Organic food is more beneficial
A recent Stanford University organic food study claims no health benefits to organic food, based upon the fact organic produce and meat don't contain more vitamins than nonorganic. The levels of pesticide residue in nonorganic food are dismissed as being within government regulations.
Reports I've seen on this study make no reference to achieving a healthier planet through organic food production. Runoff from factory farms creates a "dead zone" at the mouth of the Mississippi River, extending far into the Gulf of Mexico. Farming practices are crucial to many environmental challenges, including global warming and species loss.
Go to the local organic market and look at the customers, then go to the supermarket and do likewise. Who looks healthier? Organic food can be a springboard to a healthier lifestyle, with healthier families eating flavorful produce instead of the highly processed and vastly profitable fare from agribusiness giants.
Organic food production means more than the methods of fertilization and pest control -- ideally it's part of a broad movement of farmers, consumers and businesses concerned about their health and the health of their communities and the planet.
Drug addicts usually have an 'enabler'
I have followed the Bill Lockyer-Nadia Lockyer drama since it surfaced months ago.
Having read that Nadia Lockyer has been arrested and charged with several felonies, I can well understand Bill Lockyer's intent to divorce his wife.
I sympathize with Mrs. Lockyer's problems, but let's bear in mind that drug addicts have an "enabler." In this case, I find it hard to believe Mr. Lockyer was not aware his wife was addicted.
Mr. Lockyer was an attorney general; he knew what life was all about. Maybe he didn't know about his wife's affair, but he must have to known about her addiction. For him to bad-mouth his wife now is not respectful.
I respect Bill Lockyer, but he has to take some responsibility for the problem and not palm it off.
Walking scared in Walnut Creek
Once again, I read the news in horror as another innocent family lost a loved one due to an out-of-control vehicle running onto the sidewalk in Walnut Creek.
I work at the Shadelands Executive Park, and I understand why this kind of tragedy is happening.
Many cars speed past me while I walk on the sidewalk in front of the Animal Rescue Foundation, behind the complex. There is a very clearly marked crosswalk many motorists do not respect at Mitchell Drive.
I have experienced my life flash before me when cars fly by me while I'm crossing the street. Most vehicles lack the courtesy of even slowing down.
If the Walnut Creek police parked at that spot for a day, they could ticket many speeding vehicles and cut city deficits; there might even be a surplus.
Walnut Creek is a beautiful city, but more police intervention is needed in order to keep us walkers safe.
Don't charge a few for the benefit of all
Your editorial on July 19 was "right on" -- with one exception. You stated, "It's fair to ask drivers to pay the cost of roads and other infrastructure they use. ..." Charging a road tax on gasoline and bridge and road tolls means that only those people driving vehicles are taxed. However, everyone, without exception, benefits from our roads and bridges. Hence, the funds needed to maintain our roads and bridges should be shared by anyone who benefits from their existence -- that's everyone.
We place on our ballots measures that will raise bridge tolls. Of course, anyone who never personally uses the bridges (or seldom uses them) will vote for any increase. Then we hear, "It's obvious that the people approve of this rate increase." That's like asking someone who pays no income tax if taxes should be raised on those who pay. Obvious?
We do the same with our schools and education, charging a few for the benefit of all.
Here's a unique solution. If you benefit from something, then take the responsibility to help finance it.