Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Investors drove down the price of Monsanto shares by 4 percent on Friday as South Korea joined Japan in suspending imports of U.S. wheat after an unapproved strain of genetically modified wheat was discovered in a field in eastern Oregon."
And in the land of the FREE we can't even get labeling???
No, because we have a Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech, so mandating a "stigmitizing" label on a food product without compelling scientific evidence to support the action violates the company's freedom of speech by forcing them to say what they do not want to say.
That's the reasoning a Federal Court cited in striking down the previous very similar mandatory labeling law, in Vermont, regarding rBGH used in milk production, and that law fell.
So in my opinion the anti-GMO activists have actually become their own enemy in this effort. They've become so successful at creating the impression that GMOs are somehow dangerous, despite substantial credible scientific evidence that it's true, that they've made the label too pejorative to be fair. For 90% of the American public right now, putting a GMO label on food would be tantamount to putting a skull & crossbones on it.
20 years ago, before this had all become such a polarized issue, anti-GMO activists might have gotten GMO labelling enacted. But the activists oversold their case, and "poisoned the well," so today, I feel that even a federal law to this effect would fail on the Constitutional grounds mentioned earlier.
Personally I think the smart strategy for the movement to pursue is to encourage food producers to switch to GMO free foods and to label their products "GMO free." That's legal, and Constitutional, and would allow the free market system to work as it is supposed to.
No, because we have a Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech, so mandating a "stigmitizing" label on a food product without compelling scientific evidence to support the action violates the company's freedom of speech by forcing them to say what they do not want to say.
That's the reasoning a Federal Court cited in striking down the previous very similar mandatory labeling law, in Vermont, regarding rBGH used in milk production, and that law fell.
So in my opinion the anti-GMO activists have actually become their own enemy in this effort. They've become so successful at creating the impression that GMOs are somehow dangerous, despite substantial credible scientific evidence that it's true, that they've made the label too pejorative to be fair. For 90% of the American public right now, putting a GMO label on food would be tantamount to putting a skull & crossbones on it.
20 years ago, before this had all become such a polarized issue, anti-GMO activists might have gotten GMO labelling enacted. But the activists oversold their case, and "poisoned the well," so today, I feel that even a federal law to this effect would fail on the Constitutional grounds mentioned earlier.
Personally I think the smart strategy for the movement to pursue is to encourage food producers to switch to GMO free foods and to label their products "GMO free." That's legal, and Constitutional, and would allow the free market system to work as it is supposed to.
their demonization has certainly been very successful.
Firstly -- It is arguable that the Supreme Court granted full First Amendment rights to corporations when they allowed corporations to donate campaign contributions. As yet, a corporation's "right to free speech" (under corporate personhood) has not been tested in the Supreme Court... so a mandatory labeling requirement may not be considered an infringement of said right or that corporations are even extended that right.
The right to free speech does not extend to commercial speech... if it did, the Truth in Advertising laws could not have passed, nor any of the nurmerous Deceptive Trade Practice protection acts.
Secondly -- Just because the US Second Circuit Court declared it "unconstitional" for Vermont to require rBGH labeling does not mean it has been determined to be an unconstitutional violation of rights because 2nd Circuit Court does NOT have the authority to determine whether something is unconstititional or not (that sole authority is held by the Supreme Court).
In a reverse case (arguing that the right to label was unconstitutional), the US Sixth Circuit Court found in favor of Ohio, which allowed corporations to label their milk rBGH-free. Instead of mandating that companies label that their milk contains rBGH, they instead allowed companies to label their milk rBGH-free.
Thirdly -- it is outside the authority of the Federal government under The U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8) to interfere with a State's rule as long as the commerce is intrastate and/or only enforced intrastate. The Federal government and it's agents (i.e. the FDA & USDA) only have jurisdiction over interstate and international commerce. (which is what the Sixth Circuit Court upheld)
Fourthly - stigma and connotation is not recognized under the rule of law, a statement is either true or untrue (libel/slander). Requiring a company to state their product contains GMO when it does, in fact, contain GMO violates no laws... it's neither libel, slander nor false advertising. Companies who argue that the requirement would cause damage due to stigma must prove to the court the it will indeed cause damage.
So, it looks as if the only option would be for a GMO certification process to be developed and companies to begin labeling their goods as certified GMO-free so that concerned consumers can either purchase a labeled product, or take their chances that an unlabeled product may contain GMO. Either that, or more States challenge the Feds jurisdictional overstepping and assert their intrastate sovreignty.
ETA: for those who espouse the extensions of all rights of citizens to corporate personages... remember that citizens also have the 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms, and the 1st Amendment right to Assemble. Which means that corporations could legally raise their own private militia.......
Last edited by MissingAll4Seasons; 06-04-2013 at 01:54 AM..
Yaknow, if the anti-GM anti-technology gaggle were to use truth(s) instead of deception, lies, mistruths and FUD maybe this GM labeling would be a non-issue....
The anti-GM anti-technology gaggle couldn't care less about the millions who will not starve to death because of GM crops, they couldn't care less about the reduced use of pesticides in crops they couldn't care less that crops can now be planted in areas that were once barren wastelands...
Nope, all they want is more "studies" more "research" - They want 100% proof that GM crops are not harmful to any individual anywhere on the planet Earth... Forget the fact that something, somewhere on planet Earth is fatal to someone...
The anti-GM anti-technology gaggle, the standard-bearers of the double standard...
You want "... the anti-GM anti-technology gaggle were to use truth(s) instead of deception, lies, mistruths ..."
Then in the same post you say: "... the millions who will not starve to death because of GM crops ..."
Seems rather hypocritical.
Not really, if you had been following this entire thread you would have read about the people who will not starve because of GM crops and technology.....
You would also have read (from numerous accredited sources) the fact that GM crop plantings have steadily been increasing year by year....
Apologies to all for having to repost this yet again....
What the GM phobic seem to be ignorant and oblivious to:
Quote:
Blindness from lack of dietary vitamin A is a problem in many developing countries. The Rockefeller Foundation has estimated that 400 million people worldwide were negatively affected by a lack of the vitamin. So they teamed up with the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and in 2000 developed a rice seed with vitamin A and beta-carotene from carrots.
Because golden rice was created by the foundation, a nonprofit organization, the seed is open-source and available to everyone without cost. This is notable because most biotechnology is lucrative, and agricultural science companies like Monsanto and Cargill make a lot of money off their patented seeds. That's another big criticism of GM foods: that they take something from the earth and turn it into intellectual property. The golden rice seed is an example of how that can be avoided.
Subsidizing crops causes more of those crops to be grown.
Also Farm subsidies artificially lower the prices of those foods. In a free market system non-subsidized crops have a hard time competing. Ed Butz was an idiot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good for them!
