February 22, 2013 at 7:00 AM
Be skeptical on GMO-labeling initiative
The public interest is not a special interest
In “Initiative 522 perpetuates faulty myths about GMO food” [seattletimes.com, Feb. 18], Thanh Tan’s opinion column opposing the labeling of genetically engineered food, she talks about “competing special interests.”
This is not a battle between “competing special interests.” It is a battle between one special interest — corporate agribusiness — and the public interest. The public interest is not a special interest.
–Maggie Willson, Seattle
Washington residents have right to know
With all due respect, your recent editorial, “Skepticism on GMO labels,” [Opinion, Feb. 18] would have better been titled, “Be skeptical of GMOs.”
The editorial notes, “There is no reliable evidence crops containing genetically modified organisms pose any risks.” Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Let’s face it, good or bad, we don’t know much about these crops. Except, of course, that the people telling us they’re safe are the same people responsible for making and selling them.
Washington residents deserve the right to know what they’re eating. That right should always supersede corporate rights to nontransparent profit. Why not allow consumers to make a choice instead of being scared of a little label?
As the op-ed states, more than 60 countries require labeling of some sort on GMO foods. What do they know that the U.S. doesn’t? I guess it’s how to run a country where people matter more than corporate greed.
–Ashley Lewis, Seattle
Trending with readers