Proposition 105, which is on the Colorado ballot next month, would mandate labeling of genetically modified food products that are sold in the state. (Thinkstock)
Re: “Should Colorado voters approve Proposition 105 (GMO food labeling measure)?,” Sept. 28 point-counterpoint columns.
I am flabbergasted that former Colorado commissioner of agriculture Don Ament (“No: The plan is costly, misleading”) doesn’t see any difference between hybridization and genetic engineering. In the former, similar species can be cross-bred because they share similar genetic traits. Hybrids can occur naturally, or they can be created by grafting or cross-pollination of similar species. Conversely, genetic engineering involves two disparate species that would never naturally form a new variety in a million years. Because GMOs are not natural, we simply don’t know what the long-term health consequences might be, and therefore consumers should have the right to know where their food comes from, so that they can decide whether they want to accept those risks.
As for the cost argument, after Europe began its labeling program, David Byrne, former European commissioner for health and consumer protection, declared that GMO labeling “did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying prediction of some interests.”
Roland L. Halpern, Denver
This letter was published in the Oct. 5 edition.Luddites like Larry Cooper (“Yes: We must know what is in our food”) open their ignorant mouths about things like GMO foods and appeal to the scientifically illiterate — and a popular movement is born. I have no doubt that all of those who oppose genetically modified food both fail to appreciate that mankind has been doing this since we first cultivated crops to eat (albeit not near as efficiently) and are among the lemmings who have begun to take gluten out of their diet. They don’t know the science behind their choices, but are following a popular notion and wanting to be part of the in crowd.
The luddites must be stopped. Don’t be a crowd pleaser — say “no” to this anti-science proposition.
R. Barry Crook, Aspen
This letter was published in the Oct. 5 edition.GMO foodstuffs have saved literally hundreds of millions of people worldwide from dying of starvation — but maybe the “limousine liberals” don’t think thatap progressive enough. Rather, letap keep “progressing” toward eliminating GMO foods, radically increase food prices (after all, they, the alleged progressives, can afford them, so all the little people should have to, too, shouldn’t they?), and endanger potentially billions of people who depend upon foodstuffs that are not only resistant to the insects and diseases commonplace in their parts of the world but also need less fertilizers and pesticides that they cannot begin to afford. What a bunch of self-righteous, sanctimonious, self-serving twits!
Bill Leake, Evergreen
The GMO debate boils down to freedom — the freedom to choose what I eat. That freedom simply does not exist if food producers are allowed to deny me the information I need to make my choices.
Paul Weis, Loveland
This letter was published in the Oct. 5 edition.Re: “GMO labeling measure in Colorado triggers heated debate,” Sept. 29 news story.
Itap distressing to see The Denver Post (on the front page, no less) using the bogus “GMO” designation. Virtually all the foods we eat are genetically modified. The plants and animals we use as food sources are generally far removed from their wild origins as a result of natural or induced genetic mutations. Modern “GMO” is simply a more efficient variant of this process.
Richard Bynum, Fort Collins
This letter was published in the Oct. 5 edition.
Submit your own letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
