Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

Recently, Rand Paul came out in defense of his rejection of SA 2310 CONSUMERS RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD ACT, a proposed amendment to the Farm Bill. He stated the following:

“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 rulemaking authority if this badly written amendment had passed.”

http://www.dailypaul.com/241717/rand-paul-was-right-to-vote-against-mandatory-gmo-labeling

Really!!! Well folks, here is the text of the amendment. Look for yourselves and see what Rand Paul considers badly written, having many problems and potentially gives the FDA broad new rulemaking authority:

SA 2310. Mr. SANDERS (for himself and Mrs. BOXER) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3240, to reauthorize agricultural programs through 2017, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 1009, after line 11, add the following:

SEC. 12207. CONSUMERS RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD ACT.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the ‘‘Consumers Right to Know About Genetically Engineered Food Act’’.

(b) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

(1) surveys of the American public consistently show that 90 percent or more of the people of the United States want genetically engineered to be labeled as such;

(2) a landmark public health study in Canada found that—

(A) 93 percent of pregnant women had detectable toxins from genetically engineered foods in their blood; and

(B) 80 percent of the babies of those women had detectable toxins in their umbilical cords;

(3) the tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly reserves powers in the system of Federalism to the States or to the people; and

(4) States have the authority to require the labeling of foods produced through genetic engineering or derived from organisms that have been genetically engineered.

(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) GENETIC ENGINEERING.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘genetic engineering’’ means a process that alters an organism at the molecular or cellular level by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes.

(B) INCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘genetic engineering’’ includes—

(i) recombinant DNA and RNA techniques;

(ii) cell fusion;

(iii) microencapsulation;

(iv) macroencapsulation;

(v) gene deletion and doubling;

(vi) introduction of a foreign gene; and

(vii) changing the position of genes.

(C) EXCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘genetic engineering’’ does not include any modification to an organism that consists exclusively of—

(i) breeding;

(ii) conjugation;

(iii) fermentation;

(iv) hybridization;

(v) in vitro fertilization; or

(vi) tissue culture.

(2) GENETICALLY ENGINEERED INGREDIENT.— The term ‘‘genetically engineered ingredient’’ means any ingredient in any food, beverage, or other edible product that—

(A) is, or is derived from, an organism that is produced through the intentional use of genetic engineering; or

(B) is, or is derived from, the progeny of intended sexual reproduction, asexual reproduction,or both of 1 or more organisms described in subparagraph (A).

(d) RIGHT TO KNOW.—Notwithstanding any other Federal law (including regulations), a State may require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale in that State have a label on the container or package of the food, beverage, or other edible product, indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.

(e) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out this section.

(f) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall submit a report to Congress detailing the percentage of food and beverages sold in the United States that contain genetically engineered ingredients.

source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2012-06-11/pdf/CREC-2012-06-11-pt1-PgS3903.pdf#page=15

Download the PDF file here: CREC-2012-06-11-pt1-PgS3903

Has he even read it?

©2012 Barbara H. Peterson

Print Friendly
EmailFacebookTwitterPinterestRedditStumbleUponGoogle+DiggLinkedIn

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

25 Responses to “Did Rand Paul even read the GMO labeling amendment before voting NO?”

  1. Jisa: The amendment does not either permit or deny state’s authority. It affirms this, and specifically makes it so that the feds would be prevented from overruling the states. Please see Lawrence’s comment:

    Subsections (d) and (e) would PREVENT the federal government from over ruling state law.

    Please pay attention to the word: “NOTWITHSTANDING” and what it means.

    …….
    (d) RIGHT TO KNOW.—Notwithstanding any other Federal law (including regulations), a State may require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale in that State have a label on the container or package of the food, beverage, or other edible product, indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.

    (e) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out this section.

  2. jisa says:

    Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to make laws or create agencies that control our food?

    Here is another perspective from Natural News:

    But has Sen. Paul really betrayed the American people by voting against S. Amdt. 2310, or are there inherent constitutional problems with the amendment that predicated his “Nay” vote? Upon further investigation, it appears as though the latter scenario is more accurate, as S. Amdt. 2310 falsely assumes that the federal government has the authority to grant states permission to label GMOs.

    As others have already begun to point out in the days following the amendment’s rejection, the legislation was essentially toothless from the start. The federal government does not, after all, have the constitutional authority to prohibit states from requiring GMO labeling, let alone permit it. The federal government has also never even tried, at this point, to legally stop individual states from mandating GMO labeling. This means S. Amdt. 2310 was a faulty attempt to address an issue that is not even an issue, and one that attempted to do so using an unconstitutional approach.

    A key thing to remember in all this is that neither the federal government nor the U.S. Congress has any constitutional authority to grant states permission to label or not to label GMOs. Under the U.S. Constitution, individual states already possess their own inherent authority to determine how they wish to handle the GMO labeling issue, and the federal government does not legally possess any authority whatsoever in the matter.

    Americans need to remember that our individual rights and the rights of our states, as outlined in the Constitution, are not at all contingent upon whether or not the federal government approves or disapproves of them. These rights are wholly independent of the federal government, regardless of how this increasingly tyrannical overlord system tries to interfere with them, or pretend as though it is some kind of omniscient gatekeeper that decides whether or not to grant these rights.

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036.....z1zIZwVTIe

    Unless I’m totally confused, seems as though Rand is acting as a strict constitutionalist. Should he be vilified for that?

  3. jason says:

    In California we have our own label GMO bill on the ballot, it is nearly unimaginable that it won’t pass. It was an incredible grassroots effort. Every state needs to do this.

    Down with corporate farming. Down with Monsanto…a criminal, murderous, power-hungry scourge…one of the more powerful corporate masters pulling the strings of our corporately selected leadership.

    We need a new era of trustbusting.

  4. jason says:

    Rand did what he is paid to do…and said what he is paid to say.
    Rand Paul is not there to fight for you…but to appear to do so.
    A “Constitutionalist”…well, he is if you view the constitution by the people and for the people…and the people being corporations.

  5. Lawrence A. Oshanek says:

    Correct Barbara … If this had passed Congress and the Senate, no federal regulation could supersede any law and/or any regulations under state law made by each individual state respecting gmo labels … that whole of the thing was to LIMIT federal power to undo state law as they have done so often in the past.

    Rand Paul is either wilfully ignorant or a liar … I’m going with liar.

  6. Lawrence: Thanks so much for pointing that out! Notwithstanding = despite, or in spite of. Clearly, the state law would not be affected by any federal regulations standing in its way, if I am understanding you correctly.

  7. Lawrence A. Oshanek says:

    I have no idea how so many people can miss the point so totally.

    The federal government claims jurisdiction over food and drugs under the interstate commerce section of the constitution.

    Without that federal power, the FDA, USDA and hundreds of other alphabet agencies could not exist WITH ANY LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO MAKE REGULATIONS (I’m Canadian so I don’t keep track of most of what you do), however, the citizens of the US are not strangers to the federal government making regulations as to what appears on food packaging sold “OUT OF STATE” and could presumably demand Idaho gm potatoes sold into interstate or international commerce NOT have gmo labelling because it is not in the best commercial interests of the United States.

    Subsections (d) and (e) would PREVENT the federal government from over ruling state law.

    Please pay attention to the word: “NOTWITHSTANDING” and what it means.

    …….
    (d) RIGHT TO KNOW.—Notwithstanding any other Federal law (including regulations), a State may require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale in that State have a label on the container or package of the food, beverage, or other edible product, indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.

    (e) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out this section.

  8. Barbara Talbert says:

    I was very surprised at Rand Paul’s vote and also that of many others. We are faced with a historically unknown sort of situation as we hiave not had the ability to insert genes into food until the past (prox) 10 years. Since this is a general threat to the health and welfare of the people the least the government could do is require labelling instead of letting these companies contaminate a whole generation. There is something wrong with a Congress that keeps trying to sweep all the GMO stuff under the rug and also with a media that will not report on it. Big red flags.

  9. Sally_Oh says:

    The bill is unconstitutional. It is not the proper role of government. It may be a nanny-state bill with provisions we can live with but it is still unconstitutional. Rand voted correctly.

    To allow or God forbid encourage our legislators to vote outside their enumerated powers is to invite tyranny.

    It is also incredibly naive of us to think that Monsanto won’t figure out a way around labeling. They have the FDA and the USDA in their pockets! We need to stop relying on government intervention and start relying on ourselves.

    Here’s how to solve the GMO problem: stop buying GMO products. How will you know? Easy: Don’t buy anything in a box, bag, can or printed wrapper. Buy only organic and/or from a farmer you know. Bankrupt the bastards. Until we do we are at their mercy.

  10. DebbieM: The entire amendment is there. Please click “read more” if you are on the home page to read the entire amendment. There is also a link to download a PDF of the Congressional record that contains it at the bottom of the article. Please read the whole article.

  11. DebbieM says:

    You only show us a snippet from a portion that you don’t see a problem with. On page 1009??? There are how many other pages and who knows what is in them? Rand could be right. Until someone unpacks the entire thing we won’t know…..

  12. Pierre says:

    Dear Barb,Rand Paul never read because is born idiot like many people in DC!

  13. Chad: You stated – “Unless you have an tyrannical majority, politics is how politics is played. I don’t recall Ron or Rand ever calling themselves “libertarian”. They try to be constitutional. 3rd parties are distractions at best in the real world. I do not want or need “civil liberties” (the destruction of property rights and unalienable rights). Rand-haters are just wolves in RP clothing.”

    We do have a tyrannical majority of thieves and traitors in our political system. “3rd parties are distractions???” Are you seriously supporting a two party system? And last, but not least, your last statement – “Rand-haters are just wolves in RP clothing” is a complete logic fallacy. It appears that you lump everyone who disagrees with what he has done as a “hater” who is simply a wolf in RP clothing. That is such a complete generalization that it is not even worth entertaining.

  14. chad says:

    BravoBull: Unless you have an tyrannical majority, politics is how politics is played. I don’t recall Ron or Rand ever calling themselves “libertarian”. They try to be constitutional. 3rd parties are distractions at best in the real world. I do not want or need “civil liberties” (the destruction of property rights and unalienable rights). Rand-haters are just wolves in RP clothing.

  15. chad says:

    pat: No, we don’t pay congress to pass bills that provide “impetus to the states”. I’m sorry for using this word, but that is a most “immature” thing to say. That is not the purpose and function of federal law. States don’t need “impetus” from the federal government. It seems that “I-loved-Ron-but-hate-Rand” has become the new agenda for the establishment hacks. It is just as Rand said, and just as I said: it is giving authority to the feds to grant power that states already have, thereby regulating them. It is a fraud and a scam.

  16. BravoBull says:

    Yes Rand Paul did sell out. And as a Republican/Libertarian it gives him a lot of leeway to pick and choose what he will support and what he won’t support. A true Libertarian would not support Mitt Romney and say to his supporters that his Foreign policy is “mature” when Romney over and over again says he will take military action against Iran and said he doesn’t need congressional approval to go to war with Iran.

    There are people out there that will continue to support him no matter what he does. You can’t trust a political party, or a politician. IMHO you need to stop supporting the Republicans or Democrats with the “better of 2 evils” philosophy. Start voting your conscience and vote for candidates of other political parties or independents. Hold them accountable. Until people get out of that mind set, things won’t change. Neither party cares about your civil liberties and neither party cares about foreign wars that prop up a military industrial complex unrivaled in human history. Neither party cares about destructive and corrupt financial system.

  17. vguvg says:

    Rand and his pretty curls, is too busy putting on his freemason ball gown

  18. pat says:

    @chad

    The bill makes reference to the 10th only to reinforce the boundary of federal powers; nothing new is introduced in this regard, nor is any precedent set for any unconstitutional change.

    What this bill does introduce is the impetus for the states to make completely transparent the gmo composition of all foods to the consumers through mandatory labelling and reports compiled by agricultural agencies. This is what Rand Paul is rejecting. Any reference to the constitution is a meaningless diversion and straw man regarding this issue.

  19. Tyranny says:

    I think Rand did read the amendment and he knows exactly what he’s doing. Just as his endorsing O’Rommney was very carefully planned out. Just as his so called, “Federal Reserve Transparency Act” if even passed would achieve little or nothing. The fed is already audited!I think the RAND Corporation is working for the US Corporation and his own personal interests. Barb is right the states are already bribed.

  20. chad says:

    I don’t think Rand endorsed Romney because he “sold out”. I think he is doing “plan B”, eg, to open up the opportunity for RP supporters to get him into the VP slot, using the power of Ron’s delegates, without which, Romney can’t win. It’s the next best thing to Ron Paul as president, and I think most all “Rand bashing” is just a way to destroy Ron Paul’s support.

  21. chad says:

    What is the point? Are you saying that Rand should support an amendment to federal legislation that legitimizes the federal govt’s authority to “grant power to the states” to do what they already have a right to do? The amendment only sets further precedent to the effect that states only have power that is delegated to them by the federal govt. It doesn’t do more than that.

  22. Chad: What view is that? Read this again, it is from the bill:

    (3) the tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly reserves powers in the system of Federalism to the States or to the people; and

    (4) States have the authority to require the labeling of foods produced through genetic engineering or derived from organisms that have been genetically engineered.

    This is saying that the states have the power already, and they can pass laws themselves to label GMOs based on the people’s demands. I don’t see a problem with that. By the way, are you voting for Romney? Rand is.

  23. chad says:

    The better question is “have you read the constitution?” If so, please tell me where power is delegated to monitor and report on your food products.

  24. chad says:

    This view is stupid. The constitution does NOT grant power to the federal govt to regulate/monitor our food, even if they do via the commerce clause (assumedly). Rand IS standing for constitutionally limited govt in his position, and everyone cries about it. How ridiculous! If you want GMO labels, then the appropriate thing to do is to get your state to issue warnings, just as CA does with toxins (eg, this product contains xxxxx known to the State of CA to cause birth defects …)

  25. pat says:

    I hope your question is rhetorical and very sarcastic. It’s time to realize that rand is not on our side and move on.