Sunday, October 28, 2012

Your Tattler Sunday News Weekly Report

(Mod: The good thing about the Tattler Sunday News is that you will not find it on any other day of the week. It is exclusively a Sunday event, which is why we call it what we do. It's not that the stories we have posted here were originally written for Sunday, either. They were not. But they were specially culled from the vast reaches of the internet for our Sunday report. This also explains the use of the  word "weekly" in the title of this post. It is available on Sunday, but the report is weekly. That is, it shows up every 7 days, except when it does not. Which is often. And now that we have cleared these important matters up, let's get to the news.)

Scare tactics - and scary protests over Prop 30 - and some school based advocacy may be illegal (Pasadena Star News): When Elizabeth Zamora received a letter from Cal State Dominguez Hills stating that her application for the fall semester was on hold pending the outcome of Proposition 30, the prospective student said she was shocked. "It's scary to think I won't be able to get into a four-year university next year," said Zamora, who is currently attending Cerritos College. "I felt like I wanted to vote for Prop. 30, but seeing that letter made me want to vote for it even more."

From sending letters to prospective college students to using automated phone calls reminding parents to vote, education officials are pushing harder than ever for the passage of Gov. Jerry Brown's tax initiative. With less than two weeks before the Nov. 6 elections, officials have been stressing the potentially devastating impacts on public education if the measure fails. But some critics call these methods scare tactics and in at least one case say the educators' efforts violated election laws.

This month, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, an anti-tax group and major opponent of Prop. 30, filed a lawsuit against Cal State Monterey Bay over an email sent by a professor urging students to support the measure.

(Mod: We reported something along these lines Thursday with the since retracted attempt by certain elements at Sierra Madre Elementary School to use 3rd graders in a Prop 30 demonstration. A post, by the way, that has now received 142 comments and just under 5,000 hits. In case you ever thought people are not concerned about the state of our public schools, or some of the shenanigans of those running them. Whoever that might be.) 

French MEP feeds foie gras furor (Lexology): French MEP Francoise Castex has reportedly condemned California’s statewide ban on the production and sale of any product that is “the result of force-feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging its liver beyond normal size,” calling the prohibition on foie gras “a battle for Europe.” After a recent attempt by producers to enjoin the 2004 law failed in federal court, Castex convened a news conference in European Parliament where she eviscerated the legislation as “very negative” and a violation of international trade rules. “There are five member states where foie gras is produced, not just France,” she said, referring to Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Spain.

According to Castex, the foie gras sector comprises 30 percent of the local economy in her own region of France, which has already hired an attorney to represent the country in a legal challenge to the United States. Her remarks also drew support from French Junior Minister for the Food Industry Guillaume Garot, who described the delicacy as “a cornerstone” of French cuisine and the generator of 35,000 jobs. “It’s a bad idea that is not going to do anything,” he was quoted as saying. “We are talking about a whole food system that is really in trouble… I am here today to defend this industry and the jobs it supports. We badly need these jobs, particularly at the current time.” 

(Mod: Whoever our next president might be, I would hope that person would steer us clear of a war with France over fattened goose livers.)

Steven Greenhut: Other feel wrath of police unions - Most council members don't have the courage or resources to stand up to their employee unions (Orange County Register): Many people were outraged this summer after a private investigator, with ties to a law firm that represents 120 police unions in California, made an apparently false police report that a Costa Mesa councilman stumbled out of a bar, appearing drunk, and was weaving all over the road as he drove home.

When police showed up at his door, Councilman Jim Righeimer was found stone cold sober. The clear goal of the phony call was to embarrass a lawmaker who had been leading the charge in his city for public employee pension reform, outsourcing services and other cost-saving measures. Subsequently, officials in other cities revealed similarly disturbing tactics from their police unions. And, despite the revelations, police unions continue to behave as before, trying to intimidate council members who refuse to go along with their demands for ever-higher pay and benefits, and protections for their members from oversight and accountability.

Two councilmen in Fullerton, Bruce Whitaker and Travis Kiger, are experiencing treatment similar to the Righeimer episode in Costa Mesa. The Fullerton police union is angry at the role those men played in demanding reform in the wake of the death of Kelly Thomas, a schizophrenic homeless man fatally beaten by Fullerton officers in July 2011. The unions also dislike Whitaker and Kiger's call for pension reform, their consideration of a plan – common in Orange County and elsewhere – to shift police services from the city's Police Department to the more cost-efficient Orange County Sheriff's Department.

The private eye mentioned above had ties to the Upland law firm Lackie, Dammeier and McGill. The Register had reported on the negotiating "playbook" the lawyers had published on their website until the bad publicity resulting from the Righeimer episode. The playbook detailed how police unions should bully elected officials into submitting to their demands.

(Mod: As all attentive Tattler readers know, Lackie, Dammeier and McGill is the same law firm that controls and runs Sierra Madre's POA. And apparently at least one of our City Council members as well. John Harabedian's demand for a so-called "Public Safety Master Plan," a boondoggle that could end up costing the taxpayers $10s of thousands of dollars in consultant fees, can be seen as a direct result of the kinds of coercive tactics being employed by the SMPOA's law firm.) 

California Greenhouse Gas Law Faces Challenge (Transportation Nation): The future of California’s landmark greenhouse gas emissions law is being called into question. Implementation of the law was delayed earlier this year by a U.S. District Court judge in Fresno, who ruled that the regulations violate the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments from both sides of the debate last week.

At issue is the “Low Carbon Standard”—regulations that require fuel producers to meet California’s emissions standards, or pay a penalty in the state’s cap and trade system. Fuel, farm and trucking industry lawyers argue that the law violates the federal commerce clause because the law reaches across state borders, effectively favoring California-based producers over out-of-state competitors, whose fuel may not meet the state’s strict emission requirements.

The California Air Resources Board, the agency responsible for implementing the regulations, says the law is intended to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990s levels by the year 2020. Lawyers representing the state and environmental groups argue that the California law is the only way to reach these goals.

Sean Donahue, an Environmental Defense Fund attorney who presented oral arguments to the appeals court, said that at its core, the law is about regulating greenhouse gas emissions by focusing on the entire life cycle of the fuel. “It’s not based on where the fuel is from, but is based on the effect on the climate,” Donahue said. Peter Keisler, a fuel industry attorney, told the court, “Even if there is no discrimination, you still have a regulatory scheme whose purpose is to penalize imports, to penalize out-of-state conduct in an effort to control in-state emissions.”

The three-judge panel asked tough questions during the appeal, including a focus on language in the law that seemed to point to favoring California employment and tax revenues. “Isn’t this unambiguous evidence that the board was motivated by protectionism?” asked 9th Circuit Court Judge Mary Murguia.

(Mod: Somebody call the Green Committee. The sky is falling.)

Editorial pages united on Prop 37, voters divided (Orange County Register): The editorial pages of the state's nine biggest daily papers run the political gamut, but there's a single ballot measure that all agree should be defeated: Proposition 37, the proposed labeling of genetically engineered food.

"This measure is an example of why some public policy – no matter how well intentioned and benign sounding – should not be decided at the ballot box," wrote the San Francisco Chronicle. "Prop. 37 is fraught with vague and problematic provisions that could make it costly for consumers and a legal nightmare for those who grow, process or sell food."

That thinking seems to be growing more common among voters, whom polls show are becoming less supportive of the measure as they get more familiar with it. A new USC/ L.A. Times poll found 44 percent of voters supported it, 42 percent opposed it and 13 percent were undecided. That's a dramatic drop from a month ago, when the poll found 61 percent of voters supported it.

Support remains strong among Democrats. An OC Political Pulse survey of 80 Democrats found 69 percent favored the measure, including 32 percent who acknowledged it was flawed but said it was better than nothing. An additional 15 percent like the idea, but were voting against it because it was poorly written.

Among the 156 Republican respondents, just 7 percent favored the measure. Sixty-three percent said, flat out, it was a bad idea, and 24 percent said the idea had merits but was too poorly written to support.

(Mod: The last time we checked in on Prop 37 it was leading in the polls by about 25 points and seemed well on the way to a huge victory. That was before the big money folks began their campaign against it. Personally, I also blame the endorsement it received from the Mountain Views News.)

Young Millennials - Fiscal Conservatives? (Sacramento Bee): This generation of young Americans has been called many things, from civic-minded to "entitled." But fiscally conservative? That's a new one, and it just might have an impact on the presidential election. Listen to Caroline Winsett, a senior at DePaul University, who considers herself fairly socially liberal but says being fiscally conservative matters most right now. "Ultimately, I'm voting with my pocketbook," says Winsett, a 22-year-old political science major who's president of the DePaul student body. She recently cast an absentee ballot for Republican Mitt Romney in her home state of Tennessee.

To be clear, polls show that President Barack Obama remains the favorite among 18- to 29-year-old registered voters, as he was in 2008. No one thinks the majority of young voters will support Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, in the Nov. 6 election. But the polls also hint at a "schism" between those who weren't old enough to vote in 2008 and their older twenty-something counterparts, says John Della Volpe, the polling director at Harvard University's Institute of Politics.

In one poll, for instance, he found that 42 percent of 18- and 19-year-olds identified as "conservative," compared with just over one-third who said they were "liberal." By comparison, those proportions were nearly flipped for 22- to 24-year-olds: 39 percent said they were "liberal," and a third called themselves "conservative." It was much the same for older twenty-somethings.

Tina Wells, head of Buzz Marketing, an agency that tracks the attitudes of young people, has noticed this shift to the right. Her own researchers have found that the youngest adults are much more likely to label themselves "conservative," "moderate" or "independent" than older millennials, a term for young adults who've entered adulthood in the new millennium.

(Mod: You mean to say the little ingrates are going to be unwilling to support us in our golden years? That settles it, no jobs for any of them.)

The staff here at the Sierra Madre Tattler hopes that you will enjoy the rest of your day off.

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

72 comments:

  1. College and education should be free and available to all ages for their lifetimes.

    142 comments don't count if at least a hundred were made by the Brandenburgs themselves.

    Love Howard Jarvis group.

    Kudos to CA for stopping the torture of geese, I have two Toulouse geese and feel that any humans who force feed them need to be force fed themselves.

    Unions have gotten out of hand, and need to be abolished.

    Nuclear technology is responsible for the ozone layer, the first hole in the ozone layer was discovered after the use of the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    GMO foods should be labeled, are causing terrible diseases in the life that is being forced to consume them, human and animal.
    Plus the seeds are hybrid, do not reproduce, and harm farmers by monopoly.

    Happy Day

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just for clarity, last Thursday's post did not originate with either Tony or Mary Brandenburg.

      Delete
    2. A lot of people do force feed themselves. I'm sure they have fat livers.

      Delete
    3. Isn't that how they get councilpersons to attend COG meetings?

      Delete
    4. Any post that mentions the Brandenbergs always ends up being about the Brandenbergs.

      Delete
    5. Thanks to people like you, 8:33.

      Delete
    6. I'll bet the fat livers of COG members do not taste very good. Even if you do put a lot of ketchup on them.

      Delete
    7. Over a hundred comments by the Brandenburgs 7:55? Why is it that on every thread having to do with the school, there's a bunch of nasty bullies that bash? Why are there some that continue to try and drag them in?

      Delete
    8. you're a regular comedian, 7:53. Maybe you should write a joke book. i understand the town cryer has written a joke book about inclusion. mj found it when we were researching chris holden.

      we don't leave bundles of comments, and i generally sign mine. these threads get bucketloads of traffic. are you suggesting that i come to the tattler 2,000 times a day? if you would rather talk about the town cryer, or the big d, or steve, please, be my guest. i enjoy laughing my butt off just as much as anyone does, and personally, i think more laws like that one are just more government interference. in any event, california likes to think its wines and foi gras are sophisticated, enchanté! ........ but even i know a well dressed flea when i see one.

      keep your geese safe, there are plenty of coyotes running every town. they will soon have a law banning your geese, and pigs, and anything else that interferes with the new multi-plex they are funding.

      as for me, i go to europe every year, so more stupid laws mean nothing to me, and i hate liver anyway.

      if you are going to call me out, you're going to be stuck with my interaction. au revoir!

      Delete
    9. Because the Brandenburgs scare the fat livers out of the PUSD and their pliable on-line apologists. Plain and simple.

      Delete
    10. Who's the town crier??

      Delete
    11. I think it's either Mary Mac ( Louis EDUCE ) or that oversized nasty teacher at Sierra madre !!!

      Delete
    12. 11:08... I'm thinking the wistarious one.

      Delete
    13. Oh, I get it, the loud one is Ms. Lisa

      Delete
  2. So the Tattler is in favor of stopping the torture of elephants, but doesn't think the same of geese?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where did you draw that conclusion? I posted that item because I thought the French person sounded like an idiot.

      Delete
    2. Sorry! Thank you! I misread the ending comment.
      Totally my bad.

      Delete
  3. Really? Education should be free for life, who pays for that? And for who? Anybody who sneaks into our country and their offsprings? What language should this largeness be in? How about teaching your kids to read and let them teach themselves. How would we know if nuclear tech created the frist ozone hole when nobody was looking for them or labeling them holes? Spoken like a true enviro nut! Have a good day!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8:31, you can throw glitter and pixie dust at the end of your comment, but it doesn't change the ugliness of your statements. You're not that anonymous.

      Delete
  4. There is absolutely no excuse for anyone to push for a consultant written "Public Safety Master Plan," first, because it's just a damn template and we could borrow one from a city our size and xerox it, and second, we have more than enough talented and experienced concerned citizens to make that a volunteer effort and come up with something good for the town.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reason a paid consultant is desired by the dirt faction of the city council is that the results will be guaranteed. That being the $1.5 million per year savings we would realize by contracting with the sheriffs is not worth it, and that without the SMPD our world would somehow come to a screaming halt. This is about as dishonest an effort as I have seen in this town since the water rate increase.

      Delete
    2. I'm in need of some clarification, if the PD is costing SM 1.5 M a year and we get rid of them and have no PD at all then we are saving that money, but, with no police force, so if we contract out to an outside agency, say the Sherriffs department, do we know the cost of that,have bids been entered?,.do we know what actual savings will be?

      Delete
    3. We will save 1.5 million a year by having the sheriffs.
      Our PD now takes 53% of our budget - and they want more.

      Delete
  5. Can we hope for any consequences to Lackie, Dammeier and McGill for their shady handiwork?

    ReplyDelete
  6. By election day, the truth about the ballots has intentionally become thoroughly obscured and twisted by public relations experts wielding false advertising. Those professional purveyors of confusion, and those who hire them, will one day discover their consciences, and that will be a harsh reckoning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can get an objective run-down on PBS.

      Delete
  7. The French grastronomie has a lot more going for it than fattened googe liver that torture the animals, such as as many varieities of cheeses a there are days in the year.

    Also, France, among some several dozen other nations, opposes genetically modified foods.

    Big Ag, dosen't have your health as their bottem line, shelf life is their bottom line, which translates into dollars for them, poor health for you.

    Preemergent plants to resist diseases and insects might sound good to the uninformed but that means these plants and the food they produce (fruits, nuts, vegetables, cotton for clothing, etc., have those organisms in them which you then ingest.

    And insects: what do birds and bats eat? More birds/bats, less GMOs/pesticides! Listen to Rachel Carson soon, how about now?

    Vote yes on 37.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm voting Yes on 37.
      Genetic engineered food is not a good thing.
      The increase in autism is very frightening.
      No one is against excess government control more than I am.
      However, we can't take a chance on this.
      The next autistic child born may be yours or your grandchild.
      PLEASE VOTE YES on 37. It's not worth the gamble here.

      Delete
    2. Hi Diane. To my knowledge there is no link between gmos and autism. There is no defining study as to why the incidents of autism are so high, but trends support it is genetic, and that rates increase between siblings, that is, there are higher probabilities of autism occurring.

      Delete
    3. TB,
      there is a lot of new evidence that there very well could be some connections.....the fact that there is an alarming incidence of autism, especially in boys, is enough for me. Something in addition to genetics in families is going on here, Tony. It has to be.
      I'm a gambler, but this is one gamble I don't choose to take.

      Delete
    4. Sorry, didn't get that all in..... If one child is born with autism, the probability of it occurring again are increased.

      Delete
    5. But, having said all of that, we stopped drinking modified milk and veggies long ago when we read a study on how milk was affecting children's growth

      Delete
    6. Thanks DS. I agree that there is no point tempting fate. The rates are alarming , and I avoid gmos foods anyway, but I doubt it is a factor because I have lived with autism since before there was a word for it. I do believe that things can contribute to autism, but the skeptic in me doubts it is any single factor.

      Delete
    7. I don't think there is a single factor either, Tony.
      We have a pretty large family, and only one boy is autistic, but that's one too many.
      I think it's correct to doubt any one single factor. Vaccinations?
      Pesticides? Genetic engineered food? Genetics? You probably have several other suspects.

      Again, I just won't take the chance that GMO's are safe.
      I still urge Tattler readers to vote YES on 37.

      Delete
    8. Monsanto is an evil chemical giant that has patented pesticide resistant seeds. They put tons of money into defeating propositions to monitor them.

      Delete
    9. I am voting for Prop 37 only because of who is against it.

      Delete
    10. But, given the negatives associated with GMOs, they don't explain the rise in autism.

      Delete
    11. Monsanto Hayride (2003)October 28, 2012 at 1:52 PM

      Magic kingdom, right at Main
      Shattered link, food chain
      Tomorrowland in a plastic can
      Monsanto: your house of the future

      In a working class Alabama town
      Childhood leukemia found
      Mercury poisons the stream
      Monsanto
      Amber waves of greed
      Poison the well
      In greed we trust
      Against the grain

      Minnesota genocide
      Birth defects, pesticide
      Roundup spray, village green
      Monsanto

      Big business muscles flex
      Blind eyed FDA inspects
      Par for the course no one suspects
      Monsanto: your house of the future

      You'll seed your fields
      How we tell you to;
      You'll feed your cows
      What we sell to you.
      Inject growth hormone
      Into the seed you sow,
      You'll eat and feed and seed
      But you'll never know
      How far the tentacles reach
      From the greed that feeds inside,
      How far the invasion sweeps
      Monsanto.

      Grab your girl and climb aboard
      Monsanto hayride
      Plant the seed, breed the greed
      Plant the seed Monsanto brings

      Magic kingdom, right at Main
      Shattered link, food chain
      Tomorrowland in a plastic can
      Monsanto

      Close your eyes, ignore the lies
      Bastard's creed no one denies
      Systemic failure demands supply
      Monsanto: your house of the future

      You'll seal your fate
      How we want you to
      You'll feed your children
      Our frankenfood
      The future's now
      Reap what we sow
      Mutate the future
      And we'll watch you grow

      Delete
    12. that line is a rhyme-

      Minnesota genocide
      Birth defects, pesticide,
      Roundup spray, village green-
      Monsanto Chemical deny everything

      Delete
    13. and here, too

      In a working class Alabama town
      Childhood leukemia found,
      Mercury poisons the stream-
      Monsanto Chemical don't know a thing

      Delete
  8. I am voting yes on 30. Those of you who don't like more taxes, well, yes, you have a point. I will watch you at the next big tax protest...the one where it is deemed necessary to tax you to build more prisons, perhaps one in your backyard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you can prove to me that the 90% of the increased revenue will NOT go to 'administrative costs' including pensions that astonish those of us in the private sector, then I'll vote for it too.

      Delete
    2. Me too. I'm voting no, because I don't trust the politicians to give the money to the schools. I'm being redundant, I know, but where is the lottery money???

      Delete
    3. Unfortunately in California kids are held hostage when it comes time to raise taxes. It is always about the schools, and nothing about the $10s of billions of dollars wasted on myriad nonsense like SCAG and COG. You notice those never get cut. The reason for this is kids are appealing, and bureaucrats are not. I'm sure they'll gut the schools, however. They always do. There is nothing in schools that will make money for the lobbyists and powerful corporate interests that own Sacramento. This state is impossibly corrupt, and most of our elected officials belong in jail.

      Delete
  9. Yes, if we don't vote to increase taxes upon ourselves the world as we know it will end. Or maybe not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The world will not end if we vote NO on 30. It will not end if we vote NO on 31 and it will not end if we vote YES on 32.

      Monsanto will not go bankrupt and need to be bailed out if we vote YES on 37.

      Delete
  10. Anonymous # 1
    Sounds like your jealous of the brandenburgs attention do you want to be adopted by them ????

    ReplyDelete
  11. Perhaps we do need to build a new prison for those police and lawyers working for the police union who are using intimidation of cities to get what they want.
    I thought there was a federal law against racqueteering.?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are not enough prisons in the entire US to keep all the crooks who caused this economic crisis. Probably not enough in the entire world.

      Delete
  12. Alot of GMO foods have been good for the world, and in some countries it has meant the difference between enough to eat and starvation.
    There need to be better testing by the government or independent testing labs, not to have labeling at the grocery store. The consumer may want to know whether foods are GMO, but you still don't know whether it's safe unless it is thoroughly tested.
    All this does is to add cost to foods.
    Most vegetables and fruit are GMO now, but have they been checked by the the FDA?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Soylent green is people

      Delete
    2. People look down on those who eat backyard varmints like opossum, rattlesnake and squirrel. Buy you know what? They're all natural. No GMOs in a single on of them.

      Delete
    3. It's my understanding that in New York the police eat people.

      Delete
    4. People have been altered by GMOs.

      Delete
    5. The bill is not about the merits of gmo food stuffs, but the publics right to know if the food they are consuming has been genetically modified, it's about labeling, very simple..please vote yes, you have a right to know.

      Delete
  13. @11:26, you think I want a target on me? The attention they get is often harassment .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wistar, Cumquat, smears on the Dunns, MacGillivray, Crawford, Zimmerman, the attacks on dissident families at SME. All of it comes from the same damn people.

      Delete
    2. Yes, it is the same damn people. This is very true.

      Delete
    3. A target you'd get. all the same, in my home there is always room for one more plate, and always room to add more water to the soup.

      Delete
    4. 12:00- I've got a sneaky suspicion that the town cryer TB referenced is part of that crowd of bullies.

      Delete
    5. Anyone who stands up for what is right in this town will be smeared by those people. However, the rock they hide under is about to be lifted and all will see.

      Delete
    6. I for one will be happy for the vermin to see the light of day, rather than continuing to blame those who prefer to expose the truth.

      Delete
  14. We are a house divided on Prop. 37, although my spouse thought about taking his vote back because of the weekly rag endorsement which, by the way, was a very poorly written article.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It could be a 2 step process. GMOs, chemicals in the water, bad air, all of these factors could contribute to genetic damage, which then leads to the birth of autistic children. The rapid increase in autism cannot be explained by genetics alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make a good point 1:39. There's been research looking at the rates of autism around farming areas, and the possibilities of irrigation water seeping into the water tables, etc. There's also been research re: a predisposition to environmental pollutants and how they can impact certain groups. It's not necessarily damage, but also differences in neurological wiring. This difference can sometimes have very positive effects. Still, it's sad that kids are the lab rats in this world wide experiment.
      There still is strong evidence that genetics play a significant factor in autism. Here's a link to a sibling study from UC Davis.
      https://docs.google.com/file/d/1TPEpJwWKgj2PUNgwVyhTSgtk9g0L8rorLVSwEkVy4R6lN-8wYOZDIlYXQVHD/edit

      Delete
    2. Mary B.?

      Have you ever read any connection between autism and the Varicella-zoster virus? This virus is very insidious. It causes all sorts of nasty diseases, such as shingles, trigeminal neuralgia, chicken pox, Bell's Palsy and others.

      Could it be transferred genetically by a parent who has this horrible virus in their system? Once you have chicken pox, this never really goes away. Could there be a possible connection?


      Delete
    3. Hi DS,
      I haven't seen anything between autism and varicella, but there's so much that still hasn't been figured out.

      If you're interested, here's a couple links to Science Daily news. The first link is the 10 ten suspected chemicals in autism and learning disabilities, spurring further research into environmental causes/connections
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120425140118.htm

      This link is a study looking at environmental triggers (pharmaceuticals in the water) in children genetically predisposed to autism.
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120606193853.htm

      There's so much we can't control in what children are exposed to, unfortunately. But regarding what we can, I believe we have the right to truth in labeling- so we can make an informed choice whether or not to eat "Frankenfoods".

      Delete
    4. Thanks for the link, Mary.
      I am very interested in this subject.
      If everyone were as concerned as we are, there may have already been a major breakthru.
      I pray that will happen, for your child, my nephew, my friend's little boy and all children who are autistic.

      Delete
  16. I suggest a reread of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" written about 50 years ago. She accurately predicted what is happening now as the result of the depletion of the natural food chain along with the addition of chemical fertilizers and pesticides to what we eat. It is not recognized by present day thought because the problems occurr long term, not immediately and that "chicken is now coming home to roost."

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Silent Spring" did more to harm developing countries than it saved. With the ban on DDT,millions died of malaria and other insect borne diseases. Some countries are now allowing the use of DDT to help stem malaria. For every act there are unintended consequences. As one blogger said earlier, GMC foods have kept people in undeveloped countries from starving.

    My Granddaughter refused to vaccinate her children because she believes that vaccinations cause autism. That theory has been widely and completely debunked.

    ReplyDelete