Hillary Clinton presidency would extend Obama’s negative policies

From the get-go, the Democratic race to the White House has been described as Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonThe Hill's Morning Report - Crunch time arrives for 2020 Dems with debates on deck The Memo: All eyes on faltering Biden ahead of first debate Trump says he's not prepared to lose in 2020 MORE’s to lose, and she appears well on her way to doing just that. In my view, this largely is because the tired old establishment stuff she is pulling off her political shelf does not match the angry and anti-establishment mood of the 2016 electorate.  

ADVERTISEMENT

On top of that, the gender card that she was counting on to carry her to victory has flipped, and men along with younger women are voting against her in increasing numbers. Men especially appear to have finally awakened to the reality that four more years of President Obama’s identity and gender politics are not in their best interests. Men, and especially white men, have been devastated in education, jobs, health, family and fairness under Obama and there is no reason to believe that they would improve under a President Hillary Clinton.   

From Gordon E. Finley, Miami


No, Congress does not need to pass GMO labeling legislation

On March 9, The Hill ran a letter to the editor by Jean Halloran, who is the director of Food Policy Initiatives, that argued for mandatory GMO labeling. The letter was determined to refute the economic arguments against mandating the labeling of genetically modified products.

Unfortunately for Ms. Halloran, her only argument presented to defend her stance of mandated GMO labeling was an argumentum ad populum — or for those not familiar with logical fallacies, “if the majority supports X, then X must be correct.”

Ms. Halloran backs her position by citing that “approximately 90 percent” of people support GMO labeling. Of course, at one point in time, a larger percent of the population believed that the world was flat, so majority belief does not equal reality.

The truth is, GMO labeling is a solution to a problem that does not exist. 

First off, there is no evidence that suggests genetically modified organisms are detrimental to humans in any way. Many studies have attempted to make such a connection, but all have been discredited due to issues such as faulty methodology and poor sampling.

The scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs has been overwhelming, yet misguided and pseudoscientific narratives persist in this never-ending debate over food safety.

In fact, GMOs have made our food supply safer due to genome alterations that allow us to grow foods using fewer pesticides. GMOs also produce greater crop yields and provide severely needed nutrition to third-world countries. To Ms. Halloran’s detriment, the science and facts are on the side of GMO proponents.

Secondly, even if there was the slightest risk from eating genetically modified foods, a mandatory federal label would be unnecessary. At the grocery store, you will notice that any product without genetic modification has everything short of large neon signs to advertise just how “natural” and “organic” they are. This is not out of concern for the public health, but instead is a marketing tool meant to appeal to the unsubstantiated fears of their customers. If one didn’t want to consumer genetically modified products, simply searching for “organic” and “natural” labels would be all that is needed.

The demand for mandated GMO labeling is simply a ploy to pad the pockets of fear-mongers and the organic industry. If Ms. Halloran and her followers don’t want to eat GMOs, more power to them. The last thing we need is a federal mandate that rubber-stamps unscientific populist notions. 

From Nicholas Morpus, Washington, D.C.