The Libertarian Case AGAINST Mandatory GMO Labeling

[Natural Citizen]

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

A genuine free market will work itself out. Always has and always will.

Add Peru to the list of countries to ban GMO....

Peru is the first country in the Americas to ban genetically modified foods, putting its food policy closer to that of Europe, than the United States.

Add to the previous list also...

Italy

Austria

Hungary

France

Germany

Luxembourg

Portugal

Greece

Spain

UK: The Church of England has refused permission for GE crop trials
on 60,000 hectares of its land, dozens of local authorities supply GE
free school lunches, the House of Commons banned GE foods for its
catering. The vote of the Welsh Assembly to keep Wales GE free was
counteracted by the ministry of Agriculture approving a GE maize variety.

The Island of Jersey

Switzerland

Norway: Banned the import of several GE crops and products which
contain antibiotic resistance genes.

Australia: The State of Tasmania banned GE rapeseed as weed,
Western Australia has banned commercial GE planting. Australian
States are given the right to declare themselves GE free. Some
communities (e.g. Bondi/Sydney, West Wimmera Shire) declared
themselves GE free.

Thailand

Philippines

Saudi Arabia

Egypt

Algeria

Brazil


Let me guess. They hate Monsanto for their freedoms? Does that sound about right? Is what I gather from most of the pro-Monsanto lobby that I've been reading.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

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).

The distance between one organism and another depends on the metric you choose to employ. Taxonomy classifies organisms into species according to certain characteristics. Whether the molecular-hood's been gone under isn't one of those characteristics.

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.

The same results from artificial selection.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

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

It's not the first time genocide's been tried in those countries.

 

[Neil Desmond]

The distance between one organism and another depends on the metric you choose to employ. Taxonomy classifies organisms into species according to certain characteristics. Whether the molecular-hood's been gone under isn't one of those characteristics.

Alright; but was there a point to be made, maybe one that I'm overlooking?

The same results from artificial selection.

No, as unlikely as it might be, the products of selective breeding could have also occurred biologically by chance. The "under the molecular hood manipulation" creates stuff that at best would not be expected to biologically happen by chance. In other words, there's no known way (at least not that I'm aware of) that gene splicing can occur in the "wild", but it is possible that something created from selective breeding could have occurred in the "wild."

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Alright; but was there a point to be made, maybe one that I'm overlooking?

You have your own reasons for thinking that an organism isn't really a banana if it's been tinkered with at the molecular level; but taxonomists think differently than you. They classify organisms according to characteristics, e.g., "yellow", "has a peel". If something has those characteristics, it's a banana according to taxonomists. It doesn't matter how the DNA came into being. If you see something in a store billed as a banana, that word is telling you the thing is yellow and has a peel, that's all, so what grounds do you have to call fraud? It's not reasonable to assume that just because something's billed as a banana, it hasn't had it's DNA tinkered with on the molecular level. So I don't accept your argument about fraud.

All this just goes to show that different people have different questions about the food they're eating. Those questions would be answered best by a free-market. The FDA can't print labels that answer everyone's different questions. The segment of people who care whether foods are GMO should not advocate violence to force their values on everyone else.

Unless you're the only one who cares whether food as been tinkered with on a molecular level, the market will meet your demand, by offering you catalogs of food which haven't been tinkered with on the molecular level. Neither Monsanto nor the FDA is stopping anyone from producing, selling, or buying such catalogs. But of course, last Saturday there was no march for such privately produced catalogs.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

So if a taxonomist labelled it other than a tomato, perhaps a pig-mato, assuming they changed their criteria, you would.... what? - be able to understand the fraudulant (perhaps false advertising fits better?) claims the seller proposes to the buyer?

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

So if a taxonomist labelled it other than a tomato, perhaps a pig-mato, assuming they changed their criteria, you would.... what? - be able to understand the fraudulant (perhaps false advertising fits better?) claims the seller proposes to the buyer?

I don't understand your question. If taxonomists refined their terminology, and decided to declare that pig-matos (even when red and round) are a separate and distinct class from tomatoes, then pig-matos billed as tomatoes would be fraud. But taxonomists haven't done that at this point. You could march on these guys: http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php; or give up on the possibility of having all your questions answered by a label, and turn to catalogs and databases instead for information.

 

[dbill27]

If you're against mandatory gmo labeling then you're a statist end of story. Quit you're fucking whining. The reason this is an issue is because 99% of the population either isn't aware of any gmo issues or they don't give a shit. What statists do when no one fucking cares about their issues is they get the government to enforce their opinions violently. It's much easier to influence a few hundred congressman or employ a few lobbyists than it is to use voluntarism to educate people. If what you care about is so important, then violence shouldn't be needed.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I don't understand your question. If taxonomists refined their terminology, and decided to declare that pig-matos (even when red and round) are a separate and distinct species from tomatoes, then pig-matos billed as tomatoes would be fraud. But taxonomists haven't done that at this point. You could march on these guys: http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php

Then you did understand my question.

Who has given them the right to decide when something ceases from being one thing into another? (especially in the case of pig-matos and the religious consequence some may feel)

What is the recourse I have - should I adhere to a religion who does not eat pork, being sold a tomato with pig genes as a tomato as the world understands it? Start a boycott? Would that not be false advertising? Would the damages not exceed the normal? (in their mind being condemned)

It seems to me you are trollishly (with all due respect) advocating for an entirely free market system. Where the company could be challenged in court and if found to be violating what they are selling compared to supposedly selling, the person able to gain some restitution. Seeing that we do not have a true free market system and do have labels as they stand, should GE food not also be labelled? I'd be all for no labels, so long as there is a clear path to restitution.

I had asked in another similar thread (I think in off topics) what should the path to restitution be and if there was an opinion of what restitution ought be, considering the violation of my person and all.

 

[Danan]

Let me guess. They hate Monsanto for their freedoms? Does that sound about right? Is what I gather from most of the pro-Monsanto lobby that I've been reading.

All these countries also have a public healthcare system. I don't see how that proves anything. Those countries have terrible governments and if anything, seeing them acting in a certain manner is more of an indication of bad policy, rather than good policy.

The reason Austrian politicians can ban GMO-food on all Austrian soil is that they practically claim ownership over all the farmland and our public seems to be ok with that. If that's what you want for the US, go for it. But it's unlibertarian.

 

[Neil Desmond]

You have your own reasons for thinking that an organism isn't really a banana if it's been tinkered with at the molecular level; but taxonomists think differently than you. They classify organisms according to characteristics, e.g., "yellow", "has a peel". If something has those characteristics, it's a banana according to taxonomists. It doesn't matter how the DNA came into being.

First, this is another diversion tactic. When I go to the grocery store to buy a banana, I am a consumer engaging in trade, and am acquiring it for the context or eating it or culinary purposes for nourishment and health reasons; I am not shopping as a taxonomist, or any kind of biologist. When it comes to what a banana is as a consumer, it's a fruit; and as a fruit in a consumer context, it's a culinary arts term, not a biological or taxonomical term. A taxonomist has no more relevance to this situation than a physicist has if I go to a mechanic who uses a cheaper less reliable inventory mechanical part to repair my vehicle and doesn't want to disclose this to me, even though mechanics is a branch of physics. Culinary and trade issues aren't a part of biology or taxonomy, just like manufactured inventory parts & design specifications for automobiles aren't issues or categories defined, studied, or classified in the scientific branch of physics.

But regarding your claims about taxonomists and bananas, I have a friend who has a Ph.D. in biology, and I've sent him an email asking him if what you say about taxonomy, and what a banana is to taxonomists, is accurate.

If you see something in a store billed as a banana, that word is telling you the thing is yellow and has a peel, that's all, so what grounds do you have to call fraud? It's not reasonable to assume that just because something's billed as a banana, it hasn't had it's DNA tinkered with on the molecular level. So I don't accept your argument about fraud.

If you're a company engaging in fraud or false advertising (or false labeling), would you be willing to take such a risk with a jury in a litigation process? I wouldn't.

All this just goes to show that different people have different questions about the food they're eating. Those questions would be answered best by a free-market. The FDA can't print labels that answer everyone's different questions. The segment of people who care whether foods are GMO should not advocate violence to force their values on everyone else.

That's fine; but it's not about non-controversial questions that can and do get answered; it's about the dilemma of being in the dark and not knowing if there is a consistency in what is labeled "banana" and being a victim of fraud or false advertising and whether or not they have legal recourse if it comes to that. It's companies that gene splice things and who don't want people to know who are being the aggressors.

Unless you're the only one who cares whether food as been tinkered with on a molecular level, the market will meet your demand, by offering you catalogs of food which haven't been tinkered with on the molecular level. Neither Monsanto nor the FDA is stopping anyone from producing, selling, or buying such catalogs. But of course, last Saturday there was no march for such privately produced catalogs.

Again, to me that's all about diversion To me it seems like they're trying to make it appear as though without mandatory GMO, there's no legal recourse. That's just an illusion, because there is legal recourse. We already have laws in place against fraud and false advertising, and there's nothing they can do about that. BTW, I've heard that they are in fact doing things, such as contaminating non GMO crops then suing those farmers on IP infringement grounds - just more aggression to me.

 

[Acala]

A genuine free market will work itself out. Always has and always will.

Add Peru to the list of countries to ban GMO....

Peru is the first country in the Americas to ban genetically modified foods, putting its food policy closer to that of Europe, than the United States.

Add to the previous list also...

Italy

Austria

Hungary

France

Germany

Luxembourg

Portugal

Greece

Spain

UK: The Church of England has refused permission for GE crop trials
on 60,000 hectares of its land, dozens of local authorities supply GE
free school lunches, the House of Commons banned GE foods for its
catering. The vote of the Welsh Assembly to keep Wales GE free was
counteracted by the ministry of Agriculture approving a GE maize variety.

The Island of Jersey

Switzerland

Norway: Banned the import of several GE crops and products which
contain antibiotic resistance genes.

Australia: The State of Tasmania banned GE rapeseed as weed,
Western Australia has banned commercial GE planting. Australian
States are given the right to declare themselves GE free. Some
communities (e.g. Bondi/Sydney, West Wimmera Shire) declared
themselves GE free.

Thailand

Philippines

Saudi Arabia

Egypt

Algeria

Brazil


Let me guess. They hate Monsanto for their freedoms? Does that sound about right? Is what I gather from most of the pro-Monsanto lobby that I've been reading.

They also ban guns, limit speech, and have mercantilist/socialist economies. Shall we follow them there also? Listing other people who have done something stupid provides absolutely zero support for using the violence of the state to have your way with other people's life and property.

 

[Acala]

If you're against mandatory gmo labeling then you're a statist end of story.

If you think this qualifies as a rational argument, you are hopeless.

 

[Carlybee]

All these countries also have a public healthcare system. I don't see how that proves anything. Those countries have terrible governments and if anything, seeing them acting in a certain manner is more of an indication of bad policy, rather than good policy.

The reason Austrian politicians can ban GMO-food on all Austrian soil is that they practically claim ownership over all the farmland and our public seems to be ok with that. If that's what you want for the US, go for it. But it's unlibertarian.

Is it okay for Monsanto to dictate to farmers what kind of seeds they can use and have it backed up by our government ergo dictating what kind of foods are available for consumption? How is that libertarian? They want all seed stock to be round up ready and heirloom seeds to be eradicated. Which is why they are being sued. However with former Monsanto execs in positions of power within the administration how do you think that will work out? They are fighting the consumer every step of the way as well as using tax dollars to promote their policies around the world. Please explain how supporting that is a libertarian position.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...anto-Updates&p=5051486&viewfull=1#post5051486


http://www.naturalnews.com/031532_Monsanto_lobbyists.html

 

[Acala]

Is it okay for Monsanto to dictate to farmers what kind of seeds they can use and have it backed up by our government ergo dictating what kind of foods are available for consumption? How is that libertarian? They want all seed stock to be round up ready and heirloom seeds to be eradicated. Which is why they are being sued. However with former Monsanto execs in positions of power within the administration how do you think that will work out? They are fighting the consumer every step of the way as well as using tax dollars to promote their policies around the world. Please explain how supporting that is a libertarian position.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...anto-Updates&p=5051486&viewfull=1#post5051486


http://www.naturalnews.com/031532_Monsanto_lobbyists.html

The answer is never more government power. Giving government too much power is how we got into this situation. The answer is to unwind government power, not add another layer. But that seems too hard so everyone wants to take the easy road and pass another law. That's ALWAYS the way it goes and that is why we are so screwed. People are too lazy to solve the real problem so they think they can speed it up by using more government force and it NEVER works out the way they want. Why on earth, given the track record, would you think that THIS time government will use its new power for good rather than evil? With all that you know about how corrupt government is, don't you think it is a bit naive to think that "Oh, THIS time it will be okay!"

You people suffer from battered citizen syndrome. You keep going back to the same government that beat you up because "this time it will be different." It won't EVER be different. Ever. You are fooling yourselves.

Stop being lazy and solve the problem the right way - with education, boycotts, etc. Trying to take the immoral shortcut of force is going to backfire on you.

 

[Carlybee]

The answer is never more government power. Giving government too much power is how we got into this situation. The answer is to unwind government power, not add another layer. But that seems too hard so everyone wants to take the easy road and pass another law. That's ALWAYS the way it goes and that is why we are so screwed. People are too lazy to solve the real problem so they think they can speed it up by using more government force and it NEVER works out the way they want. Why on earth, given the track record, would you think that THIS time government will use its new power for good rather than evil? With all that you know about how corrupt government is, don't you think it is a bit naive to think that "Oh, THIS time it will be okay!"

You people suffer from battered citizen syndrome. You keep going back to the same government that beat you up because "this time it will be different." It won't EVER be different. Ever. You are fooling yourselves.

Stop being lazy and solve the problem the right way - with education, boycotts, etc. Trying to take the immoral shortcut of force is going to backfire on you.

that is what the march against monsanto was about but govt really doesnt care and neither does monsanto so asking for labeling is more of a pressure tactic...of course most of us here do not want to expand govt power but neither is there time to wait for them to untangle their alliances with their corporate butt buddies while we need to know what we are consuming

 

[helmuth_hubener]

If you think this qualifies as a rational argument, you are hopeless.

He typoed. He meant if you're for mandatory GMO labeling you're a statist, end of story. If you read the rest of the post, that's the only way it makes sense.

 

[Acala]

that is what the march against monsanto was about but govt really doesnt care and neither does monsanto so asking for labeling is more of a pressure tactic...of course most of us here do not want to expand govt power but neither is there time to wait for them to untangle their alliances with their corporate butt buddies while we need to know what we are consuming

Being in a hurry is not an excuse and government WILL NOT solve this problem. You cannot make government work the way you want it to because it is inherently corrupt. It cannot be made non-corrupt.

Besides, it isn't that hard to avoid gmo products. Most of them are bad for you even when not gmo. I eat virtually none.

 

[Acala]

He typoed. He meant if you're for mandatory GMO labeling you're a statist, end of story. If you read the rest of the post, that's the only way it makes sense.

Oooooh. I apologize. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Carlybee]

Being in a hurry is not an excuse and government WILL NOT solve this problem. You cannot make government work the way you want it to because it is inherently corrupt. It cannot be made non-corrupt.

Besides, it isn't that hard to avoid gmo products. Most of them are bad for you even when not gmo. I eat virtually none.

So you telling people what to eat is not nanny-ish how? We shouldn't HAVE to spend time and money trying to discern what is NOT toxic just because most of it probably is. And it is our place to ensure that government GETS un-corrupt. Unless you are an anarchist. Which granted...given the state of this government it's not a stretch to become one. That being said what Monsanto and the government are doing is not only criminal but almost a form of eugenics and not everyone is empowered to parse through what is GMO and what is not. They guy who can only afford to eat Ramen noodles has just as much right to poison free food as those of us who can buy organics.