OCF Candidate Survey 2006

Candidate: Rich Kahn
Party: Libertarian
Running For: Governor
State: New Hampshire

1

QDo you think organic agriculture should receive a fair share (at least 2.5%) of government resources spent on agriculture?

A No

Comment: I do not think government should be subsidizing any agricultural program, organic or otherwise. Government subsidies manage to oil the massive corporate agricultural machines, but do little to help the organic consumer. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (http://www.usda.gov) rails against the EU subsidizing pork exports (http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp2/highlights/99-08/eupork/euporksub.html) as it skews the free market, and they are right. Yet they subsidize our big corporate farms and the small family farms rarely see any of the benefit. Our government subsidizes farms of 160 acres or less. What do the big guys do? Break up their massive farms into “blocks” of 160 acres, put each block under a different corporate name, and farm them all as one.
2

QDo you support strict standards for processed foods, dairy, and body care products that are labeled or marketed as organic?

A No

Comment: I would support doing for organic foods what Underwriters Laboratories does for electrical and electronic products. A manufacturer of electric and electronic products pays to have UL evaluate their product and if it passes, it gets to wear the UL symbol. An organic food organization such as the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) could set up a similar program. The OCA could (and rightly should) market itself as the “gold standard” in what gets to be called organic. Organic consumers would be advised to “look for the official organic label.” Organic farmers would then pay to join the OCA and that would entitle the farmers to submit a product or products for evaluation. Each such evaluation would bear an additional cost and would have to be renewed on some regular basis, such as annually. The logo or symbol used would be, of course, legally a registered trademark such as (the OCA Logo).
3

QDo you support more aggressive government action to assess the harms of pesticides, take harmful pesticides off the market, and hold companies responsible for diseases and environmental damage caused by pesticides?

A No

Comment: The government does more harm than good with bans of this type. I support labeling of products with their potential risks and let the consumer decide. Then if harm comes to people in spite of the fact that they follow directions, current product liability law will more than take care of the remaining issues. One good example is the pesticide DDT. It is a powerful chemical, to be sure, and should be handled carefully. However we can see the result of banning this chemical in places like Africa. (See the following Washington Times article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20040915-094413-1954r.htm.) Malaria is a disease which has all but been eliminated in this country, yet has reached epidemic proportions in Africa because uses of the most cost-effective remedies have the user branded an “environmental racist.” (See the Reason Magazine article http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/05/say_it_aint_so_1.shtml.)
4

QShould people have the right to pass consumer safety laws at the state or local level that require food labels to include information on dangerous ingredients?

A Yes

Comment: Besides the obviously unconstitutional nature of such a congressional proposal (it violates the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution) I am opposed to allowing the federal government from usurping any state sovereignty, unless it can be shown absolutely that one state’s regulation directly and negatively impacts another state’s means of doing business. Historically states have always been allowed to make regulations stricter than those promulgated by the federal government (i.e. California’s air quality regulations.)
5a

QDo you support Country of Origin and labeling that helps consumers choose local products?

A Yes

Comment: I would support Country of Origin labels provided they were not mandated by our government. I am not that excited about peeling those little state or country of origin stickers off my produce on things I buy right now, however I know some people look for them. I suspect that people can look for “Grown in USA” now. Many kinds of produce identify specific states (i.e. Washington state apples.) We already have legislation that says what you put on your products must be the truth, otherwise it is fraud.
5b

QDo you support government action to help US farmers develop local and regional markets and to reduce non-renewable energy use on their farms?

A No

Comment: Do I think use of renewable energy is a good idea? Yes. Do I want the government to be involved in “helping” farmers? No. The best way government can help people is to “get out of the way” of innovation. An example of how our state government here in New Hampshire could get out of the way is to encourage experimentation and use of renewable energy sources by expressly waiving the state gasoline tax for the first (pick a number) gallons used. Then after that, continue the waiver if it can be proved the oil comes from renewable sources grown in New Hampshire. That way any loss of gasoline tax revenue would be offset by increase in business enterprise tax revenue. This practice would also encourage smaller farms as people try to “grow their own fuel.”
6a

QDo you support mandatory labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients?

A No

Comment: I would support a private consumer group such as the OCA defining what constitutes “organic” and if that excludes genetically-engineered foods, then those foods would not be allowed to wear the OCA label (see the answer to question 2.)
6b

QDo you support mandatory pre-market safety testing for all genetically modified foods and crops?

A No

Comment: No. I would rather look for an industry label specifying what may be called “organic.”
7

QDo you support universal testing for Mad Cow disease and a ban on feeding slaughterhouse waste to farm animals?

A No

Comment: This is a perfect example of how the government creates more problems than it solves, as is explained in the statement accompanying this question. This problem can be solved by enforcement of existing product liability laws and private testing. Most companies do not want to get sued into bankruptcy, so they will voluntarily have their meat tested. The big problem with getting the government involved with testing for this or any other contaminant is it lulls people in to a false sense of security. Also with government testing, the big agribusiness farmers can actually escape liability. All they have to say is “We complied with the government’s testing program, so we are not negligent.” People who contracted a disease would have to file an administrative complaint with the USDA against the company that sold them the meat, rather than just sue the company directly.
8

QDo you support a restructuring of trade-distorting US farm subsidies?

A No

Comment: I do not support a “restructuring” of US farm subsidies. I support eliminating them entirely (see answer to question 1.)
9

QDo you support a significant shift in US farm subsidies to help family farmers and ranchers make the transition to organic?

A No

Comment: No. I would not support “shifting” anything. I would rather eliminate subsidies entirely. See answer to question 1.
10

QDo you support a significant shift in subsidies to help US farmers adopt conservation and renewable energy practices on farms?

A No

Comment: No, I would eliminate subsidies entirely. See answers to questions 1, 5, and 9.
11

QDo you support increases for WIC (Women, Infant and Children), the Farmers Market Nutrition Program, and other programs to help low-income Americans buy organic food?

A No

Comment: No. The government should not be subsidizing any agriculture for anyone. My experience from a very young age is people choose to buy unhealthy foods regardless of how they pay for them. I had a job when I was in high school working in a supermarket. I noticed people buying potato chips and other health-challenged foods with food stamps. I tried to figure out why they would do that. They are not getting more “bang for the buck” in either healthy content or even simply in volume. The only answer I could come up with is they wanted to. The only solution is education, not more subsidies. See answers to questions 1, 5, 9, and 10.
12

QDo you support universal health care with a preventive focus and a major emphasis on better nutrition?

A No

Comment: Absolutely not. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it is free. People make unhealthy choices regardless of what kind of subsidy is provided. People on unemployment will smoke and drink. People will pay $2.99 for a 13 ounce bag of potato chips when they could buy a head of lettuce, a couple of tomatoes and a loaf of bread. See answer to question 11.
13

QDo you support 80%-by-2050 reduction in climate destabilizing greenhouse gas pollution?

A No

Comment: No, especially if it is “mandated” by the UN. There are too many studies that contradict the alleged global warming issue. Some contradict by saying there is no such problem. Some contradict by saying it is a problem but it is part of a natural cycle. Until both sides of the issue are discussed publicly, I would tend not to give credence to the alarmists. When the experts on both sides present their evidence publicly and side-by-side, then I can make an informed decision. Until then, I have to conclude that what is being fed to the public is engineered for some questionable purpose.
14

QDo you support ending the Iraq war and redirecting funds from the $500 billion annual military spending in the U.S. toward greening the U.S. economy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and converting U.S. agriculture to organic practices?

A Yes

Comment: I support ending the War in Iraq, but for different reasons. If I am to believe what our administration is telling us via the news media, it appears we went in to Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction (WMDs.) After not finding any, we said “While we are here, we might as well install a democracy,” almost as an afterthought. Money not used to fight this unconstitutional war should be returned to the people who earned it. Period.
15

Q Do you support requiring electronic voting machines to produce voter-verified paper records and election officials to use these records to conduct mandatory audits of election results?

A Yes

Comment: I support having strictly paper ballots in the first place. Failing that, I would insist on a paper audit trail from electronic voting machines.
16

QDo you support eliminating the distorting effect of special interest money on our elections and politicians by requiring full public funding for all federal, state, and local elections?

A No

Comment: Absolutely not. We see what happened as a result of the “bipartisan campaign finance reform” law (BCFRA) sometimes referred to as McCain-Feingold. What didn’t get a lot of coverage were the express restrictions on political speech in the BCFRA. Only the law did not call it political speech, it called it “electioneering communication.” The law said “`(A) IN GENERAL- (i) The term `electioneering communication' means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which-- `(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office; `(II) is made within-- `(aa) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for the office sought by the candidate; or `(bb) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for the office sought by the candidate;...” The most protected speech in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was supposed to be political speech.
17

QDo you support legislation to prevent internet companies from rigging the system to serve only the highest-paying users and discriminate against users they don’t like?

A No

Comment: This is a back-door attempt to regulate the internet. Not only that, anyone including the poor has access to “free” internet via their local public library, so it is not even a problem.

 

Return to Top of Page