Suddenly, When It Comes To GMO Labeling, NY Times Editorial Board Loves States Rights

The NY Times is typically very much pro-federal government dominance, and against any State using their 10th Amendment Right. Remember, the Times, both in the news section and the opinion pages, was totally against California’s Prop 8 (gay marriage ban) and Arizona’s illegal alien crackdown law, among others. They’ve been very supportive of the food labeling component of Obamacare, and utterly against the 27 States who are suing the Obama administration and the EPA over the power plant rule. But, finally, finally, the NY Times Editorial Board finds a State Right they can agree with

A Bad Effort in Congress to Thwart States on Food Labels

The Senate could soon join the House to try to make it harder for consumers to know what is in their food by prohibiting state governments from requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods. This is a bad idea that lawmakers and the Obama administration should oppose.

In July, Vermont will become the first state to require the labeling of genetically modified food. Many food companies and farm groups say such laws are problematic because they could dissuade consumers from buying foods that federal regulators and many scientists say pose no risk to human health. But that is an unfounded fear and states should be free to require labels if they want to.

The Senate Agriculture Committee is considering a bill by its chairman, Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, that would prohibit state labeling laws. The committee is likely to approve it, primarily with Republican votes. The House passed a similar bill last summer along party lines.

I wonder if the NYTEB would be OK if the GOP run House and Senate were considering bill’s that would allow States to opt out of the Ocare food labeling requirement, or the contraception mandate. I’m thinking the answer would be a collective freak out from the EB.

Usually, Republicans in Congress are eager to give states more power to set policy in areas like environmental protection, health care and social services when they think that legislatures and governors will weaken regulations or cut spending to help the poor. In this case, however, they want to take power away from states that want to impose new rules that their residents support. The only thing these lawmakers seem to favor consistently is protecting corporate interests.

Usually, leading Leftists like the NYTEB are eager to remove power from the States and give it to the federal government. Why the sudden change of heart in this one instance? Most likely it is due to the collective freakout from Leftists over genetically modified foods. You can bet the ranch on the EB taking the side of the federal government if a Democrat Congress or the Obama administration was attempting to force companies nationwide to provide GMO labeling and States were attempting to block this.

Just too be clear, States should have the ability to require GMO labeling if they want, in my opinion. But, I’m consistent in my belief in the 10th Amendment.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “Suddenly, When It Comes To GMO Labeling, NY Times Editorial Board Loves States Rights”

  1. Jeffery says:

    William, the error in your thought processes is one diagnostic of right-wing thought: all or none. Obviously, not every state law can be right; not every state law can be wrong. For example, a state that tries to legislate away the voting rights of many of its residents is likely wrong, requiring federal scrutiny.

  2. Nice try, but, I never wrote that, and you’re not a very good mind reader.

  3. alanstorm says:

    GMO labeling laws are an excellent example of liberal idiocy, and one place where a national rule makes sense.

    Idiocy, because every non-GMO food out there is heavily advertised as such. The alleged problem is already solved.

    Making sense, because so many foods are distributed nationally. Separate rules for every state add cost with no benefit.

    OTOH, Jeffy is consistent once again in his inability to understand the issues and concepts involved.

  4. gitarcarver says:

    For example, a state that tries to legislate away the voting rights of many of its residents is likely wrong, requiring federal scrutiny.

    And of course, there are no states trying to legislate away the voting rights of anyone.

    Facts really do escape liberals.

  5. John says:

    NC has had to postpone its primary because of gerrymandering
    States are enacting new laws making it more difficult for some citizens to vote
    Those are facts that the GOP should be ashamed of doing
    As far as GMOs being heavily advertised as such I don’t recall seeing them in any of my grocery store handouts of sale items

  6. gitarcarver says:

    As far as GMOs being heavily advertised as such ….

    If you are going to try to respond to a point, at least read the point to which you are responding and not make one up or misrepresent it.

    States are enacting new laws making it more difficult for some citizens to vote

    Some states are initiating procedures to make sure the votes of legal and eligible citizens count. The results have been more voter participation and less fraud.

    Are you against that?

    Why would you be for illegal votes cancelling out those of legitimate voters?

    NC has had to postpone its primary because of gerrymandering

    And Maryland (a Democrat state) is just as bad. Both parties should be ashamed of gerrymandering, but while conservatives decry gerrymandering in all cases, liberals like it is cases where it benefits them.

    • John says:

      Could you point out the “less fraud”? If there is anything significant I haven’t seen it
      Perhaps you could point some out and show how the new regulations will prevent it
      Well MD should stop that gerrymandering

      Perhaps it will require a Supremes decision to prevent states from doing that
      Are you for making it more difficult got minotity voters to be able to cast votes? Why now in 2016 is this necessary ? It wasn’t necessary before.
      Since I decry gerrymandering even when Ds benefit does that mean I am not a liberal?

      this will/should/can be resolved only by the Supremes ruling against “States rights’
      I feel quite confident that will happen soon and look forward to that day when gerrymandering in ALL states ends

  7. drowningpuppies says:

    this will/should/can be resolved only by the Supremes

  8. gitarcarver says:

    Could you point out the “less fraud”? If there is anything significant I haven’t seen it

    See Florida.

    Also see this. It’s from your own state, john.

    And this.

    Americans hold the belief that it is better for 9 guilty men to go free than one innocent man to be convicted. Yet when it comes the denial of the rights of legal voters, the liberal position is “it’s not that bad.” Why is it that liberals such as yourself don’t want to protect the rights and votes of legal voters?

    Perhaps you could point some out and show how the new regulations will prevent it

    You think that dogs and dead people voting was a good thing? Don’t you think that a valid ID to prove who you are when casting a vote is a good thing?

    Why now in 2016 is this necessary ? It wasn’t necessary before.

    Actually it was necessary before. It should have been addressed long before. But as both parties had stakes in the game, neither wanted to truly address it. Now it is just he left which seems to support voter fraud and illegitimate votes canceling out legal votes.

    Why do you support people voting illegally and the casting of illegal votes?

    If voting is a right (which many say it is) shouldn’t the government work to protect and support the rights of legal voters to have their votes count?

    Are you for making it more difficult got minotity voters to be able to cast votes?

    Please explain why it is more difficult to present an ID that people have now? Why are you against what minorities overwhelmingly support for themselves?

    Since I decry gerrymandering even when Ds benefit does that mean I am not a liberal?

    Since you’ve never done it before, it seems that you are practicing more of a “situational ethics” than a true belief. Time will tell if you maintain being against gerrymandering in liberal states or if you only bring it up when it applies to a conservative state.

    this will/should/can be resolved only by the Supremes ruling against “States rights’

    States have the right guaranteed by the Constitution to run their own elections without direct interference from the Supreme Court. Gerrymandering is not about “state rights” in any sense of the words. It should be stopped at the State Supreme Court level.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5684 access attempts in the last 7 days.