The Libertarian Case AGAINST Mandatory GMO Labeling

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.

Which eventually goes back to the real heart of the matter. Which is the science of it. Was watching the op's vid. Julie is looking to justify a specific way of scraping the chicken off the road instead of asking why it crossed in the first place right when the 18 wheeler was passing by. It will only be when the base places their prospective representatives into a position of accountabilty to share and justify their position on the science itself as well as how they would lead us conforming to it that the issue will be approached productively.

Labeling itself is irrelevant in scope and the fact that it does seem to trump the terms of controversy is indicative of the gap between political science and literacy to the relevance of the real stuff and it's impact on infratructural/legislative processes. Is a fine line. One that is fading.
 
Last edited:
Which eventually goes back to the real heart of the matter. Which is the science of it. Was watching the op's vid. Julie is looking to justify a specific way of scraping the chicken off the road instead of asking why it crossed in the first place right when the 18 wheeler was passing by. It will only be when the base places their prospective representatives into a position of accountabilty to share and justify their position on the science itself as well as how they would lead us conforming to it that the issue will be approached productively.

Labeling itself is irrelevant in scope.

No; I think that I already made the issue of "the science of it" clear when I stated this:

If someone took a banana and altered its DNA structure in any way, then it's no longer a banana.
 
There is no "good" libertarian case for mandatory anything. Whenever two parties are voluntarily trading with each other, no force should be used against them.

It's sad that so many "libertarians" dismiss this philosophy when it's about their pet issues.
 
What are the case-numbers of these alleged lawsuits?

Monsanto v. Schmeiser (Canadian Supreme Court Judgement)
Lower courts ruled that even crops contaminated by GM pollination are owned and controlled by Monsanto because of the presence of the Monsanto gene. By the time it reached the Supreme Court, Monsanto feared the establishment of precedent and dropped that claim, but retained the patent infringement claim without specified deliver methods invoked.

Monsanto v Parr and Monsanto v Runyon (CBS News Report) - windborne cross-pollination

Class Action v Monsanto dismissed. Windborne cross-pollination is not a threat.
(GyF - of course not, it'a a profit model!)

Monsanto wins lawsuit against Indiana soybean farmer

Monsanto claimed intellectual property infringement when a farmer used the company's patented seeds from a commodity seed bag.


Bearing in mind that 'commodity seed bags' come from farmers harvesting the seed from their own crops, and the Monsanto gene would have entered these bags via aerial pollination.


http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/monsanto-v-us-farmer-2012-update-final_98931.pdf

As of June 2006, Monsanto had instituted an estimated 2,391 to 4,531 “seed piracy matters” against farmers in 19 states.
 Farmers have paid Monsanto an estimated $85,653,601 to $160,594,230 in settlements of these seed piracy matters.
 The number of seed piracy matters reported by Monsanto is 20 to 40 times the number of lawsuits we have found in public court records.
 The estimated total of settlements paid to Monsanto by farmers ($85.7 to $160.6 million) exceeds by four to eight times the total of recorded judgments ($21.6 million).

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/seed-giants_final_04424.pdf

As of January 2013, Monsanto filed 144 lawsuits based upon purported violations of itsTechnology UseAgreement and its patents on GE seed technology.These cases involve 410 farmers and 56 small businesses or farm companies, in at least 27 different states.


Seventy-two lawsuits ended in recorded damages awarded to Monsanto. Twenty-seven lawsuits ended in unrecorded damages awarded to Monsanto (confidential settlements).Fourteen lawsuits were dismissed, with no indication of whether damages were awarded to Monsanto.Eleven lawsuits were ongoing as of November 28,2012.

...

Finally, the above cited recorded cases and judgments fail to convey atrue picture of the scope of the seed giants’aggressive actionsagainstU.S.farmers.This is because as one federal district court concluded “[t]he vast majority of cases filed by Monsanto against farmers have been settled before any extensive litigation took place.” (Monsanto Co .v .McFarling, 2005)

...

In 2006, CFS used materials downloaded from Monsanto’s website to determine the approximate scope and cost to farmers from these out-of-court settlements. These documents showed that Monsanto had instituted an estimated 2,391 to 4,531 of “seed piracy matters” against farmers in 19 states. This is 20 to 40 times the number ofreported lawsuits found in public records.

$24 Million in judgements, another $106 Million in settlements.

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/monsanto-v-us-farmer-2010-update-v-2.pdf

Could go on for hours. This is Monsanto's business model. they take in between $100M and $160M in the US alone every year for court awards and out of court settlements.
 
There is no "good" libertarian case for mandatory anything. Whenever two parties are voluntarily trading with each other, no force should be used against them.

It's sad that so many "libertarians" dismiss this philosophy when it's about their pet issues.

I agree. But the reality is that labeling requirements already exist.

This isn't about whether they should exist or not, but how they should be managed by the govt.

If labeling is going to exist, would you rather they require truthful claims, or that they just be whatever the manufacturer claims?

Here's a candy bar that says: "Serving size: 1 bar. Calories: 10. Carbs: 140g. Fat 0g. Protein: some. Ingredients: pure candy!"

There's room for libertarian/NAP judgement on existing public policy while arguing in the alternative that there should be no govt involvement whatsoever.
 
#MarchAgainstMonsanto: The Grassroots Uprising

By James Corbett
http://www.corbettreport.com/marchagainstmonsanto-the-grassroots-uprising/

In any honest ranking of the world’s most hated corporations, Monsanto is almost certain to find itself at the top of the list. Indeed, it is difficult to think of a company that has affected the lives of so many around the world, either directly through its coercive and litigious practices against small farmers the world over, or indirectly through the pollution of the food supply with their genetically modified crops. And despite what corporate apologists and paid shills would have the public believe, the company’s abominable reputation is not based on knee-jerk anti-corporatism, but the documented record of Monsanto’s own history and actions.

Many are familiar with the company’s sordid past, including its role in the development of Agent Orange and its contribution to the epidemic of farmer suicides in India, but in recent years Monsanto has gained special notoriety for its attempts to push the boundaries of patent law in a self-admitted attempt to gain a monopoly over the world’s food supply. [See this and this and this.]

The company’s remarkable record in court has helped it set worrying precedents in the field of patent law, not just in the United States but in numerous districts around the world. Some might attribute the company’s success to blind luck, or to the vast resources it has available to prosecute its cases against cash-strapped farmers, but the real secret to Monsanto’s court victories is to be found in the infamous Monsanto / government revolving door.

The list of Monsanto employees and consultants who have also held key roles in the U.S. government is truly staggering. It includes such names as Dennis DeConcini the US Senator who also served as Monsanto Legal Counsel, Mickey Kantor, Commerce Secretary under President Clinton who also served as a Monsanto board member, Michael Taylor, Obama’s Deputy FDA Commissioner who also served as Monsanto’s VP for Public Policy, Linda Fisher, a senior EPA official who later became Monsanto’s VP of Government and Public Affairs, US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who served as a corporate lawyer for Monsanto in the 1970s, and literally dozens of other examples.

These judicial successes culminated in recent weeks in what may be the company’s largest victory to date: the passage of the so-called Monsanto Protection Act, which stacks the deck even further in Monsanto’s favour.

For a company so universally reviled there has been remarkably little coordination of grassroots resistance to Monsanto and its agenda. Protest has been haphazard, and, while occasionally symbolically effective, have done little to derail the Monsanto freight train from its path of worldwide domination of the food supply.

Later this month, however, a new grassroots movement seeking to galvanize resistance to the multinational will stage an unprecedented worldwide protest rally against the company, coordinating marches in hundreds of cities involving tens of thousands of people all across the globe.

Earlier this month I had the chance to interview Tami Canal, the organizer and founder of the March Against Monsanto, about the movement and what it is seeking to accomplish.

The March Against Monsanto is necessarily only the first link in a potential chain of reaction that could help to galvanize grassroots resistance to the Monsanto juggernaut and encourage people around the world to participate in a boycott of the company and the products derived from its seeds. Like any chain, it will take time and patience to forge, and it will be created link by link, as more and more people are educated about the dangers of Monsanto, its seed patents, and its seeds themselves. Ultimately, what becomes of such a movement depends on the grassroots itself: either it will re-commit itself to the fight against the company and its practices, or it will opt to maintain the status quo, hoping that some government officials not bought off or in the employ of the company will somehow pass some piece of legislation that will make everything better again.

Whatever the outcome, it cannot be denied that the struggle itself is of paramount importance. If there is any truth to the age-old dictum that you are what you eat, then the population of the world is slowly turning into Monsanto. Given the chilling nature of that thought, can there be any doubt as to why the public needs to engage in this fight?

-------------


Monsanto is the antithesis of free market
 
Monsanto v. Schmeiser (Canadian Supreme Court Judgement)
Lower courts ruled that even crops contaminated by GM pollination are owned and controlled by Monsanto because of the presence of the Monsanto gene. By the time it reached the Supreme Court, Monsanto feared the establishment of precedent and dropped that claim, but retained the patent infringement claim without specified deliver methods invoked.

Monsanto v Parr and Monsanto v Runyon (CBS News Report) - windborne cross-pollination

Class Action v Monsanto dismissed. Windborne cross-pollination is not a threat.
(GyF - of course not, it'a a profit model!)

Monsanto wins lawsuit against Indiana soybean farmer

Monsanto claimed intellectual property infringement when a farmer used the company's patented seeds from a commodity seed bag.


Bearing in mind that 'commodity seed bags' come from farmers harvesting the seed from their own crops, and the Monsanto gene would have entered these bags via aerial pollination.






$24 Million in judgements, another $106 Million in settlements.

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/monsanto-v-us-farmer-2010-update-v-2.pdf

Could go on for hours. This is Monsanto's business model. they take in between $100M and $160M in the US alone every year for court awards and out of court settlements.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyFreedom again.
 
True that.

I fail to see how fraud can be justified as "free market".

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.
 
Regarding policy, the logical conclusion of "If government shouldn't be involved, I'll oppose all regulations whatsoever" is also that public roads cannot be managed by government, government cannot pull reckless drivers off the roads, immigration should be completely open, even to the point where Osama Bin Laden (If he weren't dead) should be allowed to walk right across the border, public hospitals should just leave their patients to die because ultimately the hospitals should be privatized, exc.

Now, I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist, but even if I opposed ALL government, I still wouldn't agree with the conclusions I proposed above just because ideally there should be no government.

I don't support violation of the NAP, but I think reducing said violations is justified even if you can't get it to 0. I wouldn't vote "No" on a bill that removes cannabis from the list of controlled substances just because I believe that list to be illegitimate, even though I do believe that it is.
 
True that.

I fail to see how fraud can be justified as "free market".

I think it stems from the self-interest aspect of Objectivism. ie - if it doesn't affect me personally, then I don't give a damn, and I personally like GMO so anybody who opposes it must be a socialistic anti-free market raving lunatic.

It makes sense to me because a large number of our people are Ayn Rand acolytes, and the concept of self-interest exclusively dictating philosophy is a pretty big piece of Objectivism.
 
But it's OK, see because I don't personally care about GMO, then fascism in this area is cool by me. :p

Exactly.

Surprised? Monsanto Openly Wrote Own Monsanto Protection Act

from naturalsociety.com: It should come as no surprise to many of you to find out that Monsanto actually authored the wording of its own Monsanto Protection Act (Sec. 735) hidden in the recently passed and signed Continuing Resolution spending bill. How could a major corporation write its own laws and regulations, you ask?

Quite frankly I think it’s important to understand that the entire Senate passed the bill containing the Protection Act, but the politician who actually gave Monsanto the pen in order to write their very own legislation is no others than Roy Blunt — a Republican Senator from Missouri. As the latest IB Times article reveals, the Missouri politician worked with Monsanto to write the Monsanto Protection Act. This was confirmed by a New York news report I will get to shortly.

As you probably know I do not play the political clown game of left verses right, and instead highlight corruption and wrongdoing wherever it is found — regardless of party affiliation. In the case of Senator Blunt, he admits to colluding with Monsanto, a corporation that has literally been caught running ‘slave-like’ working conditions in which workers are unable to leave or eat (among many worse misdeeds).

Food Democracy Now, a major activist organization that organized signatures to fight the Monsanto Protection Act, described the rider: “The Monsanto Protection Act would force the USDA to allow continued planting of any GMO crop under court review, essentially giving backdoor approval for any new genetically engineered crops that could be potentially harmful to human health or the environment.” Sounds like a great idea, right?
http://foodworldorder.blogspot.com/2013/03/surprised-monsanto-openly-wrote-own.html

----------------------

We all know the FDA/USDA are useless government bureaucracies, and in a free society they wouldn't even exist. This collusion between Monsanto, the US Government, and various alphabet agencies is the height of corporate fascism. If we as libertarians reject the use of force, we must reject corporations like Monsanto, as they are in bed with the organization that holds a monopoly on the use of force. Without the government granted monopoly that Monsanto holds, an argument could be made that it wouldn't even exist. The state has created this monster. If we must use the state to reign it in, so be it. It's not the best solution, but what are our other options?
 
Last edited:
Regarding policy, the logical conclusion of "If government shouldn't be involved, I'll oppose all regulations whatsoever" is also that public roads cannot be managed by government, government cannot pull reckless drivers off the roads, immigration should be completely open, even to the point where Osama Bin Laden (If he weren't dead) should be allowed to walk right across the border, public hospitals should just leave their patients to die because ultimately the hospitals should be privatized, exc.

Now, I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist, but even if I opposed ALL government, I still wouldn't agree with the conclusions I proposed above just because ideally there should be no government.

I don't support violation of the NAP, but I think reducing said violations is justified even if you can't get it to 0. I wouldn't vote "No" on a bill that removes cannabis from the list of controlled substances just because I believe that list to be illegitimate, even though I do believe that it is.

So in any area of human activity that government is already involved, it is okay to have MORE government coercion? You have just destroyed the liberty movement because government is involved in EVERYTHING and I defy you to come up with a principled basis for saying coercion is okay in one area and not another.

I deny you the right to coerce me in any way. The fact that government is already coercing me in no way justifies more coercion. Your argument is nothing but hand waiving to justify the use of violence to get the result you want.
 
Here come the arguments that Monsanto employees should be denied Freedom of Speech?

A company writing the legislation to govern themselves (particularly if they buy and sell the legislators in order to pass it) is not freedom of speech, it's corporatism. Corporatism is also known as crony capitalism, or fascism, according to it's definition. Which you are once again defending. Your equating of dictionary-definition corporatism with freedom of speech is perhaps the clearest example of your defense of fascism yet.
 
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.

How would altering DNA structure "in any way" make it no longer a banana? Artificial genetic-modification is as old as agriculture itself. Do you dispute the FDA's position: "Most, if not all, cultivated food crops have been genetically modified"?
 
Back
Top