Federal Ban On GMO Labeling?

[eduardo89]

That's not quite or necessarily true. Article 1 Section 8: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

How do you distort Article One Section 8 into saying that the federal government has the power to force states to enact labelling legislation or to prohibit them from doing so?

It also states that it has the power to fix the Standard of Weights and Measures. If that is construed as "labeling" then they do.

I don't see how an ingredient list is a standard of weight or measurement.

 

[eduardo89]

double post.

 

[angelatc]

Almost all corn and soybean products are GMO modified unless they are designated as Organic. What is important to understand that all seeds are GMO. The difference is that most seeds are GMO naturally. Monsanto's GMO is unnatural and virtually untested on long term effects on living beings including honey bees.

You keep saying that GMOs are virtually untested, but that's simply not true. The EU just released a report that combined 10 years of independent studies and found nothing.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1688_en.htm

This new publication aims to contribute to the debate on GMOs by disseminating the outcomes of research projects to scientists, regulatory bodies and to the public. It follows up previous publications on EU-funded research on GMO safety. Over the last 25 years, more than 500 independent research groups have been involved in such research.

According to the projects' results, there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The federal government has no right to either force or ban any states from mandating any type of labelling, nor force or ban any individual or business from labelling GMOs.

I have a feeling, though, that many on this forum would like to see laws forcing GMOs to be labelled.

I took the position that GMO labeling should be mandated, but I don't agree with that anymore. My reasoning was that to not label foods as GMO would be fraudulent. I don't even really disagree with the reasoning, I just don't want the government to do anything at all at this point. Constitutionally speaking, this is a state issue regardless.

 

[eduardo89]

I took the position that GMO labeling should be mandated, but I don't agree with that anymore. My reasoning was that to not label foods as GMO would be fraudulent. I don't even really disagree with the reasoning, I just don't want the government to do anything at all at this point. Constitutionally speaking, this is a state issue regardless.

How is it fraudulent not to label GMOs? Would it then likewise be fraudulent not to label organic food as organic?

 

[angelatc]

It is a conflicting issue in a truely free market. In a free market, a business does not have to share any sort of information on their product if they don't want to. But for a truely free market to actually work, the consumer needs complete information to be able to make an informed decision on their choice. Without complete information, a decision can be forced in one direction or another.

If I am buying food and GMO is the most important thing to me and I want to base my decision on what to buy and what to avoid on that, I cannot make a decision based on GMO if I don't know what is and isn't GMO. Or organic or imported or treated with pesticides or locally grown or anything.

Taking away information (or not requiring it to be shared) removes the ability of a consumer to make a true free choice of what to buy.

Nonsense. It requires that the consumer do his or her own research before deciding what products to buy.

 

[angelatc]

How is it fraudulent not to label GMOs? Would it then likewise be fraudulent not to label organic food as organic?

It is only fraud if they claim it is GMO free , and it isn't. Or vice versa.

 

[angelatc]

. Constitutionally speaking, this is a state issue regardless.

That's actually the challenge that they are presenting. They want to take away the right of the state to require GMO labeling on food, using the commerce clause and the first amendment as the basis.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Nonsense. It requires that the consumer do his or her own research before deciding what products to buy.

Consumers don't have the time or desire to research everything every time they want to buy something. Do you research the vegetables in your local grocery store to see what counties they may be coming from and if they allow GMOs to be grown? Do you do research which are organic or do you rely on the label? Do you check the menu of every coffee store in the area- what blends of coffee they have, where the beans come from- or do just hit the same convenient local spot? Do you request the daily specials from all of the restaraunts near your work to pick you lunch meal?

If you WANT the information- how do you get it? How do you know that that corn on the cob is or isn't GMO? Especially in a free, unregulated market where the grower doesn't have to tell you if it is or isn't. Having a label helps you decide but that is a requirement- a restriction. Without any requirement to share information you can't do the research- even if you want to.

 

[Neil Desmond]

How do you distort Article One Section 8 into saying that the federal government has the power to force states to enact labelling legislation or to prohibit them from doing so?

Are you saying I'm distorting it? If so, how am I distorting?

I don't see how an ingredient list is a standard of weight or measurement.

Why do you think I used the word "construed"?

 

[Neil Desmond]

Bans and mandates are not the solution. The solution is very simple: no false advertising. If something is labeled apple, orange, banana, carrot, whatever, then it better be an apple, orange, banana, carrot, or whatever.

If some facility took an apple, orange, banana, carrot, or whatever, and they added stuff to it or modified it, then they have to either stop calling it an apple, orange, banana, carrot, or whatever, or if they want to (freely, willingly, voluntarily) label it, then that label better be honest and state that it's an apple that has been modified or had X added to it, an orange that has been modified or had X added to it, a banana that has been modified or had X added to it, a carrot that has been modified or had X added to it, etc. An alternative is they can invent a totally new name for their new creations: eppla, aronge, abanan, raccot, etc.

Voluntary labeling: fine
Mandated labeling: no
Ban on labeling: no
False labeling: no

 

[DamianTV]

10th Amendment. Should be decided by each State.

The only reason people want GMO stuff at all is because of the levels of dishonesty that comes from producers. Naa, we should be required to label Phen Phen as unsafe, its a pill, what could go wrong! Flip the coin. I have a farm in my back yard and have to package and label everything thats in my broccoli before selling it? Also not a viable solution. There needs to be a reasonable level of labeling, but if left up to the corporate food industry to purely self regulate, they wouldnt tell us that any product has any chemicals at all because it might adversely affect their sales.

Exclusion of Truth is as good as telling a Lie.

 

[Neil Desmond]

 

[Christian Liberty]

Bans and mandates are not the solution. The solution is very simple: no false advertising. If something is labeled apple, orange, banana, carrot, whatever, then it better be an apple, orange, banana, carrot, or whatever.

If some facility took an apple, orange, banana, carrot, or whatever, and they added stuff to it or modified it, then they have to either stop calling it an apple, orange, banana, carrot, or whatever, or if they want to (freely, willingly, voluntarily) label it, then that label better be honest and state that it's an apple that has been modified or had X added to it, an orange that has been modified or had X added to it, a banana that has been modified or had X added to it, a carrot that has been modified or had X added to it, etc. An alternative is they can invent a totally new name for their new creations: eppla, aronge, abanan, raccot, etc.

Voluntary labeling: fine
Mandated labeling: no
Ban on labeling: no
False labeling: no

Yeah, I totally agree. My issue is that a GMO apple isn't really an "apple", so that's at least arguably false advertising.

 

[Kelly.]

The federal government has no right to either force or ban any states from mandating any type of labelling, nor force or ban any individual or business from labelling GMOs.

I have a feeling, though, that many on this forum would like to see laws forcing GMOs to be labelled.

in your version of a free market, it is ok to label something it is not?

in my version of a free market, that is called fraud.

simple question, should be a simple answer.

 

[Kelly.]

Yeah well, welcome to the real world.

you mean the real world, where you try to apply free market solution in an unfree market?

or the real world where you dont even watch the video in the OP but respond anyway?

 

[Kelly.]

How is it fraudulent not to label GMOs? Would it then likewise be fraudulent not to label organic food as organic?

is a plant that includes genes from a bacteria or virus still a plant?
is a tomato with fich genes, still simply a tomato?

is a cheese sandwich with shit on it, simply a cheese sandwich?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Originally Posted by eduardo89

The federal government has no right to either force or ban any states from mandating any type of labelling, nor force or ban any individual or business from labelling GMOs.

Here's the thing. In purely political atmospheres we tend to use the labeling language as the premise for the actual issue. That's not the issue in scope.

Let me ask this, eduardo. Would you agree that the United States Government (elected to be representative of, by and for it's people) has a duty to protect the health and safety of it's natural citizens from attack to include that of their property?

//

I got crickets over here, eddy. Come on, man. The suspense is killing me.

 

[eduardo89]

Yeah, I totally agree. My issue is that a GMO apple isn't really an "apple", so that's at least arguably false advertising.

Of course it's a real apple.

 

[eduardo89]

in your version of a free market, it is ok to label something it is not?

in my version of a free market, that is called fraud.

simple question, should be a simple answer.

I agree with that.

If a product containing GMOs labels itself as GMO-free that is fraud. If a non organically raised apple is labelled as organic, that is fraud. If an organic apple is labelled as a GMO apple, that is fraud.

That said mandatory labelling is wrong and no libertarian should support it (I'm not even a libertarian and I guess I'm more libertarian on this issue than many on this forum!)

you mean the real world, where you try to apply free market solution in an unfree market?

So is your solution to apply unfree market solutions to make an unfree market more free?