also government-forced gmo-labeling. I only buy organic and certified non-gmo food.

Principle over convenience.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -Tommy J.

~ Peace Love Revolution ~

You are 100% right, upvoted.

You are 100% right, upvoted.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

I think you don't understand Ron Paul

Ron Paul would say I am for freedom unless it hurts somebody in some way.

For example, it should be ones own choice to do drugs or not, it is not hurting anybody else.

Seat belts should be a choice, it might only hurt the one not wearing it.

But GMO based foods could harm not only the person eating that food, but also harm financially those producing non-GMO food. In addition, GMO can be considered a constitutional issue because iGMO seed might prevent you from growing your own food or even Pot for that matter.

That would be taking away my fundamental right to freedom.

I mean the government could legalize pot, then genetically alter it to make it worthless for getting high, the government could then own the marijuana plant genetically and make the seed sterile, unless you buy from them.

I think you overestimate government's ability

... to control a public domain seed. The only reason GMO corn et al seed is so prevalent is because it is cheap, easy to grow and makes products at the retail level cheaper. At the consumer stage, not knowing about GMO may be hurting people, but at the same time they are improving the quality of their lives financially by spending less money.

This makes non GMO products more expensive because of the lack of demand. However, we would have to be blind to fail to see that the demand is growing. It is this pressure, Consumer Choice, which will eventually carry the day, not Government Intervention.

Public opinion on GMO is changing. More people are avoiding products that contain it. Be patient, keep spreading the word, and stop trying to leverage government to fast-track the process. Government involvement will only result in market distortion and make us all worse off than we were.

Ha ha you have got to be kidding

You ever heard the old saying, "out of sight, out of mind"

Without knowledge of what's in the food you can make the decision to eat or not eat it.

Same reason restaurants have inspectors, otherwise we would be Mexico when it comes to clean restaurants.

So what your saying is if we don't get government involved then it will take care of its self in all circumstances.

There are basic things gov needs to do, we are not telling the Gov to outlaw GMO's, we just want the information to let the free market to decide. Information is not government control, it's the polar opposite.

Next thing your going to tell me is that it's not important for the people we elect to actually read the bill, they really don't need that info.

We believe in the same essential end goal

We both want the information about the effects of GMO to become widespread.

What we disagree on is whose job it is. You believe that government should be responsible for informing us all. I believe that government involvement will only benefit Monsanto, who will be able to warp and twist these regulations with their deep pockets via lobbying.

Informing the public about GMO is the job of consumer activists and vocal individuals, not the government. The government has absolutely no business ensuring our food supply is safe.

Well we shouldn't mandate that they read it

because that might hurt their feelings and possibly be an act of aggression.. never mind that it's their job to do that. We'll skip right by that for now.

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.

"I think you overestimate government's ability

... to control a public domain seed"

THat statement tells me that you're totally under-aware of court cases going on now and in the recent past concerning small farmers and Monsanto.

Maybe you could tell that to the farmers that have lost their land because they had to fight Monsanto in court over the wind carrying their seed products into the farmers crops where it started to grow.

Maybe tell that to the "farm police" that check small farmers crops for any "wrong doing" at the behest of Monsanto.

So many of you have no problem spouting off when you don't know shit about a subject, it's sickening.

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.

Render unto Monsanto

... that which is Monsanto's. You totally missed my point which is farmers can grow non-Monsanto crops if they want to.

You've taken my position, turned it backwards and pretended that's what I'm arguing for. If a farmer growing Monsanto seed had public-domain seed blow onto his fields and start growing, would he be charged? Can Monsanto charge a farmer for growing crops that aren't from Monsanto?

If a farmer signs a contract with Monsanto, then one of the very very few functions of government is to enforce that contract. If the farmer didn't believe that contract was in his/her own best interest, they shouldn't have signed it.

I'm not shilling for Monsanto here. The problem with Monsanto is that is has been granted too much special privilege by government, not that it is making unhealthy products. The government has no business ensuring our food supply is safe. That is the job of consumer activists and the individual.

Just read the "update"

And thinking about an account name like "compromise"...
Our health and well being are not something we can "compromise"! And you want to tell us that your quoting Ron Paul after the fact.
I smell a dirty rat!

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

Wow, you're the 50th guy to

Wow, you're the 50th guy to call me out for my username...you guys seriously need to think of something new.

The fact is, you're the guys compromising with the Dems and the Greens. You're letting government interfere as an easy solution to a difficult problem. You don't like a GMO-producing corporation that's heavily subsidized by the government. Your answer is not to seek to end the current subsidies and regulation, which is difficult and then to show your personal opposition to GMO through voting with your wallet, but to go with the easy progressive answer of adding more regulation. You don't fix an issue caused by something bad with more of something bad.

Maybe I am a compromise when it comes to being a progressive...mainly because I'm not one.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

While that is true, the California gov isn't the federal gov

This GMO issue is a state's issue, and the proposition is strictly a California proposition.

I do believe that California needs to be more libertarian. I'll do this through most, if not all, of the propositions available for voting on. For this one, I'm not sure if having more regulation would protect consumers more or have unintended consequences that would more thoroughly harm Californians.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

Doesn't really matter. The RP

Doesn't really matter. The RP quote was because Ron Paul is a federal politician. There aren't many people who have totally different views on the state level and the federal level. The state government is as vulnerable to the same failures as the federal one when it comes to things like regulatory capture.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

Downvoters who consider themselves libertarians

... are hypocrites and statists. By demanding federally mandated labeling, you are asking government to fix what should be a problem considered by the market and public opinion.

It's amazing how quickly we forget that everything the government touches becomes corrupt and more expensive, as long as it concerns our little pet programs which we arrogantly believe will be for the good of us all.

If you think government intervention is good, as long as you believe what they're doing is "right", then you are still under the thumb of today's prevailing socialist attitudes and have yet to embrace real libertarianism.

OP is right on the money.

I disagree

Those who say they would ban GMOs - yes, I would agree with you on that. But if someone's trying to sell me corn that is not a corn but rather a lab rat is fraud, and the government has the right to step in. Not to ban it - but to allow suing them for fraud, if the product is not labeled as such.

There is no fraud going on.

You are buying a product. If one of your criteria for buying that product is whether or not it contains GMO, you should have asked. If the seller could not answer, you shouldn't have bought it.

Listen to yourself, you are calling for more litigation, more court costs, more government involvement in a transaction which should only involve you and the seller. You should take care of yourself.

The only time there would be fraud is if the company did label their product as GMO free, when it in fact contained GMO. Then they would be lying to the consumer. If there is no label, it is not lying or fraud. It may be considered a bit underhanded, but it just makes it your job to do your due diligence.

Don't expect government to hold your hand and make sure everything you eat is safe.

In my view...

...there are only few limited roles for the government - protection of your liberty, life and property. In other words - protection from assault, theft and fraud. Not labeling what's in a product (especially an essential one, like food) , or claiming that a product does not have something when it does is, in my mind, equivalent to fraud. I would be absolutely against a ban on GMOs - those who wish to plant them and buy them for consumption should be able to do so without any problems (although, if your crop gets infected by their crap you should be able to sue for the damages). But I am also in favor of buyers of the product knowing what's inside of it. No biased labels, nothing saying "GMO consumption is not proven safe" or anything like that - I m against that type of labeling. Just a simple ingredient list and origin, that's all. And then let the free market decide what the consumers want.

"Not labeling what's in a

"Not labeling what's in a product (especially an essential one, like food)"
So you're saying that not only GMOs should be labeled, but everything should be labeled? So if the strawberry farmer down the road starts selling his fruit without labeling it, the government should come after him to prevent him putting cyanide in the strawberries? After all, the customers have no idea what he's putting in.

Food is essential. Shopping at Walmart for food is not.

No one is forcing you to shop at places that sell GMO food. If you suspect they are selling you GMO food, go to one of the many stores that refuse to sell GMO food, and in suburban California, there sure are a lot of them.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

There is a difference between

... pressuring the manufacturers to label their products and leveraging government to mandate such labeling.

The second option can only lead to corruption and elimination of competition when lobbyists are able to twist the mandate to benefit their special interests.

What will it take for the GMO people to understand that the correct solution is a social upheaval rather than government growth and legislation?

Labeling GMO is NOT among the limited roles of government. Rather it is YOUR job as a consumer to let businesses know which products (and labeling) you value by writing letters and more importantly, voting with your wallet.

I

think its more of an issue of "false advertising"..or fraudulent claims, which the government is responsible for stepping in on. A genetically modified apple is not an apple. That is false advertising. GMO companies argue their products (GMO foods) are substantially different to warrant a patent on their product...but are still able to claim that it is substantially equivalent to real food and thus void of proper safety studies and modified labeling.

exactly

and no one, including the OP is even trying to debate you on this, because they can't! Thanks

Liberty

Means we have the freedom of knowing what the hells in our food!
The Monsanto issue cannot be so easily spun!
Nice try though...

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

Do you believe all food

Do you believe all food should be labeled? Is it not possible that virtually anyone could be putting something toxic in their food?

Liberty means you have the freedom not to buy the food in the first place if you're in any doubt. No one is forcing you to buy any of this. There are plenty of health stores that only sell GM-free foods.

Also, do you really trust the California state government to tell you the truth?

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

While everyone is panicking

While everyone is panicking about how unlibertarian labeling is, I point to a quotation from one of the most reasonable, moderate, and anti-ideological libertarians:

"Probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez faire." - Friedrich Hayek

I have been pondering this quite a bit lately.. I had an idea

What about, if your organization creates a new 'apple'
you can not actually us the term apple.

you would have call it the 'Daily Paul Apple' or something like that.

So you don't need to label as GMO per se, but you can not engage in a fraudulent act.

A similar analogy, would be if you created a similar substance to gold, you ought not be able to sell it as gold, but you could call it the Daily Paul Gold or whatever

any takers on this idea?

Ron Paul

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

So you think Ron Paul

So you think Ron Paul supports regulation on a state-level? Regulatory capture can happen at any level.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/