Cost of labeling is not the real issue
Editor, The Times:
The opponents of I-522 would have us believe that it would require separate, costly labeling specific to GMO products sold in Washington state [“Growing debate over genetically engineered food,” page one, Oct. 29]. The simple solution is to follow the example set in California for products containing carcinogenic material.
That is, one label that is used throughout the country stating that a particular product contains material that California has found to be carcinogenic. Hence, one food label that states Washington requires GMO identification.
Of course, we all know that is exactly what the opponents are afraid of. Then again, separate labeling for Washington should not increase expenses. In many cases, the same processor cans food for different companies, each requiring their own label. The same goes for meat, fish, bread, etc. That scenario doesn’t raise the cost of the finished products for anyone.
James R. Willis, Tacoma