In GMO debate, err on side of caution? Your Say

Monday's editorial, "GMO food bans pander to ignorance," criticized companies such as Chipotle that ban ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms. Letter to the editor:

The debate shouldn't be about GMOs. As Paste BN's editorial points out, the process of genetically modifying crops is not harmful to human health.

What is potentially harmful are the chemicals sprayed on crops to kill bugs and weeds. To the extent that crops are modified to tolerate these chemicals in larger doses, humans may be exposed to dangerous levels of these chemicals.

We should shift the scientific focus and public debate to those chemicals.

Carolyn Burns; Naples, Fla.

Comments from Facebook are edited for clarity and grammar:

Thank you for writing this piece in the face of fear-mongering perpetuated by multibillion dollar corporations. GMOs are safe and necessary to feed a growing population.

— Michael Weinberg

No one really knows if GMOs are harmful in the long run. I'd rather err on the side of caution.

— Leonard Dreher

There are so many different chemicals and additives in our foods. It is a shame! If you want "pure food," grow your own.

— Rick Neal

Frankly, my biggest objection is taste! I buy locally as much as possible, and grow tomatoes and a few other vegetables because they taste more like the veggies I had when I was a child. Also, I have a right to know what's in the food I buy and to be able to choose.

— Pat Garner