Letter: More exchange between letter writer, columnist
September 29, 2014
First off, thanks for the dialogue ("Columnist responds to letter-writer," Letters, Sept. 20, The Aspen Times).
Secondly, Glenn, I didn't call you Rick Santorum. I said you were "invoking Rick Santorum." In 2012, he gave a speech in Steubenville, Ohio, claiming his views were not "anti-science" but rather Democrats were.
Thirdly, I guess we could go back and forth citing studies and results till we are both bleary eyed:
Recommended Stories For You
You can cite your propaganda backed by Monsanto affiliates, (i.e. David Ropeik, the author of link you provided and Harvard staffer. Most of the funders of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis are industry groups, including the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Chlorine Chemistry Council, American Crop Protection Association, Monsanto and International Paper. And the previously cited FDA, which has had seven high-ranking employees over the past decade who have employment history with Monsanto, including Michael R. Taylor, deputy commissioner of the Office of Foods.)
And I can cite my sources by those without a big corporate financial leg in the game (see aforementioned sites).
And to note, if genetically modified organisms are as safe as Monsanto wants us all to believe, why do they push so hard not to label them as such? The FDA asks for all labels to contain nutritional value, why not GMO information? Is it not a "nutritional" element?
(I do apologize, by the way, I went for the golden rice rather than the Mexican wheat. Please don't get me wrong, I would love for world hunger to be solved safely, but to reiterate, as of yet, "golden rice" has not been proven to work. It's still being basically beta tested in the Philippines:
http://www.philrice.gov.ph/?page=golden. Despite you printing that "it has alleviated blindness," it has not been available to the public for consuming nor have I read it alleviating blindness, other than in theory, so I'm not sure where you got that "fact.")
Your parting comments referring to pot were hypothetical, not scientific. Because, again, as stated previously, science has proven that pot is "no more harmful" than FDA-approved alcohol.
I'll take you up on the cup of coffee to discuss more, and we can stop boring the pants off of anyone still reading this banter.
Trending In: Letters to the Editor
- Aspen Skiing Co. embraces uphilling, but says safe travel must improve
- Pay hike helps Aspen Skiing Co. fill entry-level positions
- What’s the Big Deal: Red Mountain property fetches $14.675 million
- Aspen superintendent supporters urge board to not placate parents
- Unsealed documents reveal more alleged rape cases in Aspen area