This 2013 photo provided by the J.R. Simplot Co. shows a demonstration field of a new potato, genetically engineered to resist the pathogen that caused the Irish potato famine, at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Mich. (Nico Champouret, J.R. Simplot Co.)
Re: “Opposing GMOS just got harder,” Jan. 18 editorial.
Your editorial asks: “If we could go back in time and avert the Irish potato famine, in which a million people died, who would possibly oppose it? No one, obviously, including anti-GMO activists.”
As a descendant of the Irish peasants displaced by the Great Potato Famine of the 1840s, I couldn’t agree more. But it needs to be said that, as bad as the botanical origins of the Irish diaspora were, the root cause (pardon the play on words) was political, not biological. There was more than enough capital in the English overlords’ treasuries to offset the loss of the potato crop due to the blight. The powers that were at the time would have never permitted a million and a half cattle to die of starvation, for example, but they did allow that many Irish to die because of concerns over creating a “welfare state.”
Sound familiar? The political and economic infrastructure of the time benefitted greatly by pushing the surviving Irish underclass off to distant shores. I hope I can say those distant shores ultimately benefitted from England’s loss.
Michael D. Whalen, Denver
This letter was published in the Jan. 25 edition.I appreciated your editorial, but the following quote regarding Campbell Soup Company was quite misleading: “But as Campbell’s chief executive freely acknowledged to The New York Times, three-fourths of her company’s products include GMO corn, canola, soy beans or sugar beets.”
As an employee of a sugar beet cooperative, I can assure you no food product ever contains sugar beets, GMO or otherwise. They may contain sugar derived from a GMO sugar beet, but that sugar is free of all DNA and protein and is therefore GMO-free.
This misrepresentation from Campbell’s has been plastered all over the media. It is more accurate to say “three-fourths of their offerings contain products derived from GMO plants.”
When people are fearful of eating GMOs, they might like to know many of those products derived from GMOs are in fact GMO-free. That further complicates the labeling debate.
Rebecca L. Larson, Denver
Your angle on famine and GMOs almost worked on my Catholic guilt, until I realized being concerned about what I eat might label me an “anti-corporate activist.” Then again, perhaps I am. Not knowing how modified food affects my health is a lot like not knowing how oil and gas drilling near my home affects me. Both are large industries trying to serve our human needs.
Yet, until the unknowns on health are clear, we are simply human subjects in real-world experiments. When oil and gas invites itself to your table, it is impossible to say no. At least with labeling, we can decide to have a bowl of “Mmm, mmm, good” Campbell’s chicken noodle soup or not.
Christine Nyholm, Brighton
This letter was published in the Jan. 25 edition.
Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
