Letters to the Editor: 1-26-20

Subscribe Now Choose a package that suits your preferences.
Start Free Account Get access to 7 premium stories every month for FREE!
Already a Subscriber? Current print subscriber? Activate your complimentary Digital account.

Coffee farmers unite to change blend law

Thank you, Hawaii Tribune-Herald reporter John Burnett and Sen. Russell Ruderman for highlighting Hawaii government’s weak support of farmers.

In particular, Ruderman notes that the Department of Agriculture supports 10% coffee blends that tarnish the good name of Hawaii’s coffees while defrauding consumers, who believe they are tasting real Hawaii coffee. Even expert cuppers cannot detect 10% Hawaii coffee in blends with 90% foreign beans.

Kona coffee farmers have fought for years to change the 10% blend law. This year, coffee farmers across the state are united behind a 51% blend law.

Hawaii grows worldclass coffees that deserve state protection from the fraudulent use of our good names. Hawaii should support coffee and other local agricultural products, just as many other states support their premium agricultural products.

Please support the 51% blend law with messages and calls to your legislators. Together, we can finally protect a Hawaii heritage crop.

Sandra Scarr

Kona

Who bestowed that title upon you?

Why is it whenever someone is either elected or appointed to a high position, they automatically have “the honorable” or “the right honorable” before their name, which may not be true at all.

I believe the public should be the ones to decide whether these individuals deserve the right to have honorable as a prefix to their name. Then there are those who could earn the title of “horrible,” of which I’ve noted in all my years of blundering around this damp rock in space, there is a disproportionate quantity of them.

Dave Kisor

Pahoa

Explanation needed

Can the state of Hawaii voters please explain:

How can the two renown senators from Hawaii vote for an amendment to the Senate impeachment rules that was 1) illegal, 2) unconstitutional and 3) would put the Chief Justice of the United States in an unconstitutional position in the proceedings.

Did they not swear to uphold the constitution or do they just not understand what they “might” have read?

Curtis Boyd

Kailua-Kona