Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

Tag: I 522

Oct.
22nd

I-522: Say no to GMO foods

It’s crunch time for Washington state Initiative 522. This has been one of the hottest debates in state voting history along with the enormous amounts of money being contributed from both sides of the issue. But just because one side has more money than the other does not mean it is in the right.

To put it bluntly, who can go up against Monsanto and the likes and win? Not Washington state – at least, not alone.

Rather than money, in this case it will be the will of the people. Washingtonians must take the lead and show to the

Read more »

Oct.
22nd

GMO: Argentina’s ills show value of labeling

Re: “US chemicals affect Argentine health” (TNT, 10-21).

The article describes the severe health effects that increased pesticide use in Argentina has caused since farmers there adopted genetically modified food crops (soy, cotton and corn). As reported, “weeds and pests became resistant, (so) farmers increased the chemical burden” by ninefold in a little over 30 years.

The result? Increased rates of cancer, birth defects and illnesses “never seen before.”

If readers are still wondering why we might want to label our food, this article provides a compelling reason. Identifying foods as genetically modified gives me a choice about supporting

Read more »

Oct.
21st

I-522: Opponents using fear to fight labeling

The former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, recently said that the biggest failing of the economists that resulted in the economic collapse was that “we misunderstand how systematic fear is.”

His statement got me thinking about Initiative 522, which would require labeling genetically modified food, seeds and other agricultural commodities. The anti-522 ads seem to be based on fear. One such claim is that food will be more expensive.

For those who choose to eat healthy, organic is already more expensive than nonorganic food. I really don’t know if eating GMO is less healthy. I’m not convinced anyone

Read more »

Oct.
21st

I-522: Opponents make the best argument for labeling

In the discussion of claims and facts surrounding Initiative 522 (TNT, 10-21), opponents inadvertently made the strongest argument for it. They argue that food costs would increase if food were labeled because they assume “grocery manufacturers will switch to organic or non-GMO ingredients to avoid the label.”

That’s the point! If we knew that GMO ingredients were in a food item, we wouldn’t buy it; we would try to find a healthier alternative.

We consumers are wise to avoid GMO foods whenever we can because we simply don’t know yet how this huge, uncontrolled experiment with our food supply

Read more »

Oct.
21st

I-522: TNT buys into anti-labeling line

I am surprised The News Tribune opposes Initiative 522 (editorial, 10-6). Your extended research capabilities should make evident the hazard of consuming genetically modified and genetically engineered food. Scores of lab tests have proven the medical consequences of these modifications.

Countries around the world have banned their use. By July 2015 most food production companies will have had changes in their labeling regardless of GMO/GE labeling.

It appears you drank the poison of the major cola companies and the ultimate villain, Monsanto.

Oct.
21st

I-522: Flawed measure should be defeated

Washington voters need to take a very careful look at Initiative 522, which would require a special label on foods containing genetically modified ingredients.

I-522 backers claim it is a low-cost simple measure, but voters shouldn’t be misled by their misinformation campaign. I-522 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

I-522′s backers won’t tell you that I-522 would actually provide no useful information for consumers. Its numerous exemptions would sow confusion.

The won’t tell you that I-522 would hurt Washington’s farmers, food producers and retailers and that consumers will face increased costs as they are forced to comply with new regulations

Read more »

Oct.
21st

I-522: Initiative will cost state jobs and revenue

I’m sure you’re as tired of the ads for and against labeling of GMOs as I am. What I haven’t seen is a simplified statement about how this will affect all of us in Washington state while benefiting the producers of food from other states.

Much of the food we buy is from California, Oregon and other states. None of these other states will have to comply with I-522, which gives these states a price advantage over our own food providers – costing us jobs and revenue.

The benefit of labeling foods only from Washington state seems to be so

Read more »

Oct.
17th

I-522: Don’t fall for opponents’ divisive strategies

In the 1970s, lawyers for chemical companies quietly began patenting genetic alteration of plants and seeds. They hyped it as the “Green Revolution” and forced it onto farmers here and around the world, promising increased yields but in reality creating crops that functioned as pesticides, resulting in superweeds, poisoned ground and decimated insect populations.

Those crops are now linked to food intolerance, leaky gut syndrome and Irritable Bowel Syndrome. GMO technology is being rejected globally; 64 other countries demand labels on GMO exports, if not banning them altogether.

Not in the USA, where this dangerously unregulated food cartel is so

Read more »