comments

Discuss Proposition 37 with some wisdom

Reader Input
-A +A

Why print a letter that simply mouths the propaganda of SuperPAC-funded TV ads?
This forum should promote discussion beyond the superficialities and lies of those who can grossly outspend their opposition. We are bombarded by ads claiming Proposition 37 is bad for California. We don’t need it puppeted on the opinion page unless the writer has something new to add, which Jim Cranney clearly does not (“Vote no on GE food labeling,” Reader Input, Oct. 21).
He apparently thinks consumers are a “special interest,” and the giant corporations attacking this proposition are innocent victims.
The proposition does not restrict his choice to consume laboratory manipulated foods, but it gives the rest of us the knowledge to avoid them, if we choose. The exaggerated costs claimed by the ads are based on paranoid speculation. If passed and the ag industry follows the law, lawsuits should ultimately prove to be a non factor. Consumer groups, by comparison, have fewer resources to waste on frivolous lawsuits, anyway.
Prop 37 weaknesses should be discussed, but it’s not all “bad for California.” We go through this every time we have to force industry to honestly label its products. They claim genetically engineered food is safe, based on “scientific studies.”
Artificial sweeteners, tobacco and trans fats were all once proven “safe” by similar “studies.”
Jim Beall, Sr., Weimar