Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

Tag: Initiative 522

Nov.
8th

I-522: Free-market alternatives to labeling

With the crash and burn of I-522, people interested in having informed consumers need to think outside the box. Informing consumers doesn’t require mandated labeling and bureaucratic enforcement. There are free market alternatives.

I suggest that the non-GMO producers simply start labeling their products “not genetically modified.”

The “organic” people learned this years ago. The “gluten-free” people learned this years ago. It’s just not that difficult, and particularly if, as the promoters of I-522 argued, the relabeling isn’t that big a hassle, then just go forth and relabel.

Oct.
24th

I-522: Don’t believe the lies from labeling opponents

Washington voters can accomplish something extraordinary, something California couldn’t do, something over 60 civilized nations already do, and which will empower us as citizens, starting a wave across the nation for the 9 out of 10 Americans who say they want it done: Vote YES on I-522 to label genetically-engineered products.

There’s one major obstacle: the heavy flow of misinformation and lies the biotech and food corporations are spending millions of dollars on, to confuse us. Unfortunately there’s no law against lying and distortion in a campaign, and sadly, they’re very good at it.

Fact: Labeling foods will NOT raise

Read more »

Oct.
22nd

I-522: Scientific rationale for labels doesn’t exist

Proponents of Initiative 522 claim that the measure aims to give consumers the right to choose whether they want to eat foods made with genetically engineered ingredients. Much of the controversy surrounding this issue derives from scientifically unfounded fears over the term “genetic engineering.”

Humans have been engaging in genetic engineering for thousands of years to improve food production and quality through the selective breeding of plants to enhance desirable traits. Current techniques to produce “genetically engineered” foods are a high-tech, more precise way of accomplishing the same goals as our ancestors.

Reputable organizations including the American Association for the

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.
11th

I-522: Coverage doesn’t answer key questions

I am very unhappy with your coverage of Initiative 522. Why aren’t you telling us that five out-of-state chemical companies and the junk food industry have put $17 million-plus into an all-out corporate attack against Washingtonians who just want to have their food labeled?

Why aren’t you telling us that I-522 was written to comply with the other labeling bills already in existence in 64 countries? As in those countries, I-522 says that plants or animals that have actually had their gene structure changed by genetic engineering have to be labeled, even if the GMO is no longer detected in

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
22nd

FOOD: Consumers should have a choice

The problem with genetically modified foods (GMOs) is less about the purported safety to consumers and more about the impact on our environment and family farmers.

Virtually all GM foods are modified to resist toxic pesticides allowing increasing amounts of toxic chemicals to keep weeds and insects at bay. These pesticides produce “super” organisms that are immune. The increasing stream of chemicals in the environment reduces the natural predators, actually increases the pests and poisons both the soil and the farm workers.

The world market for U.S. produce is reduced as several countries reject GM foods. Since the companies that

Read more »

July
22nd

FOOD: GMO labeling is all backwards

Why do the backers of Initiative 522 insist on putting the cost burden of re-labeling on every food item that may contain GMO foods? That seems unfair, given the low interest in the public for such a label.

Why not simply slap a “non-GMO” label on the foods that wish to appeal to this narrow need? Surely those food producers are already sympathetic to the cause.

This is the only fair solution as it places the added cost burden right where it can do the most good. The free-market wins again.