The Libertarian Case AGAINST Mandatory GMO Labeling

[better-dead-than-fed]

Basically the state via the court system, or I suppose the arbitrator for an anarchist society (assuming such a thing would be feasible), that is taking action to address a case brought to it involving allegations, against an orange vender or provider, of a violation of the law or crime (e.g., false advertising, situation in which a victim ate the foul orange and fell ill or died) or breach of contract (e.g., false advertising). If that doesn't help explain it to you, then let me try this: the authority would be the same entity that would be the authority for dealing with whoever would come along and inject rat poison into one of your rat-poison-free oranges, for free, without telling you about it.

The current court-system would defer to the FDA's authority; so the court would reject: "if someone is selling oranges with GMO injected into them, then they must not label them oranges without also disclosing that they had GMO injected into them." We have fair warning that labels are currently governed by the FDA, and we have fair warning that the FDA allows a GMO-orange to be labeled simply "orange"; so I wouldn't see fraud in the case of a GMO-orange labeled simply "orange".

Your point of view, about fraud, assumes that "orange" means something different from what the FDA declares it to mean. The courts wouldn't see it your way.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Sorry, this still isn't making any sense to me. Why do you ask this without explaining what the connection is?

Because I didn't assume you were unfamiliar with the concept of "indirect tax".

Is this making sense to anyone else? If so, would you please step forward and explain this? I don't know what the heck is going on here.

The 1 cent that I'm talking about would be the extra amount added to every $10,000.00 of product to pay for the GMO label to charge the customers. The 1 cent charge is neither a tax nor something connected to the rate of income. I don't know what this one penny at a time thing is about; if it's $5,000, it's half a cent; if it's $20,000, it would be 2 cents; if it's $50,000, it would be 5 cents. Whatever it is, it's a 1 to 1,000,000 ratio.

It would be an indirect tax, which is no less offensive than a sales tax or income tax. It would be a cost imposed on consumers by a coercive force of government. If you had it your way, what would be the fate of GMO-sellers who exercised their right to remain silent, instead of printing "GMO" on a label? You're suggesting there's no harm in indirect taxes, as long as they're increased one penny at a time; but that's only a recipe for absolute communism.

 

[Carlybee]

You DO know that without pharmaceutical companies most of the cancer drugs and research will be under government domain. Hell, 99.999999% of all medical research is done by government (NIH.) THe pharmaceutical companies should be libertarian heroes because they are doing something the NIH isn't doing. Creating new treatments DESPITE government regulations.

Big Pharma profits from keeping people sick and they use the public for guinea pigs. Do some people benefit from pharmaceuticals? Yes. A lot of people don't. Especially the ones who can't afford the highway robbery prices and especially the ones who are given drugs that do more harm than good. (anti-depressants and anti-psychotics) Which is why people should have access to healthy nutritious and REAL food because it is becoming the first line of defense against disease.

 

[Neil Desmond]

So what's the problem with initiating force against companies who advertise honestly but remain silent on certain issues which you idiosyncratically value?

Ok, for a GE orange, honest advertising would be to either disclose that the product is a GE orange or to not label the product at all.

If a company discloses that it's a GE orange, what else is there that the company would want to remain silent about, especially that I would idiosyncratically value? Now I'm curious. There's even more to the picture? Now you make me only want to buy a non GE orange.

If a company doesn't label the product, then I wouldn't buy it because I don't know what it is. I can't imagine that remaining silent about anything else would make a difference to my decision.

If by initiation of force you mean I am depriving them of a profit by deciding to refuse to purchase their product, then there's nothing wrong such "initiation."

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Ok, for a GE orange, honest advertising would be to either disclose that the product is a GE orange or to not label the product at all.

Only if you assume "orange" means something different from what the FDA declares it to mean. How is that a justified assumption?

If a company discloses that it's a GE orange, what else is there that the company would want to remain silent about,

examples here

especially that I would idiosyncratically value?

Maybe your only idiosyncratic value is knowledge about GMO-content; but other individuals idiosyncratically value other information. You apparently don't care whether labels disclose whether a food is kosher, but other individuals do care.

If by initiation of force you mean I am depriving them of a profit by deciding to refuse to purchase their product, then there's nothing wrong such "initiation."

That's not what I mean by "initiation of force". By "initiation of force", I mean government-imposed sanctions against company-employees who exercise their right to remain silent. For example, GMO-sellers who decline to label their products with respect to GMO content.

 

[Neil Desmond]

The current court-system would defer to the FDA's authority; so the court would reject: "if someone is selling oranges with GMO injected into them, then they must not label them oranges without also disclosing that they had GMO injected into them." We have fair warning that labels are currently governed by the FDA, and we have fair warning that the FDA allows a GMO-orange to be labeled simply "orange"; so I wouldn't see fraud in the case of a GMO-orange labeled simply "orange".

Your point of view, about fraud, assumes that "orange" means something different from what the FDA declares it to mean. The courts wouldn't see it your way.

This seems inconsistent with this: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...GMO-Labeling&p=5052461&viewfull=1#post5052461
I also didn't see you dispute or refute it.

But based on what you're saying, since orange can mean GMO orange, what would be the FDA name for a specifically non-GMO orange that distinguishes it from a GMO orange, so buyers will know what to look for and sellers will know what to use for a label?

I may come back to these issues with more questions. I'm lost and confused here; and if I'm lost and confused, then probably everybody else (except perhaps you) is also lost and confused. If I'm the only one who's lost and confused, then I'll just have to ask more questions until it sinks in. If it suddenly becomes clear to me, then I won't have to ask questions anymore.

 

[Neil Desmond]

Because I didn't assume you were unfamiliar with the concept of "indirect tax".



It would be an indirect tax, which is no less offensive than a sales tax or income tax. It would be a cost imposed on consumers by a coercive force of government. If you had it your way, what would be the fate of GMO-sellers who exercised their right to remain silent, instead of printing "GMO" on a label? You're suggesting there's no harm in indirect taxes, as long as they're increased one penny at a time; but that's only a recipe for absolute communism.

I didn't exactly get indirect tax from that, but ok. For your information, I am not in favor of mandated labeling; I have stated this repeatedly and consistently or at least once. I have never stated that I am in favor of mandatory labeling nor have I flip-flopped on the issue. I was only pointing out that the cost for labeling in question is very low (1 cent for every million cents), not that it was good or bad. Lastly, I think a build up of mandates leads to absolute fascism, not communism.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

This seems inconsistent with this: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...GMO-Labeling&p=5052461&viewfull=1#post5052461
I also didn't see you dispute or refute it.

I don't see an inconsistency. Can you be more specific, please? I was addressing the meaning which the FDA assigns to the word "orange". The post you just cited doesn't address that.

But based on what you're saying, since orange can mean GMO orange, what would be the FDA name for a specifically non-GMO orange that distinguishes it from a GMO orange, so buyers will know what to look for and sellers will know what to use for a label?

According to the evidence posted in this thread and this other thread, FDA rules would allow a seller to add 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.

See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...anto-Updates&p=5046825&viewfull=1#post5046825

FDA rules also would allow a seller to add a label saying:

This food is not from cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, or recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, or changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology).

Citing http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...GMO-Labeling&p=5052461&viewfull=1#post5052461

FDA rules would even allow a seller to add a label saying "non-GMO", as long as that claim was truthful. Note, however, that the FDA assigns the term "GMO" a relatively broad meaning, which includes foods which aren't a product of bio-engineering. If you produced a food that was not bio-engineered, it still might meet the FDA's definition of "GMO", and so you could be sanctioned for fraud if you labeled it "non-GMO".

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

I am not in favor of mandated labeling; I have stated this repeatedly and consistently or at least once. I have never stated that I am in favor of mandatory labeling nor have I flip-flopped on the issue.

I see that. What I disagree with, still, is:

No individual is harmed by adding [FDA regulations mandating GMO-labeling]

Government does not get bigger because a couple of words are added to an already mandated label.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Ladies and gentlemen, I invite you to examine the behavior of one of my opponents in my current race, better-dead-than-fed.

He has just spent a month trying to whip me up into a frenzy, so that he can use my internet posts against me. His posting history is freely available at his username linked above. Please, take a moment and look deep into his mind and his methods, at the way he treats people and the way he argues, and ask yourself if that is the man we want leading our Party today?

 

[jmdrake]

Great speech. But there is a simple, constitutional, libertarian solution. Strip the patent office of the authority to grant patents to genes. I'm not just talking about the current debate over patents on discovered genes. I'm also talking about patents on created genes. As genes have been around since creation, they out to be considered "open source" and like the "open source" license model, any derivation should be considered open source as well. In the "good old days" when people created hybrids from cross pollination, while they could obtain copyright and trademark on their discoveries, they didn't obtain patent rights. I don't want to just tinker with the Monsanto business model by requiring labelling. I want to destroy it by taking away their patents. That solution includes a net increase in freedom for everyone.

Edit: I love at the end how you plugged killing the house bill that would put all plants under the control of some unelected state board! We've got to go beyond just making speeches to advocating direct action.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Great speech. But there is a simple, constitutional, libertarian solution. Strip the patent office of the authority to grant patents to genes. I'm not just talking about the current debate over patents on discovered genes. I'm also talking about patents on created genes. As genes have been around since creation, they out to be considered "open source" and like the "open source" license model, any derivation should be considered open source as well. In the "good old days" when people created hybrids from cross pollination, while they could obtain copyright and trademark on their discoveries, they didn't obtain patent rights. I don't want to just tinker with the Monsanto business model by requiring labelling. I want to destroy it by taking away their patents. That solution includes a net increase in freedom for everyone.

You make an extremely good point. Why is a private company allowed to claim patents over life itself? Simply removing their ability to do that would eliminate the entire back half of their illicit lawsuit revenue stream.

 

[Constitutional Paulicy]

You make an extremely good point. Why is a private company allowed to claim patents over life itself? Simply removing their ability to do that would eliminate the entire back half of their illicit lawsuit revenue stream.

Isn't this the way it seems to be with so many problems we face today? We try to slap band-aids on wounds that require surgery. Removing the tumor will likely remove the cancer itself.

 

[Carlybee]

Ladies and gentlemen, I invite you to examine the behavior of one of my opponents in my current race, better-dead-than-fed.

He has just spent a month trying to whip me up into a frenzy, so that he can use my internet posts against me. His posting history is freely available at his username linked above. Please, take a moment and look deep into his mind and his methods, at the way he treats people and the way he argues, and ask yourself if that is the man we want leading our Party today?

I wondered if that might be the scenario

 

[Carlybee]

Oh and Monsanto is allowed to claim patents because half their damned company's ex directors hold positions in our government and they have a huge lobby and our tax dollars help them do it.

 

[jmdrake]

Oh and Monsanto is allowed to claim patents because half their damned company's ex directors hold positions in our government and they have a huge lobby and our tax dollars help them do it.

Monsanto's lobbying is only part of the problem. The bigger problem is that people simply don't understand intellectual "property rights". I put both "property" and "right" in quotes because both are legal fictions when applied to ideas as opposed to real products. They are not "rights" because they were neither defined in the constitution as such, nor do they fit the classical liberal definition of a "right". Constitutionally they are privileges. The government is not required by the constitution to protect your intellectual property "rights". Rather the government granted itself the privilege to grant others the privilege to prevent others from copying their work. This was based on a utilitarian argument, and not the one that people think especially with regards to patents. For instance, most people think the government grants patents to "reward you for your hard work." Wrong! The government grants you a patent in exchange for you publicly disclosing your invention so that in the future when your patent runs out others can use it without having to go through the trouble and expense of attempting to reverse engineer it. That's why if you disclose to many details of your patent before applying for it, and someone can prove this, your patent can be voided. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Why grant a patent when the inventor has already disclosed the invention?

So why is this important to understand? Because arguments about how hard the scientists worked to develop the gene are irrelevant. The real question is, or should be, does the grant of genetic patents help the common good more than it hurts it? If so they should be disallowed.

One other thing. If the "victory" over Monsanto ends up being food labelling, will that even make a difference? Right now there are a lot of foods with "aspartame" on the label. How many consumers read and/or care? If the aspartame label contained a warning that said "This product contains aspartame, a chemical known to cause the following side effects" that might cause consumers to slow down purchasing such items. That certainly happened with products containing saccharine had such a warning label. But without such a warming, most consumers will not care. In fact it could have the reverse effect. Once consumers are "informed" that just about everything they buy to eat contains GMO something or another, it might cause people to come to the conclusion "Well there must be nothing wrong with GMOs since they are everywhere."

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Oh and Monsanto is allowed to claim patents because half their damned company's ex directors hold positions in our government and they have a huge lobby and our tax dollars help them do it.

Who are the people enabling the ex directors? Who are the people knowingly and voluntary buying Monsanto-derived products, like gasoline?

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Ladies and gentlemen, I invite you to examine the behavior of one of my opponents in my current race, better-dead-than-fed.

He has just spent a month....

My post history shows what I was doing a month ago. Why are you lying to people?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

My post history shows what I was doing a month ago. Why are you lying to people?

I stand corrected. You have been watching me and trying to incite me to outrage for longer than a month now. What is it you said in your anonymous blogpost - that you've been quietly watching me for over a year compiling my sins? I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

I stand corrected.

Why lie in the first place?

You have been watching me and trying to incite me to outrage for longer than a month now. What is it you said in your anonymous blogpost - that you've been quietly watching me for over a year compiling my sins? I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

What my post-history actually shows is:

I really don't care about you Gunny, so I don't care what your position is or what you do or why you do it. If you'd like to link to the FDA rulings you have in mind, you might bring any number of people to your side. I'm not the only one reading. So far, the only word actually quoted from the FDA in this thread is that it's permitted to label foods as non-GMO.