The Libertarian Case AGAINST Mandatory GMO Labeling

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't think GMO labelling should be mandatory.

What sends me into a fit of rage is that company's that do label as NON GMO are raped with litigation by Monsanto and the USG.

THIS.

And then folks in this movement actively defending what the Washington/Monsanto industrial complex is doing here. THAT'S the part that gets my Irish up. It's like 'fascism is OK so long as it's not a subject that I, personally, care about.'

Well you know what? I'm going to fight against fascism whether it affects me or not. Times like these I'm very disappointed in us.

 

[cajuncocoa]

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

There's already a false sense of security. Government isn't the answer to correct that, but right now government is providing protection for those companies that produce GMO food.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Were those scientist bought and paid for by Monsanto?

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

Just like young girls are entering menarche younger and younger every year, starting right about when they started loading hormones into milk and dairy. The girls in Europe where they have banned dairy hormones are not suffering a similar effect. The answer is not bans but free choice. We are relieved of our freedom to choose by the prohibition against hormone-free labeling. Because the docs from the wholly-owned corporate subsidiaries, the USDA and the FDA, have pronounced them safe, with no adverse effects.

Someone like me with a brain says, huh, where they put rBGH in milk, girls are entering menarche years and years earlier, and where they have banned rBGH from milk that is not happening. Scientists funded by the company who produces rBGH claim the stuff has no adverse effects, and government uses those findings to prohibit the labeling/advertising of dairy as "rBGH Free." We might have a food fascism problem in America.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

There's already a false sense of security. Government isn't the answer to correct that, but right now government is providing protection for those companies that produce GMO food.

Indeed. Government is not the solution, government is the problem. What government is doing in food right now is a very, very big problem.

 

[donnay]

There's already a false sense of security. Government isn't the answer to correct that, but right now government is providing protection for those companies that produce GMO food.

Just like the false sense of security the FDA gives to people about pharmaceuticals safety and so-called unbiased studies conducted by Big pHARMa.

Government is NEVER the answer! Education and awareness is!

 

[Carlybee]

THIS.

And then folks in this movement actively defending what the Washington/Monsanto industrial complex is doing here. THAT'S the part that gets my Irish up. It's like 'fascism is OK so long as it's not a subject that I, personally, care about.'

Well you know what? I'm going to fight against fascism whether it affects me or not. Times like these I'm very disappointed in us.

People get on this meme of "I'm a libertarian therefore I must be against everything". People need to use their heads.

 

[Peace Piper]

Scientists funded by the company who produces rBGH claim the stuff has no adverse effects, and government uses those findings to prohibit the labeling/advertising of dairy as "rBGH Free." We might have a food fascism problem in America.

Obomba appointed Michael R. Taylor to head the FDA. Nice Work Obomba!

On July 17, 1991, Michael Taylor left King & Spalding, returning to the FDA to fill the newly created post of Deputy Commissioner for Policy. During that time, he signed the Federal Register notice stating that milk from cows treated with BGH did not have to be labeled as such.[1][7] His name is not on the FDA’s 1992 policy statement on genetically engineered plant foods,[8] but he is said to have been a co-author.[1] Both of these documents grew out of, and fall within, the regulatory policy framework that was developed starting in the mid-1980s under the Reagan and Bush Administrations to ensure safety of the public and to ensure the continuing development of the fledgling biotechnology industry without overly burdensome regulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor​

It's great that so many people are willing to be guinea pigs and chow down on this brand new food. Just don't expect help from those of us who avoided this crap if strange things start happening to your digestive tracts.

 

[Carlybee]

I have had health issues directly related to hormone laced products. Once I cut them out of my diet the health issues began improving. Nobody can tell me we are not being slowly poisoned with the blessing of the govt.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

All of our food should be labelled properly so we can all make real, honest choices about our food purchases. Let's stop arguing over how to do it and just get it done already.

 

[pcosmar]

Libertarian Case? Free Market?

There is no Free Market. It would be nice, but it is not the reality.
And then, if it existed there might be some libertarian case.

As long as there is Government Mandated Labels..then Label it as such.

or do away with Labels and the FDA entirely. Nice fantasy,, not the reality.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Obomba appointed Michael R. Taylor to head the FDA. Nice Work Obomba!

On July 17, 1991, Michael Taylor left King & Spalding, returning to the FDA to fill the newly created post of Deputy Commissioner for Policy. During that time, he signed the Federal Register notice stating that milk from cows treated with BGH did not have to be labeled as such.[1][7] His name is not on the FDA’s 1992 policy statement on genetically engineered plant foods,[8] but he is said to have been a co-author.[1] Both of these documents grew out of, and fall within, the regulatory policy framework that was developed starting in the mid-1980s under the Reagan and Bush Administrations to ensure safety of the public and to ensure the continuing development of the fledgling biotechnology industry without overly burdensome regulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor​

It's great that so many people are willing to be guinea pigs and chow down on this brand new food. Just don't expect help from those of us who avoided this crap if strange things start happening to your digestive tracts.

Aye,

fas·cism

[fash-iz-uhm] noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

 

[Working Poor]

DebbieDowner-

I cannot even enter a conventional grocery store because the risk is so great that I might touch something that has aspartame in it.

Not long ago a very dear freind briught a cake over to my house to share with our "coffee group"she well knows about my allergy but when I put a bite of cake in my mouth I started vhaving a reaction to it like I had eaten aspartame my friend rushed to her home to read the label of the cake mix aspartame was not listed on the label anywhere we went to the website and got the number of the company and called them. They admittd the mix had aspartame in it and by saying on the label that it may have other ingredients not listed that it meant they were covered from having to lust aspartame because the percentage of the weight was below a certain amont that meant they did not have to lus it as an ingredient.

They must know something is wrong with aspartame if they do not even want to list it as an ingredient.. So if a box of something says:" may have other ingredients not listed" assume that it has aspartame, msg,or some other ingredient that maybe harmful.
Pour a diet soda on an ant hill and see what happens...

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

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

As long as there is Government Mandated Labels..then Label it as such.

Your personal interest is in knowing about a food's GMO content, right? But another person might care about something different; he might want to see a spectral analysis and magnetic-resonance image of food before he eats it. A third person might not care about any of that, but might want to know the astrological sign under which the seeds were planted. A fourth person wants to know the exact DNA of his food; and a fifth person wants to know
whether it's kosher. Do you want the FDA labels to show all that information, or just the information that happens to interest you in particular?

As long as there are government labels, who's to say what information should be left off the labels?

 

[Anti Federalist]

OK, so let's try this:

I sue for damages, and during discovery it comes to light what was actually in product "x".

I publish those ingredients so that people know and understand what is in product "x".

Foul ball?

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

People get on this meme of "I'm a libertarian therefore I must be against everything". People need to use their heads.

If you refrained from fabricating quotes, might you better understand what people are actually saying?

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

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.

The crimes in issue are (1) whether to use violence to extort funding from taxpayers for FDA-labeling, and (2) whether to use violence against companies who exercise their right to leave information off labels.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

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

... the argument that the FDA is somehow the only body capable of reporting a food's content. Wizards with super-powers by virtue of their government-employment -- I don't think so.

The FDA holds no monopoly on lab equipment.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

... Monsanto has threatened to sue farmers and ranchers for labeling. ...

Case in point:
http://www.alternet.org/story/15485..._pass_a_bill_requiring_gmo_food_to_be_labeled

That link doesn't really show any cases where Monsanto has threatened to sue farmers and ranchers for labeling. It says something totally different:

Monsanto’s minions sued in Federal Court and won on a judge’s decision that dairy corporations have the first amendment “right” to remain silent

 

[Neil Desmond]

First, promises are made to be broken.

The problem with this whole "GMO labeling" issue is that a red herring debate is being used to dominate the issue to keep people from talking about the real issue: false advertising. It's not a mandate to label food that are GMO that I want, it's just that I don't want something labeled "banana" if it's not actually a banana. If someone took a banana and altered its DNA structure in any way, then it's no longer a banana. If it's no longer a banana, then the company should not be able to label it "banana" and get away with it. As a libertarian, I do believe that there is a place for the state to protect victims; a person who purchases something labeled "banana" that isn't actually a banana (and to clarify, I mean as a food/culinary/sustenance product), then they are a victim of false advertising. Not saying they have, but I wouldn't doubt it if the GMO industry has co-opted at least some "self-proclaimed" spokes-humans to push the GMO industry agenda.

Anarchists and socialists (specifically fascists or "corporatists") would be opposed to anti-false advertising laws/regulations.

Libertarians, to me, are inherently in favor of anti-false advertising laws/regulations - because there is an actual victim.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

What sends me into a fit of rage is that company's that do label as NON GMO are raped with litigation by Monsanto and the USG.

What are the case-numbers of these alleged lawsuits?

From what I've seen now on the FDA website, their only problem is with use of the term "GMO" on labels; because the FDA construes "GMO" as a relatively extensive term. (See the FDA's position: "Most, if not all, cultivated food crops have been genetically modified.") If a producer added a label saying:

This food is not from recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion, gene deletion or doubling, introduction of exogenous genetic material, alteration of the position of a gene, or similar procedure,

the FDA's objection would not apply, as far as I've seen.