The Libertarian Case AGAINST Mandatory GMO Labeling

[Carlybee]

Let the government mandate one thing, they'll mandate another thing.

Give the government an inch, they'll take a yard.

Where in the Constitution does it say the government can mandate corporations to put labels on their food items? If you're so concerned about your food, do your own research!

We arent all privy to lab equipment to test what has and hasnt been genetically modified.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I see labels more and more all the time that says "No Aspartame" ... "No High Fructose corn syrup" ... on name brand popular products.

The government should stay out of this issue on all fronts, the free market is already fixing the problem.

That's ridiculous. We are far from any market solution. As long as government is involved in the agribusiness, the non-GMO foods you speak of are doomed to be relegated to the status of alternative medicine, perpetually trapped in obscurity.

I'm not a proponent of mandatory labelling. I just want to destroy Monsanto by any means possible. They wouldn't exist if it were't for this government. It's too late for the government to "stay out". They are already in!

 

[angelatc]

The real kicker is that

After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops.” http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2012/11/07/prop-37-fails-scientists-cheer/

 

[Carlybee]

And you totally miss the point.

The real kicker is that

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_monsanto50.htm

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_monsanto49.htm

 

[cajuncocoa]

They are already required to list ingredients. Studies have shown it doesn't cost any more to add the GMO labeling and testing. We are not dealing with a normal company with Monsanto..we are dealing with a monster that wants to poison the world. That being said the government is complicit and one does have to wonder how to safeguard from their machavellian intent.

+rep

All anyone expects is that the truth be displayed on labels that are already required.

 

[EBounding]

They are already required to list ingredients. Studies have shown it doesn't cost any more to add the GMO labeling and testing. We are not dealing with a normal company with Monsanto..we are dealing with a monster that wants to poison the world. That being said the government is complicit and one does have to wonder how to safeguard from their machavellian intent.

Would a government mandated label really be all that trustworthy? Seems like it would provide a false sense of security.

 

[Carlybee]

Would a government mandated label really be all that trustworthy? Seems like it would provide a false sense of security.

I agree that's a conundrum however someone could do a privately funded independent study to make sure...there are enough watchdog groups that could probably be feasible. Not really sure how to go about it.

 

[donnay]

The real kicker is that

Were those scientist bought and paid for by Monsanto?

Chronic illness are soaring...but there are no adverse effects reported.

 

[angelatc]

Would a government mandated label really be all that trustworthy? Seems like it would provide a false sense of security.

I don't think the Constitution allows them to mandate food labeling either, with perhaps the exception of food that crosses state lines.

So "they're already doing it" is like the liberals who whine "Bush did it too!"

 

[Eagles' Wings]

I agree that's a conundrum however someone could do a privately funded independent study to make sure...there are enough watchdog groups that could probably be feasible. Not really sure how to go about it.

http://www.cornucopia.org/2013/05/grocers-commit-to-not-selling-ge-salmon/

Cornucopia is a consumer advocate and education agency. Check out their picks for eggs. Several on the D/F list, which are organic, are on that list because of the factory farm conditions that do not differ from conventional farms.

 

[erowe1]

The thread title is redundant.

There is no libertarian case for the USDA at all.

 

[Carlybee]

The case for GMO labeling even if you believe in limited government

http://www.naturalnews.com/036209_GMO_labeling_ballot_measure_California.html

 

[FrankRep]

The case for GMO labeling even if you believe in limited government

http://www.naturalnews.com/036209_GMO_labeling_ballot_measure_California.html

This is talking about GMO labeling on a state level, which is fine.

The argument is against the federal government forcing GMO labels.

 

[erowe1]

The case for GMO labeling even if you believe in limited government

http://www.naturalnews.com/036209_GMO_labeling_ballot_measure_California.html

The worst tyrant imaginable still believes in limited government.

 

[erowe1]

This is talking about GMO labeling on a state level, which is fine.

The argument is against the federal government forcing GMO labels.

It is not fine for me as an individual to prevent you from being able to buy unlabeled foods. Therefore, it's not fine for a state to do it.

 

[angelatc]

It is not fine for me as an individual to prevent you from being able to buy unlabeled foods. Therefore, it's not fine for a state to do it.

I agree with you on a philosophical level, but the Constitution gives the right to the states.

 

[mczerone]

This is similar to the gay marriage thing: we don't want gov't mandating what counts as marriage or not, but while they do, is it possible to have a "libertarian" position on public policy?

In this case the govt already mandates labeling for processed foods. While the libertarian position is that product labeling should be left to the market (grocers and distributors enforcing certain standards for products they deal and producers voluntarily forming groups that are mutually beneficial to help standardize products) we are left with the question "is it possible to have a libertarian position on public policy in this area?"

I can see arguments for both: On one hand it's more regulatory to set govt standards on what is or isn't "GMO" and enforcing those laws; there will be a crowding out of private regulators (like Whole Foods' GMO-free requirements); and there would be an incentive to fudge the laws to favor large producers and crowd out the small competitors.

On the other hand, if no GMO labeling is required then consumers have a hard time distinguishing between products that have labels that list identical ingredients, but one uses GMO corn and one uses legacy corn; the market will grow in a way that favors GMOs that may crowd out legacy producers; and the FDA regulations themselves may begin to be questioned by the populace (leading to more favorable conditions for private regulators to find profit in the market).

There's pro's and cons on both sides. Ultimately here there is no "clear" libertarian stance because the whole policy arena is based on immoral grounds and there's no way to objectively balance the needs of the consumers with the liberties of the producers.

I'd just ignore the whole GMO debate and focus on Monsanto being a massive D.C. lobby, a huge subsidy consumer, and an IP predator.

 

[familydog]

But why would you trust a government mandated GMO label when the Monsanto people are still running the government and the agencies? I think the efforts would be best spent trying to stop the government from rewarding Monsanto for it's rent-seeking behavior.

I don't trust a government mandated GMO label and I agree with what you are saying. My only point is that government mandated GMO labeling is not somehow anti-free market. The people who sympathize and are outraged that Monsanto's products would have to be exposed are looking for a crime where none exists.

 

[jack555]

Could it not be said that monsanto is commiting fraud selling gmo corn as corn? Is it still corn? I dont think it is. Its genetically a different produce with different properties. I think it should be labeled what it is....genetically modified corn. To call it corn is to intentionally mislead.

 

[Antischism]

Isn't the problem that Monsanto pretty much IS another head on the disfiguration we call government? Why would any libertarian try to bring up the "free market" if it doesn't pertain to this situation at all? Am I missing something? Pardon my ignorance, but I haven't been following this as closely as others.