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.

no, I think you are misrepresenting what Ron Paul was saying

and taking what he said out of context. I believe Ron Paul would have this be a State rather a Federal (FDA) issue

So you believe his argument

So you believe his argument would not apply to the state level? If you do, what are your reasons for your view.

Ron Paul has always been for States rights

trumping the Federal Government. I'll bet the FDA and the State of Cal. will end up butting heads on who has jurisdiction on this issue.

But that doesn't mean he

But that doesn't mean he supports the use of force against businesses to make them label their products..

who then should keep the Cartels in check?

Should we just allow them to commit fraud?
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.

something tells me...

it dosen't actually matter if it gets labelled or not.

As it stands if it's non-GMO it's "organic" and you better believe that the food producer wants to include that word if they can.

So if it's not labelled organic than it's GMO.

The labeling is already here.

I honestly don't really care if the companies are forced to label it as GMO or not. It's already labelled. I see both sides to the argument and let the best man win.

unfortunatly the USDA tries to take claim to the word "Organic"

The USDA should have never got involved with Organic Certification. Here is the difference between USDA "Certifed Organic" and non-GMO such as www.nongmoproject.org

As a Certified Organic farmer a USDA inspector comes around once a year to check my paperwork ect. I have pay them around $1000.00 to do this in order to get my USDA certificate that says I'm certified Organic. There is no testing done.

With the "non-GMO project" feed has to actually be tested to verify it is not GMO

ok, so

that's the real issue. I guarantee you most people just think there are 2 types of food, Organic or GMO.

Since there are 3, yes there should be labeling.

We certainly have USDA certified grade A, B, etc beef. well why the heck not for how genetically modified it is.

Not true at all.

If a non-GMO product uses chemical fertilizers, then it is not labeled Organic. So, how do you know the difference between non-GMO foods grown with chemical fertilizer and GMO's?

Did you see the documentary?

Did you see the documentary that was posted on the DP a couple of days ago? If not, here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSkjnz5eUE4&feature=youtu.be

With GMO plants being produced, all plants will be contaminated. Even the foods that are grown "organically" will be GMO due to cross-pollination and contamination. The pure seed supply will disappear and even if you were lucky to find some pure seed to plant in your field, your crop will most likely be contaminated through cross-pollination, birds, wind, etc. GMO plants are an invasive species and will virtually eliminate all non-GMO sources through the contamination. It is a crime.

The food bought from with an organic label on it most likely has GMO in it due to contamination.


are on the right track!
If it's GMO corn, it should say so on it's packaging...
otherwise, it's not corn!

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

GMO's and substantial equivalence

The invalid application of the "substantially equivalent" and "generally regarded as safe (GRAS)" labels are the points we should be demonstrating to our friends and family.


I think one can make an

I think one can make an argument that labeling allows for honest transcations. If we allow government to enforce contracts, why not let govt. require labels?


the Constitution does call for the feds to regulate money, which at it's most libertarian interpretation would mean to specify trade take place in 1 oz chunks of silver, or 1/10th, 1/100th portions of it.

It would be confusing if people traded in a strange amount each time. e.g. .762 oz or .132 oz.

This is, like u said, to provide for honest transactions and to be honestly labelled as such.

Perfect Issue for this site

I see this topic and issues like it to be inevitably argued from three positions: populism, minimalism and voluntaryism. I believe that in order to bust up the corporation, you must bust up the State.

"The rich man writes the book of laws the poor man must defend, but the highest laws are written on the hearts of honest men."


One thing to think about is Monsanto is a multi-national corporation, which has no allegiance to the United States, and not meant to have the same protections as an individual. You are correct in wanting to safeguard individual liberty....Monsanto is a multi-national corporation, not a human individual.

Individuals (humans) have divine rights that are not granted by government and must be protected by our government as the Constitution prescribes. Corporations are created by man, may not exist without the consent of the government, and under the control of the laws of man. The Founding Fathers despised corporations (with perhaps the exception of Alexander Hamilton) and created the government we have to protect individuals against such commercial entities such as Monsanto having control over people and monopolizing markets. During the Founder's time it was such companies such as the British East India Company...who furnished the tea for the Boston Tea Party. Monsanto is doing harm to individuals through introducing their GMO that contaminates our food supply, trying to take control of our food supply, and control of the food supply meaning the control of people.

Representatives of Monsanto are appointed to serve in departments of the federal government such as the FDA, it has many elected government officials on its payroll, and also have influence over the court system with its money. Even with the money to sue Monsanto, the corporation wins since our institutions are so corrupted with Monsanto's money. The joint collaboration between government, our courts, and Monsanto is a crime upon humanity in my view. Not only is Monsanto trying to monopolize the world's food supply, it is contaminating the food with poisons, and the worst part of it is that Monsanto GMO plants are contaminating non-gmo plants and food which leaves no alternative sources of obtaining non-toxic food or seed in which to plant non-GMO food. It is a crime.

So what libertarian society do you live in?

Rhetorical question of course because there is no such society. And your idea of implementing limited libertarian ideas in a non libertarian society will only serve to further enslave us to the unnatural corporate rulers. Corporations and GMOs are unnatural and if libertarianism doesn't serve to protect our natural environment and natural individuals then it is worthless.

And for your information Ron Paul is not God and he is not right all the time. You people need to grow up and face the realities of this world. Everyone is not going to turn libertarian and society is definitely not going to revert back to a state which would allow for libertarian principles to rule. So you better use a little common sense and stand up for what is right while you have the chance.

You're missing the point

There are bad corporations, big business that takes advantage of people and sells unhealthy food because it's cheap. The point is, we don't need government to solve all our problems. There are better, more natural ways. There is a strong demand for GMO free foods. Why not start a business that labels foods GMO free? Or a websites that categorizes types of foods that are GMO free, and also lists the popular foods that are GMO? If you were good at it, and provided a high quality service you would be helping society and be making a living doing it. People would come to you or look for your brand to know if the food they were buying was GMO free. Monsanto would start loosing business and would be forced to change their business plan.

If more people started looking at the demands of people as an opportunity to help and benefit and not as a problem for the government to fix, things would happen much faster.

This is the Libertarian way.

online Non-GMO Shopping Guide

"Or a websites that categorizes types of foods that are GMO free, and also lists the popular foods that are GMO?"


That is a perfect example!

Now anybody that cares about eating GMO free has a great source of information. The website even shows you a seal that non-GMO products can put on their packaging to inform the buyer it is safe.

If the government starts to force companies to print GMO on their labels, not only will we be injecting more government oversight into business, but we will be putting the nongmoshoppingguide.com and the non GMO project seal out of business. 2 companies who are providing a tremendous service. If either of these companies slip up they hey will lose consumer confidence and another company can step in and do a better job.

The FDA is forever. When they slip up, well too bad.

Ron Paul

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

"You people?" You belong on

"You people?" You belong on another site which best fits your "practical" non-libertarian views.

Well then they do not have the authority to FORBID labeling.

So why does the FDA forbid labeling that something is GMO-free? I take it Monsanto, et al, want to wait until the world is so polluted with their GMO seed that you won't be able to say anything at all is non-GMO.

I buy food with 'non-gmo' stickers all the time.


regulatory capture isn't just a federal problem, it works on all levels. Once gov't gets a hold of something it never lets go, and it always gets worse. Monsanto is already in charge of FDA. The only way my heirloom seeds will ever become 'genetically engineered' is if the gov't tweaks the definition, something they've been known to do. And then Monsanto benefits from those who are half-awake going back to sleep because the gov't gives us labels and keeps us safe from the very people who control the gov't.
And the beat goes on.

That's nice that you are satisfied with the "non-GMO" you can

find. But it doesn't mean the FDA isn't actively trying to block the voluntary Non-GMO labeling:

"The agency (FDA) warned the dairy industry in 1994 that it could not use "Hormone Free" labeling on milk from cows that are not given engineered hormones, because all milk contains some hormones.

It has sent a flurry of enforcement letters to food makers, including B&G Foods, which was told it could not use the phrase "GMO-free" on its Polaner All Fruit strawberry spread label because GMO refers to genetically modified organisms and strawberries are produce, not organisms.

It told the maker of Spectrum Canola Oil that it could not use a label that included a red circle with a line through it and the words "GMO," saying the symbol suggested that there was something wrong with genetically engineered food."


Yes I'm aware that the FDA is controlled by Big Farma

They always do whatever it takes to win in the end.
Thats why I don't want them to start gmo labeling.
From the fda website, it mentions that gmo could mean normal selection for desirable traits. Most heirloom plants could be considered gmo in the fda's mind.
Why not put more restrictions upon gov't, like not allowing them to forbid gmo free labeling; rather than give them more authority. I think I'm most concerned with people going back to sleep after this while monsanto continues to work behind the scenes to further their agenda.
This state issue will grow and eventually will be twisted around to do the opposite of its purpose.
reminds me of the opening of The Law
'The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! '



I upvoted you

"our enemy is the state"

The reason you are down voted

is because you do not understand the issue. This is NOT a federal mandate. It is a state issue. ALL POWERS NOT GIVEN TO CONGRESS BELONG TO THE PEOPLE AND/OR THE STATES. Pretty simple. I don't understand why you guys can't get this through your heads?

No GMO department. No Gov't supplied label. No Gov't control as to what can or cannot be put into food. Just truth in labeling. As demanded by the people of the state.

Yes, the market will show whether or not people want GMO's in their food, but the people are incapable of making that decision without the information. Truth in advertising. We are being sold a product with a false confidence that it is legitimate, when in reality it is poison.

The people are "incapable,"

The people are "incapable," eh?