In reference to the editorial “As sugar is attacked, Chicago candymaker Ferrara keeps the Nerds coming” (May 27), the Tribune Editorial Board should do more research and also admit some harsh realities concerning sugar consumption. Is the board aware that about 1 in 5 children are classified as obese, some severely so?
Sadly, many parents don’t have the heart to deprive their children of something considered by society (and the board) as a “treat.” But as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy so accurately pointed out, it is a form of poison and an addictive one at that. Just examine the percentage of people suffering the effects of Type 2 diabetes. That one disease alone accounts for enormous health care costs — costs that the government must absorb when a patient is on Medicare or Medicaid. So, the government indeed has a vested interest in controlling the manufacturing and consumption of sugar.
Ferrara Candy Co. CEO Katie Duffy stated that “everything we produce is safe to eat.” That does not mean it is “healthy” to eat! The board states that it has “long recoiled against Uncle Sam telling Americans what to eat.” And that “if a food product is safe from a scientific standpoint, the government has no business blocking it from the marketplace.” Again, that ignores the fact that the government shares some of the burden for the cost of medical care for the health disorders caused by sugar consumption. And just to enlighten the board further, we pay for the government. So, it costs us all as a whole.
The board further states that “armed with that information, we believe people are smart enough to make their own decisions without Nanny State intervention.” The board has to be joking. It gives people far more credit than they deserve.
Sugar is being consumed in quantities that most people are not likely aware of. And that is what I think Kennedy is trying to address. I appreciate what he is trying to achieve, and the board should as well.
Keep in mind that a country is only as strong and as healthy as its people. We have an epidemic of obesity in this country. Don’t gloss over the facts in the name of some false sense of sovereignty over choice.
— Joseph Talbott, Chicago
RFK’s vaccine stance
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is absolutely correct about the American diet. There’s too much salt, sugar and bad fat; not enough fiber; and too many additives. The consequences are substantial: obesity, diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, cancer and more. He is dead wrong about vaccinations, “dead” not being just an expression: People are going to die, needlessly.
During a measles epidemic in Samoa, Kennedy campaigned against vaccination; too few people were vaccinated, thousands got sick and dozens died. Almost all healthy individuals who get measles completely recover. About 1 in 1,000, however, will have serious complications or die. Great odds in a casino but not for a preventable disease.
In contrast, there have been no reports of the measles vaccine causing death in healthy people, and the incidence of permanent harm is less than 1 in 500,000.
Kennedy’s efforts to restrict the messenger RNA-based COVID-19 vaccine is not based on credible evidence of significant harm. Worldwide, at least 5 billion people have received COVID-19 vaccinations, including hundreds of millions of Americans. Many have sore arms, and some, brief flulike illness. Very rarely does serious short-term illness occur. In contrast, more than 1 million Americans have died from COVID-19, and 20 million Americans have been diagnosed with long COVID-19, sometimes with debilitating symptoms. People who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 have dramatically lower rates of hospitalization, death and long COVID-19.
Kennedy proposes a clinical trial against a placebo to test the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. In any clinical trial, when the drug being studied against a placebo is found to be safe and effective, the trial is stopped. The safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine has already been proved; there is no need for a trial.
Kennedy’s proclamation restricting recommending who should receive the vaccination is medical idiocy. Infants have poorly developed immune systems and are very vulnerable to infections, including COVID-19. If pregnant women are vaccinated, their babies get some protection against COVID-19. Being under 65 is no guarantee against COVID-19 causing hospitalization or death, and the incidence of some forms of long COVID-19 is actually higher in young people.
It is worth noting that Kennedy made these recommendations on his own without input from recognized experts. There is a new COVID-19 variant, and the need for vaccinations is still great. When the Senate confirmed Kennedy, it failed the American people.
— Dr. Elliot Weisenberg, Chicago
Bill’s buried provision
Michael J. Medley’s letter (“What our nation needs,” May 29) regarding President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” which has been passed by the House, is on point but misses one very important issue. This bill contains a buried provision seeking to limit courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, from enforcing their rulings or orders.
In short, it states: “No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued.” What I have read says that this means the courts cannot enforce decisions unless the plaintiffs have posted a bond. Federal courts do not require plaintiffs to post bonds; therefore, this provision would mean that the courts would not be able to enforce their rulings. And Trump and his administration could proceed to do anything they want to, regardless of whether it is unconstitutional.
When setting up the federal government, our Founding Fathers did not feel any one person should have all the power. Therefore, they set up a government of three equal parts: executive (president), legislative (Congress) and judicial (Supreme Court). Trump has already taken over the legislative aspect — with no pushback from the Republican majority — by overturning many aspects of the government and funding that had previously been put in place by Congress. Now he wants to make judicial rulings unenforceable.
If Trump does that, he will be king. This country was developed as a democracy, and I believe the majority of Americans do not want a king.
Readers should call their senators and demand this bill not be passed with this provision in it. Save our democracy and our Constitution!
— Janet Yaworski, Crystal Lake
Bravo to NPR for suit
I’m thrilled National Public Radio has legally challenged the administration’s misguided executive order targeting its appropriately sourced federal funds and relationships with local stations. I’ve grown accustomed to the measured objectivity and factual analysis of the reporting through daily programs such as “All Things Considered” and “Morning Edition.”
We financially support NPR’s frequent funding drives, the real lifeblood of its operations, not only because its revenues significantly rely on voluntary contributions by listeners, but also due to its prize-winning journalism that opens our eyes to hard-hitting domestic and international news analysis.
The president’s bizarre claims that NPR fails to provide “fair, accurate or unbiased” programming can be summarily rejected by those who actually listen to the variety of viewpoints included. NPR routinely covers important events like it did with the president’s speech to a joint session of Congress in March and even presented rare audio of Supreme Court oral arguments about the birthright citizenship case, followed by riveting independent coverage.
Cutting this funding is more than just a violation of free speech. America should refrain from emulating autocratic leaders in other societies that deliberately silence views it does not like.
— Anthony Arnaud, Laguna Niguel, California
Lawsuit without merit
National Public Radio is suing President Donald Trump’s administration because it stopped taxpayer funding to the network; NPR contends that curtails its free speech.
What nonsense. NPR remains free to utter what it wants, but the public does not need to pay for it.
NPR can fund itself and say whatever it pleases. Its reflexive lawsuit is frivolous and vexatious without merit.
— David N. Simon, Chicago
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.