Letters

Check out 522

In “522 bad policy” (letters-Aug. l), Randy Suess writes that “hundreds of studies have proven genetically engineered foods to be safe” and “genetically engineered foods are the most rigorously tested food on the planet”. Genetically engineered (GE) foods have never been proven to be safe. The FDA requires no independent safety testing of GE foods before approving them. It merely accepts the studies provided by the biotech industry. When independent studies have been done, they have found GE food to be at least potentially dangerous.

One might wonder why the FDA does not require independent testing of GE foods.

The fact that there’s essentially a revolving door between the biotech industry executive suites and the FDA executive suites raises an obvious correlation.

For example, President Obama’s FDA “Food Czar” is Michael Taylor, who was FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Policy under George H.W. Bush.

In that position, he helped push through the approval of GE plants for human consumption.

Between gigs at the FDA, Taylor was Monsanto’s Vice President for Public Policy.

Before his first FDA job, Taylor worked as an attorney at King and Spaulding, where he represented Monsanto.

This is just one example among many.

Personally, I don’t trust the FDA to necessarily determine whether my food is safe.

Mr. Suess also contends that labeling GE food will increase our grocery bills. I don’t believe this is true as 64 other countries have chosen to label GE foods, and there is no evidence of price increases. Before the British government instituted labeling laws, they did a study to determine how much labeling would cost consumers. The study found that prices could increase as much as 0.01-0.17%. That means customers with a $400 grocery bill would see a $0.48-$8 per year price increase in their groceries, a very small price to pay for the reassurance of knowing what you’re eating.

Mr. Suess is recycling two of the big lies the biotech industry used to defeat GE labeling in California. The safety of our food supply is too important to play this game. We all deserve to know what we are eating and feeding to our children. I am hoping that people across the state of Washington will take the time to explore this issue thoroughly before they vote this fall on Initiative 522.

Elaine Hickman,

Seattle/Colfax

Marijuana sales

A major mover and shaker is positioning himself to have the leading franchised chain, like Starbucks, for nationwide marijuana sales. “... a $200 billion vacuum with high profit margins.” (Todd J. Broadman’s column, Daily News 9-10-13)

Broadman ends with, “Postscript: The state of Washington will begin issuing licenses to commercial marijuana growers on Dec. 1.” Would that that crop were bound for state liquor stores, instead of glitzy, profit-maddened — push it! Push it! — high profile retail outlets.

Is that what we want? I would rather re-establish the state liquor stores, and institute almost-prohibition for three popular recreational drugs — marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol — not allowing sales or advertising outside of state liquor stores.

Except bars, don’t you think? And, one’s home being one’s castle, no restrictions on making your own at home.

Wiley Hollingsworth,

Pullman