Readers write for July 1, 2010

Your June 28 editorial "Recklessly ignoring raw milk's danger" should be read by all consumers who purchase raw dairy products.

When any of the major food manufacturers have contaminated products in the distribution chain, there is almost always an effort to publicize the situation and recall the product. Companies have their images to protect, and they are always subject to the threat of litigation. To attract the attorneys who work on a contingency basis, there must be deep pockets from which to extract enough money to make the lawsuit worthwhile.

Where are the protectors of the public in the current Hartmann farm raw-milk situation? It has been established that contamination has existed and people have become sick. If this had involved dairy products from any commercial processor and retailer, the lawyers would be circling. Apparently state health officials have established that a dangerous situation exists but are powerless to take drastic action.

JOHN BAIRD, OAK PARK HEIGHTS

• • •

When people get sick from factory-farmed meat or bagged spinach, as they so often do, does the Editorial Board urge a ban on all industrially farmed food? So why would it urge a ban on all raw milk when eight Minnesotans allegedly got sick from drinking milk from one (one!) dairy farm? The solution does not fit the problem, as 38 states currently allow some form of raw milk sales. Are all of these states recklessly endangering their citizens?

There is a movement in this country of people who are sick (both metaphorically and literally) of factory-farmed, industrially processed, mass-distributed food. It can be seen in the growing popularity of certified organic and locally produced food and in community-supported agriculture shares; in films such as "Fresh" and "Food Inc.", and in books such as Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and "In Defense of Food."

Lawmakers should resist this shrill cry for a ban on raw milk from our state's largest newspaper, likely urged upon them by the large advertisers in the industrial food system. We the people want choices in our food, and we will have them, legal or not. To me, collaboration with this movement rather than attempted prohibition seems a much wiser and saner course of action.

JOHN STRAND, MINNEAPOLIS

We Americans are indeed a shortsighted people. We forget that it was under President George W. Bush that the banks and Wall Street were bailed out by the Troubled Asset Relief Program. It was a bailout necessitated by unethical and possibly illegal actions because of either not enough regulation or not enough regulators. We have whined for almost two years that government shouldn't be bailing out Wall Street. Never mind that those who have greater knowledge say that without it we likely would have been plunged into a deep recession.

Now after much deliberation, a financial reform bill should help reduce the possibilities of another colossal bank failure ("Congress agrees to stronger consumer protections," June 26).

But what does one hear? "Too much government regulation."

Pass the reform now. It is the best we can do in a democratic society.

PHIL LEDERMANN, ST. PAUL

• • •

As described in your online story "Pawlenty, in Tennessee, stresses Republican unity" (June 26), Gov. Tim Pawlenty said that Republicans should "take back our country" and avoid future government bailouts like the ones to American auto manufacturers and Wall Street. Yet, this week, Pawlenty sent a letter to President Obama asking for a disaster declaration and federal government assistance for several counties due to tornadoes.

Apparently, federal government assistance is just fine when it affects your state, but not OK when it saves the nation from a financial meltdown or keeps a vital sector of the economy from going broke and putting many more out of work. Pawlenty must also have forgotten about the stimulus package that helped close Minnesota's budget deficit last year. Recently, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist told Obama that there was not a governor who was not grateful for the stimulus money that went to their states.

DAVID MILNE, Burnsville

The Disclose Act was a response to the Supreme Court ruling that corporations have essentially the same First Amendment rights as individuals. It requires corporations and foreign institutions to disclose their campaign contributions.

It's a little something called transparency.

What was the reason the bill was watered down to include loopholes for groups like the National Rifle Association? The very same culprit responsible for the bill's necessity: special interests.

Credit a Chicago Tribune editorial, reprinted in the Star Tribune June 29, for recognizing that Congress has no business choosing free speech winners and losers. The fact is, however, that we have been losing for some time under a system dominated by special interests.