Kent Bradford’s op-ed on Proposition 37, “The California Right To Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” is full of industry talking points designed to scare voters into believing that a simple label — as is required for 3,000 other ingredients — is some radical concept.

Prop. 37 simply would require one line of ink on packages containing foods that have been genetically modified. This way, consumers will be able to read the label on their food and know if their food was genetically modified in a laboratory using the genes of other plants, animals, bacteria or viruses.

Prop. 37 won’t cost consumers a dime. A recently published study by Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., a tenured professor at Emory University School of Law, found that “consumers will likely see no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required.”

Did food prices change when we put calorie content on labels?

Pesticide, junk food and agribusiness corporations already have contributed $28 million to the No on 37 campaign. Are we really to believe these multibillion-dollar companies fear lawsuits from ordinary citizens? All they have to do is add a simple label and not intentionally deceive consumers. If they do not, they, just like human beings, should be held accountable.

The fact is, an increasing number of studies raise concerns about the safety of genetically engineered foods. A growing body of science suggests that they may be contributing to rising rates of allergies, especially among children.

The latest data shows genetically engineered crops require more pesticides over the past 15 years, not less — giving rise to super weeds and superbugs. These pesticides are manufactured by the same companies that told us DDT and Agent Orange were safe. And there is no reason to believe genetically engineered foods are more productive than non-genetically engineered foods.

For all these reasons and more, we deserve the right to know what’s in the food we eat and feed our children. This personal decision should not be made by corporations seeking to increase profits at the public’s expense. Vote yes on 37.

Stephanie Abundo

Davis

Comments

comments