Monsanto Busted Doing Their Own “Independent Reviews”

It came out several months ago when Monsanto was forced to release emails in the lawsuit for cancer deaths in California, that Monsanto definitely KNEW there were problems, and worked to both control the studies and cover up what they knew to be the truth about their cancer causing, genderbending, bee destroying, genetic aberrations.

Now that knowledge is becoming mainstream. And they can’t seem to afford to buy everyone off any longer. Not that they don’t have the vast majority of the US House and Senate working to do their bidding.

Here’s an excerpt from a heavily linked article at Bloomberg today. Please be sure to share it:

Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

Academic papers vindicating its Roundup herbicide were written with the help of its employees.
August 9, 2017, 3:00 AM CDT

Monsanto Co. started an agricultural revolution with its “Roundup Ready” seeds, genetically modified to resist the effects of its blockbuster herbicide called Roundup. That ability to kill weeds while leaving desirable crops intact helped the company turn Roundup’s active ingredient, the chemical glyphosate, into one of the world’s most-used crop chemicals. When that heavy use raised health concerns, Monsanto noted that the herbicide’s safety had repeatedly been vetted by outsiders. But now there’s new evidence that Monsanto’s claims of rigorous scientific review are suspect.

Dozens of internal Monsanto emails, released on Aug. 1 by plaintiffs’ lawyers who are suing the company, reveal how Monsanto worked with an outside consulting firm to induce the scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology to publish a purported “independent” review of Roundup’s health effects that appears to be anything but. The review, published along with four subpapers in a September 2016 special supplement, was aimed at rebutting the 2015 assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. That finding by the cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization led California last month to list glyphosate as a known human carcinogen. It has also spurred more than 1,000 lawsuits in state and federal courts by plaintiffs who claim they contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma from Roundup exposure.

Monsanto disclosed that it paid Intertek Group Plc’s consulting unit to develop the review supplement, entitled “An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate.” But that was the extent of Monsanto’s involvement, the main article said. “The Expert Panelists were engaged by, and acted as consultants to, Intertek, and were not directly contacted by the Monsanto Company,” according to the review’s Declaration of Interest statement. “Neither any Monsanto company employees nor any attorneys reviewed any of the Expert Panel’s manuscripts prior to submission to the journal.”

Monsanto’s internal emails tell a different story. The correspondence shows the company’s chief of regulatory science, William Heydens, and other Monsanto scientists were heavily involved in organizing, reviewing, and editing drafts submitted by the outside experts. At one point, Heydens even vetoed explicit requests by some of the panelists to tone down what one of them wrote was the review’s “inflammatory” criticisms of IARC.

“An extensive revision of the summary article is necessary,” wrote that panelist, John Acquavella, an epidemiologist at Aarhus University in Denmark, in a February 2016 email attached to his suggested edits of the draft. Alarmed, Ashley Roberts, the coordinator of the glyphosate papers for Intertek, forwarded Acquavella’s note and edits to Heydens at Monsanto, with the warning: “Please take a look at the latest from the epi(demiology) group!!!!”

Heydens reedited Acquavella’s edits, arguing in six different notes in the draft’s margin that statements Acquavella had found inflammatory were not and should not be changed, despite the author’s requests. In the published article, Heydens’s edits prevailed. In an interview, Acquavella says that he was satisfied with the review’s final tone. According to an invoice he sent Monsanto, he billed the company $20,700 for a single month’s work on the review, which took nearly a year to complete…..(read the rest here)

Perfect Example of MMJ and Why it is No Help to those in Need

This is a perfect example of why MMJ is no good, and it just needs to be completely decriminalized and descheduled. Monopolies and corporate control are in no way an enhancement to personal freedom. Read the article below and see if you agree with me or not. I’m still waiting to find out where they finally fall on this.

Fee to grow medical marijuana in Arkansas: $100,000 a year

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) – A state commission has decided that Arkansas residents hoping to grow medical marijuana will have to pay an annual fee of $100,000 to operate a cultivation facility.

The Arkansas Medical Marijuana Commission set the fee amount on Tuesday, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (http://bit.ly/2iB9UsP ) reported. The commission also decided that people who apply must have a $1 million bond or assets worth $1 million and be able to show $500,000 in cash liquidity. The requirements are in addition to a $15,000 application fee the commission approved last week.

The commission was created by the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment passed by voters in November. The panel must create rules by June to govern how Arkansas residents can apply for cultivation and dispensary licenses.

Two commissioners, Dr. Carlos Roman and Travis Story, noted that potential growers would not be able to secure bank loans if they run out of cash because medical marijuana is still illegal under federal law.

Roman, who proposed a $15,000 license fee, argued that the fees for would-be growers should be kept as low as possible to receive the maximum number of applications.

“It’s an expensive endeavor, so it’s not something that someone could just go in with $10,000 and start a cultivation facility. The cost is very high,” Roman said. “So we want to respect the price point on it, but I’m just trying to fight at every level to make it accessible to as many people … to make it open to as many Arkansans as possible.”

I tried to tell everyone….NAIS Never Went Away-it simply had a name change

The NIAA and the infamous Neil Hammerschmidt are at it again. Having an expensive meeting to figure out how to subject livestock growers to “enforcement” measures for RFID tagging of livestock. They are after the cattle, as they always have been.

Maybe they should remember the nooses on the livestock trailer with their agency name on them the last time they tried this in Colorado. If you are interested, here is the release from the fascist group, NIAA:

Exceptional Agenda Set for Strategy Forum on Livestock Traceability

The National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA) announces an impressive agenda for the upcoming day and a half Strategy Forum on Livestock Traceability which they will co–host with the US Animal Health Association (USAHA) in Denver, CO in September.

The Strategy Forum will kick off with an introduction from Dr. Tony Forshey, Board Chair, National Institute for Animal Agriculture and Dr. Boyd Parr, United States Animal Health Association.

Mr. Matt Deppe, Executive Director, Iowa Cattlemen’s Association (Invited) is scheduled to moderate the Strategy Forum as first day continues with updates on the USDA Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) program and feedback on public meetings from USDA APHIS Veterinary Services Cattle Health Staff/Animal Disease Traceability Veterinarian Dr. Sunny Geiser–Novotny and Dr. Aaron Scott.

Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt, Animal Disease Traceability, Program Manager, will discuss “ADT Next Step Considerations.” After a networking lunch, a panel discussion with State Veterinarians from around the US, will examine “Enforcement Rules –Successes and Opportunities.” Dr. Nevil Speer and Dr. Justin Smith will moderate more panel discussions on “Implications for Livestock Markets ” and “Making Standards and Technology Work.”

Mr. Paul Laronde, Tag & Technology Manager, Canadian Cattle Identification Agency , will open the second day of the Strategy Forum with a review of the Canadian Traceability Forum. Mr. Randy Munger, Mobile Information & Animal Disease Traceability Veterinarian, USDA / APHIS / STAS will speak about “Using RFID to Advance Traceability.”

The final panel discussion will consider “Implications for Livestock Used for Rodeo, Fairs & Exhibitions.”

The Strategy Forum on Livestock Traceability will be held September 26 –27, 2017 at the DoubleTree by Hilton, Denver–Stapleton North, Denver, Colorado. View the entire AGENDA HERE. Register HERE.

USDA and the Beef Checkoff Racket

If you are unfortunate enough to have to be on the receiving end of contributing to any of numerous “check off” programs, the problem that has been going on forever with the Beef Check off should give you cause to check into your particular check off program.

Below is a copy of an email from Organization for Competitive Markets. You can get to their website by clicking through the hyperlink in the body.

Friends,

March 31, 2017 was the USDA’s court-ordered deadline to choose transparency or secrecy in our lawsuit over records from an audit initiated in 2011 of the federal Beef Checkoff Program. It chose secrecy.

Out of a total of 12,341 pages of financial records from the audit and sought by the Organization for Competitive Markets through the Freedom of Information Act, USDA released less than 175 pages, most of which are already public tax forms. The remaining nearly 12,200 pages of checkoff-related records, however, were completely blacked out-USDA is claiming they are confidential. The bottom line is that USDA is withholding a staggering 98.5% of federal Beef Checkoff Program spending records from the cattle producers who are required to pay into the government program.

The lawsuit is part of OCM’s four-year battle on behalf of cattle producers to force the USDA to release government audit documents and financial records showing how cattle producers’ beef checkoff funds are being spent. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association-the primary spender of checkoff funds-has been fighting to keep the information hidden. USDA appears committed to helping NCBA conceal checkoff records, rather than assuring transparency for the producers it is supposed to be accountable to.

Check out our full press release for more details, and please share to help spread the word.

OCM will continue to battle for full disclosure of the audit and financial records in our effort to bring long-overdue transparency and accountability to the checkoff programs.

Thank you,
Angela Huffman
Director of Communications and Research
Organization for Competitive Markets

Monsanto Emails Show They Knowingly Colluded to Hide Glyphosate Causes Cancer

Should anyone still think that GMO’s and Round Up aren’t seriously harmful, they need to read this article and go through all the links showing the intentional obscuring and falsification of studies on this disgusting chemical.

Below is an excerpt from the article, and the link is the heading.

Emails between the EPA & Monsanto now revealed (The contents are sickening!)

We should be able to trust that the food we buy is safe, but when the people in charge of that are working to keep unsafe chemicals on the market – we have a huge problem!

Along with so many of you and fellow activists, we have been spreading the truth about GMOs and hazardous chemicals used in conjunction with them like Roundup (glyphosate). This weedkiller isn’t just used on GMOs but on 70 different food crops in the U.S. – it’s in practically everything Americans eat. So, if glyphosate is causing cancer and other diseases, I want to know about it and get it out of our food – don’t you?

Stating the obvious: Monsanto makes billions off of Roundup sales, so they don’t want anyone to question its safety. Some never-before-seen confidential documents just released in a court case against Monsanto give us a glimpse into how they are working to influence the EPA (who is in charge of determining whether they are allowed to sell Roundup anymore) and undermine any efforts to ban its use. These documents show what many of us have known and suspected for quite some time… Monsanto is manipulating scientific research and has gotten some EPA officials on their side who seem to be helping them cover-up the health dangers of Roundup so they can keep it on the market.

Keep in mind… Monsanto and the EPA both do NOT want the public to see these internal emails! Why do you think that is?

While Monsanto is being sued in California by dozens of people who claim Roundup caused their non-hodgkin’s lymphoma, Monsanto had to provide over 6 million pages of internal emails and documents to the court and attorneys, and marked the majority of them as “confidential” so they’d be hidden from the public. When the plaintiffs asked the court to make the records public, both Monsanto and the EPA objected. The judge didn’t agree with their objections and threatened to sanction Monsanto if they continued trying to seal documents and found it in the best interest of the public to release them for all of us to see,“even if Monsanto doesn’t like what they say”.

The public interest group U.S. Right To Know is publishing these documents in their entirety on their website here. This is just the beginning and more are coming out. 

Here’s what we have uncovered in these documents so far…

  • Monsanto was in private talks with a top official at the EPA, Jess Rowland, who was in charge of evaluating the cancer risk of glyphosate for the EPA. Rowland was allegedly helping them stop another federal agency from investigating whether glyphosate causes cancer and told a Monsanto employee, “If I can kill this I should get a medal”. Rowland also signed off on the mysteriously leaked and deleted EPA memo which found glyphosate “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans”, which Monsanto touted as proof the EPA finds it safe.

  • Long-term EPA toxicologist Marion Copley accused EPA’s Rowland of playing “political conniving games with the science” and making decisions based on his “bonus” in favoring pesticide makers (such as Monsanto). Dr. Copley went on to allude that other EPA staff have conflicts of interest and may be taking bribes. She asserts that Anna Lowit (still at the EPA) intimidated staff to change their findings to favor the industry. Dr. Copley also stated, “It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer.” 

  • A Monsanto employee proposed they could “ghost-write” portions of a scientific report and then just have hired scientists “sign their names so to speak”. The EPA would later use this report evaluate the safety of glyphosate. The reason they would do this is highly unethical – to make the report appear to have been prepared by independent scientists, when in reality Monsanto wrote it! This begs the question, how often do they do this? An email suggests they ghostwrote this report presented to EPA regulators in 2000, although no Monsanto employees are listed as authors.

  • Way back in 1999, Monsanto buried the findings of their own scientist (Dr. James Parry) who found glyphosate is genotoxic and recommended further testing. Internal emails show that Monsanto employees questioned whether Parry had “ever worked with industry before”, “hoped that it didn’t cost too much” and that they should hire a different expert who would be “influential with regulators” and help them with “outreach” efforts. Ha! They only want to hire scientists who will make findings in their favor to deceive our regulators.

  • Monsanto knows other compounds in Roundup such as NNG and 1, 4 Dioxane are toxic and can cause cancer as they acknowledged this with each other in emails mentioned in court docs: “If you talk to Kerry [Liefer, an EPA employee], I wouldn’t push the NNG issue too hard — don’t want to draw attention to the toxicity of our product”.

  • In another 2015 email, a toxicologist at Monsanto hinted that Rowland would be retiring from the EPA and that he’d be useful for their “ongoing glyphosate defense”. This just further shows that Rowland was in Monsanto’s back pocket all along and is a key player in helping them achieve their mission.

They are feeding us lies and these secrets are poisoning us!

Most Americans are eating glyphosate every day… No matter how healthy we eat or how much we try to protect ourselves from it, this weedkiller is being used on most major conventional food crops and is so rampant in our environment that it is contaminating virtually all of our food. It’s been found in honey, cereals, meat, drinking water, breast milk, infant formula, chips, cookies… the list goes on. Our government agencies (FDA and EPA) know this and are allowing corporations to poison Americans for profit. It’s truly disgusting!

Monsanto is stooping to corruption to continue selling their poisons. Everything from seeking to keep their correspondence with the EPA secret, to intimidating scientists at the WHO International Agency on Cancer (IARC) who found Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate “probably carcinogenic”. A large body of peer reviewed research links glyphosate to cancer, reproductive problems, liver, kidney and skin cell damage, antibiotic-resistance, and more – but Monsanto doesn’t want the public to know the truth!

Glyphosate should be banned worldwide and consumers have the power to make this a reality. Here’s our ACTION PLAN:

  1. Choose to buy only certified organic food and products. This will hit Monsanto where it really hurts, their bottom line! Their best-selling products like Roundup and GMO seeds are banned on organic farms. If all farms were organic these products would bite the dust! This is voting with your dollars and is the most effective way to force change.
  2. Share this post with everyone you know! Expose their corruption. They should be shamed for this! Especially if you know anyone who is still eating non-organic food or using Roundup around their homes, make sure you get this information in their hands.
  3. Ask your favorite companies to test for glyphosate and get certified. Wouldn’t it be nice to know if the food you buy contains glyphosate? I have an exciting announcement! The Detox Project just launched a new “Glyphosate Residue Free Certification” program and will begin labeling products that have been tested and are free of glyphosate. I’ve partnered up with them to help spread the word – They are working with food manufacturers and grocery chains, so that soon we will see labels like this on some products – send this link to your favorite companies and ask them to go glyphosate free.

Everyone deserves to know exactly what they are eating and have access to safe, affordable food. My job will not be done until this is a reality. I’m so happy to have so many of you by my side and I know we can make this happen!

 


Senate Agrees on Dark Act

I thought this was a very good article. It seems a completely futile course of action to continue to talk to the furniture in DC, and because of that, I have not been encouraging people to continue to engage in unprofitable action. Does anyone remember that Obama promised to label GMO’s? I know some voted for the cretin on that promise. 8 years after the fact, and the only meaningful things that have happened are at the state level and in public awareness. Neither of which has had any effect on the District of Criminals regulatory or legislative actions.

Due to my desire to not send people on fruitless expeditions, one positive thing you can do is  use this Non GMO shopping guide. Other positive actions on this front include growing your own, buying from farmers that don’t use man-made chemicals and can tell you the breed of the product, and, if you live in a city or town, work to get urban farming and gardening ordinances in place. Or go guerilla grower. 🙂

Here is the best article I could find on the fed level GMO actions:

Senate Agrees on “DARK Act” GMO Labeling Bill

apples-GMO-DARK-Act-620x360-1By Derrick Broze

The U.S. Senate has announced a bipartisan deal which will prevent states from labeling genetically modified foods in favor of a federal labeling system. Here’s what you need to know…

On Thursday, the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry agreed on a new bill aimed at labeling foods with genetically modified ingredients. The committee has been trying for several months to get a bill passed before Vermont’s labeling law goes into effect on July 1.

U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts and Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow released a statement, calling the bill “an important path forward that represents a true compromise. Since time is of the essence, we urge our colleagues to move swiftly to support this bill.” Roberts said if his colleagues do not act on the bill now Vermont’s law will cause confusion in the marketplace. The bill would give the U.S. Department of Agriculture two years to write the labeling rules.

The bipartisan proposal would immediately prohibit states and cities from passing labeling laws for genetically modified or engineered ingredients. Genetically modified or engineered seeds are engineered to have certain traits, such as resistance to herbicides. The majority of the United States’ corn and soybean crops are now GE, including a large portion that is used for animal feed.

The bill would also put the USDA in charge of establishing “a uniform national disclosure standard for human food that is or may be bioengineered.” Critics of a federal standard worry about the USDA being pressured by biotechnology companies that have a close relationship to U.S. regulatory agencies. The proposal would also require companies producing foods with GE ingredients to post a label, including text on package, a symbol, or a link to a website (QR code or similar technology). Smaller food manufacturers can use websites or telephone numbers to disclose ingredients.

In late February, Roberts introduced another bill which attempted to create a federal voluntary standard for labeling GE food. Roberts’ Senate Bill 2609, or the Biotech Labeling Solutions Act, would have blocked mandatory labeling efforts by states. In March, the bill failed to reach the 60 votes needed during a procedural vote, with 49 votes in favor and 48 votes against.

Roberts’ bill was similar to the controversial Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, which passed the House in June 2015 but ultimately failed amid heavy opposition. To critics, the bill was known as the “DARK” (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act because the law was also aimed at nullifying GMO labeling measures, such as the bill passed in Vermont.

The latest bipartisan effort contains language that is identical to both of the previous bills. The bill would “amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a national voluntary labeling standard for bioengineered foods.” It’s safe to say that this new bipartisan compromise is simply the latest version of the DARK Act and will likely live up to it’s name by keeping Americans in the dark regarding what is in their food.

The bipartisan proposal is supported by certain food industry groups that believe state bills like the one in Vermont will lead to increased costs for agriculture, food companies and consumers. “This bipartisan agreement ensures consumers across the nation can get clear, consistent information about their food and beverage ingredients and prevents a patchwork of confusing and costly state labeling laws,” Pamela Bailey, president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the largest food industry lobby group, told the Associated Press.

Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch, said the new bill deserves the name DARK Act because it will prevent consumers from have “clear, on-package labels” as required by the Vermont law.  “But this deal from Senators Stabenow and Roberts doesn’t even come close, and would instead require consumers to have smartphones and a cellphone signal to know what they are buying,” Hauter said in a statement. “This deal seems to be designed to ensure that big food processing companies and the biotechnology industry continue to profit by misleading consumers.”

Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin and Senator Bernie Sanders both spoke against the new measure. Shumlin criticized the two-year delay, while Sanders said he would do “everything I can” to stop the bill. Meanwhile, the Huffington Post reports that the bill “also allows companies to avoid the main thing consumers have demanded – a fast and easy way to determine if a food product they are purchasing was made using genetically engineered crops.”

The key argument seems to be that the new bill would not have as clear labels as Vermont’s law. Senator Stabenow, however, believes the opposite, claiming that the Vermont law would require GMO labeling of a cheese pizza but not a pepperoni pizza. “Throughout this process I worked to ensure that any agreement would recognize the scientific consensus that biotechnology is safe, while also making sure consumers have the right to know what is in their food,” the senator wrote.

The scientific consensus does lean towards the safety of GE foods, but that has not swayed critics and supporters of labeling. A recent report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine concluded GE foods do not pose a health or environmental risk. Critics of the report point to conflicts of interests between researchers with the National Academy of Sciences and biotechnology companies involved in the creation of GE crops.

The environmental watchdog organization Food and Water Watch released their own report, pointing to possible influence from the same organizations that stand to benefit from the growth of genetic engineering of foods. The report, Under the Influence: The National Research Council and GMOs, looks at “far-reaching ties” between the National Research Council, its parent organization the NAS, and biotechnology companies and agricultural corporations.

Americans who want to know what is in their food need to take control of their own food production and stop relying on large-scale, factory farming which increasingly relies on genetically engineered seeds. Only by taking back the power when it comes to our diets can we stop supporting the systems that are working against our health and freedom. It’s time to grow food, not lawns. It’s time to throw seed bombs everywhere. The revolution is growing and resistance is fertile.

Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for ActivistPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter.

FBI Doesn’t Want to Let You Know About Your Biometrics

As most of you know, your driver’s license puts you into a global database. It goes like this. The Dept of Motor Vehicles takes a high definition photo of you when you get or renew your license. That pic gets sent to a company called Morphos Trust. They then upload your high definition biometrically calculated (or calculatable) photo to their parent company Safran International. Then Safran sends it on to the IMF, World Bank and Interpol. They will assure that it is all innocent and won’t be used to establish a cashless society. Nice, huh?

Anyway, here is the article I was referencing above:

FBI Wants to Exempt Its Massive Biometric Database from Some Federal Privacy Rules

Sergey Nivens/Shutterstock.com

The FBI wants to block individuals from knowing if their information is in a massive repository of biometric records, which includes fingerprints and facial scans, if the release of information would “compromise” a law enforcement investigation.

The FBI’s biometric database, known as the “Next Generation Identification System,” gathers a wide scope of information, including palm prints, fingerprints, iris scans, facial and tattoo photographs, and biographies for millions of people.

On Thursday, the Justice Department agency plans to propose the database be exempt from several provisions of the Privacy Act — legislation that requires federal agencies to share information about the records they collect with the individual subject of those records, allowing them to verify and correct them if needed.

Aside from criminals, suspects and detainees, the system includes data from people fingerprinted for jobs, licenses, military or volunteer service, background checks, security clearances, and naturalization, among other government processes.

Letting individuals view their own records, or even the accounting of those records, could compromise criminal investigations or “national security efforts,” potentially revealing a “sensitive investigative technique” or information that could help a subject “avoid detection or apprehension,” the draft posting said.

Another clause requires agencies to keep the records they collect to assure individuals any determination made about them was made fairly. Arguing for an exemption, the FBI posting claimed it is “impossible to know in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely and complete” for “authorized law enforcement purposes.”

“With time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance when new details are brought to light,” the posting said. Information contained in the database could help with “establishing patterns of activity and providing criminal lead.”

» Get the best federal technology news and ideas delivered right to your inbox. Sign up here.

The proposal, open for public comment for a month after it’s officially posted, would set a worrying precedent in which law enforcement has significant leeway to decide what information to collect without informing the subject, according to Jeramie Scott, a national security counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a research group advocating for digital civil liberties.

In 2014, EPIC won a lawsuit against the FBI, arguing the contracts and technical requirements supporting the Next Generation Identification database be published.

The proposal’s suggestion that data could be used to establish “patterns of activity” was particularly troubling, Scott said.

“We don’t know exactly what that means,” Scott told Nextgov in an interview. “If you have no ability to access the record the FBI has on you, even when you’re not part of an investigation or under investigation, and lo and behold inaccurate information forms a ‘pattern of activity’ that then subjects you to [be] the focus of the FBI, then that’s a problem.”

It’s unclear how many individuals are covered in the database. FBI documents obtained by privacy rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation in 2014 suggested the FBI’s facial recognition component was on track to contain 52 million images by 2015.

FBI did not respond to Nextgov’s request for comment.

Previous Older Entries