Blarman, it is not about "leaf vegetables". My main concern is roundup used on GMO cereals. The roundup is a systemic spray, entering thru the leaf, and will circulate within the entire plant at a time when the grains are at final stage of development. Any chemical entering the grains will be there in the final product as well (bread, etc). Glyphosate does not break down rapidly, and can remain in the soil for some time. It damages the microbe population in the soil (though soil concentrations are too low to be a concern with root uptake in the crop).

Sounds very similar to me in terms of the desired result

Only an individual has natural rights, a business does not.
The "sole proprietor" construct exists for taxation purposes. It does not effect the proprietor's rights.
You are suggesting the idea of a limit on director liability is the same as the business entity itself having rights. That is not the same.

That's a big operation. Thanks for your insights and keep 'em coming!

I farmed about 260 acres of corn, beans, oats, and hay in rotation along with a small farrow to finish hog operation, and a small 30 cow dairy herd. Had to get out about 15 years ago...wow I can't believe it's been that long.

Yep. Chlordane was to repel borers: those nasty little worms that ruin the cherries. Or just add extra protein depending on how you want to look at it ;)

My grandpa dry-farmed wheat. My other grandpa did alfalfa and a peach orchard. Both had their own gardens. I grew up tending a 1/4-acre garden and fruit trees besides. My father even experimented with growing kiwis, even though we're in a region 4/5 area. I didn't do commercial farming personally, but have been around many who have both professionally and personally. I'm more knowledgeable than the common joe, having raised corn, potatoes, green beans, berries, tomatoes, peppers, etc., but haven't driven a tractor for long enough to call myself a real farmer. Large part of that was probably the hay fever. :S

I've heard stories about chlordane. It was a pesticide right? Out of curiosity are you still involved in agriculture? If so, what crops?

No argument here.

"One concern I have had is that many herbicides are growth regulators"

That is the principle behind Round-up, yes. It forces the plant to accelerate it's maturation and flowering so that the plant produces impotent seeds and then dies. It works better on young growth because it's all based on shortening the plant's life cycle so drastically that it can't reproduce viably.

2-4D specifically attacks the growth cycle of broad-leaf plants (dicotyledons). The reason they curl up is because the herbicide ages them artificially.

"These are all crutches to allow the industrialization of food production."

Bingo. When you're shipping produce from Florida to Montana so that Subway's can put tomatoes on your sandwich in December...

"but you can't wash off anything absorbed via the plant's leaf"

Show me which leaf vegetables and which herbicides this applies to. I think you will find that all modern herbicides have a decidedly small effective lifespan in any case. Then you have to demonstrate that these are being applied within that timespan prior to shipping. EPA rules prohibit the use of any herbicides or pesticides which don't degrade or break down after only a few weeks. I know because we used to use one called chlordane on our cherry trees to treat for borers. It would last all year and was very effective. When it was outlawed because it was persistent (it was applied to the base of the trees - never the fruit BTW), it became a lot more costly and less effective to use the alternatives you had to put on every couple of weeks and which had to be applied to the fruit.

And I'd suggest looking into tomato ripeners if you are concerned about GMO's. They are an artificial chemical sprayed on green tomatoes to turn them red in the stores. Most tomatoes are picked and shipped green (not ripe) and artificially ripened just before hitting the store shelves so they last longer. All the tomatoes used in fast food (especially sandwich shops like Subway's, Blimpie's, and Jommy John's) are artificially ripened, which is why they are so crunchy and frequently a faint red instead of the deep red of a vine-ripened tomato.

That is not true, they would have to do their own research. There are also plenty of companies that would cater specifically to them! They would advertise that they are peanut free, or gluten-free.

But remember, you cannot improve capitalism but regulating it. That is the mindset of the authoritarian. Just because you can see a justification, or someone that could be helped out does not mean it is right to use force to implement it. You are essentially advocating for turning the food producers into sacrificial animals for the benefit of those with food allergies, or those who wish to not eat GMOs. That is the mindset of the altruist, not the objectivist, and altruism is the philosophy of death.

What I see as the proper role of government in this realm is exactly as you stated, that the courts would settle disputes. A company cannot claim a product to be gluten-free, for instance, if it was made with flour. That would be fraud and is a type of force and should be illegal. But they should not require that all "relevant" information be disclosed with every transaction. If someone wants to sell you a magic box with mystery food, and you want to eat it, you should be able to complete such a transaction.

I agree. I guess my struggle with this is that if there are no rules on labeling and it is solely at the discretion of the grower, distributor, manufacturer (like for premade foods with ingredient lists), then labeling would be effectively useless to have at all. If a manufacturer produces a food that sells well - but is only different by a few "secret" ingredients from their competitors - they could list most items in their ingredients list, except for the secret items. But for people with food allergies, they cannot rely on that and for safety reasons would have to no buy that item. In reality, people with food allergies would have no choice other than to grow their own foods, produce their own drinks, etc... They would literally have no safe options to choose from as with or without labeling - they could never know what they are getting - especially if they are also concerned about GMO. Then they can't even buy fruits and vegetables to make their own stuff.

That would impose an awful burden on those with food allergies. Again, I get the point - trust me I am very anti regulation and freedom to run your business as you choose (and in any other aspect in life), but I do get a little concerned about abandoning the needs of people who really use this kind of data to make safe food choices.

We just recently looked into producing some pickled products and very quickly decided against it due to all the regulatory hoops that have to be jumped through to do so. It's considered low acid canning and requires a lot more than most fresh cooked foods or high acid canning. What a shame, but labeling, so people can make a safe choice? I would probably label anyway just to give people the choice. The cost of labeling in comparison to the overall income and expenses of the product would be very trivial.

Even in an Objectivist system, the courts would still have to settle trade disputes. Would there be any kind of possible Objectivist Constitution that might require people to be forthcoming with each other regarding their transactions - that all relevant and known information regarding the transaction be given? Obviously more clearly defined and flushed out than that, but you get the idea. This would make court resolutions much more clear and straight forward and would support the whole premise of being able to make rational - informed decisions.

One, some types of businesses are separate entities, not all. The vast majority of businesses in our country are small businesses and many of them are sole proprietorships. A sole proprietorship IS the person who IS the business. Other forms of businesses like LLC's, Corporations, etc... were established to shield the personal assets and personal liabilities to businesses owned and operated by one or more people. If one person in the company does something stupid and gets the business sued out of business, the other owners are protected from having their homes taken. They are not separations from the people who formed them in deciding what they do, how they do it, what services they do or do not provide, who they target their services to, etc... People who think it is have probably never started and run a business.

If you say to take away the rights of a business - you are saying to remove the rights of the person (sole proprietor) or the group of owners in businesses that are considered separate entities for tax purposes.

I am a bit torn on this issue honestly. I agree with JohnConner352 for the most part on this issue - BUT - the ONLY alternative is then for each and every person to grow and produce all of their own food. If you go with the premise that the growers don't have to divulge ingredients or GMO status, etc... then you will simply never know. The growers sell to retail stores. The retail stores sell to you. You are then not in a position to know anything about your food when buying it from the store. Even if they label it, you won't know what they have included or excluded in their labeling. The retailers won't know - at best they would know only what the growers told them. For any so if your food choices are important to you - your only solution would be to grow you own. If you have any kind of food allergies, you could buy nothing pre-made. If you are concerned about GMO's you can't buy anything - you would have to grow it all.

Do we have a right to know what's in our food? No. Do we have a right to know the GMO status of basic foods or if ingredients include GMO items? No. This is a want. Do we get to force others to provide us information against their will? No. Can a business provide information? No. Only the owners of a business can authorize and effect the information to be given out. The literal business has no arms, legs, eyes, hands, etc... to pass over that information - only the people behind that business can effect that data being given. But, in an objectivist society, would it be rational to withhold information from people so that they can not make an informed decision in the process of making a deal? I would think not, but does that make it something that you, or me, or the courts could impose on people - that you have to divulge requested information in the course of a transaction? I think not. What if it is a tree hugger and they want to know how much money the grower has given to the Nature Conservancy before they will buy their product? Does that mean that because they asked, that you then have to give them that data? I think not. Where is the line drawn? Or, do we simply ask and they say - I don't know, or I can't say, or here's the information?

I was posting on the Target and transgender topic recently. I argue that they are a private business and can set the policies on how they run their restrooms as they see fit, and that their customers can choose to use the bathrooms or not. And if they really have an issue with the bathroom policy, they can stop buying from Target and go elsewhere. But I also stated that they should have a sign on their women's bathroom entrance so you can make a rational decision before using it and taking the chance on having some guy come walking in on you, or your minor daughter, or whatever. But, from this premise, they should not have to label their bathroom entrance either. If their is no sign, then take the chance and use it, or just stop using them? I suppose you could ask a manager or cashier. But what if you have to go "now" and can't wait and there is no sign? Hmmm. I guess just stop going to that store all so you don't have to take any chances.

I think if we were able to move towards an Objectivist society, people would be willing to give as much information as possible and people would be able to then make the most rational decisions they could - any probably it would be unusual for people to be secretive about basic information - otherwise people would assume something's up.

Just thinking out loud here - other than the business entity stuff. Businesses do not exist on their own - they are an extension of the owners of it (and ARE IT in the case of sole proprietors).

You are responsible for doing your own research. If a company is not being forthright with information you feel you need to know, then don't buy their stuff until they tell you. That's how rational beings interact. The moment you introduce the use of force you are shutting down reason. Force is the antithesis of reason.

I agree with you that we should not stop the development or be stopping people from buying and consuming them, but being that we are supposed to think and learn and use our rational skills to determine how we make decisions in our lives - how do we do so without labeling the products so people can make their choice?

Cigarettes were "safe" at one time till we found out the truth!!

well said, sir! -- j
.

and Nature ... includes man. . we just need to know
the consequences of our actions as best we can! -- j
.

we had one whom we called "butter" ... 'cuz she would
butt you whenever you bent over, near her. . tasted
really great after we fed her out! -- j
.

when I became involved with the meanest woman
in Atlanta, we watched it in the 80s ... as it changed
into a leftist propaganda channel. . they formerly had
music videos with almost no commentary. -- j
.