Rand Paul Votes NO on GMO Labeling

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Could it be possible they are too many laws for there staffs to keep up with? Call Rand's office. They'll tell you something.

The amendment was an "opinion vote" on whether states should regulate GMO labeling.

IMO, I couldn't care less how anyone voted.

 

[parocks]

Me too. I'm pretty big on getting them to label GMO. To properly label everything actually.

I'm almost 100% Ron Paul / Libertarian / States Rights, etc. But I don't think I'd complain too much at all if they actually just banned GMO. Philosophically, it might be wrong, so, I guess I'm not philosophically pure on this. They take a section of the dna of a bacteria that poisons potato bugs, and they add that to potatoes. Viola, BT potatoes with the poison built right in. No thanks. I'll pass. I guess I'm not a purist here. Oh well.

 

[parocks]

The amendment was an "opinion vote" on whether states should regulate GMO labeling.

IMO, I couldn't care less how anyone voted.

Link to that?

 

[parocks]

Labeling laws cause the cost of food to rise. This hurts the poor and middle class in an already difficult time. If you want to know if your food has GMOs you should assume ALL food does, and do your own research. The government has no business labeling food IMHO.

Well, they do already. Add GMO to the list.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm almost 100% Ron Paul / Libertarian / States Rights, etc. But I don't think I'd complain too much at all if they actually just banned GMO. Philosophically, it might be wrong, so, I guess I'm not philosophically pure on this. They take a section of the dna of a bacteria that poisons potato bugs, and they add that to potatoes. Viola, BT potatoes with the poison built right in. No thanks. I'll pass. I guess I'm not a purist here. Oh well.

Monsanto needs their asses sued off. That's what they need. Along with some of our public servants being thrown in the slammer for accepting bribes.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Link to that?

To what?

Sanders explained the function of the amendment above.

He mentioned no federal law prohibiting the states from requiring GMO labeling. He didn't mention the FDA either.

He did mention that Monsanto had a role in preventing the laws from passing.

This amendment has nothing to do with a federal government function one way or the other.

 

[parocks]

But you said the law was prohibiting corporations from labeling GMO's.

For this amendment to make any sense, there would have to be a law prohibiting the states from requiring labeling GMO's.

Both Rand and Mike Lee are strict Constitutionalists, as am I, and I suspect they voted NAY because of the lack of clarity on this amendment.

Which law? I don't know exactly which law this amendment was designed to modify.

There are 2 issues.

1) States that might want to mandate labeling may or may not be prevented from doing so.

2) Food manufacturers that might want to label their food GMO Free I believe are prevented from doing so. I'm not 100% sure of this at this point, and since theres a lot of talk these days about mandatory labeling on the state level, I'm having trouble finding references to companies labeling.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Which law? I don't know exactly which law this amendment was designed to modify.

There are 2 issues.

1) States that might want to mandate labeling may or may not be prevented from doing so.

2) Food manufacturers that might want to label their food GMO Free I believe are prevented from doing so. I'm not 100% sure of this at this point, and since theres a lot of talk these days about mandatory labeling on the state level, I'm having trouble finding references to companies labeling.

I don't know of any law preventing STATES OR MANUFACTURERS from labeling GMO's, you mentioned it in post 5.

I am 99% sure there is no such law, for it would have been struck down as un-Constitutional even by the most liberal courts.

The amendment clearly repeals no such law, or else it would have referenced it. In my above posts I had some other thoughts.

 

[parocks]

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/millenium/fdadisallowsgmo-freelabel.php

FDA's new regulations won't allow non-GMO, GMO-free label

May take legal action against companies

Notable for companies wanting to advertise products as non-genetically modified is the fact that the FDA says it will not allow labels like "GM-free," "GMO-Free" or "biotech-free." The agency says guaranteeing a product to be free of GM material is virtually impossible. Instead the labels will have to say the food was not produced through bioengineering. The FDA said it may take legal action against companies that violate these guidelines.

Recently, a U.S.-European biotechnology committee had recommended that the U.S. strengthen regulations on GM foods, including labeling. The Consumers Federation of America had also issued a report criticizing the current U.S. regulations. Editorials calling for labeling GM foods have appeared in major U.S. newspapers, including The Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, and Des Moines Register in the past year.


**************************

This was from March 2001

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Not that I like FDA pickiness, but "not produced through bioengineering" is pretty clear, and dare I say easier for consumers to understand than "GMO".

In any case, I think the thread title is a bit misleading. Rand Paul did not vote against GMO labeling as I have explained above.

 

[parocks]

More links

French Food Companies Can Use ‘GMO Free’ Labels, Government Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...-can-use-gmo-free-labels-government-says.html
2012

FDA won’t allow food to be labeled free of genetic modification: report
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/18/fda-labeled-free-modification/
2010

US opposes honest labeling of GMO foods
http://www.naturalnews.com/029168_GMO_foods_labeling.html
2010

It's not clear if GMO-free is allowed on labels now.

 

[parocks]

Not that I like FDA pickiness, but "not produced through bioengineering" is pretty clear, and dare I say easier for consumers to understand than "GMO".

In any case, I think the thread title is a bit misleading. Rand Paul did not vote against GMO labeling as I have explained above.

The thread title is the title of the news article I linked to.

Consumers know what GMO is. Bioengineering not as much.

I'm not clear exactly what it was that every single Republican Senator and half the Democrat Senators voted against.

 

[HigherVision]

************************

http://farmwars.info/?p=8686

**********************

voted NO on a GMO labeling amendment to the farm bill “to permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.”

*****************

key is "permit States"

I thought we were all about permitting states to do this. States rights and all that. Leave it up to the states.

This probably doesn't belong in grassroots central but others are more expert as to where it actually does belong

I'm all about freedom myself, I could care less about states.

 

[parocks]

I don't know of any law preventing STATES OR MANUFACTURERS from labeling GMO's, you mentioned it in post 5.

I am 99% sure there is no such law, for it would have been struck down as un-Constitutional even by the most liberal courts.

The amendment clearly repeals no such law, or else it would have referenced it. In my above posts I had some other thoughts.

Ok, I don't want to argue the fine distinctions between laws and regulations. See my links.

 

[thoughtomator]

Not that I like FDA pickiness, but "not produced through bioengineering" is pretty clear, and dare I say easier for consumers to understand than "GMO".

In any case, I think the thread title is a bit misleading. Rand Paul did not vote against GMO labeling as I have explained above.

That's not adequate at all. Any kind of farming and traditional animal husbandry could legitimately be considered bioengineering.

 

[HigherVision]

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/millenium/fdadisallowsgmo-freelabel.php

FDA's new regulations won't allow non-GMO, GMO-free label

May take legal action against companies

Notable for companies wanting to advertise products as non-genetically modified is the fact that the FDA says it will not allow labels like "GM-free," "GMO-Free" or "biotech-free." The agency says guaranteeing a product to be free of GM material is virtually impossible. Instead the labels will have to say the food was not produced through bioengineering. The FDA said it may take legal action against companies that violate these guidelines.

Recently, a U.S.-European biotechnology committee had recommended that the U.S. strengthen regulations on GM foods, including labeling. The Consumers Federation of America had also issued a report criticizing the current U.S. regulations. Editorials calling for labeling GM foods have appeared in major U.S. newspapers, including The Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, and Des Moines Register in the past year.


**************************

This was from March 2001

See the solution is to have no government label requirements, negative or positive. So that you'd know who the producers who are GMO-free are by their labels advertising as such without infringing on anybody else's freedom. So as always the government regulations work against a positive objective rather than for it. & the solution as always is to weaken government rather than strengthen it.

 

[parocks]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0_2.html?wprss=rss_nation&sid=ST2010091804108

The labeling matter is further complicated because the FDA has maintained a tough stance for food makers who don't use genetically engineered ingredients and want to promote their products as an alternative.

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.

 

[parocks]

See the solution is to have no government label requirements, negative or positive. So that you'd know who the producers who are GMO-free are by their labels advertising as such without infringing on anybody else's freedom. So as always the government regulations work against a positive objective rather than for it. & the solution as always is to weaken government rather than strengthen it.

Your argument is the best argument to use to Democrats about why the Federal Government is bad.

Many Democrats do not like Monsanto one bit, and it's good to tell them that the Federal Government makes it difficult for manufacturers to label their products "GMO Free".

 

[parocks]

Monsanto needs their asses sued off. That's what they need. Along with some of our public servants being thrown in the slammer for accepting bribes.

GMO and/or HFCS causes a whole bunch of bad stuff. I'm not sure what, but a series of class action lawsuits would settle it. Start with Autism maybe. Monsanto most certainly is a bad guy here. It's not clear that a Ron Paul / Libertarian solution to the Monsanto problem would be the most immediately effective.

 

[XTreat]

Me too. I'm pretty big on getting them to label GMO. To properly label everything actually.

Yeah somebody should make a law right?