The arguments made against Initiative 522 in the Oct. 13 editorial "Vote No on Initiative 522" are shallow.
First, to object to the placement of the GMO label vs. the content of the label, is silly. Would you support this measure if the GMO information were listed with the nutritional data?
Second, the editorial admitted that the nutrition information, available on labels since 1995, has been helpful to consumers, but only offers the statement that maybe someday we may know if a product is genetically modified, just not now with I-522.
Third, it pointed out that we have been eating genetically modified for centuries. This focuses on the "genetic" part of GMO, which has been around for centuries, but sidesteps the "engineered" part of GMO foods, which is relatively new and untested for negative effects.
Fourth, it pointed out that restaurants are exempt and this fact somehow undermines supporters' arguments. Are you saying that you would support this initiative if restaurants were required to list GMO foods? Very few restaurants list nutritional information, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be available on the products we purchase at the grocery store.
Bonnie Taylor's Oct. 15 letter "Which claim is the truth?" on I-522 is far more cogent and logical than The Columbian's editorial.