To the editor: The attack on Chipotle for making a business decision to remove genetically modified components from food they serve is questionable. ("Chipotle's junk science on GMOs," op-ed, April 29)
The article states, "Only about a third [of Americans] believe genetically modified foods are safe to eat." Chipotle can only improve its business if the remaining two-thirds prefer natural, non-GMO food. There is nothing wrong with a restaurant serving natural foods, especially if that's what customers prefer.
The herbicide-tolerant GMO seeds do allow farmers more freedom to spray and kill unwanted growth and perhaps pests without harming the crops, but the question remains, what does that safely bring to the dinner table long term? The main goal is to provide safe, nutritious food, and that is what we already have without GMO tampering.
Finally, it's worth bringing up what the article notes: One of the authors has served on a Monsanto advisory board.
Harvey Barkan, Studio City
To the editor: GMO food is safe? The scientific consensus says yes. Global warming is real? The scientific consensus says yes. Vaccines are safe? The scientific consensus says yes.
And yet many supporters of global warming science deny the safety of GMO food, while many supporters of GMO food deny the existence of global warming, and those who deny the safety of vaccines may deny global warming or GMO safety or both.
So exactly who is "anti-science" and to whom should the label "denier" be applied?
Blaine Cavena, Pasadena