Page 2 of 2 Previous
Meat processors are resisting efforts to label meat to include countries of origin where beef, pork and poultry sources were born, raised and slaughtered (“Meat labels get specific despite resistance,” Nov. 23). I believe this knowledge is very important to healthy consumer choices.
During my insurance underwriting days, we canceled liability insurance on a group of U.S. rendering plants that sold rudiment as feed to other countries that allowed beef to eat beef rudiment, an unhealthy process disallowed in the United States. This was important, because that foreign meat was then sold back to this country! The meat from other countries may also lack the same level of controls on antibiotics and hormones as required by U.S. meat.
Consumers deserve to know the health quality of their food choices, and the minimal cost of expanded truthful labeling should be a nonissue.
MICHAEL TILLEMANS, Minneapolis
A true understanding of ‘recovery’ is needed
State Rep. Brian Johnson wants to “protect Cambridge from future plans like this,” regarding the issue of where to locate sex offenders (Readers Write, Nov. 26). He speaks without the benefit of knowledge, as he asks and answers his own question: “Would we place patients undergoing treatment for alcoholism next to a liquor store? Of course not.”
As a licensed alcohol and drug counselor who works with alcoholics every day, and as an alcoholic in recovery for 19 years, I can state from experience that there are many treatment facilities next door to bars and liquor stores. There are many AA meetings that take place in the basement or attic of a bar. You see, it is not possible in our society to “protect” oneself from getting too close to booze, because it’s everywhere. Recovery is based on changed actions that cause changed thinking, not on finding a “safe” place to live and work. Johnson doesn’t speak from facts; he speaks from assumptions on a topic he obviously knows little about.
BOB SCHNELL, Chanhassen
What the U.S. can do for the world
Regarding Steve Chapman’s concluding remark under “The confidence man” (Nov. 22), I would rather the “promiscuous use of power” for the purposes of the improvement and positive encouragement of mankind rather than using the “forces of power” for the destruction and ultimate discouragement of mankind. If America, with its historic principles of democracy and potent engines of capitalism, is not the best weapon opposing autocracy, extreme socialism and poverty, which overwhelming “power” might Chapman propose? Indifference? Isolation? Insipidness?
WILL MARWITZ, St. Joseph, Minn.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.