Mendenhall’s article shows topics need to be discussed


Dear Editor,

Beth Mendenhall may not be able to comment on her own article, “A lobbying success story of milk,” but she has commented on it in other places. Here’s something she said about it that I found interesting:

“You all need to recognize something: this is not a scholarly work, it’s not a paper for class and it’s not an exhaustive analysis. I have an extremely limited word count. I include the evidence that I can, but am mainly interested in getting people to look into the issues for themselves and recognize that there is research that suggests something other than the dominant milk narrative.”

This is the point: her article was not intended to come across the way it did to many people who feel personally insulted because they grew up with the dairy or agricultural industries. Those people will just have to accept that sometimes people will do or say things they find offensive – without malicious intent, even though it could be seen that way.

Everyone who has pointed out various bits of research and practices that they know of firsthand, which refute some of Beth’s facts, has Beth’s respect (and mine) for their efforts to correct what came across as untrue.

But everyone who has pointed out that Beth is “wrong” for writing this article does not have my sympathy. You have every right to feel personally offended by her article, but you do not have the right to viciously attack someone (whether just verbally or otherwise) simply for existing in a way that you don’t like. Beth has opened people’s eyes to an issue that clearly deserves more public attention, because obviously some of us don’t have all the facts.

Don’t pretend that liberals are “not allowed” to attend K-State. Don’t pretend that we are not allowed our perspective and worldview, just the same as you are allowed yours. Don’t lead the people reading this who aren’t from around here into thinking that K-State is so closed-minded that we don’t accept people who are “different” from us.

the library also deals with the idea of banned books because of its status as a “public library.” However, it does not often have to ban books, which requires multiple people opposing them.

“A request to have a book banned gets sent to us, then we send it to a board of individuals who each read it and judge it for themselves,” Withee said.

Laurel Littrell, head of general information services at Hale Library, said K-State students are not affected as much here by the list of banned books because Hale is considered a “research library.”

“I’ve never seen a request for one of our books to be removed,” she said. Littrell feels strongly about Banned Books Week, even though Hale is not as affected by it.

Readings of banned books are scheduled to take place every day this week in Bosco Student Plaza from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Dear Editor,

I am writing in response to the editorial article “Got milk?” by Beth Mendenhall printed on Sept. 23, 2009.

Advising readers to “be wary of any information presented by those with a financial incentive to support the unnatural, unhealthy consumption of milk – including the Department of Agriculture” is a very irresponsible, disrespectful and ignorant idea to print. This quote perpetuates the myth that milk and its entities should be avoided at all costs, and that the Department of Agriculture is only out to make money.

The article “Got milk?” is a problem because its sources are highly biased and outdated; many “facts” are, in fact, completely misleading about dairy products, dairy cattle welfare and the Department of Agriculture.

When reporting about nutrition, health or the quality of the Department of Agriculture, please contextualize outliers and report from accurate and credible sources. Also, take into consideration that the Collegian is, in fact, a publication of a land-grant institution that was governmentally funded to promote agriculture and related sciences.

Greg Bollenbach, owner of Bobby T’s, has only been using Green Apple for a couple of weeks but said he has already seen a difference for his business. Bollenbach said he has reduced trash pick up at Bobby T’s from three times a week to two times a week, and the business is also using less trash bags.

“I’m saving anywhere from $30 to $120 a month by saving the cardboard and having [Green Apple] pick it up separately,” Bollenbach said. “It’s a cost benefit.”

According to, recycling aluminum cans uses 95 percent less energy than making new ones, recycling plastic bottles uses 70 percent less energy and every ton of recycled paper saves 17 trees and 380 gallons of oil.

Brent Sigman, Manhattan resident, does not currently recycle, but agreed that a service like Green Apple Curbside Recycling makes it more appealing.

“If it was readily accessible and for a good price, it would be worth my time,” he said.

Information on how to sign up with Green Apple Curbside Recycling is available on the Web site,, and on the company’s page.

Green Apple offers customers the option to pay using a Pay Pal account, but other arrangements can be made by request.

There is a Web page for a second curbside recycling company called Flint Hills Recycling in town, but there was no response from the listed phone number and the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce has no record of the business.