Americans want less plastics and less toxicity

Brooklyn: Business voices expressed opposition this week to New York’s Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act. My question: Who do we trust more, business executives or pediatricians?

A few days ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics released an ​​official memo of support for the bill​​. More than 4,000 pediatricians across the state agree that “one of the most common exposure pathways for children, families and communities to toxic chemicals is through consumer products, especially in plastic products, in which many chemicals are added.” In other words, microplastics pose a major threat to human health. They have been found in many parts of the human body, including the brain, blood, lungs, kidneys and reproductive systems. The chemicals in microplastics have been linked to serious health problems, including cancer, chronic illnesses and reproductive problems. I don’t want anyone to face toxic exposures, but especially not children. When my sister sends photos of my niece, I want to delight in the ways she’s growing and absorbing information rather than dreading health complications from her childhood toys.

According to a national poll of U.S. registered voters, conducted for Oceana by the nonpartisan polling company Ipsos, 85% of U.S. voters support increasing the use of reusable packaging and food-ware. The N.Y. legislative session is scheduled to end on June 4. The legislators should not adjourn until both houses have passed this vitally important bill. Gail Tierney

White Rock, British Columbia: What’s lacking every year in Oscar-night speeches or comments is any mention of the infants or toddlers used in filming negatively melodramatic scenes, let alone any potential resultant harm to their very malleable psyches, perhaps even a childhood post-traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD). Long before reading Sigmund Freud’s or other academics’ theories/thoughts on early-life trauma, I was astonished at how producers and directors of negatively hyper-emotional big- and small-screen entertainment could comfortably conclude that no psychological harm would come to their infant/toddler actors as they screamed in bewilderment. Can’t one logically conclude by observing their turmoil-filled facial expressions that they’re perceiving, and likely cerebrally recording, the hyper-emotional scene activity around them at face value rather than as a fictitious occurrence? More so, how could the parents allow it!? Frank Sterle Jr.

Cincinnati: Naysayers are a Greek chorus of critics spanning from conservative isolationists encrusted with an ignorance of realpolitik to liberal media ravaged by Trump Derangement Syndrome and jealousy of President Trump’s ability to act kinetically, as opposed to Barack Obama-Joe Biden paralytic weakness. Their claims of proximate danger to America because of the war are exactly backward. The danger is in doing nothing as theocratic lunatics continue to weaponize with atomic bombs and modern missile delivery systems. Democrats are symbolized now by a gargoylized, gender-fluid donkey featuring a Guernica-style facial rictus. Paul Bloustein

Manhattan: Last June, as the U.S. and Israel were bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, Trump said the goal was to end Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Ironically, Iran’s nuclear program was bolstered by Trump’s decision to pull out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018. The JCPOA involved international monitors who inspected Iran’s nuclear plants and verified that its program was limited to civilian uses in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump said he could get a better deal and pulled out of the agreement. A new deal never materialized. Iran apparently intensified its plutonium enrichment, which gave the U.S. and Israel a motive for missions against Iran. The Trump administration has been unclear about the long-range objectives of this war of choice. Less costly in blood and treasure would’ve been negotiations aimed at building on the structure of the JCPOA rather than death and destruction raining down on civilians. Darryl P. Miller

Dumont, N.J.: To Voicer Larry Nekola: Here’s a fact for you from an America-loving Democrat. Obama signed a deal with Iran to allow for inspection of its nuclear facilities, which Iran complied with 100%. Trump tore that deal up because his Middle East puppet master Benjamin Netanyahu wanted to drag the U.S. into a war with Iran. Let everyone know how the Trump-Netanyahu Iran war is making life in America more affordable, Mr. Nekola. Josephine Kay

Tappan, N.Y.: Friday’s page 10 stories have a common theme that runs throughout any commentary concerning our fearless commander in chief. In the article concerning the World Cup, “which he says will be the most lucrative in history,” he doesn’t mention “unifying,” “friendly” or “peaceful,” but that strange word “lucrative.” Under “Energy big: price pain for ‘gain,’ ” Energy Secretary Chris Wright predicted “short-term energy disruption for just huge long-term gain,” and the president wrote on his social media site, “When oil prices go up, we make a lot of money.” This president of ours, who holds his photo-ops in a hideous gilded room, has one thing on his mind: enriching himself, his family and his billionaire associates at the expense of the working men and women who’re the backbone of the U.S. What are his plans for Iranian oil — if we’re able to end this war (or excursion)? Ray Hayes

Easton, Pa.: To Voicer Victor R. Stanwick: Thanks for the laughs. Full disclosure: I didn’t vote for George W. Bush. I was a diehard Democrat until Obama. Talk about cleaning up messes — thank God for Trump. The Democratic Party is no more. It’s amazing that we still have a country after Obama and Biden. Look at Democrats today. Surely, you must have noticed how they’ve changed for the worse. I hope the Republicans keep inheriting. Barbara Cusano

Melbourne, Australia: Is there a bottom to how far the U.S.A. under Trump can sink? The State Department is looking at stopping aid to Zambia for HIV treatment. The demand to be met is the country allows the U.S. to gain more access to its minerals. Is this a case of terrorism as it is the use of a weapon — medical — to achieve a political outcome? It may not involve direct violence, but many people will die as a consequence of this action if it happens. Dennis Fitzgerald

East Meadow, L.I.: Re “Don’s chief of staff Wiles has breast cancer” (March 17): Wishing Susie Wiles best wishes on her recovery; one of the only classy and elegant people in the entire Trump cabinet. Jeff Tuck

Rye Brook, N.Y.: To Voicer Michele P. Brown: As loyal citizens, German Jews fought for the Kaiser. Germany was not responsible for starting World War I. The causes were entangling secret alliances, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the ensuing diplomatic brinksmanship. The czar, goaded by his military advisors, mobilized the Russian army knowing that meant war. Excellent reading on this subject is “July 1914” by Sean McMeekin. Demes Poulos

© NY Daily News