Industry flack Susan Finston’s attempt to make the case for keeping genetically engineered food unlabeled was a stream of disinformation (“Labels shouldn’t be ordered just to satisfy scientific illiterates,” July 11). Some of the “scientific illiterates” who have expressed concerns about the untested nature of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) include the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Royal Society of Canada and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine.
Finston claims that “new plant and animal varieties happen in nature as well,” but doesn’t produce an instance outside a laboratory of a trout mating with a tomato, or an ear of corn producing pesticide in all its cells.
Finston claims that “the government has mandated labeling standards to warn consumers of potential hazards,” but the requirement to inform consumers of the ingredients of food products is about the consumer’s right to know. The bulk of her article tried to change the subject from the labeling of genetically modified organisms to bans on cultivating GMOs, then argued against that instead. California voters can change the subject back to their right to choose by voting “yes” on Proposition 37, requiring anyone selling genetically engineered food to say so. Go to www.labelgmos.org.
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to The Tribune