chezron
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Wrecking ball target: Drew Ford roundhouse
I love that structure! I am so upset. He planned to do it all along. I feel betrayed after he said he wouldn't demolish it. Now it will just be an ugly care dealership like all of the others.— May 6, 2018 12:24 p.m.
SDG&E and the behesting tales of two Roberts
Right on Herkimer!— April 6, 2016 7:38 p.m.
Santee approves environmental review for electronic billboard
Lighted signs are dangerous! Not only dangerous but grotesque to look at. I will not frequent businesses that post these kinds of eyesore signs.— July 17, 2013 8:31 p.m.
Prop 37 – Where do you stand?
If you have any doubts about voting Yes... Watch this 4 minute video. 4 Questions Voters Should Ask About Prop 37 http://www.carighttoknow.org/4questions?utm_campa…— November 4, 2012 3:42 p.m.
Prop 37 – Where do you stand?
Poorly researched article. The no side always makes these completely false blanket statements like, "poorly written," "not everything is labeled" and other such poor excuses not to vote "yes" on our health. They don't back ANY of these statements up with FACTS, but rather pander to fears of our food costs rising, (again not true). Not everything is labeled because no ANIMALS (not yet anyway) are genetically modified. In the future, as you lay with disease caused by GMO remember this excellent chance we had to improve our food supply and health, and how you didn't take it because you didn't think the wording was "just right." You need to get the facts straight and vote "yes", and not only yes, but "Heck yes!" Here are the facts: 1) No cost to consumers 2) No loopholes 3) No incentives to sue 4) Backed by over 90% of the public 5) Already the SAME legislation is in place in over 60 countries 6) This has been done in over 60 countries with NO lawsuits or cost increase— November 4, 2012 12:29 p.m.
Washington-Based Think Tank Suggests Prop 37 Labeling Goes Too Far
Studies at Emory University show no cost increase associated with labeling GMO. The companies that produce food know where it comes from. All they have to do is add an extra "ingredient" to the label. I am all for it. Every time an initiative for food labeling comes up for vote, there is cries of, "it will raise food prices", it never does, and it will not now. It is inconceivable to me that in this country we do not have full knowledge of we are eating, especially in light of recent studies showing GMOs can really hurt our health. I say label it, just like many countries have already done.— October 3, 2012 3:18 p.m.
Supporters of genetically modified food labeling make their case
I would like to have mandatory labeling so I have the freedom to choose not to eat these foods. Isn't that what our country is based on? The freedom to make choices? That is a freedom we do not have when we go to the grocery store. I am voting to change that.— August 25, 2012 2:01 p.m.
Lawsuits loom if Prop 37 passes, say opponents of labeling genetically modified foods
Here are the top 7 lies Monsanto wants you to believe regarding GMO labeling and Prop 37. Monsanto’s Top 7 Lies 1. The bill ”would require a warning label on food products.” GMO foods will not require a warning label (although they ought to!) Actually, foods made with GMOs would say ”partially produced with genetic engineering” or “may be partially produced with genetic engineering,” – not a warning label. 2. ”The safety and benefits of these ingredients are well established.” This may be the most comical statements of all. While no long-term studies portray the dangers or benefits of GMOs, countless studies using a ‘shorter’ time interval show not only how GMOs are a danger to humans, but also the environment and the biosphere. 3. “FDA says that such labeling would be inherently misleading to consumers.” While the FDA may think that labeling GMO foods would be misleading, in reality the exact opposite is true. 4. “The American Medical Association just re-affirmed that there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods.” Although true, the American Medical Association also recently called for mandatory premarket safety studies for GMOs – a decision virtually polar opposite of the above quote. 5. ”…the main proponents of Proposition 37 are special interest groups and individuals opposed to food biotechnology who are not necessarily engaged in the production of our nation’s food supply.” Not engaged int he production of our nation’s food supply? Countless farmers, food producers, and consumers who are engaging with their hard-earned dollar support Proposition 37. In fact, many farmers have taken legal action against Monsanto in the past for widespread genetic contamination. 6. ”The California proposal would serve the purposes of a few special interest groups at the expense of the majority of consumers.” Monsanto says “at the expense of the majority of consumers.” Maybe the biotech giant isn’t aware that GMO labeling is so desired that the pro-labeling side has a 3-to-1 advantage, based on recent polls. At least 90% consumers actually want GMO foods to be labeled. 7. ”Consumers have broad food choices today, but could be denied these choices if Prop 37 prevails.” There is absolutely no reason to think that because of Proposition 37, food choices would become more limited. Actually, the bill would add value to the purchase by consumers, as no one would need to ‘eat in the dark’ and unknowingly consume GMOs.— August 24, 2012 7:22 p.m.