<b>Follow the money</b>
EDITOR: I was disappointed to read the editorial in which you slammed Proposition 37 ("No on 37: Label this one over-regulation," Oct. 2). As someone who has studied and worked in agriculture, I would like to shed some light on the issue at hand.
The most striking fact is the cast of characters who are funding the more than $32 million campaign against Proposition 37. The top five donors are also five of the world's largest pesticide producers: Monsanto, Dupont, DOW AgroScience, Bayer Cropscience and BASF. The donors that follow are a who's who of the soda and junk-food isles: Pepsicola, ConAgra foods, Nestle, etc.
So why is all the money being thrown around by these corporations? All of the "farming" that produces the "food" sold by the very generous opponents of this initiative is done on a large-scale, high input system that requires intensive use of these companies' products (if you don't already know about "RoundUp ready" crops, please educate yourself).
This is not the kind of agriculture you see here in Sonoma County and not what Luther Burbank was striving for. Vote yes on Proposition 37 and support local agriculture, our land and your children's health.
EDITOR: Columnist David Brooks outlined a nice plan for politicians to go from running for office to being in office ("Shifting from partisanship to craftsmanship," Wednesday). Brooks suggests a man must be flexible. Brooks shared his view that President Barack Obama was not flexible enough. I wonder if Brooks thinks that changing positions on most of the important issues during a campaign in order to get your party's nomination gives one the practice necessary to make that great transition. If so, I am sure he will vote for Mitt Romney.