7:13 p.m. EDT, June 5, 2013

The June 1 editorial on labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients (now passed) makes a reasonable if not proven point that going it alone with GMO labeling poses some risks to the state and its businesses ["Some Sense On GMO Labels"]. (Though it is odd that yet again an authoritative voice speaks of “costs” without explanation or analysis.)

But the remainder of the editorial is an under-researched patchwork of facts that would lead one to think that the entire issue is made up out of whole cloth. Two examples:

The editorial cites European Union studies showing GM products to be safe, but fails to mention that all EU countries require labeling … and all U.S. exporters comply.

It speaks to the supposed safety of these products, but not to the environmental impact of adaptive mutations or the social risks of concentrating our seed supply in the hands of a few corporations with less than stellar histories of consumer protection.

Genetic engineering is a global issue, and not because a few tree-huggers are afraid of the future. It is complex and multi-disciplined. The Courant owe its readers a greater appreciation of this scope and complexity before issuing an opinion.

Bill Keefe, Glastonbury