Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Add "FOOD DEMOCRACY NOW" To Causes

Expand Messages
  • Roderick Long
    This topic is covered very informatively here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy6uLfermPU ... From: Charles Johnson Subject: Re:
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 2, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      This topic is covered very informatively here:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy6uLfermPU


      --- On Tue, 2/1/11, Charles Johnson <groups.to.read@...> wrote:

      From: Charles Johnson <groups.to.read@...>
      Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Add "FOOD DEMOCRACY NOW" To Causes
      To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2011, 8:56 PM

      On 02/01/2011 09:56 AM, Dan wrote:
      > What does that mean in practice? That the government should enforce,
      > say, certain labeling rules?
      >
      > I think that people should not lie to me. Does that mean people who lie
      > to me should be tracked down and punished by the state?

      I agree that labeling rules should not be enforced by the State.

      In a freed-market jurisprudence, though, it seems like it's an open
      question (probably one which will be settled in different ways by
      different courts) how much labeling, and in what forms, is necessary to
      avoid charges of fraud. Suppose, for example, you sell a chair which,
      randomly, explodes into flame just as the seated person is getting
      really comfortable. If you then sell it as a "chair," without any
      further labeling and without mentioning the explosion part, this would
      seem to be a form of fraud and would almost certainly be actionable.
      Presumably enforcement would take the form of after-the-fact lawsuits
      for damages, or the threat of such a lawsuit, rather than ex-ante
      labeling mandates or prohibitions. On the other hand, if you sell a
      chair which happens to be made out of pine wood, and sell it as a
      "chair," without any further labeling about the materials, then it would
      presumably not be fraud if someone buys it, not realizing that it is
      pine, and is now dissatisfied because they have a religious objection to
      sitting on things made from pine trees -- in this case, if the customer
      had such specific requirements about what the chair should be made out
      of, they probably should have held out for a chair that was more
      extensively labeled, or asked for assurances from the seller.

      In general, it seems like labeling may be required to avoid fraudulent
      sales if the features are (1) exceptional, (2) significant, (3)
      potentially harmful to the customer's satisfactory use of the product,
      (4) not likely to be expected by a "reasonable person," etc. But all of
      these allow for a lot of fuzziness and local variation. So, to return to
      the case of genetically-modified foods, does that count? Presumably part
      of this depends on how many potential buyers care about whether or not
      their food is GMO-free, and how much they care; whether or not they are
      likely to expect it to be GMO-free if it's not labeled as GMO; etc. But
      none of these are hard-and-fast fixed features; they are likely to vary
      from market to market, likely to vary over time, and, for that matter,
      are things which might change as part of the transitional process when
      people shift over from a tightly-regulated food market (where the
      default assumption is usually that if something is not listed, it's not
      in there) to a freed food market (where there might be much more
      cultural shift towards caveat emptor).

      -C


      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LeftLibertarian2/

      <*> Your email settings:
          Individual Email | Traditional

      <*> To change settings online go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LeftLibertarian2/join
          (Yahoo! ID required)

      <*> To change settings via email:
          LeftLibertarian2-digest@yahoogroups.com
          LeftLibertarian2-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          LeftLibertarian2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

    • Dan Clore
      ... Some problems I have with this issue: (1) Outright use of the state by corps to eliminate competition from non-GMO products. E.g., Monsanto sued against
      Message 2 of 11 , Feb 2, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Dan wrote:
        >
        > While I'm no friend of big agribiz, I'm not sure that GMOs must be
        > banned outright. I don't equate "organic" with "decent human
        > virtues." That said, I usually do eat organic, but that's a personal
        > preference (and maybe a financial mistake:). I don't elevate it to an
        > ideological concern.
        >
        > And the libertarian thing to do here would be to remove all
        > government involvement in the good industry -- from its subsidies and
        > its regulations. Also, turn over government officials, from all
        > nations, involved in that industry to my team for processing. (Don't
        > be afraid here. Most of them will not be harmed too much.)

        Some problems I have with this issue:

        (1) Outright use of the state by corps to eliminate competition from
        non-GMO products. E.g., Monsanto sued against farmers who truthfully
        labeled milk as produced without use of artificial Bovine Growth
        Hormone. Monsanto claimed that this was "misleading", even though it was
        perfectly truthful. Or, Monsanto again, suing a farmer for stealing
        products the farmer didn't want, that had contaminated his crops due to
        windborn pollen. (Not to mention heavy government involvement in
        development of the products in the first place.)

        (2) The corps producing GMOs not only fail to test the safety of the
        products -- because this might reveal problems -- they use this failure
        to turn around and say that there's no evidence showing that they are
        dangerous. This half-truth is obviously intended to mislead people into
        thinking that the products are safe, which might -- and might not -- be
        true.

        (3) From a libertarian standpoint, consumers clearly need products to be
        clearly labeled. The market cannot work properly if consumers do not
        have this information. The problem is how this can be accomplished
        without government. Non-government certifiers can take care of this:
        this is already being done by, for example, Fair Trade certification,
        which among other things includes the environmental soundness of the
        method of production, not allowing use of GMO products. (And no, the
        Fair Trade products that I purchase do not usually cost any more than
        equivalent products. Sometimes they cost less, average is about the same.)

        --
        Dan Clore

        New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
        http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
        My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
        http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0035LTS0O
        Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
        http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
        News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

        Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
        immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
        -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
      • Dan
        That should have been food industry and not good industry  in my comment below. I m not sure how what you wrote responds to my points. I m not against
        Message 3 of 11 , Feb 3, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          That should have been "food industry" and not "good industry" in my comment below.
           
          I'm not sure how what you wrote responds to my points. I'm not against voluntary solutions to these issues -- just against the proposed "food democracy," which seems to me to be little more than having a different set of coercive solutions. In fact, the rant on it seemed more than shuffling which rules the state gets to enforce is the best way to resolve these problems.
           
          My experience is Fair Trade and organic products -- not I was discussing the latter and I think the original article was focusing on the latter too -- have higher prices on average and these are usually much higher than comparables. Then again, it depends on what you and I mean by comparable products. E.g., a good organic or fair trade dark chocolate bar seems to have higher prices to me than the cheapest dark chocolate on the market, but not than other gourmet dark chocolates. And there is a range of high prices amongst all of them. To use but one example, one particular dark chocolate bar I love is about 9 USD. Non-organic bars of the same size, which don't mention Fair Trade certification I've seen on the same shelf, go for under 3 USD. That's a big difference in price to me. Of course, most of the organic and even Fair Trade ones I've seen are just a little more expensive or overlap somewhat with the lower priced ones -- though, again, the difference in taste, for me, is significant. (But don't get the wrong idea here. I don't go around buying 9 USD of chocolate every single day. It's a special treat -- and, at that price, it's not going to ever be a daily one for me.)
           
          Also, regarding food safety, I don't doubt there's lying and deception here, but there's also, to be sure, an ideology aligned with "anything that has some genetic or chemical alteration is bad." Surely, you do see that? That doesn't mean I'm against voluntary certification and voluntary labeling. My guess is, though, that some of this is no different than kosher or halal labeling.
           
          Regards,
           
          Dan

          From: Dan Clore <clore@...>
          To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Wed, February 2, 2011 10:58:52 PM
          Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Add "FOOD DEMOCRACY NOW" To Causes
           

          Dan wrote:

          >
          > While I'm no friend of big agribiz, I'm not sure that GMOs must be
          > banned outright. I don't equate "organic" with "decent human
          > virtues." That said, I usually do eat organic, but that's a personal
          > preference (and maybe a financial mistake:). I don't elevate it to an
          > ideological concern.
          >
          > And the libertarian thing to do here would be to remove all
          > government involvement in the good industry -- from its subsidies and
          > its regulations. Also, turn over government officials, from all
          > nations, involved in that industry to my team for processing. (Don't
          > be afraid here. Most of them will not be harmed too much.)

          Some problems I have with this issue:

          (1) Outright use of the state by corps to eliminate competition from
          non-GMO products. E.g., Monsanto sued against farmers who truthfully
          labeled milk as produced without use of artificial Bovine Growth
          Hormone. Monsanto claimed that this was "misleading", even though it was
          perfectly truthful. Or, Monsanto again, suing a farmer for stealing
          products the farmer didn't want, that had contaminated his crops due to
          windborn pollen. (Not to mention heavy government involvement in
          development of the products in the first place.)

          (2) The corps producing GMOs not only fail to test the safety of the
          products -- because this might reveal problems -- they use this failure
          to turn around and say that there's no evidence showing that they are
          dangerous. This half-truth is obviously intended to mislead people into
          thinking that the products are safe, which might -- and might not -- be
          true.

          (3) From a libertarian standpoint, consumers clearly need products to be
          clearly labeled. The market cannot work properly if consumers do not
          have this information. The problem is how this can be accomplished
          without government. Non-government certifiers can take care of this:
          this is already being done by, for example, Fair Trade certification,
          which among other things includes the environmental soundness of the
          method of production, not allowing use of GMO products. (And no, the
          Fair Trade products that I purchase do not usually cost any more than
          equivalent products. Sometimes they cost less, average is about the same.)

          --
          Dan Clore

          New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
          http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
          My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
          http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0035LTS0O
          Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
          http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
          News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

          Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
          immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
          -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"


        • Mark
          Yes, I have no fundamental problem with GMO s, but the present corporations that produce Genetically Modified Organisms are ABSOLUTELY RUTHLESS with absolutely
          Message 4 of 11 , Feb 18, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Yes, I have no fundamental problem with GMO's, but the present corporations that produce Genetically Modified Organisms are ABSOLUTELY RUTHLESS with absolutely no regard for human live and basic human decency!!!  This is why there should be AN ABSOLUTE BAN (!!!) ON GMO's by consumers like you!  You must see DAVID VS MONSANTO!  http://tinyurl.com/2buysru  Presently *USDA_Organic* among other things certifies that the food is NOT GENETICALLY MODIFIED (though GMO corporations want to change that).  And as Dan mentions apparently *Fair_Trade* certification does also.  I would strongly urge that all here take that into consideration when purchasing your food, and TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS TO DO THE SAME AND TELL ALL THEIR FRIENDS TO DO THE SAME AND TELL ALL THEIR FRIENDS...!!!  
            |
            I have had an idea in consideration that possibly if most items you buy could be purchased on the internet (not necessarily foods) then perhaps we could use that to support products that are worker owned (since worker owned and produced retailers/marketplaces are not common), perhaps internet worker-owned retailer(s) so that when you purchase items there they to the extent possible go to worker-owned and more friendly to worker-owned products/causes, and at least would support a worker-owned internet retailer(s).  Which could then drive worker-owned markets to become local and common!!!
            Mark



            --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Dan Clore <clore@...> wrote:
            >
            > Dan wrote:
            > >
            > > While I'm no friend of big agribiz, I'm not sure that GMOs must be
            > > banned outright. I don't equate "organic" with "decent human
            > > virtues." That said, I usually do eat organic, but that's a personal
            > > preference (and maybe a financial mistake:). I don't elevate it to an
            > > ideological concern.
            > >
            > > And the libertarian thing to do here would be to remove all
            > > government involvement in the good industry -- from its subsidies and
            > > its regulations. Also, turn over government officials, from all
            > > nations, involved in that industry to my team for processing. (Don't
            > > be afraid here. Most of them will not be harmed too much.)
            >
            > Some problems I have with this issue:
            >
            > (1) Outright use of the state by corps to eliminate competition from
            > non-GMO products. E.g., Monsanto sued against farmers who truthfully
            > labeled milk as produced without use of artificial Bovine Growth
            > Hormone. Monsanto claimed that this was "misleading", even though it was
            > perfectly truthful. Or, Monsanto again, suing a farmer for stealing
            > products the farmer didn't want, that had contaminated his crops due to
            > windborn pollen. (Not to mention heavy government involvement in
            > development of the products in the first place.)
            >
            > (2) The corps producing GMOs not only fail to test the safety of the
            > products -- because this might reveal problems -- they use this failure
            > to turn around and say that there's no evidence showing that they are
            > dangerous. This half-truth is obviously intended to mislead people into
            > thinking that the products are safe, which might -- and might not -- be
            > true.
            >
            > (3) From a libertarian standpoint, consumers clearly need products to be
            > clearly labeled. The market cannot work properly if consumers do not
            > have this information. The problem is how this can be accomplished
            > without government. Non-government certifiers can take care of this:
            > this is already being done by, for example, Fair Trade certification,
            > which among other things includes the environmental soundness of the
            > method of production, not allowing use of GMO products. (And no, the
            > Fair Trade products that I purchase do not usually cost any more than
            > equivalent products. Sometimes they cost less, average is about the same.)
            >
            > --
            > Dan Clore
            >
            > New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
            > http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
            > My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
            > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0035LTS0O
            > Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
            > http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
            > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
            >
            > Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
            > immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
            > -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
            >
          • Dan
            I m glad to hear you have no fundamental problem with genetically modified foods. Are you also for removing all government involvement in the good industry?
            Message 5 of 11 , Feb 18, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              I'm glad to hear you have no "fundamental problem" with genetically modified foods. Are you also for removing all government involvement in the good industry? Or do you just want them to be involved in a way that suits your tastes?
               
              I'm not sure about encouraging "worker-owned" this or that. Nothing against it per se, but I don't have a dog in that fight.
               
              By the way, I don't agree with Dan Clore below. Specifically, I don't think "consumers clearly need products to be clearly labeled" or that the "market cannot work properly if consumers do not have this information." Instead, I think what happens when one allows people to freely interact is they can decide what they want here. If, for example, they care that food is, say, "kosher," then they will demand this and this will be an invitation for entrepreneurs to provide ways of letting them know their products are kosher. The same applies to worker-owned, non-GMO, non-irradiated, and so forth. But this will likely, on a truly free market, not result in extensive labeling, but labeling targetted to specific individuals or groups -- and there will probably be lots of items that lack any labeling or don't label the specific things you care about. In other words, those folks who want to buy only from, say, worker-owned firms will likely get their labeling, but those folks who don't give a rat's ass won't necessarily clamour for labels stating, "made in a non-worker-owned factory."
               
              Regards,
               
              Dan
              From: Mark <gawwwrrsh@...>
              To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Fri, February 18, 2011 4:29:17 AM
              Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Add "FOOD DEMOCRACY NOW" To Causes

               
              Yes, I have no fundamental problem with GMO's, but the present corporations that produce Genetically Modified Organisms are ABSOLUTELY RUTHLESS with absolutely no regard for human live and basic human decency!!!  This is why there should be AN ABSOLUTE BAN (!!!) ON GMO's by consumers like you!  You must see DAVID VS MONSANTO!  http://tinyurl.com/2buysru  Presently *USDA_Organic* among other things certifies that the food is NOT GENETICALLY MODIFIED (though GMO corporations want to change that).  And as Dan mentions apparently *Fair_Trade* certification does also.  I would strongly urge that all here take that into consideration when purchasing your food, and TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS TO DO THE SAME AND TELL ALL THEIR FRIENDS TO DO THE SAME AND TELL ALL THEIR FRIENDS...!!!  
              |
              I have had an idea in consideration that possibly if most items you buy could be purchased on the internet (not necessarily foods) then perhaps we could use that to support products that are worker owned (since worker owned and produced retailers/marketplaces are not common), perhaps internet worker-owned retailer(s) so that when you purchase items there they to the extent possible go to worker-owned and more friendly to worker-owned products/causes, and at least would support a worker-owned internet retailer(s).  Which could then drive worker-owned markets to become local and common!!!
              Mark



              --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Dan Clore <clore@...> wrote:
              >
              > Dan wrote:
              > >
              > > While I'm no friend of big agribiz, I'm not sure that GMOs must be
              > > banned outright. I don't equate "organic" with "decent human
              > > virtues." That said, I usually do eat organic, but that's a personal
              > > preference (and maybe a financial mistake:). I don't elevate it to an
              > > ideological concern.
              > >
              > > And the libertarian thing to do here would be to remove all
              > > government involvement in the good industry -- from its subsidies and
              > > its regulations. Also, turn over government officials, from all
              > > nations, involved in that industry to my team for processing. (Don't
              > > be afraid here. Most of them will not be harmed too much.)
              >
              > Some problems I have with this issue:
              >
              > (1) Outright use of the state by corps to eliminate competition from
              > non-GMO products. E.g., Monsanto sued against farmers who truthfully
              > labeled milk as produced without use of artificial Bovine Growth
              > Hormone. Monsanto claimed that this was "misleading", even though it was
              > perfectly truthful. Or, Monsanto again, suing a farmer for stealing
              > products the farmer didn't want, that had contaminated his crops due to
              > windborn pollen. (Not to mention heavy government involvement in
              > development of the products in the first place.)
              >
              > (2) The corps producing GMOs not only fail to test the safety of the
              > products -- because this might reveal problems -- they use this failure
              > to turn around and say that there's no evidence showing that they are
              > dangerous. This half-truth is obviously intended to mislead people into
              > thinking that the products are safe, which might -- and might not -- be
              > true.
              >
              > (3) From a libertarian standpoint, consumers clearly need products to be
              > clearly labeled. The market cannot work properly if consumers do not
              > have this information. The problem is how this can be accomplished
              > without government. Non-government certifiers can take care of this:
              > this is already being done by, for example, Fair Trade certification,
              > which among other things includes the environmental soundness of the
              > method of production, not allowing use of GMO products. (And no, the
              > Fair Trade products that I purchase do not usually cost any more than
              > equivalent products. Sometimes they cost less, average is about the same.)
              >
              > --
              > Dan Clore
              >
              > New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
              > http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
              > My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
              > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0035LTS0O
              > Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
              > http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
              > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
              >
              > Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
              > immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
              > -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"

            • Joshua Katz
              You know, I happen to have a little background knowledge on kosher foods. The market for kosher foods is rife with corruption. However, no matter how troubled
              Message 6 of 11 , Feb 18, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                You know, I happen to have a little background knowledge on kosher foods.  The market for kosher foods is rife with corruption.  However, no matter how troubled it is now, it used to be much worse.  There used to be kosher food laws in NY.  At that time, you couldn't reliably get kosher food at all. Most food labelled as kosher was not kosher.  That's why Jews who, in Europe, would not have been particular about 'glatt kosher' began to eat only glatt food in NY - the glatt designation was outside the laws.

                On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
                 

                I'm glad to hear you have no "fundamental problem" with genetically modifeied foods. Are you also for removing all government involvement in the good industry? Or do you just want them to be involved in a way that suits your tastes?
                 
                I'm not sure about encouraging "worker-owned" this or that. Nothing against it per se, but I don't have a dog in that fight.
                 
                By the way, I don't agree with Dan Clore below. Specifically, I don't think "consumers clearly need products to be clearly labeled" or that the "market cannot work properly if consumers do not have this information." Instead, I think what happens when one allows people to freely interact is they can decide what they want here. If, for example, they care that food is, say, "kosher," then they will demand this and this will be an invitation for entrepreneurs to provide ways of letting them know their products are kosher. The same applies to worker-owned, non-GMO, non-irradiated, and so forth. But this will likely, on a truly free market, not result in extensive labeling, but labeling targetted to specific individuals or groups -- and there will probably be lots of items that lack any labeling or don't label the specific things you care about. In other words, those folks who want to buy only from, say, worker-owned firms will likely get their labeling, but those folks who don't give a rat's ass won't necessarily clamour for labels stating, "made in a non-worker-owned factory."
                 
                Regards,
                 
                Dan
                From: Mark <gawwwrrsh@...>
                To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Fri, February 18, 2011 4:29:17 AM
                Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Add "FOOD DEMOCRACY NOW" To Causes

                 
                Yes, I have no fundamental problem with GMO's, but the present corporations that produce Genetically Modified Organisms are ABSOLUTELY RUTHLESS with absolutely no regard for human live and basic human decency!!!  This is why there should be AN ABSOLUTE BAN (!!!) ON GMO's by consumers like you!  You must see DAVID VS MONSANTO!  http://tinyurl.com/2buysru  Presently *USDA_Organic* among other things certifies that the food is NOT GENETICALLY MODIFIED (though GMO corporations want to change that).  And as Dan mentions apparently *Fair_Trade* certification does also.  I would strongly urge that all here take that into consideration when purchasing your food, and TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS TO DO THE SAME AND TELL ALL THEIR FRIENDS TO DO THE SAME AND TELL ALL THEIR FRIENDS...!!!  
                |
                I have had an idea in consideration that possibly if most items you buy could be purchased on the internet (not necessarily foods) then perhaps we could use that to support products that are worker owned (since worker owned and produced retailers/marketplaces are not common), perhaps internet worker-owned retailer(s) so that when you purchase items there they to the extent possible go to worker-owned and more friendly to worker-owned products/causes, and at least would support a worker-owned internet retailer(s).  Which could then drive worker-owned markets to become local and common!!!
                Mark



                --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Dan Clore <clore@...> wrote:
                >
                > Dan wrote:
                > >
                > > While I'm no friend of big agribiz, I'm not sure that GMOs must be
                > > banned outright. I don't equate "organic" with "decent human
                > > virtues." That said, I usually do eat organic, but that's a personal
                > > preference (and maybe a financial mistake:). I don't elevate it to an
                > > ideological concern.
                > >
                > > And the libertarian thing to do here would be to remove all
                > > government involvement in the good industry -- from its subsidies and
                > > its regulations. Also, turn over government officials, from all
                > > nations, involved in that industry to my team for processing. (Don't
                > > be afraid here. Most of them will not be harmed too much.)
                >
                > Some problems I have with this issue:
                >
                > (1) Outright use of the state by corps to eliminate competition from
                > non-GMO products. E.g., Monsanto sued against farmers who truthfully
                > labeled milk as produced without use of artificial Bovine Growth
                > Hormone. Monsanto claimed that this was "misleading", even though it was
                > perfectly truthful. Or, Monsanto again, suing a farmer for stealing
                > products the farmer didn't want, that had contaminated his crops due to
                > windborn pollen. (Not to mention heavy government involvement in
                > development of the products in the first place.)
                >
                > (2) The corps producing GMOs not only fail to test the safety of the
                > products -- because this might reveal problems -- they use this failure
                > to turn around and say that there's no evidence showing that they are
                > dangerous. This half-truth is obviously intended to mislead people into
                > thinking that the products are safe, which might -- and might not -- be
                > true.
                >
                > (3) From a libertarian standpoint, consumers clearly need products to be
                > clearly labeled. The market cannot work properly if consumers do not
                > have this information. The problem is how this can be accomplished
                > without government. Non-government certifiers can take care of this:
                > this is already being done by, for example, Fair Trade certification,
                > which among other things includes the environmental soundness of the
                > method of production, not allowing use of GMO products. (And no, the
                > Fair Trade products that I purchase do not usually cost any more than
                > equivalent products. Sometimes they cost less, average is about the same.)
                >
                > --
                > Dan Clore
                >
                > New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
                > http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
                > My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
                > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0035LTS0O
                > Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
                > http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
                > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
                >
                > Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
                > immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
                > -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"



              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.