Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation

From: Leigh S.
Sent on: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 1:45 PM
Cameron,
 
I answered your message to David because it was handy and I had something to say.  I understand you weren't directing it at me.
 
No, I don't believe the initiative will accomplish all that its supporters believe it will.  But its a start, and just as other movements from CA have moved across the country, I think this one will, too.  Someone mentioned in the last couple of days that they hadn't been familiar with the whole subject of GMO's, so I'm glad I began this thread.  At the very least this initiative will get the attention of food manufacturers who might consider producing healthier food.  I also believe it will hurt Monsanto, or else why would they contribute around $40 million to fight it.  I like knowing they are afraid.
 
Leigh
It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. Samuel Adams
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. Frederic Bastiat



From: Cameron Butler <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Mon, October 8,[masked]:32:31 PM
Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation

Leigh,
I think you missed that I was responding to David and his statement that he would support an outright ban on the basis that they are a dangerous food.  I definitely did not mean to imply that you were supporting a ban.  I did and do realize you are in favor of the mandatory labeling in Prop 37.
I was responding by pointing out other dangerous foods that could easily be banned if GMO foods are banned (on the basis of them being dangerous for human consumption).
"Your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins" -- yes, absolutely agreed.  But, your desire for greater choice extends to forcing manufacturers to add more labeling to their products...  
We are probably going around and around in circles, I just don't think it will accomplish what you hope and I think you already have the choice you are looking for.  Proponents of Prop 37 just want to find some way to "stick it" to Big Food, and I don't blame them one bit.  But you already know beyond a reasonable doubt that Corn Chex has GMO corn.  Basically, if it has corn or soy or canola oil (rapeseed) in the ingredient list, you can be pretty darn sure it has GMO ingredients unless it is certified to NOT have them by someone like the Non-GMO Project - http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/
-Cameron

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Leigh Skinner <[address removed]> wrote:
Cameron,
 
Prop 37 isn't about banning GMO's.  It is about informed consent in the maketplace.  Why is that anti-liberty?  Food manufacturers are welcome to put them in their product, just as I am free not to buy them.
 
I am allergic to cigarette smoke, but surprisingly enough, I am not for banning them outright.  I am glad resturants don't have smoking because "no smoking" sections didn't work as the smoke traveled all over the room.  Your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.  Sugary sodas list the sugar.  I buy virgil's zero root beer and zero cola which are sweetened with stevia.  Splenda, technical name sucralos, is quite dangerous three parts chlorine, one part sugar) but again, it is listed on the labels of products containing it.  
 
Leigh
It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. Samuel Adams
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. Frederic Bastiat



From: Cameron Butler <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Mon, October 8,[masked]:47:46 AM

Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation

David,

I would assume you are also in favor of the continued prohibition of drugs (a policy which is a "proven" failure) based on their deadly nature.  You might also be in favor of a ban on cigarettes.  Certainly though, you would support an outright ban on artificial sweeteners saccharine, aspartame, and splenda based on your "soft kill" criteria, but I would suspect perhaps sugary sodas could be included in that ban based on their contribution to obesity and diabetes and hastened mortality ("murder") from same.

In fact, I think you are missing the point.  We are not missing anything about how bad gmo food is.  Regardless of how dangerous it is, is it government's role to prevent people from eating it?  That is the question ultimately being posed.  

I know the argument is that when it comes to shooting up heroin, people know it is bad and dangerous but they do it anyway for a variety of reasons... and yet they don't know that the food contains gmo that can kill... I see this, to a point.  However, don't you think that people who are buying multiple 12-packs of sodas with HFCS and/or deadly artificial sweeteners know that the consumption of all of that crap is going to contribute to their early demise?  They do it anyway.  

Let's look at this another way.  Is it really the warning label on cigarettes that stops ANYONE from smoking?  Or is it a changed cultural understanding.  The labeling came as a result of the dialogue.  So will labeling without widespread awareness really do anything?  Its not going to have skull and crossbones alongside "GMO", is it?  

Here's another key -- ultimately, you will be trusting the GOVERNMENT to make sure major manufacturers are identifying GMO in their products.  Just like the FDA keeps an eye on pharmaceutical giants to make sure we are getting safe drugs.  And since we cannot trust the government, those of us who are already aware of the dangers of GMO will be relying on independent organizations to alternately certify or cross-test these products.  So why not just rely on those more trustworthy entities to begin with???

On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 11:38 AM, david <[address removed]> wrote:
The point that everyone seems to be missing is that gmo foods kill. Plain and simple. They are being sold as gras and equal to natural foods when science has proven otherwise. Deadly "food" is being purposely placed into the food supply. I would even support a government ban on gmo foods, proven to be deadly, from ever being sold in the first place. I guess I have to settle for labels.

The term soft kill applies since the effects take time to materialize but by the time they do, it's too late. I challenge anyone to deny that this is a form of murder.

Do you oppose Murder? Murder is murder whether it is instant or pro-longed, correct?

There is nothing that can be said to dispute this.



From: Cameron Butler <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Saturday, October 6,[masked]:54 PM

Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation

Its very difficult to certify corn and soybeans as organic, and I do not trust USDA organic certification at all, but there are multiple independent certifications for organic and non-GMO that I do trust.  But I do not see how having mandated labeling solves the issue you are describing.  So General Mills has to put on their box of Corn Chex that it is made with GMO corn - that in and of itself is good, but doesn't solve the issue you are describing.  I have watched and read lots of material on the dangers/issues of GMO, but I will watch the G. Edward Griffith clip.

In regards to your response to Ryan, I definitely do not see how this is akin to religious liberty/1st amendment rights.  It seems requiring additional labeling requirements by manufacturers/retailers would be more analogous to requiring churches to have government mandated disclosures about what kind of teaching or sect or denomination they represent ;-)

In Liberty,
Cameron


On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Leigh Skinner <[address removed]> wrote:
Cameron,

I understand where those who disagree with me on this are coming from.  My point is that there is no such thing as "certified" organic anymore unless the crop is grown in a hothouse.  That takes choice out of the picture.  I just sent out some links from G. Edward Griffith's "Realty Zone" on GMO's. Scientists and leaders in organic farming speak out about GMO's and whether to label them.   I suggest you watch and read them and then get back to me. 
 
Leigh
It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. Samuel Adams
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. Frederic Bastiat



From: Cameron Butler <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Sat, October 6,[masked]:39:46 AM

Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation

Leigh,

You and I have seen eye to eye on quite a number of issues and I'm completely with you as far as being anti-GMO.  I'm all about organic gardening, self-sufficiency, etc. etc.  But if it were true that "we are told this in many ways as we are growing up", and that were sufficient, then might it be true that there wouldn't be a pandemic of overconsumption of refined white sugar and HFCS beverages, not to mention the rampant consumption of dangerous artificial sweeteners.  
However, I think you missed my point - my point is where do you draw the line at using government to force manufacturers to do things?  Out of self-preservation I understand the desire to use a ballot initiative to stem the tide of GMO poison, I truly do.  But, my Coca Cola and white sugar example was to point out that labeling requirements due to dangers of food and substances can be taken to all kinds of extremes.

"Walmart has a limited number of organic, but what about their other choices" -- yes, most of the food they sell is laden with GMO grains and sweeteners, and can be considered dangerous food.  
The question here is: is it up to government (or the people to use government) to protect people from being uninformed, or is it up to people to become informed about what they eat and purchase food only from those manufacturers who fully disclose and certify what they are offering consumers?  What if there were no government mandated requirement to list ingredients at all?  How different would things really be?  The majority would march off happily to consume whatever is advertised and cheap, and the informed would only purchase products from manufacturers that label and certify their ingredients.
Even if you get mandatory GMO labeling, there will still be plenty of dangerous foods and additives where people need to inform themselves in order to avoid them.  Things like mandatory labeling and the FDA as a whole provide consumers with a false sense of security.  The misconception is that consumers do not have an informed choice and mandated labeling enhances liberty because it gives consumers choice.   I do not think this is so.  Consumers have a choice now - they can purchase products from manufacturers willing to certify their foods as GMO-free, or they can purchase products from manufacturers who will not (with the reasonable assumption that they contain GMO ingredients). So while my initial instinct was to wholeheartedly support mandated GMO labeling, based on the above reasons, I am tending to think it would not be the liberty approach (a top-down solution).

Respectfully,
Cameron


On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Leigh Skinner <[address removed]> wrote:
Cameron,
 
While Coke and refined white sugar are bad for one, we are told this in many ways as we are growing up.  GMO's are entirely different, as they are being presented publicly as just fine.  And the market approach will take a lot longer.  Walmart has a limited number or organic, but what about their other choices?  The commercials against Prop 37 are falsing saying it will drive up prices.  We already have food labeling, but a few things aren't included in the requirements.  Just how is it driving up prices to add two words, GMO corn, or GMO peaches, or whatever, to the list?
 
And one more thing.  As Ron Paul supporters, we believe in states rights.  Now here is CA voting, not a federal mandate.  Is it really wrong if the overwhelming majority of Californians vote to label GMO's?  Isn't such freedom what we've been campaigning for?
 
Leigh
It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. Samuel Adams
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. Frederic Bastiat



From: Cameron Butler <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Fri, October 5,[masked]:34:52 AM

Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation

Emotionally I tend to agree with all of the arguments for mandatory labeling.  However, couldn't one use the same arguments to contend that a health disclosure should be placed on a sack of refined white sugar, or a can of coca cola?  Those things (certainly at the level that the clear majority of americans consume them) are a serious health hazard in my estimation.

I wouldn't vehemently oppose GMO labeling, but wouldn't a liberty-consistent approach to this be that consumers choose not to purchase products that don't certify whether or not they contain GMO ingredients?  Sure, its more expensive than buying General Mills, Post, Kellogg, etc., but GMO garbage is cheap!  In many other first world nations they spend a much higher percentage of income on food than we do.  Healthy food is a choice.  For instance, when consumers voted with their pocketbook to get more organic, gluten free, etc. products, Walmart chose to carry more such items.  

Do I believe corporations can be influenced by or participate in a political agenda, even a nefarious agenda?  Yes, I do.  But I also believe they are primarily influenced by consumer demand.  If we demand real food through our purchasing decisions we don't need the nanny state government to protect us from the GMO Frankenfood.

Respectfully,
Cameron

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Rob Hanbury <[address removed]> wrote:
I don't live in east county but today was the first time in like a year where "chemtrails" really came across as blatant and in your face. 

To me, asking for mandatory labeling is against libertarian ideology, you're right Mike, but it's one of the few exceptions where I'm willing to abondon my philosophy for practical advancement, does it make me a hypocrite as a Ron Paul supporter? Perhaps. Oh well! It is a serious enough issue where I don't mind some requirements because the fraud these companies have committed has not resulted in any kind prosecution or forced them to change. Since we don't have a free market system, and since the general population is unaware of the fact the 60% of the things they eat are unfit for human consumption  I'm all for prop 37.

-Rob Hanbury



Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation
Date: Thu, 4 Oct[masked]:57:03 -0400


I'm voting YES too on Prop. 37. Had we known the stuff was in the corn my father wouldn't have eaten Corn Flakes every day for  years only to have cancer and other health issues. The stuff in the milk he drank from the cows they gave shots to in order to produce more milk probably killed him too.
 
Food today is NOT packaged like they did 10+ years ago. Crops are NOT grown the same with all the chemicals and pesticides. Sure if you eat it once or twice every month maybe no big deal but the older generation just eat plain foods and THIS plain, unlabeled processed food can KILL! I want to know if it is real or created in a lab. Then its MY choice to buy or not. If the gov't says its "safe" I believe the opposite!
 
FYI did you notice in the sky Chemtrails today in east county?
From: david <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Wednesday, October 3,[masked]:34 PM

Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation

GMO foods are an attack on everyone. GMO foods have been proven to cause tumors, cancers, etc..... and with that being the case, I would consider the labeling requirement a law a law that is "defensive in nature". I should at least be warned that I am eating poison when I crack open a box of Frosted Flakes. Should we not have the liberty to decide our own health? How is our liberty not protected then when we can be poisoned and not warned in advance? I see nothing wrong with transparency and full disclosure. I want the liberty to decide whether I eat good food or bad food but how can I tell the difference if the person selling the food is not honest about what is inside it? 

Correct me if I am wrong, this new law will require foods containing GMO's to be labeled. It mandates nothing of the opposite.

If the small farmer does not purchase GMO seeds then why would anyone bother coming up with an idea to mandate a label that says so. That is not what this proposition is about.

I am voting Yes on Prop 37 and below is an example why,

It's the same shit, just a different decade  




From: Mike Benoit <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Wednesday, October 3,[masked]:50 AM

Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation

"What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense" Laws are bad when they are a perversion of the definition above. We have a right to defend our rights with deadly force if need be and that right can be delegated as a power to government for the common application of this responsive force. Laws against murder, robbery, and rape are defensive in nature (they. They are not mandates (forcing people to do something). Forcing people or companies to label their products are a perversion, of law. You don't protect rights by violating rights. You have the right to buy or not buy any product that is out there. By claiming that people can force other people to do things against their will is a support for tyranny. What is tyranny? It is the taking control of something without the right to do so.

We can delegate to government only that which we have a right to do ourselves.

Now since some people are ready to take away liberty and property rights from other people I only hope they realize their own inconsistency and do not complain when others do it to them.

Of course we know that when you give up liberty for security you end up with neither. Laws like this hurt the little guys and justify government making it illegal to sell from your own garden. After all you don't have the label on. Special interest groups get waivers. Sometimes seed can travel in the wind and land on a farm where the farmer only planted heirloom seed yet some GMO seed made its way into his farm. So the products he produces and you eat have some gmo by accident.

Who shall police this new perversion of law? Who will get caught in the net? Will you be making sure all the restaurants only use non GMO or do you want the State that you are expanding to do that?


Mike



At 11:10 AM 10/3/2012, you wrote:
> In reference to the "libertarian" point of view... since when are all laws bad? Why would requiring a company to disclose ingredients to the consumer not allow for more choice, more competition and more integrity to commerce? From the "libertarian" point of view I would think this is a home run.
>
>
>
> From: Leigh Skinner <[address removed]>
> To: [address removed]

> Sent: Wednesday, October 3,[masked]:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation
>
> Snewbegin:
>
> There are other mandates that save lives, like laws against murder and robbery.  No mandates is anarchy.  Is that what you're after?
>
> But aside from that, people are dying from the FDA's actions, or rather inaction because of big corporations and congressional shortcomings.  In the meantime a non-government sponsored initiative, Prop 37, is on the ballot to try and contend with the FDA until it hopefully goes away someday.  I don't expect the government to enforce it, but it will give people like me the tools to sue if I am ever hurt by a manufacturer's unlisted GMO ingredients (if they are a significant percentage) and I can prove it.
>
> You, of course, are free to vote against it.  But someday the government will hit too close to home for you, and perhaps then you will understand that a narrow set of mandates does not take away your liberty.  And I notice that you haven't explained how labeling takes away your liberty?  Seems to me that it helps to inform us, and an informed citizenry is what will eventually set us free.  That is one of the main points of Audit the Fed, because when everyone learns what they are doing to this country, they will rebel and End the Fed.  In a similar way, when the population sees how much GMO's have taken over our food, both packaged and fresh, they will not be pleased.  Right now I argue with uninformed people about GMO's because they don't realize how prevalent they are.

>
> And as for Libertarian thought, I agree with much of it, but I believe there can occasionally be exceptions in extraordinary times.
>
>
>
> Leigh
> It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. Samuel Adams
> Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. Frederic Bastiat
>
>
>
> Cc: Leigh Skinner <[address removed]>

> Sent: Tue, October 2,[masked]:06:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [ronpaul-93] FDA bans natural vitamin B6 but allows GMO's & fluoridation
>
>
> ---- Leigh Skinner <<mailto:[address removed]>[address removed]> wrote:
> Leigh, from a libertarian point of view the FDA should not exist. Actually, it is the libertarians
> educating people on its principles that will make it not a fringe party.
> I understand your passion but someone else has a passion somewhere else
> that is requiring the government with its legalized violence to carry out its
> mandates. You need to read more Austrian economics and libertarian thought
> to see there is another way.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (<mailto:[address removed]>[address removed])
> This message was sent by Leigh Skinner ([address removed]) from <http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-93/>Ron Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.

> To learn more about Leigh Skinner, visit his/her <http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-93/members/4583317/>member profile

> Set my mailing list to email me <http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-93/list_prefs/?pref=1>As they are sent | <http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-93/list_prefs/?pref=2>In one daily email | <http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-93/list_prefs/?pref=0>Don't send me mailing list messages
>
> Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]
> []
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (<mailto:[address removed]>[address removed])
> This message was sent by Nick Cozzone ([address removed]) from <http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-93/>Ron Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
> To learn more about Nick Cozzone, visit his/her <http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-93/members/9870864/>member profile

> Set my mailing list to email me <http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-93/list_prefs/?pref=1>As they are sent | <http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-93/list_prefs/?pref=2>In one daily email | <http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-93/list_prefs/?pref=0>Don't send me mailing list messages
>
> Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]
> []
>

Michael Benoit
Ron Paul for President
http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-93/



--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-93/
This message was sent by Mike Benoit ([address removed]) from Ron Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
To learn more about Mike Benoit, visit his/her member profile: http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-93/members/1364434/
Set my mailing list to email me

As they are sent
http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-93/list_prefs/?pref=1

In one daily email
http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-93/list_prefs/?pref=2

Don't send me mailing list messages
http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-93/list_prefs/?pref=0
Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]







--

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by david ([address removed]) from Ron Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
To learn more about david , visit his/her member profile






--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Rosemary Kaplar ([address removed]) from Ron Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
To learn more about Rosemary Kaplar, visit his/her member profile




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Rob Hanbury ([address removed]) from Ron Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
To learn more about Rob Hanbury, visit his/her member profile





--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Cameron Butler ([address removed]) from Ron Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
To learn more about Cameron Butler, visit his/her member profile




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Leigh Skinner ([address removed]) from Ron Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
To learn more about Leigh Skinner, visit his/her member profile





--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Cameron Butler ([address removed]) from Ron Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
To learn more about Cameron Butler, visit his/her member profile




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Leigh Skinner ([address removed]) from Ron Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
To learn more about Leigh Skinner, visit his/her member profile





--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Cameron Butler ([address removed]) from Ron Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
To learn more about Cameron Butler, visit his/her member profile






--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by david ([address removed]) from Ron Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
To learn more about david , visit his/her member profile





--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Cameron Butler ([address removed]) from Ron Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
To learn more about Cameron Butler, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Leigh Skinner ([address removed]) from Ron Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
To learn more about Leigh Skinner, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]





--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Cameron Butler ([address removed]) from Ron Paul for President 2012 San Diego County.
To learn more about Cameron Butler, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy