How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
Letters
- Details
- Written by: JoAnn Saccato
I am quite dismayed to hear of the deception being promoted by the No on Proposition 37 campaign. Everything from misrepresenting endorsements, to scary possible scenarios to fabricating quotes from the FDA.
Unfortunately, the reporting of the deceptions probably receives much less attention than the well financed advertising of the No on Prop 37 campaign. (I applaud LakeCoNews' recent coverage of these falsities.)
Labeling costs would not be significantly different than any other labeling costs. Most likely just a displacement of some information in exchange for other information. Remembering that over 50 countries worldwide require the labeling of GE produced food, there seems to be no massive increase in food costs, lawsuits, and farmers going out of business as a result. This sounds like a scare tactic.
I was intrigued by the logic some are proposing: to instead label those products WITHOUT genetically engineered materials. That would be like asking food producers to label that a product doesn't have vitamin B, or cobalt, or? (Now that WOULD increase the cost of food significantly if we were to begin labeling food for all the things that aren't present!)
In listening to a debate from the Commonwealth Club last evening, some opponents seem really concerned that genetic engineering c/would go away if the labeling of these food products in the U.S. were to happen. This slippery slope logic is flawed, of course, but if anything, the labeling of GE foods may force the industry to become more accountable for its claimed goals. It may also end up having to refine its intention, better its practices and begin to produce what it has promised from the beginning (but which has failed thus far): less costly food, less pesticide use, an answer to unfettered population growth (!) and feeding the world.
It’s time to hold this industry accountable for its practices and actions and that begins with labeling. Our right to know. Maybe then, the market can truly decide whether it wants/needs these foods. Additionally, maybe some honest assessment of these products can begin to take place, rather than relying on sparse industry led studies.
I was pleased to hear recently that the faith communities are coming forward to insist on, at minimum, labeling GE foods. Christian, Jewish, Hindu and others believe that genetically engineered food should be labeled. Some believe it is interfering with the natural food made by God.
My vote is secure in support of Proposition 37, but I wonder how many others have been swayed in recent weeks by the prolific and sometimes deceptive advertising put forth by the No on Proposition 37 campaign? In an era when political spending knows no bounds, and catching inaccuracies may be too late to impact the audience that heard them, it will be interesting to see how the campaign turns out.
An ABC analysis in June revealed that 93 percent of Americans believe the federal government should require the labeling of GE foods ( http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567&;page=1#.UJPuxBgsltQ ). Let's see what the final numbers are at the polls in California this week.
JoAnn Saccato lives in Cobb, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Janis Irvin
Voting yes on Proposition 37 is like saying no to those corporate interests that include money, money and money.
Not too many years ago Monsanto was claiming to end world hunger with their newly developed GMO foods.
What happened that they no longer want us to even know that our foods contain GMOs?
Testing, that’s what – test animals either out right died or their babies died.
Remember, this is the industry that brought us Thalidomide, asbestos (after 50 years of denial), Agent Orange, Baycol, Vioxx and Dexatrim.
They caused death, cancer or deformity. Now they want us to believe them when they say it’s safe … I think not.
At the very least I want to know and have the choice.
Janis Irvin lives in Middletown, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Michael Adams
I am writing in support of Judy Conard for judge of the Superior Court.
I first met Judy when she became a member of the board of directors of People Services. It is in her role as a trustee and advocate for the disabled that I first saw Judy and her ability to listen, inquire, assess and decide.
These are the exact skills required of a judge. Her ability to seek the required information and make sound, fair and impartial decisions is outstanding.
What has caused me to be such an advocate for Judy is her commitment to the truth. It is such a commitment over the past years in her private legal practice that results in her strong advocacy for her clients.
While the appellate court may take in question her filing of an appeal, I’m sure that the client who she represents feels that they have had an advocate in the complex and often rigid legal system, that sometimes misses the point. It is because of her willingness to provide this advocacy that their rights within this system are being fully considered. This attitude should be applauded, not sanctioned.
What's important to understand is that Judy is the only candidate with experience on both sides of the court, the prosecution and defense; that she has expertise in representing children and has complex jury trial experience including trademark, copyright cases and cases involving DNA science, and that she has taken 75 jury trials to verdict, including death penalty cases.
Two other very important factors to consider are that Judy is the only candidate that has been evaluated by the State Bar's Commission on Judicial Nominees and recommended to the governor for appointment and she is the only candidate endorsed by two Lake County judges.
Judy has worked hard for what she has accomplished, earning her law degree at night while raising a family and working full time.
In my view she has the most complete background needed to handle the challenges our courts are facing, including budget reductions and calendars so full that victims of crime must wait entirely too long for their day in court.
As an attorney she is a staunch advocate for fairness in the law and the system, I know firsthand that she will continue to be committed to the truth and to make this system serve the people.
Please join me in supporting Judy for Lake County Superior Court judge.
Michael Adams is a board member for People Services and executive director of the Soper-Reese Community Theatre. He lives in Kelseyville, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Andrew Luchsinger
I’ll admit it, I’m one of those Ron Paul supporters. Although the media has fooled many of you into thinking I’m an anarchist who just wants to legalize weed, please know that I’m quite the opposite. I’m an educated engineer with strong family values and have never once considered inhaling toxic smoke.
Perhaps like you, I’ve discovered that the Republican Party no longer represents my values; which are based on: personal liberty and economic freedom.
Here are three assumptions necessary for my main point:
- Personal liberty and economic freedom are inversely proportional to the size and scope of the federal government (within reason);
- Mitt Romney will not reduce the size and scope of the federal government as much as we require in these critical times;
- Mitt Romney has virtually no statistical chance of winning California’s electoral votes.
During the Republican primaries I can’t remember how many people I talked to who would not vote for Ron Paul because they said he didn’t have a chance at winning. Even though they agreed with much of his pro-liberty message, they focused their selection on only those candidates who they felt had a chance at winning.
Well, here we are in the general election. By the same logic, and due to the winner-take-all electoral college system, I suppose the only suitable candidate to vote for in California would be Obama. I mean, why waste your vote on Romney who’s most certainly going to lose?
That was obviously a rhetorical question. Here’s my proposition to you: Feel free to influence the election in swing states, but don’t waste your vote on Romney here in California.
Instead, use your vote to send a message to the Republican Party that if their future candidates want to win this state, they had better offer a stronger pro-liberty message. Therefore, as a voter from California, the only logical vote is Gary Johnson (Google him).
Gary Johnson, former two-term governor of New Mexico and Republican presidential candidate, is running as the Libertarian Party’s candidate.
On the ballot in almost all 50 states, Gary Johnson is the only candidate who advocates for immediate balanced budgets, sound monetary policy and personal freedom.
If you feel that neither the Republican or Democratic candidates lean far enough toward liberty, make your vote count, and vote for Johnson.
Andrew Luchsinger lives in Lakeport, Calif.