Letter to the Editor of the Medford Mail Tribune, GMO Truth

by Dr. Rick Kirschner on May 6, 2014

Our StudioA week ago Sunday, the Medford Mail Tribune (Oregon) printed an editorial in which they claimed that the science is in on GMOs.  Representing the bearded ones (editorial board) of the Tribune, they encouraged readers to vote against a local initiative that protects family farmers from contamination and catastrophic crop loss.  That happened. Remember when China refused a shipment of GMO contaminated wheat some months ago?  That cost many Oregon farmers the season.   With the help and encouragement ofmy wife, here is a letter I wrote in response.  It was printed on Sunday, May 10, right under the cartoon on the editorial page.  They say the pen is mightier thank the sword and all that…Let’s see if we can overcome the out of state money flooding into this campaign by companies so ashamed of their products that they don’t want us to know about them.


Dear Mail Tribune,

What rankles me about your Sunday editorial  (Believe Science, Not Ideology, in GMO debate ) is the deceptive headline, followed by industry talking points stated as enlightened truth.

Search the internet and you will find each point made, often verbatim, in industry propaganda!   An editorial should be an informed view that actually considers the issue before drawing a conclusion. Yours was an advertisement meant to influence rather than inform low information voters on a critical issue.

If you’re going to refer to science, you might want to consider it first.  Science is not cherry picked studies paid for by the biotech industry, it is a method for separating fact from fantasy.  Your ‘editorial’ treats conflicting data like it doesn’t even exist, when it does and is not difficult to find!  This data raises serious concerns about GMO impacts on human health, animal health and agriculture itself.  It seems to me that the biotech industry has been conducting an open air experiment for decades, without proper controls, without our consent, and because they are unlabeled, without accountability.  Turning us into guinea pigs doesn’t make it good science.

What you published breaks trust with your readers. I’m voting YES on 15-119.

That’s what I wrote.  Your comments are welcome below.
Be well,

Previous post:

Next post: