Rand Paul Votes NO on GMO Warning Labels

[Kluge]

Wouldn't it make more sense just to allow non-GMO food producers to label their products as such, and market the idea of non-GMO products being superior to consumers? Is that not currently allowed?

[myrkul]

Wouldn't it make more sense just to allow non-GMO food producers to label their products as such, and market the idea of non-GMO products being superior to consumers? Is that not currently allowed?

I seem to recall a ban on "GMO free" labeling. Not sure if it was nation-wide or not.

[jwzguy]

Wouldn't it make more sense just to allow non-GMO food producers to label their products as such, and market the idea of non-GMO products being superior to consumers? Is that not currently allowed?

Glad someone has some sense.

Yes, it is allowed, and some of them are already doing it.

[Hawker]

Wouldn't it make more sense just to allow non-GMO food producers to label their products as such, and market the idea of non-GMO products being superior to consumers? Is that not currently allowed?

I seem to recall a ban on "GMO free" labeling. Not sure if it was nation-wide or not.

Americans who export food to the UK are not allowed to separate GMO foods and not allowed to say what % is GMO. 

[asdf]

Of course he voted against it.

How can the market work in his "libertarian" proponents' favor if people have the information to make a free market function.

If people want their food products certified in a certain way and are willing to pay what it costs then the market will provide this service. These laws are both redundant and an infringement on property rights. This is Ron Paul's perspective and I totally agree with his vote.

Sorry that's doing it backwards.  If you are being sold something, you deserve to be told what's in it.  You are free not to read it, but that is your choice.  If the product does not have facts that you need to know on the packaging, you never get the chance to make that choice.  

So why is it "backwards"? The market already solves the problem. You haven't actually made a counter argument, just restated your case. People will have labels if they are willing to pay the premium for labels. If they aren't willing to pay the cost, then what's the point in forcing them to pay for something that they don't want?

Why are you "free not to read it"? If you don't have the facts that you need to know on the packaging, you never get the chance to make that choice. The only solution is to use the states monopoly of violence to force people to read the labels, right? People are also free to not buy a product without a label on it. On one side you advocate personal responsibility and on the other hand you advocate coercion by the state.

[sadpandatech]

Of course he voted against it.

How can the market work in his "libertarian" proponents' favor if people have the information to make a free market function.

If people want their food products certified in a certain way and are willing to pay what it costs then the market will provide this service. These laws are both redundant and an infringement on property rights. This is Ron Paul's perspective and I totally agree with his vote.

Sorry that's doing it backwards.  If you are being sold something, you deserve to be told what's in it.  You are free not to read it, but that is your choice.  If the product does not have facts that you need to know on the packaging, you never get the chance to make that choice.  

You completely have the choice to not buy it..  The government should be doing nothing but making sure that what a company would choose to put on its label is factual. If the people want companies to print specific things on the labels then it's the peoples responsibilty to either not buy those products or refuse to do so until the company provides the product they want, not the governments...

Wouldn't it make more sense just to allow non-GMO food producers to label their products as such, and market the idea of non-GMO products being superior to consumers? Is that not currently allowed?

+1 to this.

[sadpandatech]

Wouldn't it make more sense just to allow non-GMO food producers to label their products as such, and market the idea of non-GMO products being superior to consumers? Is that not currently allowed?

I seem to recall a ban on "GMO free" labeling. Not sure if it was nation-wide or not.

Americans who export food to the UK are not allowed to separate GMO foods and not allowed to say what % is GMO. 

That seems so fucked up. Under what guise could such a law be allowed to be made?  UK should ban American imported food unless it can be known what is in it. Speak with your wallets people, it's the only language they know!

[Hawker]

Wouldn't it make more sense just to allow non-GMO food producers to label their products as such, and market the idea of non-GMO products being superior to consumers? Is that not currently allowed?

I seem to recall a ban on "GMO free" labeling. Not sure if it was nation-wide or not.

Americans who export food to the UK are not allowed to separate GMO foods and not allowed to say what % is GMO. 

That seems so fucked up. Under what guise could such a law be allowed to be made?  UK should ban American imported food unless it can be known what is in it. Speak with your wallets people, it's the only language they know!

http://agbioforum.org/v10n1/v10n1a06-gruere.htm

"These outcomes show that in developed countries, thus far, mandatory labeling has failed to provide consumer information and consumer choice. Before the regulations, consumers did not know about GM content, while after implementation of the regulations they do not know more, but all products are basically non–GM (or only contain accidental GM traces under the threshold level)."

Essentially if you tell people that the food has GM content, it gets rejects so the law was made to prevent people from knowing.