Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

Tag: gmos

Oct.
14th

I-522: We are guinea pigs for GMO foods

Re: “I-522 could raise prices, panel of scientists says” (TNT, 10-10).

Changing labels won’t increase food prices. In the Huffington Post, Scott Faber says: “As a lobbyist for the food industry, I spent five years fighting proposals that would have raised food prices . . . What I learned is that adding a few words to a label has no impact on the price of making or selling food.”

The whole No on I-522 campaign is full of deliberate misinformation. To learn more, go to responsibletechnology.org or organicconsumers.org.

I have studied this subject since 1995 when a risk assessment

Read more »

Sep.
3rd

FOOD: I-522 is about our right to know

Re: “Voters should reject very flawed Initiative 522″ (letter, 9-1).

The letter advising people to vote no on the genetically modified food labeling initiative merits response. I-522 speaks directly to our right to know what we are consuming. Yes, it is a question of safety and there is more than enough evidence to indicate GMOs aren’t safe.

I want to call attention to a “statistic” the writer used – the one about those “440 peer-reviewed scientific studies” he claims as proof that GMOs are safe.

If the writer had actually read them instead of just pulling that “statistic” off a

Read more »

Aug.
30th

FOOD: Vote no on flawed Initiative 522

Voters will have a chance to defeat a very flawed initiative – Initiative 522 – when we sit down to fill out our ballots this fall.

Supporters of I-522 tell us it is a simple measure to label foods made with genetically engineered ingredients. It isn’t. Voters shouldn’t be misled. Here’s what I-522’s promoters won’t tell you:

• I-522 would hurt Washington’s farmers, food producers and retailers whose cost of doing business – and our costs as consumers – would increase in order to comply with new regulations.

• I-522 would create a new state bureaucracy to regulate and police

Read more »

July
24th

I-522: Look carefully into ‘vote no’ information

Re: “Don’t be misled by scare tactics on food” (letter, 7-20).

The writer directs people to the FactsAbout522.com website but somehow fails to mention that the website and the anti-522 movement are mostly being paid for by chemical companies: DuPont, Monsanto, Dow and Bayer, among others. They are hardly an unbiased group, since they are the principle sources of genetically modified or engineered food products.

If, as the writer asserts, “GM foods are the most rigorously tested foods on the planet,” why would the producers object to their being labeled as such? They are so labeled in Europe,

Read more »

July
24th

I-522: Show Big Food we’re smarter than Californians

A letter writer (TNT, 7-20) states that “hundreds of studies have proved genetically modified foods to be safe.” The majority of such studies were financed by Monsanto and other the mega-agribusinesses, purveyors of highly processed and engineered food products that are now under increasing scrutiny by nutritional researchers.

There are medical and agricultural experts aplenty with grave concerns about the health implications of consuming GMOs (as well as the agricultural hazards of releasing these strains into our eco-system in general). U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has acknowledged this growing groundswell of concern from the scientific community as well as the

Read more »