World Bank Biometric ID’s for Everyone…Solving the “Refugee” Crises

Below is an excerpt from a World Net Daily story regarding thousands of Islamic refugees that have disappeared from the refugee camps in Germany. The facial recognition global data base in the hands of the World Bank, IMF and Interpol along with every nation’s equivalent of the FBI is supposed to be fully global by 2030. This is to “help” make sure all are identified properly and issue the right amounts of “credits” to everyone globally. You can read the full story at the link in the title. I’ve not corrected the typos or put anything additional into the excerpt below. I just think it’s something people need to be aware of and understand that the “enhanced drivers licenses” are exactly this type of ID.

Here ya go:

U.N. Agenda 2030 calls for ‘universal ID’ for all people

This “universal ID,” which grabs the biometric data of refugees, is just a starting point for the United Nations. The goal is to eventually bring all people into the massive data bank. The proof is in the U.N.’s own documents.

The U.N. Agenda 2030 document adopted by 193 of the world’s heads of state, including President Obama, at the Sept. 25 U.N. conference on sustainability in New York, includes 17 goals and dozens of “targets.”

Target 16.9 under the goal of “Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions” reads as follows: “By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.”

The World Bank is also throwing its weight behind the United Nations biometric project being conducted by Accenture.

In a new report issued in collaboration with Accenture, the World Bank is calling on governments to “work together to implement standardized, cost-effective identity management solutions,” according to FindBiometrics.

A summary of the report states that about 1.8 billion adults around the world lack any kind of official identification. “That can exclude those individuals from access to essential services, and can also cause serious difficulties when it comes to trans-border identification,” according to FindBiometrics.

“That problem is one that Accenture has been tackling in collaboration with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which has been issuing Accenture-developed biometric identity cards to populations of displaced persons in refugee camps in Thailand, South Sudan, and elsewhere. The ID cards are important for helping to ensure that refugees can have access to services, and for keeping track of refugee populations.”

Then comes the final admission by the World Bank that the new biometric IDs are not just for refugees.

“Moreover, the nature of the deployments has required an economically feasible solution, and has demonstrated that reliable, biometric ID cards can affordably be used on a large scale. It offers hope for the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal of getting legal ID into the hands of everyone in the world by the year 2030 with its Identification for Development (ID4D) initiative.”

It is a serious problem for the authorities that many thousands of people are on their way on their own in the federal territory, Decker told Die Welt.

He said refugees might be registered multiple times as the registration is based on information given by the registrants, which almost always come without any papers.

“The same guy that is Muhammad Ali here in Eisenhüttenstadt can be Ali Mohammed a little bit later in Hamburg,” Decker exemplified. “The states must live with that for the time being, because a proper registration at the border is currently not in sight.”

One the U.N.’s biometric labeling of all humanity is in place, this will no longer be a problem.

FDA Readies Another Give Away on Big Pharma Cancer “Cures”-Herpes Based

This is insane. Granted, a lot of people get cold sores from time to time, but to base a medication for cancer on the herpes virus is nuts. Not to mention that it doesn’t reduce mortality, just the size of tumors….Geez:

FDA approving drug that uses the cold sore-causing herpes virus as its base

In a move to eradicate cancer the FDA is about approve a drug made from, well, Herpes! That’s right a new drug called Amgen is coming to market soon. Unlike chemotherapy treatments that require oral dosages, doctors inject the Imlygic drug directly into the tumor, destroying the cells in a targeted attack. Clinical trials showed that Imlygic was able to shrink a tumor significantly more than control patients who only received the GM-CSF protein therapy. Imlygic shows promise, but it may not be a cure-all — even though it reduced the size of the tumor in trials, patient mortality was not reduced with the drug.

  “T-Vec represents an important milestone in using viruses as the vehicle to stimulate immune response and fight cancer,”

Amgen will begin offering its drug to patients in the coming weeks with an average cost of $65,000. Seems like corporate greed once again is taking control of the cures to our most aggressive diseases. No wonder companies dont seem to try to erratically reduce cancer, rather come up with new ways to promote not so curing drugs to take for a steep price.

Missouri Cannabis Initiatives…Attorney’s Thoughts on Show Me Cannabis Fail

I was sent the following Facebook post from a friend who is also working on the Missouri Cannabis Restoration Act. Since there may be some people who, like me, are not on Facebook, I decided to share this post so people can get an idea of what is going here in the Show Me state with three very different (and two incredibly insanely taxed) cannabis initiatives.

While there are numerous particulars that actually demand another in depth article on this issue, the following will at least cover some of those issues and let people know a bit of what is actually going on with this issue.

One thing that Attorney Groce points out here is of major importance…Why is Show Me Cannabis, the biggest cannabis group in the state, not putting up their own initiative, and not lending their support to the best initiative that actually frees people to access cannabis?

Here’s the post:


Missouri Marijuana Law and Reform
October 28 at 12:05pm ·
MISSOURI: 3 Ballot initiatives, and opinions. By: Steven Groce, Attorney.
Each is presented below.
The Show Me State, is not short on ideas for Cannabis reform for 2016.
Three possible Ballot initiatives. Each, different. The only problem, is
that no one is on the same page for Legalization. For those of us that
worked hard prior to the 2012 Presidential election for an actual
“Legalization” initiative to be on the 2012 November Ballot, there simply
were not enough signatures for the initiative to make the ballot.
Following that effort, most of us still held our heads high, and resolved
that 2016 would be a different story. Why 2016, rather than the Primary in
2014? Simply because it has always been the case that more people come out
to vote in a Presidential election, than in a Primary. So, despite the
fact that it meant waiting 4 more years, rather than 2, everyone involved,
primarily Show-mecannabis, seemed to be in agreement that it would be best
to go for Legalization in 2016.
It was generally assumed that Show-mecannabis would head up the
Legalization initiative for 2016, and also that in 2016, there would be no
problem getting the signatures to put actual “Legalization” on the ballot.
In addition to volunteers, professional payed signature gatherers would be
hired, and therefore no shortage of signatures.
Moving forward to October 2015, barely 1 year away from the 2016
Presidential election, much has changed. Show-mecannabis, has decided,
against the wishes of many people and supporters, to not even put forth a
Legalization initiative. This is perhaps the greatest disappointment for
the entire State, not to mention many people that supported
Show-mecannabis, with both time, and also financial resources. Instead,
Show-mecannabis has decided to put forth a voter initiative for a limited
and restrictive Medical Cannabis initiative only. While I can personally
attest that Show-mecannabis has done some great work over the last few
years, many people still feel completely let down by the very organization
that they supported, again with both time and money, to go for
Legalization in 2016.
Once again, We, the People, should never assume or presume anything, even
if it involves people that we believed were all on the same page. For the
record, this is not to be construed as an attack on Show-mecannabis. It is
simply a great feeling of being let down that is shared by many. So, the
reality now, is that many of us who thought we were all on the same page
for Legalization in 2016, apparently are not on the same page at all.
So, while Show-mecannabis has come out supporting a limited and
restrictive Medical cannabis initiative, the organization has effectively
caved in regard to going for actual Legalization. What makes this even
worse, and more disappointing, is that if you consider the arguments
Show-mecannabis made for waiting until 2016, to go for Legalization again,
(because it would be the next Presidential election), then not going for
Legalization in 2016, most likely means, that at least for
Show-mecannabis, that organization will not consider it again until 2020
(which would of course, once again, represent the next Presidential
election after 2016), which was the argument for waiting until 2016,
rather than 2014, to try for Legalization again.
From a personal standpoint, I felt that the organization should have tried
for Legalization in 2014, during the primary. To not try in 2016, during
the Presidential election, is not just a let down, but from a personal
standpoint, unbelievable. Sometimes, you just have to go for it. I don’t
mean to be harsh. It is just how I, and many others, feel. I will always
try to support Show-mecannabis; but when it comes to a vote, I will
support Legalization.
The fear of losing, should not be such a fear, that it stops one from
trying. Also, in Life, if you are going to go for something, anything, it
should be what you really want and believe in. Noteworthy is Oregon.
Oregon was not successful with Legalization the first time around; but it
did not adversely hinder, in any way, going for it again the next time,
which proved to be successful. It should also be noted, that Oregon
successfully passed Legalization during the 2014 mid-term Primary. They
did not even wait until 2016; and because they went for it, they have it!
As President Roosevelt said:
“It is hard to fail; but it is worse never to have tried to succeed.”
So, what are the options for Missouri Voters?
As of this writing, there appear to be three. Whether all of them will
actually be on the Ballot in 2016, remains to be seen. Much of that
depends on the efforts of each organization.
Each of the initiatives in Missouri, and the organizations, or in one case
the person behind it, is set forth below:
1. FOR TRUE LEGALIZATION, we have some very hard working people
representing the Missouri Cannabis Restoration and Protection act. The
Legalization initiative can be read by clicking on the link below:
MCRPA 2016, as it is also known, has already been circulating Signature
gathering Petitions around the State, holding meetings to both explain the
Legalization initiative and to garner support; and they already have a
good start in getting the required number of signatures for this
initiative to make the 2016 Ballot.
For the record: I have personally signed this Legalization initiative, and
I encourage everyone else that would actually like to see Cannabis
returned completely to pre-prohibition status, to sign the Petition as
well. A Google search will quickly inform you of how to find an
opportunity to sign this Petition.
2. For Medical, (limited, restrictive and taxed), there are now two
First, is the Show-mecannabis initiative, which is being promoted under
the name of “New Approach Missouri.”
The lead spokesperson or consultant for New Approach Missouri, is a person
by the name of Jack Cardetti. It is somewhat confusing; but this is really
Show-mecannabis, and represents the Medical initiative of that
organization. Remember, this is the organization that many people thought,
assumed and supported, that would go for Legalization, even though we knew
we would have to wait until 2016 for Show-mecannabis to do so, because
Show-mecannabis thought that was necessary.
After receiving an email on 10-16-15, from Jack Cardetti, inviting me to a
fund-raising launch party for New Approach, (the Show-mecannabis Medical
only initiative), I wrote a reply email back. I do not know if it was
received by Mr. Cardetti, since I never received a reply. I was informed
that it may have been a No Reply address that he sent me the invite from;
but at the time I replied on the same date, it did not appear to be so,
and the email did not come back as undeliverable. Regardless, I have
decided to include that email below for all to read. Perhaps if Mr.
Cardetti, or Show-mecannabis, did not get to read it, then everyone can do
so now. I encourage everyone to read it, as it also provides some insights
(definitely not all), as to why I feel that Legalization, rather than
Medical, is the only way to go.
October 16, 2015
To: Jack Cardetti
New Approach Missouri Missouri (Medical Cannabis only)
Dear Jack,
Thanks for your email regarding New Approach Missouri.
As you may, or possibly may not know, I am a Life Member Attorney for NORML,
and I also sponsor the Facebook Community Page:
Missouri Marijuana Law and Reform
I support all efforts for legalization.

To be honest, the fact that Show-mecannabis decided to only go for Medical, rather than legalization, is a huge disappointment. It is even a step backwards from the
legalization effort that we had hoped for in 2012!
I am willing to write about it on the Community page; but I have also
written about the efforts of the Missouri Cannabis Restoration Act for
full Legalization in Missouri. Therefore, I will support both; but I will
first and foremost support full Legalization. However, to be clear, I will
only support what you are doing if you and Show-mecannabis also are
willing to support the Missouri Cannabis Restoration Act.

This conflict between the two organizations is not helping the cause for anyone; and it
is very unfortunate for everyone in the State that two organizations are
not on the same path, and not seeking the same objectives.

Medical Marijuana has many problems that promoters of it rarely ever tell the
people that they ask to vote for it. Such as the fact that regardless of
whether you get a prescription, you may very likely be denied many jobs,
and also licenses for many things. Doesn’t matter if the prescription
makes your use legal. People need to be told that, especially young
people. In fact, I still think that you and Show-mecannabis should forget
the medical and go for full Legalization. It is not too late. Medical will
help some people; but it will also hurt some of those same people in ways
they never even dreamed. It will not be helpful to many people with a
career and a variety of professional licenses.

Also, what you and Show-me Cannabis has decided to do, will very likely delay any chance for
legalization in Missouri until 2020, (seriously, think about that alone);
and people need to be aware of that also. So, while you act like this is
some great thing, and ask for support and money from people, the real
truth should be presented.
Steven F. Groce, Attorney
Tel. 417-883-4950 Office
Life Member Attorney: NORML (National Org. for Reform of Marijuana Laws)
Life Member Attorney: NACDL (National Assoc. of Criminal Defense Lawyers)
Member: Missouri Bar
Member: Texas Bar
Member: Federal District Court Bar
Member: Bar of The United States Supreme Court
On Oct 16, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Jack Cardetti <>
Steven —
You’re invited to help us celebrate the kickoff of the campaign to bring
medical cannabis to Missouri at the New Approach Missouri Launch Party on
Friday, October 23 from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m at Nebula in Saint Louis. Drinks
and light appetizers will be provided. For more details and to rsvp, click
the link below.
Come meet campaign leaders and help set us on a path towards victory on
Election Day 2016!
-Jack Cardetti
New Approach Missouri
For more info. on New Approach, they can be found at:
3. The third and final Medical only initiative currently being discussed,
(which hopefully, in my opinion, also has the least chance of success), is
being put forth by Physician and Lawyer Brad Bradshaw. Mr. Bradshaw, is
apparently running for Lieutenant Governor of Missouri. A very important
point to note about Brad Bradshaw, is that HE TOTALLY OPPOSES
LEGALIZATION. So, ask yourself, do you want to even elect a person into
our Missouri government, that opposes Legalization? I think not.
As I was writing this post, a friend stopped by, and of course I was
explaining what I was currently working on. He said to me, “I heard that
Brad Bradshaw was running for Lieutenant Governor and was also pushing for
Legalization.” The power of the Media, and buzzwords! What he took from
the Media stories was apparently that Bradshaw wanted Legalization. I had
to explain to him that nothing was further from the truth. When I showed
him what Bradshaw really wanted, he was shocked. The point though, is that
a lot of people don’t really pay enough attention to the details, and they
hear a few buzzwords, and think a person stands for one thing, when in
fact, quite the opposite is true.
To be fair to Mr. Bradshaw, the following is a link that will provide more
info. regarding Mr. Bradshaw’s attempt for a power grab in Missouri, as
well as his ideas regarding Medical Marijuana. As with each of the other
initiatives presented, everyone is encouraged to investigate each on their
own. The link below is from an article written by The Pitch, which is a
magazine/newspaper in Kansas City, MO. If you take time to read this, one
thing you should immediately take note of is that Bradshaw would impose a
75% Retail tax, on Medical Cannabis, and an additional wholesale tax! I
would not want anyone in any political office, who would even think for a
minute that taxes like this are appropriate on Cannabis, or for that
matter, on anything else, let alone the fact that he also completely
opposes Legalization. Electing Bradshaw would be a setback to Missouri,
like nothing else. The Link below will take you to the real story of what
Brad Bradshaw is proposing.…/brad-bradshaw-pushing-to-put-medical-m…
Substantial time was put in to writing this, as with a lot of Posts on
this page.

It is my hope that all of this information regarding these
three different initiatives, that are currently being sought in Missouri,
to be on the November 2016 ballot, has been helpful. Everyone should check
each one out for themselves. Although my personal biases, which obviously
favor True Legalization, are apparent, I have tried to also be fair in
presenting all three, with links for information regarding each one. Each
Voter will have the opportunity to make their choice on whatever ends up
on the Ballot.
Missouri Voters should not settle for anything less than actual
Legalization. We don’t need excessive or additional taxes of any kind on
Cannabis sales. We already pay a substantial Sales tax on everything we
buy. We, The People, also need to get away from the idea that we need the
Government to regulate everything. There seems to be a mindset by
individuals growing up in our current tightly regulated, and over policed
society, that we somehow have to have every aspect of our lives regulated.
I suggest to everyone, that thinking needs to be discarded.
One more point, regarding medical. Ask yourself: Isn’t any use of
Cannabis, medical? For example, let’s say you are not suffering from
seizures, or severe pain, but you have had a stressful day of work. You
are stressed, and rather than taking one of a hundred different
prescription Pills, you feel that a little Cannabis in the evening before
going to sleep will be the most healthy. The point: There could be a
thousand reasons why one might want to either ingest or smoke some
Cannabis. Maybe, just because you feel like it. Personal Freedom alone is
enough of a reason. Each reason, arguably, was due to a perceived need;
and that alone makes any use, for any reason that a person might desire,
medical. The Medical Marijuana proposals, however, will not provide for
this. Only Legalization will return freedom to the people, and end a
wrongful prohibition, that should have never happened.
We have become Slaves to a Government that wants to control every aspect
of our lives, spy on us, listen to our phone calls, mock the Constitution
given to us by our Founding Fathers, and tax the life out of us, only to
take care of the Government itself. It is time to take a stand. Stand up
for Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
By: Steven F. Groce, Attorney
Steven F. Groce, Attorney, Life Member Attorney for NORML
Facebook Community Page: “Missouri Marijuana Law and Reform” (Law Office Web Site)

Google…Mental Health Monitor

Google wants to monitor your mental health. You should welcome it into your mind


Cybercrime image of hooded person and laptop

Yes, you should tell the computer what you’re thinking Photo: Shutterstock

Next week, Dr Tom Insel leaves his post as head of the US National Institute of Mental Health, a job that made him America’s top mental health doctor. Dr Insel is a neuroscientist and a psychiatrist and a leading authority on both the medicine and public policies needed to deal with problems of the mind. He’s 64 but he’s not retiring. He’s going to work for Google.

More precisely, he’s going to work for Google Life Sciences, one of the more exotic provinces of the online empire. He’s going to investigate how technology can help diagnose and treat mental health conditions. Google doesn’t just want to read your mind, it wants to fix it too.

It’s not alone. Apple, IBM and Intel are among technology companies exploring the same field. IBM this year carried out research with Columbia University that suggested computer analysis of speech patterns can more accurately predict the onset of psychosis than conventional tests involving blood samples or brain scans. Other researchers theorise that a person’s internet search history or even shopping habits (so handily recorded by your innocuous loyalty card) can identify the first signs of mental illness. Computers can now tell when something is about to go terribly wrong in someone’s mind.

“We now live in a world where your phone might observe you to help assess your mental health.”

That development is striking enough in itself, but the way in which researchers like Dr Insel want to use this new technological power raises even more questions.

Wearable technology has been a hot topic in medical innovation for several years now. A growing number of people choose to track their own physical condition using FitBits, Jawbones and other activity trackers, tiny wearable devices that monitor your movements, pulse rate, sleep patterns and more. Once the preserve of obsessive fitness fanatics, “self-monitoring” has the scope to transform healthcare. The ever-increasing number of people with chronic conditions can track and electronically report their symptoms, reducing the number of routine (and expensive) consultations they need with medical staff and ensuring a quicker response to changes that do require direct professional attention.

Self-monitoring will also surely play a bigger role in preventive public health. Wearing a pedometer that counts the number of steps you take in a day has been shown to spur people to walk more. What would happen to your consumption of alcohol and sugar if a device strapped to your wrist displayed a continuous count of your calorie and unit intake for the week?

Dr Insel is part of a school of thought that suggests this technology is even better suited to mental health. The symptoms of depression, for instance, are inconstant, ebbing and rising without obvious pattern. A short consultation with a doctor once every few weeks is thus a poor means of diagnosis. But wearable technology allows continuous monitoring. A small portable device might monitor your tone of voice, speech patterns and physical movements, picking up the early signs of trouble. A device such as a mobile telephone.

Yes, we now live in a world where your phone might observe you to help assess your mental health. If you don’t find that prospect disturbing, you’re either fantastically trusting of companies and governments or you haven’t thought about it enough.

But that feeling of unease should not determine our response to technology in mental health. In fact, we should embrace and encourage the tech giants as they seek to chart the mind and its frailties, albeit on the condition that we can overcome the enormous challenge of devising rules and regulations protecting privacy and consent.

Because, simply, existing healthcare systems are failing and will continue to fail on mental health. Even if the current model of funding the NHS was sustainable, the stigma that prevents us discussing mental health problems would ensure their prevention and treatment got a disproportionately small slice of the pie.

We pour ever more billions into dealing with the worst problems of physical health, and with considerable success. Death rates from cancer and heart disease have fallen markedly over the last 40 years. Over the same period, suicide rates have gone up.

Even as the NHS budget grows, NHS trusts’ spending on mental health is falling. If someone with cancer went untreated, we’d say it was a scandal. Some estimates suggest one in five people who need “talking therapies” don’t get them. In a rare bit of enlightened thinking, some NHS trusts are supporting Big White Wall, an online service where people can anonymously report stress, anxiety and depression, take simple clinical tests and talk to therapists.

Technology will never be a panacea for mental illnesses, or our social failure to face up to them. But anything that makes them cheaper and easier and more mundane to deal with should be encouraged.

If you think the idea of Google assessing your state of mind and your phone monitoring you for depression is worrying, you’re right. But what’s more worrying is that allowing these things is the least bad option on mental health.

Depleted Nutrition Causing Problems

As many of you know, the nutrient density in most of our food has decreased significantly due to chemical and industrial farming practices. Here is a very lengthy and very interesting article on the issue:

Fruits and Vegetables Reach an Alarming State of Depletion

What if our food has been getting less and less nutritious? What if modern intensive farming methods — many of which solved malnutrition problems when they were first introduced — have affected the mineral and vitamin content of what we eat? Could having a constant supply of varied produce and introducing genetically modified foods be compromising nature’s goodness?


gmo-labeling-thumbWhether it be vegan, low carb, paleo, or any other diet, the quest for the healthiest method of eating shows no sign of abating, yet all have considerable controversy. We know more than ever about what food does to the body and the importance of antioxidants, healthy fats and a low glycaemic index.

Things have changed so much since the wisdom of our ancestors was lost or ignored. Wild dandelions, once a springtime treat for Native Americans, have seven times more phytonutrients than spinach, which we consider a “superfood.” A purple potato native to Peru has 28 times more cancer-fighting anthocyanins than common russet potatoes. One species of apple has a staggering 100 times more phytonutrients than the Golden Delicious displayed in our supermarkets.

Were the people who foraged for these wild foods healthier than we are today? They did not live nearly as long as we do, but growing evidence suggests that they were much less likely to die from degenerative diseases, even the minority who lived 70 years and more. The primary cause of death for most adults, according to anthropologists, was injury and infections.

Some of the most eye-catching work in this area has come from Donald Davis, a now-retired biochemist at the University of Texas. In 2011, he compared the nutrients in US crops from 1950 and 2009, and found notable declines in five nutrients in various fruits, including tomatoes, eggplants and squash. For example, there was a 43 per cent drop in iron and a 12 per cent decline in calcium. This was in line with his 1999 study — mainly of vegetables — which found a 15 per cent drop in vitamin C and a 38 per cent fall in vitamin B2.

Fruit and vegetables grown have shown similar depletions. A 1997 comparison of data from the 1930s and 1980s found that calcium in fresh vegetables appeared to drop by 19 per cent, and iron by 22 per cent. A reanalysis of the data in 2005 concluded that 1980s vegetables had less copper, magnesium and sodium, and fruit less copper, iron and potassium.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food have also alarmed researchers on distinct differences between organic and GMO produce. Higher antioxidant levels, lower pesticide loads, better farming practices all lead to a more nutritious end product when choosing organic over GMO foods. 

For example, tomatoes grown by organic methods contain more phenolic compounds than those grown using commercial standards. That study — published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry — analysed the phenolic profiles of Daniela tomatoes grown either using ‘conventional’ or organic methods, finding that those grown under organic conditions contained significantly higher levels of phenolic compounds than those grown conventionally.

Part of the problem is the broad-spectrum systemic herbicide glyphosatewhich deprives all living things of vital nutrients and increases cellular toxicity. Glyphosate-induced vitamin deficiency may be a factor in many of the problems relating to nutrient deficiency.

Other findings published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry showed that organically produced apples have a 15 percent higher antioxidant capacity than conventionally produced apples.

Davis and others blame agricultural practices that emphasise quantity over quality. High-yielding crops produce more food, more rapidly, but they can’t make or absorb nutrients at the same pace, so the nutrition is diluted. “It’s like taking a glass of orange juice and adding an equal amount of water to it. If you do that, the concentration of nutrients that was in the original juice is dropped by half,” says Davis.

But the idea that modern agriculture produces crops that are less nourishing remains controversial, and “then and now” nutritional comparisons have been much criticised. The differences found may be down to older, less accurate methods of assessing nutrition, and nutrient levels can vary widely according to the variety of plant, the year of harvest and the time of harvest.

Contrary to frequent claims that there is no evidence of dangers to health from GM foods and crops, peer-reviewed studies have found harmful effects on the health of laboratory and livestock animals fed GMOs. Effects include toxic and allergenic effects and altered nutritional value.

Other studies have sought to get round this by comparing old and new varieties of a crop grown side by side. In 2011, researchers at the US Department of Agriculture measured the concentrations of 11 minerals in 14 commercial varieties, or cultivars, of broccoli launched between 1950 and 2004.

They found no clear relationship between mineral levels and the year that a particular cultivar was released, but there was evidence of a dilution effect :bigger broccoli heads favoured today had lower levels of some minerals relative to a 1950 variety called Waltham 29. But, as the study also noted, Waltham 29 is less tough than modern cultivars and so would be unlikely to succeed if grown in the same way.

And there lies the rub. Even if the arrival of intensive agriculture has meant that our vegetables contain slightly less nutrients than those our grandparents ate, it has also led to a huge increase in food supply, which has undoubtedly had a positive effect on our diet and health.

“Some evidence suggests that some nutrients have fallen, particularly trace elements such as copper in vegetables,” says Paul Finglas, who compiles nutritional data on UK food at the Institute of Food Research in Norwich. “Foods are now bred for yield, and not necessarily nutritional composition. But I don’t think that is a problem, because we eat a wider range of foods today than we did 10 years ago, let alone 40 years ago”.

Other crops are also getting subtly less nutritious. The introduction of semi-dwarf, higher-yielding varieties of wheat in the green revolution of the 1960s means that modern crops contain lower levels of iron and zinc than old-fashioned varieties.

Each fruit and vegetable in our stores has a unique history of nutrient loss, and there are two common themes. Throughout the ages, our farming ancestors have chosen the least bitter plants to grow in their gardens. It is now known that many of the most beneficial phytonutrients have a bitter, sour or astringent taste. Second, early farmers favored plants that were relatively low in fiber and high in sugar, starch and oil. These energy-dense plants were pleasurable to eat and provided the calories needed to fuel a strenuous lifestyle. The more palatable our fruits and vegetables became, however, the less advantageous they were for our health.

And as farmers strain to feed ever more mouths in the face of environmental change, the problem may become worse. Last year, researchers at Harvard University warned that crops grown in the future will have significantly less zinc and iron, due to rising levels of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use. The team grew 41 different types of grains and legumes, including wheat, rice, maize, soybeans and field peas, under CO2 levels crops are likely to experience 40 to 60 years from now. They found that under these conditions, wheat had 9 per cent less zinc, 5 per cent less iron and 6 per cent less protein than a crop grown at today’s CO2 levels. Zinc and iron — but not protein — were also lower in legumes grown under elevated CO2.

A 2003 study evaluated the nutritional content of broccoli kept in conditions that simulated commercial transport and distribution: film-wrapped and stored for seven days at 1 °C, followed by three days at 15 °C to replicate a retail environment. By the end, the broccoli had lost between 71 and 80 per cent of its glucosinolates — sulphur-containing compounds shown to have cancer-fighting properties — and around 60 per cent of its flavonoid antioxidants.

Many kinds of mass-produced fruit and veg — most famously tomatoes — are picked unripe so that they bruise less easily during transit. They are then sprayed with ethylene to ripen them. Some studies suggest thattomatoes harvested early have lower antioxidant activity and less flavour. “If a fruit is left on a plant until the end of its life cycle, it’s able to recycle all the energy from the plant,” says Wagstaff. “If you pick it early you truncate that process and get less sugars into the fruit, which are needed to bind the nutrients.”

Supermarket tomatoes are often labelled as “vine-ripened”, but that doesn’t always mean what you hope, she says. “It may be ripened on the vine but the vine may not have been attached to the plant.” However, Wagstaff stresses that the downsides of early picking are small and an unavoidable consequence of consumer demand. “If you pick a tomato that you have grown at home, it tastes fabulous because it’s absolutely ready to eat,” she says. “But there’s no way you could do that at a commercial level because of the bruising that would occur if ripe fruits were transported through a typical supply chain. There has to be a compromise somewhere.”

Another complication is that each method of shipping and storing foods has different effects on the compounds they contain. Vitamin C, for example, breaks down in the dark, whereas glucosinolates — found in vegetables like broccoli and cabbage — deplete in the light. “That’s one of the problems with horticulture,” says Wagstaff. “By its very nature you have an enormous diversity of genera and species. In an ideal world, each one would have a tailored supply chain.”

Peas can lose half of their vitamin C in the first 48 hours after harvesting, but if frozen within 2 hours of picking they retain it. “Frozen peas are much more nutritious than peas you buy ready to shell,” says Catherine Collins, principal dietician at St George’s Hospital in London. What’s more, frozen foods often have fewer additives. “Freezing is a preservative,” she says.

“Any loss of nutrients must be weighed against the fact that these products may encourage people to eat better overall”

Similarly, processing has become a maligned word in the context of food, but there are some cases where it enhances a food’s health benefits. In fact, you arguably get more benefits from processed tomatoes, such as in purees, sauces or ready chopped in cans, than fresh.

Although salad leaves that have been picked and stored for several days before being eaten are a bit less nutritious than a freshly harvested lettuce, chilling and using packaging to reduce oxygen exposure may slow the nutrient loss. And any loss of nutrients must be weighed against the fact that these products may encourage people to eat better overall.

“There is a chance that ready prepared vegetables may have a lower content of some vitamins,” says Judy Buttriss, director general of the British Nutrition Foundation in London. “But if their availability means that such vegetables are consumed in greater quantities, then the net effect is beneficial.”

The bottom line is that although aspects of today’s food production, processing and storage might make what we eat a bit less nutritious, they are also making foods more available — and this is far more important. The majority of us consume far less fruit and vegetables than we ought to. We eat too much fat, sugar and salt and not enough oily fish.

“The most important thing you can do is eat more fruits, vegetables and wholegrains, and cut down on highly refined, human-made foods, vegetable oils and added sugars,” says Davis. “If you’re worrying about nutrient losses from cooking or whether your food is straight from the farm — those differences are minor compared to the differences you’d get from eating unprocessed foods.”

What’s really on your plate

How have modern farming methods affected the nutrients in common foods?


Beef from cattle reared outdoors on grass is less fatty and contains more omega-3 fatty acids than cattle reared indoors and fed mainly grain. However, consumers preferred the taste of latter, according to a 2014 study.


Today’s pasta might be less nutritious thanks to modern, fast-growing wheat varieties introduced in the 1960s. Levels of zinc, iron and magnesium remained constant in wheat grain from 1865 to the mid-1960s,then decreased significantly as yields shot up.


Carrots from the 1940s contained less than half the vitamin A levels of carrots grown in the US 50 years later. The reason? A preference for more orangey carrots. The colour comes mainly from the pigment beta-carotene, which the body can use to make vitamin A.


Milk from cows reared the old-fashioned way — mainly feeding on grass outdoors — has a better nutritional profile of proteins, fatty acids and antioxidants than milk from cows reared indoors and fed intensively.


Humans have been making bread for 10,000 years, but the way we do it has changed dramatically in the last half-century. In 1961, a new method of mass-producing bread was devised at the Chorleywood laboratories, just north of London. It used extra yeasts, additives called processing aids and machinery to slash fermentation times, so a loaf could be made in just a few hours. Around 80 percent of bread consumed is now made this way.

But there are concerns that such methods have altered the digestibility of bread, and this may explain why many people with irritable bowel syndrome and gluten sensitivity name bread as a trigger. For a significant subset of those with IBS, the condition is thought to be linked to gut bacteria reacting to fermentable foods, causing gas and bloating.

Last year, Jeremy Sanderson at King’s College London and colleagues compared the effects of fast and slow-fermented breads on gut microbiota from donors with IBS and those free from it. They found that sourdough bread — which is left to rise for several hours using its natural yeasts — produced “significantly lower cumulative gas” in the IBS donors’ microbiota than fast-fermented bread. The theory is that if bread is left to ferment for longer, its carbohydrates will reach the gut in a predigested state and gut bacteria won’t react so much. “If you under-ferment bread and add a lot of yeast, it’s hardly surprising this will set up problems for people who have a problem with fermentation in their gut,” says Sanderson.

Slow-fermented breads may benefit other groups too: sourdough produces a lower glucose response in the body than other breads. What’s not yet clear is whether eating slow-fermented breads would lead to a general improvement in the gut flora of healthy people. “That’s difficult, but it’s a reasonable hypothesis,” says Sanderson. “After all, bread-making probably evolved to match what the gut could cope with.”

If modern, high-intensity farming is causing food to lose some of its goodness, could organic food offer an alternative? For many consumers the answer is yes.


Article Source: Prevent Disease

– See more at:

They agree to Put Us Under Global Government- Your Consent is Not Required

The language for the TPP finally came out via Wikileaks the other day. It’s such a large document that I can’t even download it on my slow connection. Obviously, like all the other Trade agreements, it isn’t good for the average American despite what people say. Let’s revisit it a bit…Since the advent of the WTO and the various trade agreements under the WTO, we have lost our electronics and textile industries just about completely, and also clothing and shoes. Not to mention cuts in small ag, the auto industry and appliances. Heck, we can’t make enough shoes here to shod the population any longer. But don’t fret, we can look forward to being the call in centers for other countries.

At any rate, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has published an excellent overview on it, largely in relation to internet issues. There is a link in the first sentence to the entire Trans Pacific Partnership document. Have fun!

October 9, 2015 | By Jeremy Malcolm

Today’s release by Wikileaks of what is believed to be the current and essentially final version of the intellectual property (IP) chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) confirms our worst fears about the agreement, and dashes the few hopes that we held out that its most onerous provisions wouldn’t survive to the end of the negotiations.

Since we now have the agreed text, we’ll be including some paragraph references that you can cross-reference for yourself—but be aware that some of them contain placeholders like “x” that may change in the cleaned-up text. Also, our analysis here is limited to the copyright and Internet-related provisions of the chapter, but analyses of the impacts of other parts of the chapter have been published by Wikileaks and others.

Binding Rules for Rightsholders, Soft Guidelines for Users

If you skim the chapter without knowing what you’re looking for, it may come across as being quite balanced, including references to the need for IP rules to further the “mutual advantage of producers and users” (QQ.A.X), to “facilitate the diffusion of information” (QQ.A.Z), and recognizing the “importance of a rich and accessible public domain” (QQ.B.x). But that’s how it’s meant to look, and taking this at face value would be a big mistake.

If you dig deeper, you’ll notice that all of the provisions that recognize the rights of the public are non-binding, whereas almost everything that benefits rightsholders is binding. That paragraph on the public domain, for example, used to be much stronger in the first leaked draft, with specific obligations to identify, preserve and promote access to public domain material. All of that has now been lost in favor of a feeble, feel-good platitude that imposes no concrete obligations on the TPP parties whatsoever.

Another, and perhaps the most egregious example of this bias against users is the important provision on limitations and exceptions to copyright (QQ.G.17). In a pitifully ineffectual nod towards users, it suggests that parties “endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system,” but imposes no hard obligations for them to do so, nor even offers U.S.-style fair use as a template that they might follow. The fact that even big tech was ultimately unable to move the USTR on this issue speaks volumes about how utterly captured by Hollywood the agency is.

Expansion of Copyright Terms

Perhaps the biggest overall defeat for users is the extension of the copyright term to life plus 70 years (QQ.G.6), despite a broad consensus that this makes no economic sense, and simply amounts to a transfer of wealth from users to large, rights-holding corporations. The extension will make life more difficult for libraries and archives, for journalists, and for ordinary users seeking to make use of works from long-dead authors that rightfully belong in the public domain.

Could it have been worse? In fact, yes it could have; we were spared a 120 year copyright term for corporate works, as earlier drafts foreshadowed. In the end corporate works are to be protected for 70 years after publication or performance, or if they are not published within 25 years after they were created, for 70 years after their creation. This could make a big difference in practice. It means that the film Casablanca, probably protected in the United States until 2038, would already be in the public domain in other TPP countries, even under a life plus 70 year copyright term.

New to the latest text are the transition periods in Section J, which allow some countries a longer period for complying with some of their obligations, including copyright term. For example, Malaysia has been allowed two years to extend its copyright term to life plus 70 years. For Vietnam, the transition period is five years. New Zealand is the country receiving the most “generous” allowance; its term will increase to life plus 60 years initially, rising to the full life plus 70 year term within eight years. Yet Canada, on the other hand, has not been given any transition period at all.

Ban on Circumventing Digital Rights Management (DRM)

The provisions in QQ.G.10 that prohibit the circumvention of DRM or the supply of devices for doing so are little changed from earlier drafts, other than that the opposition of some countries to the most onerous provisions of those drafts was evidently to no avail. For example, Chile earlier opposed the provision that the offense of DRM circumvention is to be “independent of any infringement that might occur under the Party’s law on copyright and related rights,” yet the final text includes just that requirement.

The odd effect of this is that someone tinkering with a file or device that contains a copyrighted work can be made liable (criminally so, if wilfullness and a commercial motive can be shown), for doing so even when no copyright infringement is committed. Although the TPP text does allow countries to pass exceptions that allow DRM circumvention for non-infringing uses, such exceptions are not mandatory, as they ought to be.

The parties’ flexibility to allow DRM circumvention also requires them to consider whether rightsholders have already taken measures to allow those non-infringing uses to be made. This might mean that rightsholders will rely on the walled-garden sharing capabilities built in to their DRM systems, such as Ultraviolet, to oppose users being granted broader rights to circumvent DRM.

Alongside the prohibition on circumvention of DRM is a similar prohibition (QQ.G.13) on the removal of rights management information, with equivalent civil and criminal penalties. Since this offense is, once again, independent of the infringement of copyright, it could implicate a user who crops out an identifying watermark from an image, even if they are using that image for fair use purposes and even if they otherwise provide attribution of the original author by some other means.

The distribution of devices for decrypting encrypted satellite and cable signals is also separately proscribed (QQ.H.9), posing a further hazard to hackers wishing to experiment with or to repurpose broadcast media.

Criminal Enforcement and Civil Damages

On damages, the text (QQ.H.4) remains as bad as ever: rightsholders can submit “any legitimate measure of value” to a judicial authority for determination of damages, including the suggested retail price of infringing goods. Additionally, judges must have the power to order pre-established damages (at the rightsholder’s election), or additional damages, each of which may go beyond compensating the rightsholder for its actual loss, and thereby create a disproportionate chilling effect for users and innovators.

No exception to these damages provisions is made in cases where the rightsholder cannot be found after a diligent search, which puts the kibosh on ideas for the introduction of an orphan works regime that would cap remedies available against those who reproduce these otherwise-unavailable works.

One of the scariest parts of the TPP is that not only can you be made liable to fines and criminal penalties, but that any materials and implements used in the creation of infringing copies can also be destroyed (QQ.H.4(12)). The same applies to devices and products used for circumventing DRM or removing rights management information (QQ.H.4(17)). Because multi-use devices such as computers are used for a diverse range of purposes, this is once again a disproportionate penalty. This could lead to a family’s home computer becoming seized simply because of its use in sharing files online, or for ripping Blu-Ray movies to a media center.

In some cases (QQ.H.7), the penalties for copyright infringement can even include jail time. Traditionally, this has because the infringer is operating a business of commercial piracy. But under the TPP, any act of willful copyright infringement on a commercial scale renders the infringer liable to criminal penalties, even if they were not carried out for financial gain, provided that they have a substantial prejudicial impact on the rightsholder. The copying of films that are still playing in movie theaters is also subject to separate criminal penalties, regardless of the scale of the infringement.

Trade Secrets

The severity of the earlier language on trade secrets protection has not been abated in the final text. It continues to criminalize those who gain “unauthorized, willful access to a trade secret held in a computer system,” without any mandatory exception for cases where the information is accessed or disclosed in the public interest, such as by investigative journalists or whistleblowers.

There is no evident explanation for the differential treatment given to trade secrets accessed or misappropriated by means of a computer system, as opposed to by other means; but it is no surprise to find the U.S. pushing such a technophobic provision, which mirrors equivalent provisions of U.S. law that have been used to persecute hackers for offenses that would otherwise have been considered much more minor.

Top-Down Control of the Internet

ICANN, the global domain name authority, provoked a furore earlier this year over proposals that could limit the ability for owners of domain names to shield their personal information from copyright and trademark trolls, identity thieves, scammers and harassers.

The TPP has just ridden roughshod over that entire debate (at least for country-code top-level domains such as .us, .au and .jp), by cementing in place rules (QQ.C.12) that countries must provide “online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants.”

The same provision also requires countries to adopt an equivalent to ICANN’s flawed Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), despite the fact that this controversial policy is overdue for a formal review by ICANN, which might result in the significant revision of this policy. Where would this leave the TPP countries, that are locked in to upholding a UDRP-like policy for their own domains for the indefinite future?

The TPP’s prescription of rules for domain names completely disregards the fact that most country code domain registries have their own, open, community-driven processes for determining rules for managing domain name disputes. More than that, this top-down rulemaking on domain names is in direct contravention of the U.S. administration’s own firmly-stated commitment to uphold the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. Obviously, Internet users cannot trust the administration that it means what it says when it gives lip-service to multi-stakeholder governance—and that has ramifications that go even even deeper than this terrible TPP deal.

ISP Liability

The provisions on ISP liability (Appendix Section I), as we previously found in the last leaked text, are not quite as permissive as we hoped. It will still require most countries to adopt a version of the flawed U.S. DMCA notice-and-takedown system, albeit with a few safeguards such as penalties for those who issue wrongful takedown notices, and allowing (but not requiring) a Japanese-style system of verification of takedown notices by an independent body of ISPs and rightsholders.

It is true that Canada’s notice-and-notice regime is also allowed, but effectively only for Canada—no other country that did not have an equivalent system as of the date of the agreement is allowed to benefit from that flexibility. Even in Canada’s case, this largesse is only afforded because of the other enforcement measures that rightsholders enjoy there—such as a tough regime of secondary liability for authorization of copyright infringement.

Similarly Chile’s system under which ISPs are not required to take down content without a judicial order is explicitly grandfathered in, but no other country joining the TPP in the future will be allowed to have a similar system.

In addition, although there is no explicit requirement for a graduated response regime of copyright penalties against users, ISPs are still roped in as copyright enforcers with the vague requirement (Appendix Section 1) that they be given “legal incentives…to cooperate with copyright owners to deter the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyrighted materials or, in the alternative, to take other action to deter the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyright materials”.

Good Points?

Quite honestly there are no parts of this agreement that are positively good for users. Of course, that doesn’t mean that it’s not improved over the earlier, horrendous demands of the U.S. negotiators. Some of the areas in which countries rightly pushed back against the U.S., and which are reflected in the final text are:

  • The exhaustion of rights provision (QQ.A.11) that upholds the first sale doctrine of U.S. law, preventing copyright owners from extending their control over the resale of copyright works once they have first been placed in the market. In particular, this makes parallel importation of cheaper versions of copyright works lawful—and complementing this is an explicit authorization of devices that bypass region-coding on physical copies of such works (QQ.G.10, though this does not extend to bypassing geoblocking of streaming services).
  • A thoroughly-misguided provision that would have extended copyright protection to temporary or “buffer” copies in a computer system was one of the earliest rightsholder demands dropped by the USTR, and rightfully so, given the damage this would have wreaked to tech companies and users alike.

But we have struggled to come up with more than two positive points about the TPP, and even then the absence of these tragic mistakes is a pretty poor example of a positive point. If you look for provisions in the TPP that actually afford new benefits to users, rather than to large, rights-holding corporations, you will look in vain. The TPP is the archetype of an agreement that exists only for the benefit of the entitled, politically powerfully lobbyists who have pushed it through to completion over the last eight years.

There is nothing in here for users and innovators to support, and much for us to fear—the ratcheting up of the copyright term across the Pacific rim, the punitive sanctions for DRM circumvention, and the full frontal attack on hackers and journalists in the trade secrets provision, just to mention three. This latest leak has confirmed our greatest fears—and strengthened our resolve to kill this agreement for good once it reaches Congress.

Local Vendors Flock to Go Green Festival

Goat milk soap, hemp jewelry, smoked meats, organic vegetables, knit wool scarves and hats,  books of local history and smoothies  are among the many products exhibitors will have at the Go Green Self-Reliance Festival to be held in Thayer City Park, Thayer, Missouri October 17 and 18 according to event organizer Mike Slack.

“We are happy to have Green Acres Market and Mill Creek Nursery, both of Pocahontas with us for the first time serving smoothie samples and selling plants, as an example of the many fine local businesses and individuals participating. We’ve had folks sign up to sell lotions and soaps made of goat milk and other natural ingredients, hand-made wood products, works of art, tactical bugout bags, removable tattoos, solar powered flashlights, T-shirts, flags, knives, heirloom seeds and many other products that all benefit the local economy” Slack said.

“We are also happy to have several local authors and writers’ groups participating this year. The Oregon County Historical Society will have several books of local history available. The Oregon County Writers’ Group and the Stories Writers Group of Howell County will both be making writers and readers aware of their members. Science fiction author Ezra Manes, author of the Joseph series Karl William Reid, historical romance author Donna Brown and contemporary romance author Nichole Tillman will all have books for sale and will autograph their work” Slack said.
“Three local families will have raw local honey for sale. The Alton VFW Ladies Auxiliary will have Rada cutlery and will be raffling a quilt. The Friends of the National Rifle Association are raffling several guns. Local animal rescue organizations will have dogs in need of homes. Local musicians will entertain the crowd, kids will have games. Herbal medicines, chair massage, great food, kettle corn. Basically there is something here for everyone in the family, along with speakers every hour on diverse subjects all related to homesteading and improving self-reliance. Everyone is welcome,” Slack said.
The Go Green Self  Reliance Festival is  dedicated to promoting and supporting the local economy, sustainable living, agriculture, alternative renewable energy, preparedness,  and positive community activities, held in Thayer City Park by the rodeo arena the festival averages 16 speakers, 150 vendors and 3,000 or more in attendance. Attendance is free, vendors are free and vendor spaces  are still available. For information call 417-264-2435.

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 95 other followers