The Spokesman-Review invites original letters of no more than 200 words on topics of public interest. Unfortunately, we don’t have space to publish all letters received, nor are we able to acknowledge their receipt. We accept no more than one letter a month from the same writer. Please include your daytime phone number and street address. The Spokesman-Review retains the nonexclusive right to archive and republish any material submitted for publication.
Send letters to:
Letters to the Editor
999 W. Riverside Ave.
Spokane, WA 99201
Clean slate for East Valley
Choose Mike Novakovich, Fred Helms and Justin Voelker as East Valley School District’s new board members. A new board of directors is urgently needed for the East Valley School District.
Incumbents Kerri Lunstroth and Heidi Gillingham have repeatedly demonstrated that they do not represent their constituents by ignoring not just one, but two, massively failed bond issues where 61 percent and 63 percent of voters sent the clear message the district was pursuing the wrong vision with elimination of both middle schools and the institution of K-8 in dangerously unsuitable elementary buildings.
These myopic board members went so far as to thumb their noses at voters by trying to pursue and fund the rejected vision, bypassing voters and issuing smaller bonds. They have miserably failed in their duty of providing sound policy and fiscal oversight of the district.
It is truly time for new board members who will listen to voters and not simply become defenders of administration. Support Mike Novakovich, Fred Helms and Justin Voelker for the East Valley School District Board of Directors.
Vote no on labels
Please take the time to read the text of Initiative 522. On the surface it appears to be a simple concept. Just put a label on a box.
But it is not that simple. From a common-sense perspective, if genetically engineered food, which we have been eating for many years, is so terrible, then why does the American Medical Association say there is no risk? This position is supported by peer-reviewed studies, not emotionalism. If there is no risk, then why is there a need to label?
The requirements detailed by this initiative will have huge associated costs. It is not simply putting a label on a package. Compliance will require huge investments at all levels of the food industry. Because Washington makes up only about 2 percent of national food sales, will food producers spend the money required, or will they simply not sell products in our state? It makes sense that they will simply avoid our state.
This policy has been rejected in over 30 state legislatures, and by voters in Oregon and California. Please join me in voting no.
I-522 is informative
As a free person, I like choosing what I feed myself. The more pertinent information I have about what I am eating, the more informed my choices become. This is the simple crux of Initiative 522.
How can people let themselves be convinced that they don’t need to know what they are eating? If you love your genetically engineered food, that’s great; it’s your overwhelming market choice, but don’t deprive your neighbors and friends of knowing what they’re eating. The opposition’s game is confusing the voting consumer. Don’t let them lie straight to your face. Information is power. How much does the no side hold over you?
I buy produce and meat from a small family farm. They’re in favor of labeling. They want it and their customers want it. The no side wants to withhold information from American consumers that they already give other countries. Why is that?
Washington has a momentous opportunity to change the status quo. Labeling GE foods is a smart economic decision for our state. Rogue GE wheat in Oregon temporarily halted wheat exports to other countries. Labeling helps protect trade, family farms and sensitive consumers. Let us decide: Please vote yes on I-522.