The Andover Townsman
---- — The following are excerpts of editorials from other newspapers across New England:
An Atlas V rocket lifted NASA’s Maven spacecraft into the heavens last month, the start of a mission that should offer the closest look ever at the Red Planet’s atmosphere and perhaps furnish clues as to how global climate systems change over eons.
We couldn’t help but note the price tag for this mission: $671 million. That’s about the same price that was initially placed on the healthcare.gov website set up to help Americans sign up for insurance under Obamacare.
The Maven mission is still in its early stages, as well, but is off to a flying start, unlike the Obamacare website, whose problems have been widely documented.
We’re no fans of Obamacare, but we do hope the website gets fixed so that the program can proceed and Americans can find out whether it will succeed or fail on grounds other than technological glitches.
As for the latest mission to Mars, we’re delighted to see that some government programs do work as designed and that Americans of all political persuasions now have another high-tech science project to keep their eyes on.
— The Telegram & Gazette of Worcester
People want to know what is in their food. It doesn’t necessarily change eating habits, but it provides consumers with the confidence that they know, good or bad, what is going into their bodies.
That’s why the Maine Legislature did the right thing earlier this year by passing a bill sponsored by state Rep. Lance Harvell, R-Farmington, that requires food producers to label products containing genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, which are used to increase growth rates or resistance to herbicides, among other uses.
Maine and Connecticut are the first two states to pass such laws, so to salve concerns that the cost of labeling would cause companies to pull products from Maine, the law will not go into effect until similar laws are passed in four neighboring states.
That effort hit a roadblock recently when a legislative committee in New Hampshire voted against a labeling bill, giving it an uphill climb to pass in the full Legislature. But a pro-labeling movement is growing strong across the country, backed by polls that show public opinion strongly in its favor.
Opponents of GMO labeling argue that the science surrounding the health effects of GMOs is inconclusive and that a label would confuse consumers.
That’s an interesting point, especially coming from companies that label products “all-natural” when they are anything but. New labels enter the marketplace all the time, and we should have enough confidence in the consumer to figure out what they mean, and why they matter.
As for the science, it is unclear. First, much of the complex testing is done by the producers themselves, with only cursory oversight by the Food and Drug Administration. Second, genetic engineering in food cannot be pigeonholed. Proving that using one type of gene in one food for one purpose is safe does not mean that the use of all types in all circumstances is, too.
There is more to learn about the long-term implications of using GMOs. In some uses, GMOs could help ease hunger by increasing yields, though we would caution that hunger has social and political causes outside of food abundance. In other cases, GMOs could be harmful.
That study should continue, so we know more about the complex interplay of the GMOs and our natural foods. At the same time, states should implement a GMO labeling system, perhaps with a push from the federal government, so that we know exactly what we are buying at the grocery store.
— The Portland (Maine) Press Herald