Food Policy

The Supreme Court Must Rule on Mandatory GMO Labelling

Congress, the states, and courts all vie to decide the future of GMO labeling.


Last week, Congress proposed a sweeping federal GMO-labeling bill that would establish rules for labeling foods that are free of or that contain GMO ingredients.

The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015, introduced by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and co-sponsored by a bi-partisan group of his colleagues—twelve Republicans and eight Democrats—would amend both FDA and USDA law.

It contains several key provisions. The bill would prohibit the federal government from enforcing any mandatory labeling of foods that contain GMO ingredients. It would also permit the voluntary use of GMO-free labeling claims and the use of claims pertaining to GMO ingredients.

The bill would prevent makers of foods that are GMO-free or that contain GMOs from touting the safety of their foods based solely on that status. In other words, neither foods containing GMOs nor foods free of GMOs could say either choice is a safer one than the other.

The bill would also require the federal government to "establish a non-bioengineered food certification program" and set national standards for the labeling of non-GMO food. And it would permit the use of the term "natural" (and similar terms) so long as such use is consistent with the government's "existing policy for such claims."

Finally, and perhaps most controversially, the bill would preempt states from enacting laws that conflict with any language in the bill.

A similar bill stalled in Congress last year.

This year's bill "has the support of the food, biotechnology and agriculture industries," reports POLITICO. Newspapers—including The Washington Post—have hailed the measure.

"Congress is right to be moving toward a more sensible policy that allows companies to label products as free of GM ingredients but preempts states from requiring such labels," the Post's editorial board wrote this week.

"Creating unique labeling standards in different states has the effect of taking the United States' unified food system and breaking it into pieces," argued Richard Felts, the head of Kansas's farm bureau, in an op-ed last week.

I agree with Felts's concerns. As I've written before, mandatory state labeling schemes are unconstitutional.

"GMO-labeling laws restrict interstate commerce," I wrote last year. "That's the primary reason why I opposed proposed laws in Washington state and California, both of which were rejected by voters."

Whether or not such laws are unconstitutional is a question now before a federal court, thanks to a lawsuit filed by the Grocery Manufacturers Association against the state of Vermont after that state passed a mandatory GMO-labeling law last year (which I discussed here).

Critics have cleverly dubbed Rep. Pompeo's bill the DARK Act, short for "Deny Americans the Right to Know."

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), who opposes the House bill, said it violates GOP sensibilities.

"They are states' rights people and they are for a capitalist system under the precepts of Adam Smith," said DeFazio, "who said you're supposed to give information to the consumers that they want."

Meanwhile, a competing Senate bill calls for mandatory labeling of all foods containing GMO ingredients.

As I wrote last year, I believe Rep. Pompeo's bill is mostly sensible. Food companies and consumers can't coexist under a host of conflicting state labeling laws. When those laws violate the Constitution, then a solution is needed.

Voluntary, privately certified labeling is the best solution. But Rep. Pompeo's bill is a flawed version of a voluntary labeling law, as it would expand the government's role in food labeling by creating new bureaucracies to carry out the mandated voluntary non-GMO certification.

Ultimately, I think this is an issue most properly decided by courts—not Congress or the states. That's why I'd prefer the Supreme Court strike down the Vermont GMO-labeling law and effectively settle the issue once and for all.

NEXT: Minimum Wage and Magical Thinking

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Voluntary, privately certified labeling is the best solution.

    Underwriters’ Laboratories for food.

    1. That’s the solution to most, if not all, such regulation. Naturally, the government will never willingly give up the power.

      1. There are other precedents – organic, for example, relies on private certification (although the regulations themselves reside with USDA). In the case of GMO, FDA has provided a clear position stating “no difference” and allows freedom to label, plus NGMO project (or other certification).

        1. You make it obvious its not really about “free speech” but about public perception about mandated words.

          All products should be mandated to have all residues tested. There are existing sampling protocol in place which adequately covers all necessary data collection needs- statistics is a wonderful tool. The point is, people against full disclosure labeling are afraid of losing their “competitive” edge. They will whine about cost, when at the end of the day, its really about keeping the consumer from knowing things about the products which causes the price to go down.

    2. There is aready the Non-GMO Project.

    3. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here… ..

  2. GMO should simply be banned. Toxic garbage it is.

    1. Silly mammal, it’s really just cheaper cattle feed. You’ll have bigger problems once my bosses show up on your puny insignificant dirt ball of a planet.

      1. Cattle aren’t supposed to eat corn.

        1. Out respective definitions of cattle vary widely

        2. Would that be the auroch diet?

    2. How is Dagobah these days?

    3. I think they should disclose all of the possible interactions each component of any foodstuff could have with my body.

    4. GMO should simply be banned. Toxic garbage it is.

      Then don’t eat it.

      And your preferred non-GMO food producers can tell you about it with their own labels.

    5. Good to know you’re for killing and blinding children in the third world.

      Golden rice would save lives and improve lives in lagre swaths of the world but fucktards like you (sorry not going to be polite to people whose stance is to actively causing harm to millions) just spout your useless drivel about totally unproven problems and consequences of GMO food.

      Your pathetic political stance is not just an opinion, it’s actually causing death and malnutrition. But go ahead keep clinging to your whole food pure organic hippie pablum.

      1. Laugh, if you will, at the fucktards but realize that in a decade or so you won’t be allowed to deny them non-gmo ingredients when you bake their wedding cakes.

      2. JWW,
        I’d say banning “organic” foods would improve public health far beyond any regulation of GMOs, wouldn’t you?
        I mean, we’d keep shit-soaked foods away from ignoramuses like Jim Smithy. We’d restore acreage of farm land to its ‘natural’ state. It’d mean lower costs all around.
        How about it?

        1. There are plenty of reasons to criticize organic foods, but using shit as fertilizer is not one of them. All soil is full of bacteria that could make you sick.

          1. Conventional farming can and does use human feces to fertilize crops. Yummy.

            1. Carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms (among many other types) have been endlessly recycled on this Earth. That yummy meal you just ate? Not only did it contain recycled human feces, it also contained recycled dinosaur semen and mastodon menstrual fluid and pangolin pus and who knows what all else! Yummy indeed! … (All those things should require labels, too!)

              1. Would you drink treated wastewater effluent? Especially when you had the option of water from a well?

                As for labeling, I generally don’t support it. I vacillate on labeling for products that receive taxpayer subsidies such as those produced by the agricultural industrial complex. Big ag does support labeling though: research their legal attacks on Oakhurst dairy and the hormone-free label.

          2. Zeb|4.4.15 @ 10:51AM|#
            “There are plenty of reasons to criticize organic foods, but using shit as fertilizer is not one of them. All soil is full of bacteria that could make you sick.”

            Irrelevant and pedantic. Bored this morning, are you?

      3. @JWW

        That’s quite a non-sequitor. How does requesting mandatory GMO labeling affect the cultivation of golden rice in other countries? It doesn’t. Not at all.

        As for mandatory GMO labeling, it boils down to the expectations of consumers. Does a majority of consumers expect that a vegetable is GMO-free, when they buy it? If yes, not labeling is as GMO is fraud. If no, there is no problem with not labeling it as GMO.

        1. The “consumer expectation” argument is a straw-dog, and in-practice virtually impossible to utilize as a regulatory standard when the “average” consumer’s technical knowledge is extremely low (and continually declining).

          The free market already addresses this issue adequately. If a consumer is interested in GMO as a topic, and “expects” that products should be GMO-free, there are a myriad of options for that individual – including organic, and/or purchase of products which “claim” to be GMO-free.

          1. As intimated above, as long as my tax dollar is helping to subsidize the GMO industry I think I should have a say as to what ends up on the label.

            In reality, if a product isn’t labeled Non-GMO Product certified or organic then I can assume it likely has at least one GMO as an ingredient.

            As stated elsewhere, the labeling game goes both ways. Search Oakhurst dairy and Monsanto’s lawsuit against them over the “hormone free” label.

            1. I agree regarding NGMO-PV certification; most of the so-called clean label food producers are simply lying, hence the difficulty Whole Foods is facing advancing this initiative.

              Based-on your posts, I don’t doubt that you are sincere in your beliefs (which I respect, although disagree).

              Regarding tax dollars, the USDA is currently funding significant local/organic initiatives – which do little more than raise the cost of food for government subsidized programs. I don’t understand the linkage to “label” which the FDA has clearly stated manufacturers are free to label non-GM. The reality is that legitimate food companies must meet mandated standards for their claims – obviously, you acknowledge many of those servicing the natural/organic movement are illegitimate (hence dismissal of non-GMO claims with verification).

              1. The Cornucopia Institute is active at finding out the bad actors in the non-GMO market. Kashi got busted a few years ago and we refuse to buy their stuff. But I think most companies actually provide what they advertise.

                The Farm Bill is a payoff to Big Ag. Obama has put several Ag Pharm people in top USDA and FDA positions.

                I don’t support the labeling but like needling folks that worship the crony capitalist side of the debate with it.

                1. Cornucopia is far too anti-science for my taste, particularly given their professed charter, but I do often use their site to track who owns what.

                  It’s interesting that most companies aren’t busted for mislabeling until purchased by larger companies; I’m eagerly awaiting the General Mills fall-out once they realize Annie’s has been actively skirting labeling regs for years.

                  Curious – do you operate a working organic farm, or hobby/personal use only?

    6. Toxic garbage it is.

      + 1 Yoda

  3. ? ? ? ? LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY ? ? ? ? ?

    Make extra profit every week… This is a great part-time job for everyone… Best part about it is that you can work from your home and earn from $100-$2000 each week … Start today and have your

    First payment at the end of the week…,
    pop over here…,

    1. I’d feel safer if posts like this were regulated and labeled.

      1. Unlike GMOs at least these posts aren’t subsidized with taxpayer funds.

  4. When when one tomato can be called organic and another can’t I’d say the whole labeling system is screwed up.Oh and try eating a true unmodified potato form the Andes.Get the wrong kind and your dead.

    1. Words can have more than one meaning. And “organic” has a lot of meanings besides organic chemistry. “organic” food may be silly, but it does have a specific definition.

      I also thing there is a meaningful distinction to be made between artificial selection and genetic modification. Not for any safety or health reasons, but the processes are very different. Calling natural mutations and selective breeding “genetic modification” confuses things. “modification” implies someone is doing the modifying rather than selecting for traits that come about through random mutations. I think GM has many advantages and I don’t think it is bad at all. You probably never would have gotten golden rice or roundup ready corn or non-browning apples through conventional breeding.

      1. I cultivate and mulch so using Roundup is unecessary. A wheel hoe and straw don’t pose any risks to my family as opposed to DuPont in a bottle. Anybody that says it is innocuous can include in their post the YouTube video link of them drinking Roundup. That way I will actually believe they believe it.

        As for vitamin A, we get plenty from carrots, squash, and eggs. Heck, dandelion greens have a lot not to mention other vitamins and minerals. And to think folks pay money for chemicals in a bottle to kill a free and healthy companion crop that also improves soil conditions through aeration and nutrient scavaging.

        1. “Anybody that says it is innocuous can include in their post the YouTube video link of them drinking Roundup.”

          Good. Now go eat a pound of human shit. Then I’ll believe your atavistic practices are safe.

          1. Sevo

            Your human crops are fertilized with human waste. NOP-compliant organic crops banned the practice in 2000. So I can’t use wastewater plant sludge on my crops and still consider them organic. But I wouldn’t use it wven if I could.

            1. Ok, go eat a pound of cow shit.

              1. I don’t use animal manure. How about you eat some human feces since your food is allowed to be “fed” by it. To think that your food may have been helped in its growth by stools that came from the asses of amsoc, tony, and tulpa.

        2. I cultivate and mulch so using Roundup is unecessary. A wheel hoe and straw don’t pose any risks to my family

          Good for you. Now, how do we feed the BosWash corridor using only hand tool?

          Anybody that says it is innocuous can include in their post the YouTube video link of them drinking Roundup.

          Sure. As soon as you post a video of you eating some fertilizer (whatever you use). I mean, you use it on your food, so it must be innocuous, right?

          1. Your link was missing. Please include. I asked first.

            I think we continue to use the crony capitalist system to produce food in this country. It is the libertarian solution.

            1. Another way of looking at it is: you set the standard (“If you think its ok, post proof that you would use it in a way no one would ever do so!”), so you should be the first to satisfy it.

              1. Guess you forgot your YouTube account pwd? As for actually applied, the only liquid that actually makes it onto our crops is rain. Want to see me drink a glass of water?

                We compost 99% of food “waste” so I am assuming you don’t need to see me eating a tomato or a lettuce. Incidentally, last fall’s buck was filling up in the orchard so I am assuming you don’t need a video of me eating an apple either.

                I may post a compost video anyway but it will have to wait for the two feet of snow to melt.

                1. We compost 99% of food “waste”

                  So you use compost. Great! Eat some. That’s what you put on your plants, right? So, by your standard, it has to be edible straight up, right?

                  So eat it.

                  1. I have. Safe to handle. Safe to expose to kids and pets. It is safe to wat but I don’t think it has any nutritional value.

                    I will try out the hugel mound once the snow is gone and the ground thaws. In the interim here is an MSDS for organic compost:

                    Nasty stuf…

                    I will bet $20 against a stale ginger snap that nobody on here defending the petrochemicals will post a video of them handling said product in any manner similarly to what is safely acceptable for organic compost. And still no takers on the actual consumption.

                2. As for actually applied, the only liquid that actually makes it onto our crops is rain. Want to see me drink a glass of water?

                  No, you have your scaling wrong. A 32oz bottle of Concentrated Roundup covers 3000 sq. ft. At a suggested mix ratio of 6oz:1 gal., 8oz of Roundup treatment will cover about 33.5 sq. ft. I don’t know where you’re from, but let’s err on the side of giving you the benefit. Let’s take Los Angeles which gets 15 in./year of rain. Now, I doubt a farmer’s soil would be treated 15 times a year with Roundup, but let’s consider that scenario of 1 treatment of Roundup for each inch of rain. A one inch rain covering that same 33.5 sq. ft. is about 21 gallons.

                  So, go ahead and drink that 21 gallons of rainwater in the same amount of time that someone else drinks that 8oz glass of Roundup.

                  1. The argument has been that glyphosate is safe. So I ask folks to prove it. And to date nobody has with you added to the list.

                    1. The argument has been that glyphosate is safe.

                      Define safe. Water is unsafe when drinking too much. As is Roundup when drinking too much. So, what’s your point? No one is going to drink a glass of Roundup just as no one is going to drink 21 gallons of water.

                      Looking up and doing some quick calcs, the LD50 of water for a 75kg person is just under 2 gallons.

                      The LD50 for glyphosate (using the low-end value of 1,538 mg//kg for mice rather than the 5,600 for rats or 10,000 for goats) is about 13oz of Roundup treatment for a 75kg person (if I did my math correctly, including the density and concentration of glyphosate in Roundup).

                      So, the water falling on that 33.5 sq. ft. plot is about 19 times more lethal than the Roundup treatment for that plot (and that’s using generous assumptions for your side).

                    2. For how I grow my food, safe = handling without the need for PPE. Exposure to clothing and skin requires no action. Accidental inhalation or ingestion requires no need to seek medical attention.

                      Others here have heavily implied that glyphosate is safe to drink. So I pose that challenge everytime it comes up. With no takers.

                      How about external exposure: I have had compost, peat, soil, and organic fertilizer on me for hours at a time. I’m willing to take the 21 gallons of water dumped on me challenge and not dry off. You willing to do that with 8 ounces of glyphosate?

                    3. Keep moving those goalposts.

                    4. I’m dealing with you moving the goalposts. I just didn’t feel like throwing a penalty flag about it. You refuse to drink any glyphosate. That was my original argument. That’s done. So I am seeing if you are willing to douse yourself with it. I’m trying to establish when you consider it no longer unsafe.

                    5. A simple concentration issue. Frankly, I am more than happy to take-up your challenge to consume Roundup at levels matching calculated levels to FINISHED FOOD consumption levels.

                    6. The “level” is 8 ounces.

            2. I asked first.

              Chumby, you seem to be saying nothing should go on your food while its growing that you wouldn’t eat or drink straight. Am I misunderstanding you, there?

              Presumably, then, you are willing to eat or drink straight anything you put on your food while its growing, yes? And prove this with a posted video.

              So, I’m just asking you to live up to the standards you are setting, and prove it via the evidence you demand. Since you set the standard and the evidence, I see no reason why you would object to going first.

              Why won’t you eat the fertilizer you use and post it on youtube? Its innocuous, right?

              1. You are misunderstanding. Folks have said glyphosate is innocuous. So I cut to the chase and asked anyone that takes that position to drink it. I doubt you’ll pist a video.

                I drink water. That is the only thing that goes on the food. Save for the root crops. Need a video of me drinking water or are you good with that? Mine doesn’t have any fluoride in it so the pro-crony crowd may take exception.

                I have certainly consumed what I have applied to my food. Just don’t have a video of it. As already posted, when we lose the snow and things thaw I think I will make a video. I will try out last year’s hugel mound. When I made it I had two of my beasts with me and neither seemed disappointed that they weren’t exposed to petrochemicals.

                1. You know how many animals are pissing and shitting on any crop that grows outside? Birds, insects, etc, as well as mammals. You’ve got some more eating and drinking videos to post, though TBH I wouldn’t want to watch them.

                  1. We use wire fencing to keep the large creatures out. The beasts do a good job on the medium and small ones. The local hawks and owls also help with the this. Occasionally a porcupine ignores this and ends up as bear food. Incidentally, the difference between porcupines and Monsanto HQ is that the porcupines have the pricks on the outside.

                    I like your inference that GMO cropland is devoid of birds, insects, as well as mammals.

          2. Good for you. Now, how do we feed the BosWash corridor using only hand tool?

            And with no manure, apparently.

            Chumby may have solved our world food crisis.

            1. You can use manure. We just don’t need to for us. You potentially are already eating food from human feces so have at it.

              Didn’t realize that libertarians were interested in having a government planned, taxpayer subsidized crony capitalist industry do their wishes. Is the “world food crisis” people with glyphosate deficiency?

              Oh, and you’re welcome since I’m subsidizing your food with my taxes.

              1. yes, supporting the use of fertilizer is exactly the same as supporting a centralized agriculture system run by governmeny fiat and price fixing. you busted us!

                1. I neither said nor implied farming should occur without fertilization. We currently don’t use manure. That is a statent of fact. And others misconstrued that.

                  1. You know, looking at the steaming pile that Chumby left, holy crap did we get trolled. This whole exchange started with Chumby saying “Folks have said glyphosate is innocuous.”

                    Which may or may not be true in some settings, but definitely isn’t true in this discussion.

                    And bang, just like that, we got trolled like bitches. And I was at the front of that line.

                    Well played, Chumby, you dishonest little shit, you.

                    1. Yeah, I thought about calling him on it, but decided he wasn’t interested in listening anyway.

                    2. Go back a few GMO articles and you’ll find that very argument. One person stated that a Monsanto chemist said it was safe to drink and apparently drank 8 ounces to prove it safe. So that is the etymology of my challenge.

                      I was being generous since we stayed on glyphosate, which is less harmful than some other pharming chemicals. I also chose not to bring up the water supplies that conventional chemical pharming has contaminated. I have worked with at least five.

              2. Its caused by retards refusing to upgrade their farms to the 21st century.

                Dumb people don’t belong on good ground..Same goes for smart hippies (or any other culture for that matter) that want to live pre-21st century lifestyles.

                1. I’m glad the land grant university attendee has appointed himself/herself overseer of who belings where. Extremely libertarian of you.

  5. Having this issue settled at the Constitutional level rather than statutorily is a bit scary. I think I’d rather have that bill pass.

    1. It’s going to be filliburstered in the Senate, and wouldn’t be signed by Chocolate Nixon anyway.

      1. Nixon was a republican..but sure, its close


  6. My friend’s step-aunt makes $70 every hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for seven months but last month her pay was $17651 just working on the computer for a few hours. website link.
    ? ? ? ? LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY ? ? ? ? ?


  7. Let’s face it. Anyone promoting GMOs is advocating that you and your family eat food laced with the toxic herbicide Roundup Weathermax Two.

    That’s because 90% of all GMOs are designed to be Roundup Ready.

    This is actually what GMO is all about. What this means is crops like corn, canola, and soy are Ready to be directly sprayed with Roundup weed killer and survive. That’s what Roundup Ready means.

    THIS CORN IS READY TO POISONED AND SURVIVE THE POISONING… and then be turned into food that you will eat!

    That, my friends, is the heart and soul of GMO. Crops that can directly sprayed with poison, absorb that poison, survive, and be turned into your food. Isn’t that neat? What an amazing innovation!!! That’s freaking brilliant!

    Crops and weeds are sprayed with Roundup weed killer. It is then absorbed into the plant. The weeds, not being inoculated against the poison die. While the GMO corn, canola, or soy survive the poison being drawn up into their cellular structure. These crops are then processed into food that you and your family eat.

    Pretty cool huh?

    1. Yes, it’s all a giant conspiracy to poison people and give them cancer.
      For some reason.

    2. There are some that seem pretty good like that “golden rice” with vitamin A, but, as far I can tell, you’re right that most of the modifications are so they can dump more and more insecticide on the crops without killing them.

      1. Actually, quite the opposite.

    3. I’m sure those health effects from GMO will start showing up any year now. That’s what I’ve been told the past 30 or so years that Americans have been eating vast quantities of GMO food.

      1. That is what land grant universities tied at the hip with GE companies via federal pro-GMO funding have been telling you.

        I bet I can find a report by a wind turbine company about CAGW.

        1. makes sense. CDC and hospitals all over the country are part of the conspuracy, just faking that whole growing life expectanct scam. /derp

          1. Where’s your citation that increased life expectancy us tied to consuming GMOs? That is what you are saying, right?

        2. I attended the main one in the country…the professors are definitely not henchmen for the GE companies. Quite the opposite.

          Land Grant Universities are actually heavily funded by the government and not the GE companies.

          1. And the government is heavy influenced by the industrial agricultural complex. At your university, provide the cite showing how each ag chair is funded.

  8. I’m not a fan of GMO labeling requirements, but since when is it a violation of the Constitution for states to take actions that restrict interstate commerce? The Constitution simply gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce.

    1. Dormant Commerce Clause

      1. The Dormant Commerce Clause does not prohibit states from restricting interstate commerce per se. It prohibits states from discriminating against out-of-state interests in favor of in-state interests. That is not the case with GMO laws.

        1. 1. The Vermont law exempts a few major foods which coincidentally happen to be major Vermont industries.

          2. Even without #1, the states are not permitted to interfere with federal regulatory discretion (including the decision not to regulate) on interstate commerce. If they want to force foods produced in VT and sold in VT to be labeled, they may be able to do that.

  9. Judging by the amnti-GMO movement, and the reaction of gay-rights activists to the RFRA, the country has been taken over by insane, hysterical ninnies. What the fuck happened?

    1. Yes, and unfortunately, some of them are posting her today…

      1. here, not her

    2. They haven’t taken over, they’re just a very squeaky wheel. Most people either ignore or despise them.

  10. I’m for the labeling mostly because it seems hypocritical to tell the consumers, “Don’t worry it’s no different than other corn and soybeans,” and then go to the farmers and say, “It’s totally different from other corn and soybeans, that’s why we’ve patented it.” And, as the article said, if you’re going to have labels, it makes sense to standardize them.

    1. Would you be OK with forcing non-GMO foods to be labeled “Produced using Random Mutation”? I mean, the consumer deserves to know.

    2. Labeling undermines capitalism…what good is selling a product you can’t profit off of because your consume can replicate your product easily?

  11. what Mike said I’m startled that any one able to make $4655 in a few weeks on the computer . look here http://WWW.WORK4HOUR.COM

  12. People who decline to eat food from Genetically Modified Organisms will starve. Evolution could be defined as a system which creates genetically modified organisms. Evolution is genetic modification.

    A grocery selling food with unmodified genes would be empty. There is no such thing as an unmodified gene. And if you think that people creating modified genes is scary, you should look at some of the experiments nature has been conducting and some of the genetically modified organisms it has produced. Like Ebola and piranha and salmonella. And nature is doing a lot more experiments than Monsanto. Trillions more. Every day. And nature doesn’t care if it kills you or not. In fact it intends to.

    1. LIAR mother gaia loves us

    2. People are morons…evidence against libertarianism as a realistic, functioning society.

  13. nice unbiased picture, shill.

  14. Sometimes you jsut have to roll with the punches dude.

  15. up to I saw the draft four $7072 , I didnt believe that…my… cousin truley erning money in there spare time on there computar. . there uncle has been doing this 4 only about sixteen months and a short time ago paid for the loans on their condo and purchased a great Renault 4 . look at here now check out the post right here……. http://WWW.JOBS-FASHION.COM

  16. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ??????

  17. Free speech provisions don’t apply to commerce..even if the author thinks so or wishes.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.