Adam's latest video criticizing Mike Adams for supporting the California initiative that would require labeling of GMO foods is small-minded, dangerous and completely wrong. Adam criticizes Mike Adams saying that he should focus on educating people rather than trying to force companies to label foods. What he overlooks is the fact that the labeling requirement is a means of educating people! In fact, it is one of the most potent ways to educate people there is or could be, and that's why it's a great idea. Just because a relative few people are aware of GMO and their risks doesn't mean the vast majority of consumers are similarly situated. Mike Adams could spend three lifetimes trying to educate people and he won't reach as many people as if the food products were just required to be labeled. Plus, the corporations that manufacture this poison are able to hide behind the intellectual laziness of the average consumer who thinks, "if this stuff was really dangerous there would be a law of something." Required labeling brings much-needed legitimacy to the position that GMO foods are bad for health and the environment.

The bottom line is that government exists to do good things on behalf of the people as a whole -- it is nothing more than a form of human organization, given to the same strengths and weaknesses as any other form of organization. Even if some completely voluntary system existed, it would be subject to its own problems -- not least of which would be getting people to participate and do the right thing even if it didn't appear to be in their immediate interest. If A.K. believes every act of government is force and equivalent to "pointing guns," then he clearly thinks the founding fathers were fools and the Constitution is a waste of paper. The burden is on Adam, and people with a similar anarcho-capitalist mentality, to prove that private forces will organize better solutions to public problems than government. Certainly government is corrupt today, but let's fix that rather than get rid of government altogether. Sure, the state can do a lot of bad things, but so can private individuals and corporations. Self-regulation does not work. As a California voter I support the initiative and applaud the effort to bring the power of the people, through the organ of government, to bear against Monsanto's crimes against humanity. In fact, since the presidential election is clearly a waste of time, voting for this measure is one of the few things I have to look forward to on the November ballot.

I think it's a good idea to have food label requirements because it does educate the public on foods.

Adam's point that some people wouldn't care is valid. But just because some people don't care, it doesn't mean you should ignore the needs of the people who do care and/or the people who would care if they were more educated about it. It would be great if the major food companies would responsible and voluntarily label their foods "GMO" or "100% laboratory made" or "Certified Unnatural Man-made product". But they don't because they know once they do put a label like that on their products, some folks won't buy it.

You can educate people without the force of violence.

_________________
Reduce your government footprint.

Twitter: @jwalidea YouTube: /jwalidea

That's true, but it depends how "violence" is defined.

The caution with using a very broad definition of "violence" is the possibility of everything being considered "violence" and that has the potential to stagnate the individual and society.

at some point, people have to stop hiding behind that metaphor. all government action is not violence. certainly education does not require government action, but well-intentioned people using the government to foster education in the interest of public health is not a crime against humanity. on balance, the lawful exercise of the ballot initiative by the people of california to temper the malevolent self-interest of monsanto and similar corporations is a good thing.

And regarding the non-GMO/traditional farming issue, the government is pointing guns at the farmers and ranchers who aren't Monsanto-BigAg zombies.

I think Adam's position is that we shouldn't be relying on government to do the educating.

I'm in CA & I signed this petition. For most issues, I am against government involvement/intervention. I wish the American people were smart enough to make intelligent decisions on the foods they consume or at least be AWARE when they are consuming not so healthy foods. I live in a poor community & I could go knock on every door in my neighborhood & I guarantee you almost none of my neighbors even have a clue as to what genetically engineered foods are.

In Adam's video he makes some statement that it should be the responsibility of the American people to do their research but it is really hard when you're clueless and assume that when you go to the market and buy a loaf of whole wheat bread you are getting something somewhat healthy to feed to your family. Instead it is chock full of genetically modified high fructose corn syrup. Food health is so off the radar for many people. I could say, oh well, if they're going to be ignorant let them be obese and riddled with disease for the rest of their lives. The problem is that government were the ones that facilitated the GMO giants like Monsanto to become as powerful as they have and dominate the food industry. I feel like government made this mess, let the undo some of it and yes, labeling is a step in that direction.

I assume a product contains GMO's unless it specifically indicates otherwise on the label. I would love to see GMO labeling, not for myself, but so the oblivious people can see that word for the first time & either ignore it or actually look in to it. I might feel differently if GMOs made up a small percentage of food in the markets but 70% of processed foods in the supermarket contain GMOs!

Nobody is proposing that gov't ban GMOs, just for the simple labeling of products in order to inform the consumers. Adam implies in his video that nutritional labeling has been a complete failure as evident by the obesity rates in this country. I don't think the health of the American people overall should be used to measure the effectiveness of nutritional labeling. I think that making available nutritional content and info to the people is a fair thing to ask of food manufacturers. What the consumers do with that data is completely up to them. Foods that contain soy and peanuts are labeled as such because it poses a severe health risk for some people. In the same way, I think it is justifiable to require GMO labeling.

_________________
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." ~ Henry David Thoreau

i wholeheartedly agree with your observations. the bad guy is NOT government, but the private individuals, acting through corporations, who willingly poison our bodies and environments and wreck farmers' livelihoods to make their personal fortunes. yes, government facilitated their efforts by letting gmo into the market, but it just as easily could have required labeling from the very beginning. governments could have required extensive safety testing of gmo in advance of letting them on the market, or they could allow the company's that make and sell them to be held liable for the consequences of their actions now.

yes, adam says we should not rely on government to do the educating. and maybe in a perfect world that's the way it should be. but we don't have the luxury of waiting for a perfect world. the challenge of today is not to target government as the enemy -- that's exactly what the monsantos of the world would love to see. in the context of gmo, government helped monsanto by doing too little. government itself is just another form of human organization, an instrument that can be used for either good or ill -- NOT evil in and of itself. the challenge for us is to wield the wisdom and power of the people, including through governments where appropriate, to right the horrible wrongs happening in our time.

I personally feel like in these cases, the companies are aggressors because the food they sell is essentially poison. Therefore, this is a method of protection against them. Given that it is not likely that we will get action from BigAgra on their own (as GMO labeling will likely undercut their profits), I feel that this initiative is one way of making more information available in a heavily flawed market. Economically speaking, better information means more accurate prices and perhaps increased utility.

I will say, however, that I worry about corruption in the labeling process and the government yet again looking out for us, as their definitions of what constitutes healthy food and all their initiatives have indeed miserably failed. We must be on the constant lookout for revolving door politics and the way that definitions of what "GMO" actually is could change. Remember, BigAgra tried to get GMO to qualify as "organic", but that failed because the PEOPLE fought back and made it such that GMO foods could not be labeled as organic.

But I also completely agree that the violence rhetoric gets trite and overused after a while--no offense to Adam.

Dang it, man, sometimes we need to rise up and friggin' protect ourselves. I have a right to know in what way I am going to treat my body, don't I? After all, if I own my body, I should dang well know what goes in it, and since it is in the firm's best interest to keep trade secrets, this is one measure of protection we have against an unhealthy food system. And as I stated before, more information leads to a more fluid free market.

That is my two cents.

_________________
“They see only their own shadows or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the Cave.”
~Plato, The Republic

So what would happen to a food distributor who chooses not to label their product as "containing GMO?"


P.S. Every law is simply an opinion with a gun and a threat of not just violence, but certain death if you try to defend yourself against unwarranted aggression from LEOs. It's NOT a metaphor, it's taking the situation to it's logical conclusion.

_________________
Liberty Pamphlets
Pro-Liberty / Anti-State Picture Thread
Bitcoin Tips Appreciated: 16BvLB3cgwApBBcNiNsyg1vCG48Nn2zGpV

Monsanto & the companies that manufacture GMOs aren't simply creating a product to sell on the market. They are contaminating the soil and the land. We can't even begin to understand the effects of cross pollination of GMO seeds with non-GMO seeds and the possible havoc it will wreck on future crops and the animals/humans that consume them. It doesn't matter whether an individual personally chooses to consume GMOs or not - everyone's life and future will be affected by the decisions of those few corporations to tamper with DNA and fuck with nature in order to profit.

I know it is not very libertarian to enforce laws or whatever but what the fuck are you supposed to do when someone is permanently contaminating your environment? Just sit back and try to educate the drugged brainwashed public and hope & pray they stop buying GMOs? It might be too late then if it isn't already.

_________________
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." ~ Henry David Thoreau