Bernie Sanders

Bernie Backs Anti-GMO Superstition: Votes Against Voluntary Labeling

Sanders is basically enabling an unscientific disinformation campaign.

|

WarningGMOs
naturalsociety

Sen. Bernie Sanders, the fading Democratic Socialist presidential hopeful, shows just how much he respects science by celebrating the demise of voluntary food labeling legislation in the Senate. The Biotechnology Labeling Solutions Act would have established a national voluntary food labeling scheme that would allow food purveyors to label their products as containing or not containing ingredients made from modern biotech crops. Anti-biotech activists opposed the bill because it would have preempted mandatory GMO labeling laws in states like Vermont and Connecticut. The goal of the activists is to mislead consumers into mistaking mandatory GMO labels as some kind of warning that foods made from modern biotech crops are nutritionally different or unsafe. In other words, the activists are engaged in a disinformation campaign against biotech crops and Sanders is enabling them.

Sanders' press release states

"I am pleased that Congress stood up to the demands of Monsanto and other multi-national food industry corporations and rejected this outrageous bill. Today's vote was a victory for the American people over corporate interests.

"Sen. Roberts' legislation violates the will of the people of Vermont and the United States who overwhelmingly believe that genetically modified food should be labeled. Republicans like to talk about states' rights, but now they are attempting to preempt the laws of Vermont and other states that seek to label GMOs."

Bernie's appeal to federalism is thoroughly disingenuous. First, he knows that most staple groceries are sold nationwide, so complying with Vermont's mandatory labeling would most likely force food companies to put labels on all of their products. Second, his federalism falls away when it comes to issues like imposing a nationwide ban on so-called assault weapons.

Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas who sponsored the voluntary labeling legislation claims that mandatory labels would cost consumers an extra $1,050 per year whereas anti-GMO activists counter that labeling would add only $2.30 per year to the cost of food. Whatever the direct costs, the indirect costs of lower farm productivity will mean plowing down more forests and pastures to grow food.

For more background, please read my article, "The Top Five Lies About Biotech Crops."

Additional note: The bill as amended by Sen. Roberts was not as "voluntary" as it should have been. He compromised with a proposal to give food companies two years to get 70 percent of food products into the SmartLabel program backed by big food purveyors. SmartLabel would enable consumers to scan a code on the package that would then to take them to a web page providing all kinds of information about the product including the presence of ingredients derived from biotech crops. This would, however, avoid an on-package GMO or No GMO label. The 70 percent threshold was no doubt set as a way for small companies to avoid the whole labeling issue if they chose to do so.

The upshot is that the Robert's bill as amended was not so great, but it still failed to satisfy the activists' demands for mandatory misleading labels on food packaging.

NEXT: GOP Senators may be justified in blocking the Garland nomination until the election - but not if it opens the door for Trump

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m sure the “I fucking love science” crowd will be silent about this one.

    1. Don’t you fucking love social signaling disguised as an interest in science?

    2. As Maddox said, you don’t “fucking love science”, what you love is pictures

      http://thebestpageintheunivers…..not_a_nerd

      1. Maddox is a national treasure and is making America great again.

        1. The list of national treasures is getting pretty long today.

          1. So is the list of the abstract euphemism’s for masturbation.

          2. National Treasure getting pretty long is a euphemism for masterbation.

      2. “Out of the shadow of the abstract man, who thinks for the pleasure of thinking, emerges the organic man, who thinks because of a vital imbalance, and who is beyond science and art.”

        1. I have always considered you to be ‘beyond science an art’… for what it’s worth…

        2. Added to cart. I’m bored with Houellebecq. This should be a hoot.

          1. His wikiquote page is something else. I am going to try to insert as much of it as I can into depressing threads, because so much of what he writes seems relevant to our current political state. I do own The Trouble With Being Born, partially because the title alone makes the book worthwhile, but also because it makes for great reading during a bout with insomnia.

            1. “For a long while I have lived with the notion that I was the most normal being that ever existed. This notion gave me the taste, even the passion for being unproductive: what was the use of being prized in a world inhabited by madmen, a world mired in mania and stupidity? For whom was one to bother, and to what end? It remains to be seen if I have quite freed myself from this certitude, salvation in the absolute, ruin in the immediate.”

            2. Also added to cart. That wikiquote page is refined weapons-grade absurdist bleak, makes Nietzsche look like yellowcake.

              1. I learned about him on a baseball blog, from a published poet who sometimes writes about baseball.

                1. You know, I probably should pay more attention to sports. I might become a more well-rounded person.

            3. I do own The Trouble With Being Born,

              Sounds like something Nicole wrote.

    3. I prefer Samuel Jackson’s site, “I Motherfucking Love Motherfucking Science, Motherfuckers.”

  2. Government labeling of food as “GMO” or “GMO Free,” or as “Organic” should be struck down as an unconsitutional establishment of religion. Those labels are “Kosher, for New Agers,” and should be certified & applied by the appropriate private organizations.

  3. DL: Yes. Basically what I have argued here.

  4. On the one hand, it’s bad science and bad policy to label GMOs. On the other hand, a democratic populace ought to be free to label whatever they want unless there’s a good constitutional reason to forbid them (and I don’t see anything in the constitution about this–calling it religion is a bit of a stretch).

    Libertarians are standing up for Monsanto profits and just happen to have science on their side. When science isn’t on the side of the big industry they’re whoring for, like oil companies, they become scientifically stupid beyond comprehension.

    1. the big industry they’re whoring for

      Whores are paid.

      democratic populace

      Those two words have the same root meaning.

    2. As long as you can read minds, find out what my father wants for his birthday.

    3. how is the vermont law doing what you describe by forcing that on the people?

      small number of activists and idiotic politicians isnt the populace.

      how come you arent going along with this bill since democratically elected?

      1. I’m for freedom, so I’m for the freedom of people to, via some democratic process, slap labels on whatever they want for whatever silly reasons they want. I’m not sure what kind of jackbooted thuggery you envision that would forbid them, I’m just saying the constitution is weak sauce as such, especially from people always claiming to be against twisting its meaning.

        I’m mostly just insulting libertarians for their fair-weather rationality.

        1. that isnt freedom. that is you wanting to tell everyone else what they can and cant do bud

          1. Pish-posh. It is jackbooted thuggery to deny The People their Will to do whatever they want. It is not jackbooted thuggery to go around telling people how to label their product.

        2. Whatever. Groupthink is a lot less prevalent among libertarians than progressives that’s for damn sure.

          1. *looks around for group response*
            I agree
            *smiles nervously *

        3. I’m for freedom, so I’m for the freedom of people to, via some democratic process, slap labels on whatever they want for whatever silly reasons they want.

          Sometimes I think you’re a 10-dimensional chess playing troll, because you do a really good job of making historically awful arguments under a thin veneer of modernity.

          I’ve already posted it once today, but from the Holmes dissent in Lochner:

          Every opinion tends to become a law. I think that the word liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless it can be said that a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that the statute proposed would infringe fundamental principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law.

          Maybe this is a monkeys-typing-Shakespeare moment, but good job mimicking the SCOTUS opinion that led to the downfall of the liberty of contract.

    4. Yes, you interminable tool. A democratic populace should be able to label whatever the fuck it is they want to label. And if the market demands it, they will. But no government, like these state governments have done, should have required GMO labeling.

      1. Required via legislation… the way people enact their collective will. If the only labels we get are the ones that companies decide we should get based on market demands, we’re gonna get a lot of “healthy superfood!” and not so much “contains peanuts.”

        1. the way people enact their collective will.

          but that’s not what legislation. The people’s will has nothing to do with it. The will of whichever interest seeks to sway the vote of whichever members of Congress has a lot to do with it.

        2. “Required via legislation… the way people enact their collective will.”

          If legislation is the will of the people, then you really have no right to complain about any law or any lack of a certain law, right? That would mean you’re going against “the people”, doesn’t it? Are you some kind of autocrat?

          1. yep he probably supported the iraq war

          2. Complaining about prevailing law is essential to democracy. I’m just trying to keep libertarians from going overboard on their incessant tendency toward authoritarianism.

        3. No, legislation is how some people force their will on other people.

        4. How do you measure “collective will”, you ham brained, mouth breathing fuckwit? Is it 50 + 1? Two-thirds? I’m writhing on pins and needles in anticipation of finding out the exact measure that determines this “collective will”.

          1. Majority rules. Welcome to kindergarten.

        5. “Required via legislation… the way people enact their collective will. ”

          So, you’re good with State Laws banning gay marriage then?

          1. Courts legislate too. It’s not usually said that way.

            1. Lol you are an epic shit stain. So it’s majority rules because The People, or something? Oh shit, except Proposition 8. In that case we need the courts to correct the People who are otherwise always right, and in those cases the Court is always right. Well shit, except for Citizens United and Dredd Scott.

              You want what you want (what you want being what your Progressive uber-leaders decide) and you don’t care about how you get it. Stop with the fucking charade that there’s any rhyme or reason to it. You love Democracy if it gives you what your Proggie leaders want, and you hate it otherwise. We can see right through your bullshit even if you cant.

    5. 1) Whores get paid. My orphans must have missed my check from Monsanto when they got the mail. Time to cut back their gruel rations by 25% and increase the beatings.

      2) Nobody is arguing that forced labeling of “GMO’s”, whatever that means, is unconstitutional. Way to totally PWN nobody. There are lots of things a democratic populace ought to be able to do, it doesn’t mean those things are necessarily wise or beneficial.

      3) Your oil comment is completely incoherent. What science is being ignored by Libertarians with regard to oil companies? You however, love shoveling my tax dollars at Solyndra – an entity to which neither science nor the free market has been receptive.

      1. 1) You can be a whore and not bother to ask for the cash. Just makes you a dumb whore.
        2) Ron Bailey did in that article he linked. I have absolutely no beef with the mere argument that it’s bad policy, because it is.
        3) Indeed, libertarians remain far behind even oil companies with respect to accepting the science of climate change. And Solyndra, there’s an oldie. They still talking about that at Breitbart or whatever?

        1. why should people accept as “science” something that has been so wrong so often?

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..edictions/

          1. What an unassailable source you’ve offered.

        2. Haha whatever lip service oil companies are giving to that religion are for “good will” because so much of the public have been hoodwinked by it.

        3. It’s too bad the fossil fuel industry is incapable of getting ahead of a narrative. It’s very hard, I know, to combat insufferable ignorance that characterizes climate change bufoons, but damn this theater production is more tragic than comical.

    6. We get it, Tony, you want mob rule in everything, fuck individuals. Nice of you to take a break from your Trump rallies for a few minutes, though.

  5. isnt pretty much all food gmo?

    one would think the non gmo folks would want to highlight their non gmo food to customers

    1. What?!? You mean they could self label? Or market the product tof those who want it? Or create a group to verify and label privately? Impossible

    2. isnt pretty much all food gmo?

      Pretty much.

      If Vermont gets its way, a fun project would go into a few ‘natural food’ stores and sue the fuck out of them for not properly labelling their product.

  6. unless there’s a good constitutional reason to forbid them
    there is

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

    1. Ah, so when people are in the science-denying religion of global warming skepticism, in what antidemocratic ways do we get to fuck them over? I’m giddy with anticipation of that answer.

      1. are you a climate scientist?

        1. tony???

          1. Tony….Tony….Tony…(tapers off)…Tony….

            /to the tune of ‘Tommy’.

            1. But that deaf, dumb and blind boy, sure plays a mean pinball.

      2. carbon taxes and green energy is fucking them over

        1. According to science you’re much more fucked by not having a habitable biosphere.

          But around here science isn’t science–and religion is equally whatever we need it to be so that Corporation X gets its haul.

          1. when will this biosphere become inhabitable and how?

            doesnt climate change always exist with or without man?

            not sure if serious

          2. corporations get their haul cause customers like their products

          3. Tony, you’re blinding me with science!

          4. No one is seriously saying that climate change will lead to an unhabitable biosphere. If your trying to represent the scientific point of view here, it’s probably better to avoid wild exaggerations like that.

          5. Do you like apples, Tony? How about them apples?

      3. The CAGW crowd relies on faith, dogma, promises of end times, secret data that can’t be shared because its super special and thus can only be accessed by priest class, social shaming, and re-writing of historical data to promote its agenda – very similar to many religions. It uses totems like “The Hockey Stick” and creates fictional demons to fight. It screams “apostate” and “heretic” rather than win a debate with facts. And like most religions, it ain’t gonna pay for itself, so it needs to reach into your pocket to keep the machinery rolling. Say what you will about the televangelists, they may be fraudsters but they aren’t getting grants paid for by my tax dollars.

        The CAGW skeptical crowd says show me the raw data, show me a model that accurately predicts results, and show me that the AGW is actually C, and we can talk about what/whether the best approach is to adapt, prevent further change, or even reverse the changes.

        1. “The CAGW skeptical crowd says show me the raw data, show me a model that accurately predicts results, and show me that the AGW is actually C,”

          Agreed! I’ve seen no good science that indicates AGW will be catastrophic.

          1. Look harder.

      4. I am confused, who has ever suggested banning people from speaking out about their belief in global warming? Or mandating speech against it? Bernie is supporting laws that require misleading speech. Who on the ‘denier’ side of the climate debate is doing anything similar? And what makes you think I wouldn’t take a similar position on the 1st amendment banning such a law, if they were?

        I may have my inconsistencies, though I try to avoid them, but on the first amendment I am pretty much a purist.

  7. big oil exists cause people like cars, planes and consumer products. truth hurts

    1. Actually, that’s why oil companies exist. Big Oil exists because governments like to fuck around in markets and make it difficult for small, efficient, responsive companies to cope with regulatory and tax burdens.

      1. Small and efficient?

        Google “economies of scale” and get back to me, champ. Holy shit.

        1. In the modern world, economies of scale only apply to regulatory compliance, at least insofar as they make enough of a difference to matter.

  8. Too bad a judge can’t lean over the bench and tell the anti-GMO folks, “Look, stupid. If you voluntarily label all your GMO-free products “GMO-Free,” and none of the other products have your label, the consumer gets exactly the same information that mandatory labeling of everything provides. Therefore the law is not the least restrictive means to the end. So buzz off.”

  9. Is there any credible study suggesting the efficacy of GMO labeling? Do consumers generally pay any attention to this? And is the cost of labeling (whatever that actually turns out to be) applied to both GMO and non-GMO food? If the cost of GMO food is disproportionately affected then it might be difficult to determine that that added cost isn’t what’s driving consumers to other choices.

    1. They should hand consumers a blanket every time they buy a product. It’s meant to provide a false sense of security and for some, the idea of having done something-anything is more than enough.

  10. Tony,

    Try to focus when dealing with an issue that clearly drives you to an emotional lack of control. If one adheres to libertarianism, it doesn’t hold that one approves of a given company such as Monsanto. I do, by the way, though I admit its an emotional stand. Its a reaction to the hate filled rants I read by anti-GMO ranters on comment sites.

    A free speech adherent, for instance, would not necessarily approve of Mein Kampf or a pro child abuse novel. In the case of GMO’s, this is one basic science factoid that blows the opponents off the table: a standard practice for many years, and still used by non GMO seed companies is to blast seeds with high levels of pesticides and radiation, grow a bunch, screen the mutations for anything desirable, then repeat. This means a huge amount of genetic re-arranging to get a bunch of mutants you sort through.

    GMO use means much less genetic rearranging. Much less. Since the opponents claim that genetic rearrangement is what scares the GMO scardie cats, they should favor GMO over most other food sold. Gotcha, if you follow reason (get it? We’re on “Reason,” dude or dudette).

  11. TRUMP DID IT TOO!

    Did I do that right?

    1. I’ll take Well Known Quotations from President Chelsea Clinton’s 2036 Campaign for $300, Alex.

      1. *checks calendar*

        Shit, I’ll be hitting retirement right around then. I was hoping to be dead and buried.

          1. I hope Uber goes to Alpha Centauri by then.

              1. LOL

                We do tend to gussy up some formerly crap neighborhoods don’t we. Until all the straights come in, bid the rents too damn high, and fill the place up with their goddamn strollers.

                1. Fun fact. When I lived in Capitol Hill, I lived in an 8 unit condo (high design), I was the only straight person living there. Then I moved out and took my stroller (and new wife) to a considerably less hip neighborhood, because the rents in the old one were too damn high.

                  I will also give you gay men credit for the ones gussying up the place. If it were left up to the lesbians, it would all be organic farmer’s markets and Indigo Girls. Blech.

                  1. Yeah, the youngsters can keep those neighborhoods. I can neither afford nor do I want to live in such neighborhoods any more (least not in NYC – if I was back in say Buffalo it might be different).

      2. $300?! Ha! You forgot to factor in inflation. Jeopardy answers will start at $10,000 and end at $100,000 by the time 2036 rolls around.

  12. You know who else wanted to label things?

    1. R. Stanton Avery?

    2. Libby Libby Libby?

    3. Chip Bok?

  13. is tony a climate scientist?

    1. You don’t have to be a member of the priest-class to worship in the church.

      1. what i suspected.

        dissenting opinions are not valid unless you are a climate scientist. even they dont get any slack.

        but if opinions support it then must be valid.

        which is odd as seeing the logic of the former, im not sure how members of the latter can assess validity of climate scientist unless they are climate scientists themselves

        1. You must be new around here.

          /Wanderers forever.

      2. what i suspected.

        dissenting opinions are not valid unless you are a climate scientist. even they dont get any slack.

        but if opinions support it then must be valid.

        which is odd as seeing the logic of the former, im not sure how members of the latter can assess validity of climate scientist unless they are climate scientists themselves

  14. As someone who feels superior to minorities and the less wealthy, I applaud the demise of voluntary food labeling. Those people are not intelligent enough to understand what is or isn’t healthy, so I am heartened that the federal government – an entity that knows what is good for those people – will enforce mandatory food labeling.

    Why am I so passionate about this issue, you have surely asked yourself? Monsanto is responsible for my fibromyalgia, that is why! If only I knew what their hormones would do to me!

  15. ” the activists are engaged in a disinformation campaign against biotech crops and Sanders is enabling them.”

    And we’re surprised because?

      1. When I saw them miss that 3rd goal in the first half I had a sense of foreboding.

        Meh. Next time they won’t dick around in group play and win the groups they’re supposed to in order to avoid big clubs. This should have been a quarter-finals on match up.

        Ste back year for Serie A.

        1. Set.

          1. More importantly irritating was the fact I lost a pair of Maui Jim sunglasses today.

        2. Yeah; I was hoping this would be the year Serie A would pass the EPL in the league coefficient.

          Maybe next year, with Leicester in the Champions League.

    1. They’re choosing the leader of the free world?

    2. Yeah, this is easily one of the least surprising things to have come out of the Sanders campaign. I’m surprised he hasn’t proposed an outright ban on all GMO’s period.

      That wouldn’t shock me either, he’s team WE KNOW WHAT’S BEST FOR YOU.

      1. he is a socialist

    3. “And we’re surprised because?”

      Because Donald Trump was not mentioned anywhere in this article. Is that even allowed?

  16. tony your idea of freedom seems to be free to force others to do what you want. also i get the vibe you support a cause if the collective will of the people thru democratic reps. answer these scenarios:

    1. do you support gays being forced to conversion therapy if collective will of people ala turing?

    2. did you support gay marriage bans? note the will of people in states were struck down by the courts. you seem to support the democratic passage above

    3. did you support iraq war which congress passed?

  17. It is not the labeling that is expensive. It is the testing. Small farms with roadside stands or city fairs would be destroyed.

    Bernie is out to destroy small farmers.

    A man of the people – no doubt.

    1. “:Bernie is out to destroy small farmers.”

      I think the fashionable phrase it he wants to collectivize the small farmers. For the good of us all.

  18. what about this inhabitable biosphere? sounds sexy. please tell me more

    1. Biosphere? “Do you think that means it goes both ways?”

      1. *Bi,OhMy,sphere

        /sulu

  19. “First thing we do, let’s kill all the farmers.”

  20. Voluntary is one of the words not in a socialist vocabulary.
    .

    1. “You will do this voluntarily or we will kill you.”

      Seems pretty voluntary to me. You get a choice.

  21. from last may – worth a glance at least =

    Bernie Sanders’ Troubling History of Supporting US Military Violence Abroad

    while i think its quasi-retarded, as anything on Alternet tends to be, they have a point which the so-called “anti-war left” always sweeps under the rug = their penchant for supporting UN resolutions which inevitably draw NATO into wars

    They spit the term “neoconservative” all the time with zero reflection about what it really means, and always apply a blanket argument that multilateralism is a recipe for peace…. but the fact is that its quite the opposite = multilateralism has more often justified military interventions than prevented them. John Kerry’s own reticence to say the word “Genocide” re: Syria is exactly because it would compel the UN to decide whether to concur, which would subsequently obligate them to commit some force to ‘stopping’ it.

    1. while i think its quasi-retarded, as anything on Alternet tends to be, they have a point which the so-called “anti-war left” always sweeps under the rug = their penchant for supporting UN resolutions which inevitably draw NATO into wars

      I have come to the conclusion that bombing in the name of nothing more than human rights is not the same as bombing someone over an “American Interest”. In fact, the less (fewer? someone call tim Cavanaugh for a ruling) interests America has in a region, the more likely the real lefties will support a war.

      1. the less… interests America has in a region, the more likely the real lefties will support a war.

        there’s that. there’s also just their startling abandonment of any concerns about military action when Top People with the correct color tie are in charge.

        I cannot for the life of me recall a single Code Pink person ever mentioning any concerns about the 60,000+ troops Obama threw into Afghanistan. Or if they did… it was the context of giving him a gigantic hug and a great photo-op. The “tearing their hair out”/throwing blood on people”-stuff seemed but a distant memory.

      2. fewer interests, less interest

    2. “One hardly saves a world without ruling it.”

    3. Does anyone actually use the term neoconservative correctly?

      It usually is used to mean either “Jews” or “hawks” or both

      1. Jewhawks….great band name

  22. Look, I get some of the arguments against some modern GMO food industry… the ones wrapped up in abuses of IP law.

    But to think GMOs are any more harmful to humans than non-GMO foods is crazy.

    1. Yeah, I know some people who are anti-GMO who claim it’s because of abuses by big mean companies like Monsanto. I try to explain how that is a problem with IP law and not with genetic engineering, and that the same IP rules that forbid propagation of seeds from GMO crops also apply to conventionally bred plant cultivars, but it doesn’t seem to go in.

      1. Keep trying. It’s worth it

  23. I want Bernie to prove his commitment to Anti-GMO and exhort his supporters to all eat @ Chipotle

    1. The President Sanders labor camp laborers will all be fed non-gmo gruel.

    2. Not until they get a living wage.


  24. I want Bernie to prove his commitment to Anti-GMO and exhort his supporters to all eat @ Chipotle

    Rooting for a purge, hey?

  25. I’ll just leave this here

    1. But all the people Borlaug saved are useless to the left. They are over in Africa, Asia, and South America, being all alive and carbon footprinting all over stuff. Remember, the people opposing GMOs are often the same people deeply worried about population growth.

      1. But all the people Borlaug saved are useless to the left. They are over in Africa, Asia, and South America, being all alive and carbon footprinting all over stuff.

        Their worst sin isn’t being alive over there, it’s being alive anywhere without the left’s help.

  26. but what about the 10th amendment.

    1. Sure. Since this is a First Amendment issue, the 10th Amendment does not override the First Amendment protection. (incorporation doctrine from the 14th Amendment applies practically all of the BoR to the states)

    2. So, totalitarians are ‘federalists’ when it comes to preserving the rights of totalitarian states to infringe upon the rights of their citizens stated in the very same constitution containing the 10th amendment?

  27. Bernie’s appeal to federalism is thoroughly disingenuous. First, he knows that most staple groceries are sold nationwide, so complying with Vermont’s mandatory labeling would most likely force food companies to put labels on all of their products.

    Or, they could just say “screw Vermont”.

    Whether Bernie is being disingenuous or not, letting Vermont have it’s own rules is an application of federalism.

    1. There is a point there. If Vermont want’s to prohibit (because that never has unintended consequences) then it can. Federalism is much more problematic though today than when the Constitution was written. The country is a much smaller place. Back then many people never traveled out of their county much less their state. It was a hardship to move. Most regulation was local by necessity and laws in one state rarely impacted other states. Simply not the case today. Local/State regulation cost massive amounts of money. State insurance regulations is a big reason health insurance cost are astronomical. I appreciate the local experiment aspect of Federalism but there is no doubt as our little personal worlds continue to expand those arguments are not as cut and dried as the were back when traveling to other states was measured in days and weeks and months. Not to mention the cost to consumers of national companies having to manage a patchwork of local regulations.

      1. And I’ll vote live by the Constitution; die by it.
        Yes, he’s a disingenuous worn-out lefty, so let him invoke federalism at his convenience. And if some producers chose to ignore the VT market, so be it, Bern!
        You asked, you get.

  28. If private corporations made money by curing cancer, this idiot would come out in favor of cancer.

    1. That’s a good point…..let’s face it , Bernie is a fucking retard.

  29. As part of the anti-GMO crowd, I do believe that GMO foods are dangerous and unhealthy, and that consumers have a right to know whether their food is filled with ingredients that are made with GMO products, or not. As a Vietnam veteran, I have seen what chemicals introduced into the environment can do, when people aren’t forewarned of the dangers. Worse yet, Monsanto has a history of being willing to exploit the public through the use of chemicals that are dangerous to humans and other living species, i.e. agents such as Agent Orange.

    All of this leads me to wonder just how a libertarian can stand on the side of companies that are known to have willfully, and deceptively miss lead the public as to the safety of their products on various occasions in the past. Expecting corporations to do the right thing, when its been shown time and time again they won’t unless forced to, makes me wonder just what rights to the freedom to do as they will, do they really deserve?

    1. Expecting people to do the right thing, when its been shown time and time again they won’t unless forced to, makes me wonder just what rights to the freedom to do as they will, do they really deserve?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.