Agencies outside of government should, by definition, be privately funded. You cannot ensure the group is not bought out, but there is a MUCH better chance of that group doing what they say than the government. It is a GUARANTEE that the government is bought out. The manner in which bastardization of independent groups is largely prevented is by participation and funding from people that actually truly believe in the cause (voluntary association, not forced). This does not happen in government. As Ron Paul says, liberty means unending vigilance.
The reality is indeed government intervention, as that is what the proposal is seeking to do. Are you really comfortable with saying that is the state enforcing the will of the people? There are some pretty major problems with that statement. I don't disagree that the state is legally capable of doing this. I'm stating that it is a bad idea if you are interested in liberty, free markets, decentralization, and better food safety.
Again, how can you possibly have all the necessary information to state that ALL GMOs are bad? You don't have that information. You have the information that SOME GMOs are bad. That is indisputable. What about GMOs that increase production dramatically and do not have "frankenstein" genes in them that harm humans?
An independent watchdog agency is a better alternative to the force of government. It keeps the citizenry vigilant and knowledgable (and one with more freedom). When people assume that government has their backs, they will be in trouble. "My food is safe... this government sticker says so."
I think you mean it is perfectly "legal" for (state) governments regulate commerce. Whether or not it is "reasonable", is a matter of both opinion and scale.
The best system we have is communication among free Americans and the ability to spend THEIR money as they see fit. It is not government, as you state.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: