Letters for August 7, 2014

Nestlé views public water as ‘extreme’

Re “Nestlé and drought” (SN&R Editorial, July 24):

From the numbers, Sacramentans are beginning to take the drought seriously. The city should follow suit by reconsidering the Nestlé agreement.

Nestlé was welcomed to Sacramento with open arms in 2009 by Mayor Kevin Johnson, touting job creation (about 40). Our drought was well underway already, but was largely unnewsworthy. Nestlé settled comfortably in Sacramento after it was ousted by tiny McCloud, up in Siskiyou County, where it wanted to set up its aquifer-sucking shop. The Nestlé story and how its project was fast-tracked in Sacramento without environmental review or public comment is all online (Google “Stop Nestlé”), as is Nestlé's global march to privatize water, even in water-starved areas of the world. You can also read its chairperson's 2005 comment that it is an “extreme solution” to think of water as a “public right,” or to presume that “as a human being you should have a right to water.”

An interesting Nestlé sidenote is that it contributed $1 million to Monsanto's campaign against GMO labeling.

A.S.

Sacramento

We really don’t know jack about seafood

Re “Good fish, bad fish” by Alastair Bland (SN&R Feature Story, July 24):

Thanks for the keepsake article on the above. As someone who is researching and working in the food business, restaurants, etc., I found the article to be controversial in nature because of the subject matter and the pros and cons of aquaculture as a way of balancing an unknown number of fish stocks out in our Earth’s oceans.

We don’t know enough about our seas and oceans and what’s on the bottom compared to what we know about our moon, Mars and the universe in general, hence what trawlers could potentially damage when using nonbreakaway nets—especially if those nets go down to 3,000 feet.

Vendors, importers, consultants and their supporters believe there is still a lot of fish in the oceans. Are they regenerating? How would they know?

Or is it wishful thinking? Until a marine-science consortium or the likes of the Cousteau Society can do a worldwide survey of the oceans and seas, we won’t really know.

The sushi chefs and the seafood restaurants out there will measure the demand for bluefin tuna, but should educate and let their customers know that certain species are dying out. Aquaculture is one thing, but I won’t eat genetically modified salmon anytime soon, either.

Ed Allen

Fairfield

How does Sacto benefit from Nestlé?

Re “Nestlé and drought” (SN&R Editorial, July 24):

Informative and damning not only from the water perspective, but it also appears there are some serious ethical issues coming from the mayor’s office and city council. How much money has Nestlé contributed to the respective campaigns and/or projects of our leaders in city government for such preferential treatment? Better yet, who agreed to give Nestlé an industrial rate of $.9854 for every 748 gallons of water? Aside from 15 to 40 local jobs, how is Sacramento benefiting from Nestlé pillaging our water supply? Something really stinks! I am astonished, to say the least.

Rick Redding

Sacramento

SN&R’s Nestlé argument is bogus

Re “Nestlé and drought” (SN&R Editorial, July 24):

I am sorry to say this, but your argument against Nestlé is idiotic. We may be in a drought, but there isn’t anyone dying from dehydration due to lack of access to drinking water. Instead, it is a water-allocation issue, and I don’t see why Nestlé should not have as much water as it wants (it does pay for it) vs. a Central Valley farmer, etc. Nestlé provides a lot of jobs in an area that needs more jobs, not less. Chasing off successful companies because you don’t like people buying bottled water is a recipe for failure.

James Nelson

Sacramento