Letter: Sunstein’s Dogmatic Commitment
To the Editor:
Cass Sunstein, in his May 27 op-ed, “Wing-Nuttiness May Now Be Treatable,” defines a wing nut as “someone who has a dogmatic commitment to an extreme political view that is false and at least a bit crazy.” He goes on to say that “there is a serious obstacle, and it goes by the name of motivated reasoning. When people have a strong emotional attachment to their initial convictions, they tend to heap ridicule on anything that runs counter to those convictions and to give a lot of weight to anything that supports them.”
By his own definition, Sunstein is clearly a wing nut, at least judging from his views on genetically modified organisims in his May 14 op-ed article. In that piece, Sunstein ignores the numerous scientific studies done by those not on the Monsanto payroll. He also callously turns a blind eye to the disastrous social and economic ramifications created by use of Monsanto’s GMO seeds in countries such as India and the threat to organic farmers everywhere.
If Monsanto and its paid advocates are, like Sunstein, truly convinced that GMO food is not a danger, then why are they spending so much to prevent the public from knowing what is in our food? Monsanto spent over $8 million recently in lobbying with misinformation to prevent a GMO labeling law from passing in California. U.S. food-labeling information requires information about sodium, trans-fat and the top eight allergens — dairy, eggs, fish, shellfish, peanuts, tree nuts, soy and wheat. If GMO-created food is totally safe, then why is Monsanto fighting the public’s right to know what is in our food?