Federal Ban On GMO Labeling?

[eduardo89]

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?

Sorry, didn't see your post till you reposted it

No, the US government has no duty to protect the health and safety of its citizens from anything other than a foreign invasion. I don't see where in Article I Section 8 Congress has the constitutional authority to be looking out for the 'health and safety' of anyone.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Sorry, didn't see your post till you reposted it

No, the US government has no duty to protect the health and safety of its citizens from anything other than a foreign invasion.

OK. Great. Thank you. And so then, what is the opposite of foreign?

 

[Neil Desmond]

Of course it's not a real apple.

Fixed.

 

[eduardo89]

Fixed.

Wow. Post of the year here, folks.

 

[eduardo89]

OK. Great. Thank you. And so then, what is the opposite of foreign?

Just get to the point you want to make.

 

[Kelly.]

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!)

did you know that any DNA that occurs naturally can not be patented: reference so GMOs are not natural. agree or disagree?

so the product is inherently different from a naturally growing apple for example, and as such should be labeled as such.

simply looking the same and having most of the same genetics doesnt make it the same.

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

corporations are a government creation, and should be regulated by its creator especially when it is committing fraud (selling something as 1 thing, when it clearly is another). i think there would be a lot less of them in a free market.

i see a difference between government ensuring no one is committing fraud or force against their constituents and a completely unregulated free for all. a truly free market needs more than the absence of government regulations to be a free market.

 

[eduardo89]

did you know that any DNA that occurs naturally can not be patented: reference so GMOs are not natural. agree or disagree?

I'm not in favor of patents, so I don't think that any DNA (or anything else) can be patented.

I honestly don't care for the 'natural vs unnatural' argument.

so the product is inherently different from a naturally growing apple for example, and as such should be labeled as such.

simply looking the same and having most of the same genetics doesnt make it the same.

Every apple is inherently different from another one. You'd have to make a list of every single type of apple that exists, plus all the different possible crossings between those apples, and then have a consensus among a large majority of people to agree that only those are apples. A GMO apple is still an apple.

corporations are a government creation, and should be regulated by its creator especially when it is committing fraud (selling something as 1 thing, when it clearly is another). i think there would be a lot less of them in a free market.

i see a difference between government ensuring no one is committing fraud or force against their constituents and a completely unregulated free for all. a truly free market needs more than the absence of government regulations to be a free market.

Ah, so you're one of those "corporations are evil" type libertarians. This is one of the reasons I refuse to be associated with libertarianism.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Just get to the point you want to make.

Can't do that, eduardo. What we have to do here is walk down there to the pasture and nail all of them there Guernseys. If we're going to try to run down there and hammer just one then it's redundant to continue here. You see?

It's OK though. It can wait for another day. In fact, it must.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'm not in favor of patents, so I don't think that any DNA (or anything else) can be patented.

Well, just because you aren't in favor of it doesn't mean they can't be legally patented at some point. This has been to court alrerady and certainly will be there again. And you don't take something to court unless it's in your interest to do so.

The danger here is that our grandchildren will be paying royalties to these companies to justify their very existence. It's an attack on their natural being...and unbeknown to them without the means to identify these genetic patents that they are ingesting. Some of these can actually alter your natural dna. And so then it is possible for the human race to be reduced to the intellectual property of the corporate citizen. This is growth versus survival 101.

 

[Deborah K]

No I hate video. But I'm not a Swann fan these days because he doesn't do the same quality reporting that he used to do.

Really? Will you cite some examples? I didn't know this.

 

[Kelly.]

I honestly don't care for the 'natural vs unnatural' argument.

this is where your argument falls apart to me.

my stance is a GMO (transgenetic) is unnatural and is being labeled as a natural product, which is where the fraud happens.

you say you dont care about that part.

seems we are at an impasse.

you do agree that transgenetic organisms are not natural creations, correct?
meaning a bacteria and a grass can never mate in nature.

the root of my argument is based on what i consider natural.

 

[Neil Desmond]

Wow. Post of the year here, folks.

Oh, thank you!

 

[Travlyr]

this is where your argument falls apart to me.

my stance is a GMO (transgenetic) is unnatural and is being labeled as a natural product, which is where the fraud happens.

you say you dont care about that part.

seems we are at an impasse.

you do agree that transgenetic organisms are not natural creations, correct?
meaning a bacteria and a grass can never mate in nature.

the root of my argument is based on what i consider natural.

This is the crux of the GMO issue. Monsanto's GE is not natural. If people don't mind eating unnatural foods then that is fine with me. Yet, personally I like nature and prefer to eat natural foods. Monsanto is allowed to pretend that their genetic engineering is natural when it clearly would not occur naturally in nature. I don't know if it is bad for me or not, but I should have the right to know what food is really natural and what is not.

 

[Zippyjuan]

This is the crux of the GMO issue. Monsanto's GE is not natural. If people don't mind eating unnatural foods then that is fine with me. Yet, personally I like nature and prefer to eat natural foods. Monsanto is allowed to pretend that their genetic engineering is natural when it clearly would not occur naturally in nature. I don't know if it is bad for me or not, but I should have the right to know what food is really natural and what is not.

You would favor mandatory labling then. In a totally free market, they don't have to tell you anything.

 

[angelatc]

This is the crux of the GMO issue. Monsanto's GE is not natural. If people don't mind eating unnatural foods then that is fine with me. Yet, personally I like nature and prefer to eat natural foods. Monsanto is allowed to pretend that their genetic engineering is natural when it clearly would not occur naturally in nature. I don't know if it is bad for me or not, but I should have the right to know what food is really natural and what is not.

In a free market, you and you alone are responsible for doing your homework. Demanding labeling to cater to what you prefer is not a free market principle.



(Oops - Zippy beat me to it)

 

[angelatc]

this is where your argument falls apart to me.

my stance is a GMO (transgenetic) is unnatural and is being labeled as a natural product, which is where the fraud happens.

you say you dont care about that part.

seems we are at an impasse.

you do agree that transgenetic organisms are not natural creations, correct?
meaning a bacteria and a grass can never mate in nature.

the root of my argument is based on what i consider natural.

We already posted articles that indicate that transgenic organisms can and do happen in nature. It isn't thought to be common, and the horizontal gene transfer thing isn't really understood yet, but it does happen. Cross-species DNA transfer does happen in the wild. There are also DNA substitutions, insertions, and deletions that naturally occur due to mutations. The crossing of plants over hundreds of years isn't natural either. It's manmade. As is the computer/phone/tablet you're looking at. Not being "natural" should hardly be grounds for rejecting something in and of itself. Without man's intervention, nature couldn't have started with wild cabbage and produced the kale, lettuce, cabbage, brussel sprouts, broccoli and cauliflower.


The only impasse is that you seem hellbent on insisting that every food in the whole world needs to be labeled to your own peculiar standards, because that will eliminate the need for you to actually do your own research.

If you want to only eat natural, then stick with organic. Organic food is already forbidden from using GMOs.

 

[angelatc]

Really? Will you cite some examples? I didn't know this.

Well even though we are friends, I don't expect you to know what I think of Swann's reporting of late.


This video is a prime example. As was the piece he did on the vaccine court. They weren't exactly false, but they're full of half-truths that appeal to the Alex Jones conspiracy type people.

 

[angelatc]

Just get to the point you want to make.

It never actually has one.

 

[Travlyr]

You would favor mandatory labling then. In a totally free market, they don't have to tell you anything.

In a free market, you and you alone are responsible for doing your homework. Demanding labeling to cater to what you prefer is not a free market principle.



(Oops - Zippy beat me to it)

You are both wrong. They are trying to outlaw non-GMO labeling. For example, Whole Foods, and some independent farmer's markets do their own investigation on the products they sell. They label their products. If the legislation that Ben Swann told us about in the OP passes, then it would be illegal to label non-GMO foods. They are trying to take away our right to know what is in the foods we eat.

 

[angelatc]

You are both wrong. They are trying to outlaw non-GMO labeling. For example, Whole Foods, and some independent farmer's markets do their own investigation on the products they sell. They label their products. If the legislation that Ben Swann told us about in the OP passes, then it would be illegal to label non-GMO foods. They are trying to take away our right to know what is in the foods we eat.

That's just a lie. The legislation they are trying to pass would make it illegal for the states to demand GMO labeling. It does NOTHING to abolish voluntary labeling.

And that's part of the distaste I have for Swann. He pulled a Luntz. He intentionally phrased it in a manner to leave his listeners with that impression, even though that's not even actually what he said. Here is what he said:

The GMA is pushing legislation through the federal government to outlaw GMO labeling laws enacted on the state level.

And the first part of the video, whining about the money that the manufacturers spend to keep the labeling requirements from passing in the progressive states didn't mention a single word about the fact that the organic lobby spent just as much trying to get them passed. They had freaking advertisements on TV, radio, bilboards, newspapers, and even on their cereal boxes for heaven's sakes.