I'm not an expert in the food industry; I'm a consumer. But as an outsider I find myself rooting for Chobani over Yoplait/General Mills in a David vs. Goliath showdown ("Yogurt is the new measuring stick at General Mills," June 25).
It was inexcusable when General Mills executives complained after the meteoric rise of Chobani that high-quality Greek yogurt was too expensive to make on a large scale, and instead added milk protein concentrate to their existing product and called it "Greek" yogurt.
For generations, General Mills corporation has marketed grain-based, processed foods with salt and sugar. What's the last time you made Hamburger Helper? That the yogurt category appears to be the company's Achilles' heel simply brings to stark relief that General Mills' product line is designed for uninformed consumers who are thankfully becoming more scarce every day.
I take it as a matter of pride to shop the perimeter of the grocery store where high-quality fresh foods like vegetables, fruit, dairy, meat, fish, and poultry sit without branding from a Fortune 500 company.
General Mills' product line, like Betty Crocker (who was a fiction anyway), is stuck in the past.
It's delightful to see conservatives rediscover civil rights arguments after Democrats in the House of Representatives held a sit-in to protest the GOP's refusal to vote on even the most modest gun control measures.
Traditionally, though, civil rights are listed in the First Amendment: the freedoms of religion, speech, the press, peaceful assembly, and the right to petition the government.
In the case of the Orlando shooting and others, the "right" to buy an military-grade rifle threatens everyone's rights. The First Amendment and the Second (in its current interpretation) are in conflict.
Polling as well as common sense says the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right; the sentence itself says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." a clause which limits gun rights in a way that the First's rights are not limited. Additionally, the civil rights ensure a civil society, while the Second makes arms a last resort -- when citizens need to use force. While this perverse possibility excites some, thankfully they are in the minority.
We need gun control because the purpose of the Second Amendment's meaning has been twisted, and our politics have grown toxic. The NRA and GOP Congressmen stand with a "right" that ensures more mass shootings; they offer prayer when the dead cry for a change in policy.
The StarTribune editorial board put a lot of time and effort into its Sunday editorial "Gun violence in America: We're all responsible." The Board included a thought-provoking title but skipped probably the most effective way to drastically reduce gun violence: make gun manufacturers and retailers legally liable for the misuse of their product.
We don't question it when citizens sue the companies that make or sell defective automobiles or faulty medical devices or tainted food. Yet we allowed Congress to pass a 2005 law (Public Law 109-92 or 119 Stat. 2095) saying that gun manufacturers and retailers couldn't be sued.
Not only has this statute had an adverse effect on public health, a fair-minded Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional. Gun sellers should be doing everything in their power to ensure the safety of their customers and the public.
Instead the law has introduced a Wild West of armaments stockpiling where someone with evil intent can legally buy a military-style rifle, the AR-15, and shoot more than a hundred clubgoers (Orlando), or a deranged 20-year-old can grab his mother's weapon and tragically murder first graders and their teachers (Sandy Hook).
Overturning the so-called "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" should be step one.
Adam M. Schenck