After reading the Aug. 30 BDN letter “Correcting Wheat” by Judi Adams, president of the Wheat Foods Council, I had to respond. Yes, wheat has been genetically modified for as far back as we know. That’s just another reason it could be poison as a genetically modified organism food source.
I have gluten sensitivity — I had a gene test — and have researched the complete history of wheat, barley and rye.
Of course, being the president of the Wheat Foods Council, one would want to defend wheat. What was not mentioned was all of the processed foods that contain excess amounts of wheat glutens. I am an avid label reader, as I have other food allergies as well. The third ingredient in some cat foods is wheat gluten. Filler, filler, filler. When did cats and dogs ever eat wheat long ago? Start reading labels, people. We are an over-glutened society.
According to the “History of Wheat,” humans were never meant to eat it anyway. On June 22, 2013, rogue GMO wheat plants showed up in a farmer’s field of more than 100 acres in Oregon, according to Carol Mallory Smith, a professor of weed science in Oregon. The Department of Agriculture is investigating the renegade GMO wheat outbreak.
Makes one wonder just what we don’t know.
All I can say is I don’t want to eat anything that is genetically modified. I especially thank Dr. Michael Noonan’s column for educating the public. It is about time someone started the conversation.
The BDN Aug. 28 article “Eastport Salmon Festival adds more seafood” gets it wrong. The story reads, “The festival will be held Aug. 31 to Sept. 1, in the port city, which is located on a small peninsula.” Wrong. Eastport is on an island, Moose Island to be specific. The mainland ends at Pleasant Point, home of the Passamaquoddy reservation, then is connected by causeway to Carlow Island and then connected by causeway to Moose Island, or Eastport.
I do not claim to have the knowledge of some military leaders or politicians, but when I hear about what is happening in Syria, I recall being at the Holocaust Museum and hearing, “We would never let that happen again.” Will we?
I cannot, for the life of me, understand why Ke$ha’s opinions about bear hunting in Maine should be of any interest and why said opinions should rate front-page coverage in the Aug. 10 BDN.
Unless, of course, the BDN is using its front page to pursue a political agenda. That couldn’t possibly happen, could it?
BDN photos and reporting related to Gov. Paul LePage reflect a clear perspective. For independent-minded Mainers who like comparisons, a very different balanced, constructive, informed perspective and photo appears in a full page story in the Aug. 31 edition of The Economist Magazine. The contrasts are self evident.
Bill Beardsley, former Conservation commissioner
Pop star Ke$ha isn’t in favor of bear hunting in Maine? In my opinion, if you are from away, you shouldn’t be making comments on how things are done here in Maine.
Stop the killing
Given that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the horrible chemical attack in Syria, what are the options for holding him accountable? Finally, it is dawning on many in the West that a military response will result in even more deaths and a further outpouring of refugees. Multitudes are questioning the effectiveness of trying to stop killing by killing.
War is not in our genes, writes Douglas Fry in “War, Peace and Human Nature.” We have a choice. This is a breakthrough moment to reach a new level of sanity on our planet. Let the UN chemical weapons inspectors file their report, the U.N. Security Council debate the issue, as well as the U.S. Congress and French Parliament.
Perhaps the U.S. will come around to joining the World Court. Hopefully, diplomacy and sanctions will rule the day. This is a teachable moment, a breakthrough opportunity for global uplift to the wisdom of Jesus, who taught 2,000 years ago and is still teaching today to those who have ears to hear: “Love your enemies.” (Matthew, 5:44); and “Put away your sword, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew, 26:52).
Marilyn and Harrison Roper
Two things have struck me in the controversy regarding whether the United States should execute a Syrian attack from either a moral and humanitarian or national security interest viewpoint.
The first is a bit of hypocrisy on our part. We had virtually no compunction about the use of poison gas by our then allies, the Iraqis, against Iran in the 1980s. We also ignored the genocidal atrocities in central Africa 20 years ago, and had little apparent concern over the devastating bombings we inflicted on Germany and Japan (to include two atomic bombs) that resulted in hundreds of thousands of nonmilitary, civilian casualties at the end of World War II.
Second, isn’t it somewhat ludicrous to dictate rules of war? In effect, if we “punish” Bashar al-Assad with the currently proposed type of limited air strikes for use of poison gas on civilian populations, are we in fact saying he gets a pass to keep the killing going by other means, as long as it doesn’t involve poison gas? What will be accomplished?
While I personally abhor the toll that the Syrian civil war has taken on the countless innocent people caught in the crossfire, I am not convinced that our national security interests are at stake, and the possibility of having the conflict spill outside Syrian borders is real. An attack is not worth the risk or price, if our major objective is to save face as opposed to forcing Syrian regime change.
G. Lansing Blackshaw