To the editor:
Mr. Thomas's letter concerning U.S. Sen. Scott Brown's campaign finances (the Times, Friday, June 29) is off the mark.
I don't understand how disparaging the senator's love of family is proper or relevant. Further, since the Citizen's United ruling has allowed "super PACs" to impact campaigns even more than the candidate's own campaign without disclosing their funding, we may never know officially where his support comes from.
A more telling way to judge how Sen. Brown's opinions are influenced by corporate interests are by his actions.
A few weeks ago, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont proposed an amendment to the farm bill that would allow individual states to require labeling of genetically modified (GMO) foods and ingredients. Polls show that 90 percent of the public would like to have that information. Sen. Brown voted no.
Could it be that his vote was influenced by lobbyists and shills for Monsanto and Dow Chemical, whose massive profits derive in large part from GMO seeds and the toxic herbicides that they sell for use in conjunction with these seeds? I'm sure that these companies would prefer that the public be blissfully unaware that northward of 80 percent of U.S. corn, soybeans and sugar beets are GMO and that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide (used on GMO crops) has led to resistant "superweeds" that are leading to crop failures across the west and south.
They probably don't want the public to be aware that Dow's solution to this problem is to combine Roundup with a key component of Vietnam era — defoliant Agent Orange.
Roundup has been linked to reproductive, heart, liver, kidney, and respiratory damage in humans. It's toxic to birds, mammals, amphibians, fish, and even beneficial soil organisms.
One might infer that Sen. Brown's vote in this case was influenced by powerful corporate interests, or that he didn't do his homework.
I hope that Sen. Brown will in the future consider his constituents' right to know what's in their food to be more important than support from corporate interests.