The Libertarian Case AGAINST Mandatory GMO Labeling

[libertyjam]

Japan suspends imports after modified wheat found
By MARY CLARE JALONICK and NIGEL DUARA
Associated Press / May 30, 2013
http://www.boston.com/business/tech...wheat-found/E0ZgXku7PWf48IzpBRBK6I/story.html



WASHINGTON (AP) — Japan has suspended some imports of U.S. wheat after genetically engineered wheat was found on an Oregon farm.

The Agriculture Department announced the discovery of the modified wheat on Wednesday. No genetically engineered wheat has been approved for U.S. farming.

Japan is one of the largest export markets for U.S. wheat growers. Katsuhiro Saka, a counselor at the Japanese Embassy in Washington, said Thursday that Japan had canceled orders of western white wheat from the Pacific Northwest and also of some feed-grade wheat. He said the country was waiting for more information from the Agriculture Department as it investigates the discovery.

‘‘In most countries the unapproved genetically modified wheat would be a target of concern,’’ Saka said. ‘‘The Japanese people have similar kinds of concerns.’’

USDA officials said the wheat was the same strain as a genetically modified wheat that was designed to be herbicide-resistant and was legally tested by seed giant Monsanto a decade ago but never approved. Monsanto stopped testing that product in Oregon and several other states in 2005.

The Agriculture Department said the genetically engineered wheat is safe to eat and there is no evidence that modified wheat entered the marketplace. But the department is investigating how it ended up in the field, whether there was any criminal wrongdoing and whether its growth is widespread.

The mystery could have implications on the wheat trade in the U.S. and abroad, as evidenced by Japan’s suspension of imports on Thursday.

Many countries around the world will not accept imports of genetically modified foods, and the United States exports about half of its wheat crop.
...
Japan is regularly the top buyer of Northwest wheat, said Blake Rowe, CEO of the Oregon Wheat Commission. He said reductions in wheat sales would affect farmers in Idaho and Washington as well as Oregon, because the wheat is blended together.

Oregon sold $492 million in wheat in 2011, the most recent data available, and 90 percent of it went overseas, Oregon Department of Agriculture spokesman Bruce Pokarney said.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

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.

What's stopping anyone from patenting a gene, letting it blow onto a Monsanto farm, and suing the Monsanto farm for patent infringement?

 

[Neil Desmond]

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"?

Ok, I see that there's some clarification that needs to be made: by someone altering DNA structure in any way I mean direct "under the molecular hood" synthetic (as opposed to naturally occurring) manipulation, such as gene-splicing (as in using technology in the molecular biology level); I don't mean at the level of getting two parents together (specifically of the same species/subspecies) to mate with each other to produce a child with traits common to the parents, or things such as isolating which plants can or do cross pollinate with each other.

But to reiterate, what I'm trying to say is that this debate is a diversion by steering the discussion to the ambiguous issue of what is a GMO and away from the actual concern, which I'm sure we all know what it is if we would just quit playing semantics games. This is a typical Orwellian tactic by the likes of Monsanto and company at its finest.

 

[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?

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.

Seraphim, so how would you deal with companies that falsely label products as non-GMO?

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

But to reiterate, what I'm trying to say is that this debate is a diversion by steering the discussion to the ambiguous issue of what is a GMO and away from the actual concern, which I'm sure we all know what it is if we would just quit playing semantics games. This is a typical Orwellian tactic by the likes of Monsanto and company at its finest.

Is there any way to oppose March Against Monsanto's calls for government-expansion, without being guilty of "Orwellian tactics"?

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

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"?

Ok, I see that there's some clarification that needs to be made: by someone altering DNA structure in any way I mean direct "under the molecular hood" synthetic (as opposed to naturally occurring) manipulation, such as gene-splicing (as in using technology in the molecular biology level); I don't mean at the level of getting two parents together (specifically of the same species/subspecies) to mate with each other to produce a child with traits common to the parents, or things such as isolating which plants can or do cross pollinate with each other.

But the genetic-modification techniques you call "naturally occurring" are more widely called unnatural selection and artificial selection.

What principled basis is there for the distinction you're drawing? If someone alters a banana's DNA without going "under the molecular hood", the DNA is still altered, so why shouldn't he be guilty of fraud if he calls it a 'banana'?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Ok, I see that there's some clarification that needs to be made: by someone altering DNA structure in any way I mean direct "under the molecular hood" synthetic (as opposed to naturally occurring) manipulation, such as gene-splicing (as in using technology in the molecular biology level); I don't mean at the level of getting two parents together (specifically of the same species/subspecies) to mate with each other to produce a child with traits common to the parents, or things such as isolating which plants can or do cross pollinate with each other.

But to reiterate, what I'm trying to say is that this debate is a diversion by steering the discussion to the ambiguous issue of what is a GMO and away from the actual concern, which I'm sure we all know what it is if we would just quit playing semantics games. This is a typical Orwellian tactic by the likes of Monsanto and company at its finest.

The definition of GMF is pretty straightforward. Those who conflate GE with crossbreeding are doing so intentionally.

"The term 'genetically modified food' means food the genetic structure of which has been modified by direct human manipulation in a manner that does not occur under natural conditions, including through any of the following genetic engineering methods: 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 term also includes food that is, or is from, the progeny or genetic line of an animal or plant described in the preceding sentence."

They will say that "not under natural conditions" includes captive breeding or induced pollination, which is patently absurd, of course. It does demonstrate the disingenuous nature of their argument, however, which is helpful in the way of showing them to be absurd.

 

[Neil Desmond]

Is there any way to oppose March Against Monsanto's calls for government-expansion, without being guilty of "Orwellian tactics"?

I'm not sure what is to be opposed, because I tried to click the link in the thread (this one: http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/) to see what it has, but it says: "Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist."

All I can think of to respond to this is to educate, inform, and spread awareness of what all the problems are (both the biological as well as political category of problems), and advocate something that is a solution for the problems of both categories. That's the approach I'm taking to oppose the "advocacy for state-mandated ______ (fill in the blank)" for this particular situation.

My thinking, though, is why bother putting the effort into opposing them rather than doing what I'm doing? What if the likes of Monsanto and company are themselves the ones putting this stuff out there as a diversion? With my approach that's a moot question to begin with.

If you want to do something about this, just spread awareness, get people to see past all the BS going on, and focus on what's really relevant.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

The definition of GMF is pretty straightforward. Those who conflate GE with crossbreeding are doing so intentionally.

"The term 'genetically modified food' means food the genetic structure of which has been modified by direct human manipulation in a manner that does not occur under natural conditions, including through any of the following genetic engineering methods: 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 term also includes food that is, or is from, the progeny or genetic line of an animal or plant described in the preceding sentence."

They will say that "not under natural conditions" includes captive breeding or induced pollination, which is patently absurd, of course. It does demonstrate the disingenuous nature of their argument, however, which is helpful in the way of showing them to be absurd.

The FDA defines "genetic modification" differently than Gunny does. Any failure to adopt Gunny's personal definition should be construed as a sinister act of malice.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

I'm not sure what is to be opposed, because I tried to click the link in the thread (this one: http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/) to see what it has, but it says: "Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist."

My typo. It's fixed now, the link works.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

If you want to do something about this, just spread awareness, get people to see past all the BS going on, and focus on what's really relevant.

(And be prepared to be stalked and accused of Orwellian tactics if you oppose March Against Monsanto's calls for government-expansion.)

 

[Neil Desmond]

But the genetic-modification techniques you call "naturally occurring" are more widely called unnatural selection and artificial selection.

What principled basis is there for the distinction you're drawing? If someone alters a banana's DNA without going "under the molucular hood", the DNA is still altered, so why shouldn't he be guilty of fraud if he calls it a 'banana'?

Your question about the guilty aspect is a good point; in the case of this point it's a rather trivial matter of intent. What is the intent of the likes of Monsanto and company? As a "potential" customer to their products or services, is their intent benevolent or malevolent to my interests?

Yes, almost every distinct organism's DNA is different or an "altered" version of another one of the same species/subspecies and it eventually and gradually veers away from its ancestors. At least with the "without going under the molecular hood" version, I think we can still go with the flow, or roll with the punches through life, by adapting to it over time as it alters itself. What I'm objecting to when I say that I don't want something labeled as a banana is when the "under the molecular hood altered version" in question is that at the very least it has skipped and jumped or suddenly changed course and altered itself into something that is far too different to be (or what has been) a contemporary banana, in such a way that is probably unhealthy for me (in other words, goes against my interests). It's more than that; it's also that a "banana" that was altered by going "under the molecular hood" made it into something that takes it on a course that it would not have otherwise taken on its own.

 

[Neil Desmond]

The definition of GMF is pretty straightforward. Those who conflate GE with crossbreeding are doing so intentionally.

"The term 'genetically modified food' means food the genetic structure of which has been modified by direct human manipulation in a manner that does not occur under natural conditions, including through any of the following genetic engineering methods: 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 term also includes food that is, or is from, the progeny or genetic line of an animal or plant described in the preceding sentence."

They will say that "not under natural conditions" includes captive breeding or induced pollination, which is patently absurd, of course. It does demonstrate the disingenuous nature of their argument, however, which is helpful in the way of showing them to be absurd.

Yeah, I understand; what I'm trying to do is refocus what others are trying to blur.

 

[Neil Desmond]

My typo. It's fixed now, the link works.

Oh, ok.

 

[Danan]

Eight additiona national governments in the European Union have banned Monsanto's MON810 maize and other forms of GMO cultivation in their countries. Add them to the list. The growing list.

Austria

Bulgaria

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Luxembourg

Poland


Moving forward...

How is banning farmers from growing the crop they want to on their property progress? I'd love to see that regulation removed.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Your question about the guilty aspect is a good point; in the case of this point it's a rather trivial matter of intent. What is the intent of the likes of Monsanto and company? As a "potential" customer to their products or services, is their intent benevolent or malevolent to my interests?

Yes, almost every distinct organism's DNA is different or an "altered" version of another one of the same species/subspecies and it eventually and gradually veers away from its ancestors. At least with the "without going under the molecular hood" version, I think we can still go with the flow, or roll with the punches through life, by adapting to it over time as it alters itself. What I'm objecting to when I say that I don't want something labeled as a banana is when the "under the molecular hood altered version" in question is that at the very least it has skipped and jumped or suddenly changed course and altered itself into something that is far too different to be (or what has been) a contemporary banana, in such a way that is probably unhealthy for me (in other words, goes against my interests). It's more than that; it's also that a "banana" that was altered by going "under the molecular hood" made it into something that takes it on a course that it would not have otherwise taken on its own.

If this isn't the end of it I don't know what will be.

Must spread some rep around.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The definition of GMF is pretty straightforward. Those who conflate GE with crossbreeding are doing so intentionally.

"The term 'genetically modified food' means food the genetic structure of which has been modified by direct human manipulation in a manner that does not occur under natural conditions, including through any of the following genetic engineering methods: 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 term also includes food that is, or is from, the progeny or genetic line of an animal or plant described in the preceding sentence."

They will say that "not under natural conditions" includes captive breeding or induced pollination, which is patently absurd, of course. It does demonstrate the disingenuous nature of their argument, however, which is helpful in the way of showing them to be absurd.

Yeah, I understand; what I'm trying to do is refocus what others are trying to blur.

intentionally, and with malice aforethought.

Here is the USDA Definition:

A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). Such methods do not include the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture.

and here was the definition proposed for US Code in the bill Rand Paul recently voted against:

(1) GENETIC ENGINEERING.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--The term ``genetic engineering'' means a process that alters an organism at the molecular or cellular level by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes.
(B) INCLUSIONS.--The term ``genetic engineering'' includes-- (i) recombinant DNA and RNA techniques; (ii) cell fusion; (iii) microencapsulation; (iv) macroencapsulation; (v) gene deletion and doubling; (vi) introduction of a foreign gene; and (vii) changing the position of genes.
(C) EXCLUSIONS.--The term ``genetic engineering'' does not include any modification to an organism that consists exclusively of-- (i) breeding; (ii) conjugation; (iii) fermentation; (iv) hybridization; (v) in vitro fertilization; or (vi) tissue culture.

So not only is the USDA definition and the proposed USC definition remarkably similar to mine given above, they have gone even further to explicitly exclude any kind of breeding methodologies from being considered under GE. Point being, the conflation of GE and 'artificial selection' is deliberately disingenuous. Under no definition is that even remotely possible.

 

[Neil Desmond]

(And be prepared to be stalked and accused of Orwellian tactics if you oppose March Against Monsanto's calls for government-expansion.)

Yeah, unfortunately you're probably right. This brings me to a point that I don't know how to resolve other than to implement solutions that will eliminate the problem of scarcity itself, which is something that I'm interested in doing and am trying to work on (they involve the research and implementation of technologies such as automation, seawater desalination, etc.).

 

[Neil Desmond]

If this isn't the end of it I don't know what will be.

Must spread some rep around.

lol thanks

 

[Neil Desmond]

intentionally, and with malice aforethought.

Here is the USDA Definition:



and here was the definition proposed for US Code in the bill Rand Paul recently voted against:



So not only is the USDA definition and the proposed USC definition remarkably similar to mine given above, they have gone even further to explicitly exclude any kind of breeding methodologies from being considered under GE. Point being, the conflation of GE and 'artificial selection' is deliberately disingenuous. Under no definition is that even remotely possible.

Yeah, that's basically also how I see the meanings of GE/GMO.