Was Rand Paul Right to Vote Against Mandated Labeling of GMOs?
Rand Paul’s recent NO vote on a bill requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods is causing quite a stir in the Ron Paul community. Over at the Daily Paul, a very heated exchange is underway including comments like this from ‘freetoroam,’
“He (Rand Paul) is a disaster and votes like this drive good Americans away from the Liberty movement.”
Another trusted libertarian site, The Humble Libertarian, posted the following,
As if Rand Paul’s credibility with liberty activist isn’t already badly tarnished, he voted NO on a bill to require GMO food labeling. This is a very important issue and an issue that crosses party lines. Folks have an absolute right (emphasis mine) to know what they are eating.
An “absolute right,” seriously?
When did the federal government gain such a great track-record that we would trust them to tell us when food items are safe? This might be a good time to remember just why Dr. Paul earned that nickname of “Dr. No.” (Here’s a hint. He didn’t get it by voting for feel-good legislation in the name of “safety.”) I’m unaware if Ron Paul has commented on this issue recently, but I see no reason to believe he has reversed his position since providing the following comments to vote-tx.org in 2008,
The federal government lacks constitutional authority to mandate labeling of products containing genetically-modified food. Furthermore, those who do not wish to consume genetically-modified products should be leery of federally-mandated labeling because history shows that federal regulatory agencies are susceptible to ‘capture,’ where the regulators end up serving the interest of the business they are supposed to control. In the case of labeling, federal agencies could redefine the meaning of ‘modified’ to allow genetically-engineered food on the market without fully-informing consumers of the presence of genetically- engineered ingredients. Instead of federal regulation, consumers should demand that manufactures provide full information and refuse to buy those products that are not fully labeled. Once producers see there is a demand for non-genetically-engineered products they will act to fulfill that demand. Of course, makers of genetically-engineered food should be held legally responsible if they fraudulently market their products or harm anyone. – Ron Paul
Obviously the safety of the food we consume is of utmost importance–and I would argue that it’s of such great importance that we should never let government get their grubby hands anywhere near the issue! Regardless, surely we can come up with some creative free-market solutions to these dilemmas?
UPDATE: Since writing this article, Senator Rand Paul posted the link to this story on his Facebook page along with the following statement:
I am an opponent of the FDA’s war on natural foods and farmers. I’ve stood up for raw milk, hemp and natural supplements. I fought to take power AWAY from the government on these issues. So while there is evidence we should be concerned about GMOs, we should also be careful not to lose our constitutional perspective simply because the end result is one we may desire. That’s what we fight against. That’s what the statists do. Take a look at a pretty thorough rundown on the recent GMO amendment. There were many more problems with it, including the potential the FDA could have assumed broad new rule-making authority if this badly written amendment had passed.
The Token Libertarian Girl has been kind enough to mention a few ideas in her recent video that I’ll pass along:
Find out more about non-GMO verified products at www.nongmoproject.org/. Shop at Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods and encourage other companies to follow their example of complete transparency on this issue.
We need to work together for creative free-market solutions to this problem and a whole host of others–and some of us need to try out our new libertarian and limited government muscles!
– Aaron Jones
What are your thoughts on this issue and what are some free-market solutions? (I hope my friend doesn’t mind me using his photo of home-grown potatoes!)
Republican Convention Update:
I’m teaming up with an incredible photographer to bring you great coverage of the Ron Paul grassroots movement and the convention. Click here to see examples of our work and to make a donation. We will also be providing activism training resources with your help!
please dont post this chicks obnoxious videos ever again
He should have voted yes. Voting no because of the “possibility” that the FED will rewrite definitions is complete bull—-. Yes, it’s possible that could happen. But GMO labeling could SAVE LIVES right now.
I don’t want to have a Federal Government. And I don’t want them in my business. But they’re here, so except it Rand Paul. And while they’re here lets try to get them to do something useful until we have a decent president, if that ever happens.
And of course people that are seriously concerned with GMOs should still continue to grow their own food, but for people that don’t know about GMOs, labeling is very important. I officially have nothing good to say about you anymore.
Oh, and that gmoproject is bullshit if you ask me….all they are saying is that they “aim” for non gmo….so when I see a non organic package of vegan cheese soymilk in it, and that friendly little nongmo project stamp, I want to just buy it….but that stamp doesn’t guarantee anything, it just gets more people to buy gmos..
Just because the government does not have a terrific track record does not mean that it should be circumvented all together, rather it means that as a people we need to be proactive in demanding improvement. This comes in the form of the protection of the rights of the people it represents. In this case the people have the right to be informed about what they are purchasing. I believe that the rights of the people is a libertarian virtue that has been ignored with Mr. Paul’s vote.
In short: I agree with you.
Here the right to know comes from making everyone pay more. That is not Libertarian. Simply require that producers be truthful when asked. Do not add a bunch of labeling requirements. If you care, you ask. Not a burden on everyone!
Just get rid of the GMO crop altogether. Problem solved!
Labeling requirements can be very expensive and are sometimes excessive. If you have a particular requirement, it is likely that he producers who meet that requirement will let you know that they do. Why burden every producer with a requirement and raise everyone’s cost when many don’t care. You want specialty foods, go to your healthfood store. Don’t burden everyone. And natural foods get kind of hard to label. You force them into packaging just to meet a label requirement and the costs go up and we waste packaging material.
The video makes sense and is consistent with my views on a free market approach to gmo labels: http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2012/06/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html
He was correct to vote NO. Mandatory labeling and or any government mandate on the private sector places additional costs on the businesses both and usually entails the creation of new bureaucrats to enforce the new law. There could very easily be a private food monitoring company that grocery stores and restaurants and individuals could pay to research food quality that would, by nature of being private and not public, do a much better job at a lower price to customers. Voting YES for this bill would be voting YES for bigger government and more burdensome government interventions into private businesses.
Somehow we’ve gotten the responsibilities reversed: it’s incumbent upon the BUYER to know what they are buying. Requiring the seller to disclose whatever it is you are looking for simply gives you a false sense of security. Especially from a government agency! Talk about the definition of insanity…
If a seller will put poison in a product and not tell you in the first place, why would we believe that seller will suddenly come 100% clean when required by law? I work in real estate… any buyer who believes everything the seller says is going to be surprised. Sellers of everything tell you only what they have to. (If you don’t believe that, read some sales books.) Not because sellers are necessarily dishonest, but because they are protecting their pocketbooks. You are in charge of protecting your own.