14 votes

King County (Washington State) Republican Party Says Vote NO On Labeling GMO Foods.

First of all, these companies can use some of their FEDERAL FARM SUBSIDY MONEY to offset the added cost of having to label their GMO foods.

I received an email from the King County Republican Party with their 2013 General Election Endorsements and this is what they suggest on this initiative:
Initiative 522 (GMO Labeling) - NO!

But I voted YES to force big-Ag companies (like Monsanto and Dupont) to LABEL GMO Foods - Just the OPPOSITE of what GOP party leaders suggested.

Some considerations affecting my decision were:

1. The FEDERAL FARM SUBSIDIES and other Un-Constitutional hand-outs corporations like this receive.

2. The mischief they do to the small farmer (like forcing them to use certain seeds which Monsanto dictates etc).

3. Several of these corporations spent tons of money fighting this initiative. I wondered just why are they so against consumers knowing which are GMO foods and which are not?

---------------

So the question is: Are regulations like this a proper role of government? I say in this case it is (if for no other reason than the taxpayer money these companies receive).

Consider how many things the government does which it shouldn't.

You know, things like:
-Giving away billions upon billions of dollars in foreign aid or,
-Occupying lots of foreign nations,
-Undeclared acts of war (like drone bombing),
-Using our military to defend wealthy nations like Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Korea etc.,
-Giving away welfare to illegals living/working here,
-Bailing out unsuccessful businesses like banks, auto manufactureres, airlines etc,
-Using our military to defend the property of PRIVATE oil companies in the middle east etc.
----------
So once again, like on so many other issues, the rotted republican party is WRONG.

They are bought and sold by big-agra, just like with the military industrial complex, so they do their bidding at the expense of information, transparency, open-government, and our national fiscal policy etc.




Comment viewing options

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

Have everyone who is going to

Have everyone who is going to vote for this instead call the largest gorcery store chain in the area and ask if they sell GMO foods. If they say they dont know then vow to boycott the store and have everyone else boycott them as well. Start a social media group to boycott and email the link to every contact at the company, even picket in front of the stores. Eventually someone in management with power will see this and lose their shit over it and they will start labelling or selling non-GMO food. Even have them audited by a NGO with a 'Non GMO' stamp on the products.

Once the one store stops selling non-GMO food, have everyone exlusivly shop there and no other chain. The other companies will lose money and be forced to follow suit.

Vote with dollars, not ballots.

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

Labeling requirement is bad idea...

large companies love more regulations because it hurts the little guys more.

Just buy the stuff if you know where it's from and trust it... labeling is not going to help.

You say large companies love more regulations but it was these

...same large companies spending millions of dollars fighting this legislation.

Doesn't add up.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

If your selling a rat poison

If your selling a rat poison ingredient such as in fluoridated water, you should be forced to label it as a poison for the greater good. Same with GMO foods.

FORCING companies to label their products...

...is a violation of the non-aggression principle and anathema to libertarianism.

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

So..

Don't support legislation to force manufacturers to declare hazardous substances contained in their consumable products, because you can't trust the gov'ment to enforce the legislation impartially, due to vested interests.

Better to do nothing about this system of collusion, allow the public to continue consumption of hazardous products, and hope that at some point a free market voluntary system of disclosure will win the day.
Because..that is the libertarian way.

What's wrong with this picture..

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

Wasting money for nothing, is wrong.

Taking responsibility for what one eats is proven effective.

Free includes debt-free!

Free Speech

Mandatory labeling is not free speech, it's forced speech. Who pays for it? Consumers.

Once it's mandatory, the same thing that happened to the word "organic" will happen to "GMO." The government will define the word to mean the opposite ("organic" now means there's a limit to how much pesticide a food can have).

Much better to leave this to the free market. I just saw an ad for "GMO free" dog food. It's only a matter of time before we see the same for the pet's owner. (If the government takes over "GMO," that'll be the end of small company GMO claims as only Big Ag will be able to afford the red tape.)

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

A comment of well made

A comment of well made points, IML. +1

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

Allegory's picture

We have to be "practical"

I hear a lot of that around here.

Vote for Romney, vote for Cucellini or whatever his name is.

Then let's also be 'practical' about reigning in huge corporations. In the days when money is speech, there is no contest between the artificial giant people and individuals' voices.

Be practical! Reign the bastards in!

allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

I can't quite tell which side

I can't quite tell which side you're taking. It looks to me you agree with IML and me. If you do, that would mean you think laws will allow big food producers to (continue to) collude with government to weaken food quality to the point of selling only GMOs *and* put out of business individual food producers who produce GMO free foods, right?

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

To anyone that thinks that

To anyone that thinks that mandatory, government enforced GMO labeling is a good idea, I recommend investigating the "success" of USDA Organic.

Or worse, the CA certified organic

which was lobbied for by the central valley corporate farms to eliminate true organic foods from Mexico and Oregon.

More government regulation, officials and authority.

Who needs it?

Regulations always promise but never deliver.

Government promises to waste more money, always delivers.

Free includes debt-free!

Vote NO

As noted in an earlier thread, it is better to vote NO for the proposition.

First, it is over-stepping by Govenrment from its designated role. Second, I believe it is damaging for small businesses than to big food chains and industries. Third, this proposition actually excludes a majority of foods such as meat, diary etc from GMO labelling, so this proposition is merely an exercise for the Govt. to look good on paper but in practice is completely useless.

See old thread at - http://www.dailypaul.com/302411/if-you-live-in-wa-have-you-n...

Nice comment. But is the

Nice comment. But is the proposition merely an exercise for government to look good or to construct an(other) excuse to justify continual police state tactics such as, oh, say, raids?

I'd not argue the proposition is useless. It's useful. You just have to see how it's useful.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

also...

you are ultimately holding a gun to someone's head and forcing them to put indicators on their products.

it should be voluntary. like the non-GMO project, etc... if the people want certain labels they will put them on there, because of supply and demand... a lot of people look for the non-GMO project labels already and more and more companies are applying for the Private, Voluntary certification\consent to add that label to their food products.

that is probably the best way to do it. mainly because a private company can be held accountable for their carelessness, fraud, etc whereas the government is rarely to never held accountable.

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

Then I take it you are against all food labels JB...

...Because I doubt nearly any company would use labels if they didn't have to.

Donald Rumsfeld was behind allowing Aspartame and other artificial sweeteners (which are proven poisons to humans) to go to market because he stood to profit from them.

The FDA was going to ban these before they were introduced, but because Rumsfeld had a financial interest in the company which manufactured them, he used his influence and power to force the FDA to stand down.

Eventually these artificial sweeteners will be banned (after the sheeples finally realize their dangers) but not after lots of people are harmed.

I'm sure if the diet soda industry had their way, they would not label their products.

By the way - Next time you're in a restaurant, try reading the ingredients on a packet of "Equal" artificial sweetener.

It's nealy impossible because their packets are PINK and the writing on them is RED.

So they're adhering to the law, but are disingenuously making it very hard for people to actually read the ingredients.

Just WHY don't they want us to know?

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

i dunno if you read what i wrote...

but, for the record, i am not "against all food labels" i am against FORCING people to label their products. if you read what i wrote, you may notice i suggested that i am FOR private labels, such as non-GMO project.

and i just want to touch on something you said,

"Eventually these artificial sweeteners will be banned (after the sheeples finally realize their dangers) but not after lots of people are harmed."

the thing with that is, aspartame is labelled and people still intake it. ... just like you said, AFTER THE SHEEPLES REALIZE. it won't matter then about forced labels because once people realize they will DEMAND that their food products be labelled and exclude certain ingredients. the company's will comply because they want to keep selling their product. it can all happen voluntarily. but like you said, they have to REALIZE that certain ingredients are harmful and, even more importantly, CARE. some people just don't... actually A LOT of people don't care...

Another larger problem is that a lot of people trust the government too much and nothing is harmful unless the government declares it to be. even with all the independent studies out there that declare certain products harmful, people do not care unless their God, aka Gov, says so.

Also, we can go deeper, and say all we are doing, by forcing labels, is breeding even more complacency to personal responsibility and trust in the government to be our food regulators. it's the wrong path. the right path is to wake people up individually and spread awareness from the ground up... inform people of better choices for their food, etc..

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

I understand your argument JB...This is a rather devisive issue

...within the liberty camp.

But I have mentioned all the farm subsidies the huge agra-businesses receive and no one seems to care about that.

So I'm voting to force these companies (Monsanto, Dupont etc) using federal government welfare to further enhance their profits, to have to give a little back.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

If I could +2 your comment, I

If I could +2 your comment, I would. +1.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

I would vote no. Forcing

I would vote no. Forcing people to use ink on a label is against their God given liberty. Who is this labeling for? The average person who doesnt even look at the labels? Or is it for the healthy eaters who already look at labels and know the differences? To me if causes more economic poverty for shifting resources to labeling, violates a business man's liberty and truly helps no one in need.

Hi pawn

If your the guy in the Subaru with the " vote Yes on 522 " banner in your right passenger window, you passed me yesterday on I90 near Issaquah. : )

And I will vote yes too.
Don't want no hybrid GMOs contaminating my heirlooms now would I ?

Stēkō Parrēsia

Drew, by the very grace of GOD through the blood of Christ Jesus.
"there shall come after us men whom shall garner great wealth using our system, and having done so shall seek to slam the door of prosperity behind them." George Washington

Nope Steadfast - that wasn't me...

...but thanks for supporting my position.

I can see both arguments in the liberty camp but I like the idea that free markets cannot operate if fraud is happening.

The free market argument against that of course is that we have the opportunity for lawsuits if we are harmed.

But with GMOs good luck with that. The long term affects on humans is simply not known and I don't care to be the guinea pig.

They can use some of their FEDERAL FARM SUBSIDY MONEY to help offset the added costs of GMO labeling.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

I agree.

Lol, and now we know there are at leat THREE of us in King Co. : )

My thoughs are in alignment with you, but run toward knowing that the judicial system is in the pocket of whomever puts the most in those pockets. I'm not in a position to out bribe Monsanto/ ConAgra.
With no reasonable expectation of justice, who then can believe that one can find relief in that system by suing? That mindset lacks logic and smacks of normalcy bias.

Stēkō Parrēsia

Drew, by the very grace of GOD through the blood of Christ Jesus.
"there shall come after us men whom shall garner great wealth using our system, and having done so shall seek to slam the door of prosperity behind them." George Washington

HEYYY DONT FORGET ME

im in northbend, and i vote yes, if we lived in an actual free market system then no. but as we all know we dont so the same freemarket will take care of this logic doesnt apply. also im very allergic to many of the gmo foods so i literally NEED to know what im eating. and i think ive seen that subaru on my way to bellevue..

SPC(RET) Kelly-

Free Market cannot function under Fraud

This is the core of understanding why requiring labeling is necessary:

If people cannot evaluate what they are buying, because a seller hides the nature of the product and / or misrepresents it to the public in any way, the market is distorted.

If there is a role for government in the economy at all - one of the core responsibilities is to allow sellers to be held accountable for fraud and misrepresentation.

ALL products and services need full disclosure in a free market. We have the right to know everything that is in a box of anything ... whether it is food, an appliance, furniture, a mutual fund .. etc.

Genetically altered foods are NOT 'substantially equivalent' to natural foods.

This is fraud and misrepresentation.

This is where the liberty argument against labeling breaks down.

Vote YES if you are in Washington.

Confused

Fraud can not be dealt with by force of government, when government is the one doing the fraud. Monsanto owns much of the government, and you are asking them to label themselves. Want to stop the fraud, get involved with removing politicians who are purchased by Monsanto. Want to stop monsanto, buy products that are already labeled "non-GMO". Using government to force companies to label (since monsanto themselves will not be forced to label, thy are only the provider, not distributer) will hurt companies that already label themselves non-GMO because the will not be up to the government "standards". Since Monsanto owns the government, they will make it harder for smaller companies who already label to stay in business.

I actually disagree with the

I actually disagree with the whole labeling requirement because I think companies that are GMO-free would naturally take advantage of that and label their products voluntarily to differentiate themselves from the other stuff on the shelf. So any products that don't have a non-GMO label basically automatically imply GMO ingredients. I already shop this way on Vitacost. I search for foods that have the voluntary 'non-GMO' label and avoid everything else. It's super easy. I also still read the ingredients and research what they are and have learned alot as a result. I think the customer can do more by educating themselves and simply avoiding the products that don't volunteer such info.

Lucid, intelligent,

Lucid, intelligent, thought-out, concise comment, pixel-chick. I hope you expand your comment into a post, that is, an argument. What you advise is the solution to the GMO debacle. In essence, stop government and companies from attacking people who abide voluntary interaction, then the government and its colluding companies lose and people interacting voluntarily win locally immediately and everywhere eventually. If the bad guys can't attack, the good guys win.

What the pro label folks omit or don't understand is the how in a market when it's free, which here is how openness occurs in a free market, how openness occurs in freedom. Notice DPer Von's comment above. It illustrates his failure to grasp the how: In freedom, or in voluntary interaction without law orchestrating that interaction, and assuming the individual wants to make a living, he will provide good information to his customers or else lose them to someone who will provide that information. As usual, the solution is simple (yet -- or is that and? -- profound). Excellent comment, p-c.

-----
Note to the reader concerned with grammar:

You'll see I placed a comma between "freedom" and "or" in In freedom, or in voluntary.... People who study language know the placement of this comma is to be read as "that is" with a comma before it and after it, a notification to the reader that what follows clarifies what came before it. Therefore, when the word or is without a comma before it, the word or is understood to denote choice.

An aside for fun: Small punctuation always goes inside quotation marks and large punctuation goes outside quotation marks unless the large punctuation is quoted.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton