February 5, 2013
Ann Bressington Exposes Agenda 21, Club of Rome, Sustainable Development, at the Lord Monckton Launch 2 Feb 2013 at the Adelaide Convention Center.
Over the last two years, I have written extensively about the Codex Alimentarius guidelines and how they relate specifically to vitamin and mineral supplements, food irradiation, and the use of Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH).
I have also detailed the history and workings of the international organization as well as many of the current day to day manifestations of Codex guidelines as they appear in domestic policy.
However, there is yet another area in which Codex guidelines will play a major role in the development of food policy – namely, the proliferation of Genetically Modified Food.
The Codex committee that serves as the main battleground for the consideration of GM food is the Codex Committee on Food Labeling. This committee is extremely relevant due to the fact that it can effectively reduce the power of the consumer to virtually nothing if it decides not to force companies or countries to label their GM food, thus removing the ability of the consumer to boycott and/or avoid those products. While it is well-known that public sentiment is unimportant to those at the top, governments and corporations tend to pay more attention when votes and sales reflect that sentiment. However, if Codex continues on its’ way to allowing unlabelled GM food onto the international market, the repercussions of consumer reaction will be entirely neutralized.
A brief discussion of the history of Codex in terms of GM food is necessary here to understand the direction that the organization is moving towards in regards to it.
In 1993, at the behest of the Codex Commission, the CCFL agreed to begin working on the labeling aspect of GM food. Interestingly enough, the CCFL asked the United States, the country that was the most militant in its support of genetic modification, to develop a paper that would guide the committee’s discussion at the following session. When this session arrived, there was a flurry of opinions tossed around from several different countries. The most sensible position was that all GM foods should be labeled under any circumstances. Yet other countries, especially the pro-Gm ones, argued that labeling should only be required when there is the introduction of health or safety concerns, allergens, or when the food is significantly different from its traditional counterpart. This is a debate that largely continues until this day.
The concept of “substantial equivalence” versus “process-based” labeling has also become one of the most hotly contested issues within the Codex GM food labeling debate. Process-based labeling simply means that the driving factor behind the labeling guidelines is the process by which the food is created, grown, or otherwise produced. Therefore, the qualifying factor for labeling GM food would be the process of genetic modification itself, forcing all GM food to be labeled as such. This is essentially the mandatory labeling of all GM food. When this concept was first introduced in 2001, it was supported by such countries as the European Union, India, and Norway. Its staunchest opponents, of course, were the United States and Canada. Although this method of labeling standards was by far the most sensible if one were concerned about food safety and consumer rights of choice, it has been all but abandoned since the brief discussion at its introduction. The attention then has necessarily turned to the competing set of standards known as “substantial equivalence.”
“Substantial equivalence” guidelines are by far the most onerous means by which to label GM food outside of the scheme of voluntary labeling (such as what Canada has already pushed for).
This set of standards not only provides loopholes through which GM food may enter the food supply, but also opens the door to total acceptance of GM food absolutely free of labeling. The idea behind the substantial equivalence labeling method is that the GM food will be compared to its conventional counterpart in terms of safety and composition.
The food would then only require a label if it was found that there was a substantial difference between the GM product and the natural food or there were an introduction of a common allergen through the process of genetic modification. While at first it may seem that there is a legitimate consideration of safety under these principles, such an impression is far from the truth.
Several problems exist with the concept of substantial equivalence. First, as is often the case with government and bureaucratic initiatives, the semantics of the term “substantial equivalence” leaves the door open to the possible acceptance of virtually all GM food. While I will discuss this aspect further in future articles where the accepted Codex guidelines for testing GM food is mentioned, brief mention is still required early on in order to understand the dangers of the use of this labeling standard.
In order for a food to require labeling, it must do one of two things – introduce a new allergen or be significantly different from its “traditional counterpart.” The former requirement refers to the introduction of something along the lines of the peanut gene or the introduction of another common allergy to a food, thereby causing a potential allergic reaction to the food after consuming it. However, there are thousands of food allergies besides peanuts. Codex itself admits in its GM food test protocol that the determination of what may be an allergy is a very difficult procedure. It says “At present, there is no definitive test that can be relied upon to predict allergic response in humans to a newly expressed protein.”
Although the guidelines go on to say that these potential allergens should be tested on a case-by-case basis, it is clear that the testing mechanisms being recommended are not necessarily geared for determining the potential allergenicity of newly introduced GM foods. Especially on the scale that is needed to deal with the immense diversity of GM prototypes being introduced and the even greater variety of individual allergies that exist in the population.
It should also be noted that while there is some discussion of known allergens, there is no in-depth discussion of the very real possibility of new and previously unknown allergens being introduced due to the process of genetic modification. Indeed, the monitoring of the food once it enters the food chain is only occasionally mentioned throughout the Codex “Foods Derived From Modern Biotechnology” document and those mentions are vague and open-ended. So the question that follows is whether or not all of these potential allergens will be labeled as such, or if only the most common ones will be considered.
Second, the requirement that a food must be compared and found substantially equivalent to its “traditional counterpart” (natural food) is misleading as well. To begin with, one must ask the question of what exactly “substantial equivalence” means. Quite obviously, the term does not mean that the GM product must be identical. This, in itself would negate the process of genetic modification.
Therefore, differences must necessarily be accepted. However, it is not at all clear just to what level these differences may exist and still be considered equivalent and/or safe. Nowhere is “substantial equivalence” clearly defined. The criterion for what is substantial and what is not is left completely open and subjective.
The closest thing there is to a definition is made by Nick Tomlinson of the UK Food Standards Agency in his report, “Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology” where he references the 1996 expert consultation where substantial equivalence was defined as “being established by a demonstration that the characteristics assessed for the genetically modified organism, or the specific food product derived there from, are equivalent to the same characteristics of the conventional comparator.”
Here again the term equivalence is used with the connotation that equivalent does not translate into identical or same. Tomlinson makes this clear when he says:
The levels and variation for characteristics in the genetically modified organism must be within the natural range of variation for those characteristics considered in the comparator and be based upon an appropriate analysis of data.
By not exactly being descriptive as to how wide a range this “natural range of variation” may be, it is apparent that substantial equivalence does not correlate to identical or even anything that would remotely be considered the “same.” Indeed, the very nature of genetic modification precludes this as a possibility to begin with.
The concept of substantial equivalence is unfortunately the theory of labeling requirements adopted by Codex. It is also very similar to the criteria used in the United States and Canada.
As to be expected in such pro-GM countries as the United States, the GM labeling requirements are even less restrictive than those of Codex. For the most part, labeling of GM foods in the United States and Canada is completely voluntary.
This voluntary labeling scheme based on the concept of substantial equivalence is both a prime example of the weakness of both standards as well as a dark omen as to the direction of Codex guidelines as they continue to be developed.
 MacKenzie, Anne. A. “The Process of Developing Labeling Standards For GM Foods In The Codex Alimentarius.” AgBioForum, Vol.3, Number 4, 2000. pp. 203-208. http://www.agbioforum.org/v3n4/v3n4a04-mackenzie.htm Accessed May 24, 2010.
 “Canadians Deserve To Know What They Are Eating: Food Safety Must Come Before Trade.” Canadian Health Coalition, Media Advisory, May 1-4, 2001. http://www.healthcoalition.ca/codex.html
 “Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origin, a joint FAO/WHO consultation on foods derived from biotechnology, Geneva, Switzerland 29 May – 2 June 2000”. World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/ec_june2000/en/index.html
 MacKenzie, Anne. A. “The Process of Developing Labeling Standards For GM Foods In The Codex Alimentarius.” AgBioForum, Vol.3, Number 4, 2000. pp. 203-208. http://www.agbioforum.org/v3n4/v3n4a04-mackenzie.htm May 24, 2010.
 “Food Derived From Modern Biotechnology.” Codex Alimentarius 2nd Edition. P.20 ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/Publications/Booklets/Biotech/Biotech_2009e.pdf
 Tomlinson, Nick. “Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology.” 2003. ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/food/Bio-03.pdf Accessed May 24, 2010.
 “Guidance For Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not Been Developed Using Biotengineering: Draft Guidance.” Food and Drug Administration. January 2001. http://www.fda.gov/Food/
Read other articles by Brandon Turbeville here.
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident.
By Mike Adams
February 4, 2013
With huge fanfare and an overdose of propaganda, the U.S. government is announcing it’s going to reform school lunches and vending machines to eliminate junk beverages like sodas.
“Under new rules the Department of Agriculture proposed Friday, school vending machines would start selling water, lower-calorie sports drinks, diet sodas and baked chips instead,” reports the Washington Post.
Except, here’s the problem: We heard this same hoax six years ago when Bill Clinton was widely applauded for achieving the very same “reform” back then.
Forbes.com practically drooled over the “leadership” of Clinton when it announced, in 2006:
“Under the agreement, the companies have agreed to sell only water, unsweetened juice and low-fat milk to elementary and middle schools while high schools would be allowed diet drinks, unsweetened teas, flavored water, and low-calorie sports drinks.”
Er, hold on a sec. Why is the USDA saying it’s going to ban sugary sodas in 2013 when Forbes.com reported that Bill Clinton already solved the problem in 2006?
Because it’s all a hoax.
Four years after Bill Clinton’s supposed “victory” over soda manufacturers, sodas had vastly EXPANDED their reach in U.S. schools.
The US government is in bed with junk food manufacturers
The US government has no intention of hurting the profits of its most powerful supporters: food and drug corporations.
Forcing school lunches to become healthier means reduced profits for the processed food giants that supply all the genetically modified, chemically preserved, refined, processed, nutrient-deprived crap that our children are raised on.
The goal of the USDA — the same department that has completely sold out to Monsanto, for the record — is to make it appear like they are doing something to improve the health of children while, in actuality, doing nothing to restrict the profit growth of junk food companies.
Remember: We’ve seen this same hoax before, back in 2006 with Bill Clinton.
That too was praised as something of a “treaty” with junk food companies and soda manufacturers. But as I said back then, it was all a publicity stunt designed to delay any legislation. And it worked! No laws were passed and the soda continues to be sold to children all across our nation’s schools.
The other big reason this whole thing is a charade is because it doesn’t restrict diet sodas. So even if the corn syrup sodas are pulled out of schools, it puts the government in the position of promoting aspartame consumption by our children.
Aspartame is even worse for your health than corn syrup. Only in a completely insane government full of nutritionally ignorant morons would aspartame be pushed on children.
The substance should never have been approved for human consumption in the first place. When stored in hot conditions, it produces formaldehyde — a potent neurotoxin that harms the nervous system.
Pushing aspartame on children is sure to lower academic scores, create behavioral problems and promote chronic disease as those children age. But the US government incessantly protects aspartame, mercury-laden vaccines, GMOs and other mass-marketed poisons.
The payoff is huge for Big Pharma which then rakes in trillions of dollars “treating” all the chronic disease caused by a lifetime of poison consumption.
That’s the racket being played out right now in America, and it’s all marketed under the label of “healthy children.”
Remember, above all, that the government always LIES to you. Telling the truth serves no purpose for it, and it has no morals or ethics to speak of.
These lies are designed to create the impression that the government cares for you (Obamacare, remember?) while, in reality, it is looting your pockets, sickening your children, destroying your liberties and crushing dissent.
By Heather Callaghan
February 4, 2013
A lot of events are converging to create a tipping point to finally allow the labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods.
The FDA is likely to approve GM salmon and apples against the people’s will. Many big food companies have received massive social media backlash from consumers, particularly parent companies to organic ones that heavily funded campaigns against GMO labeling.
For instance, Ben & Jerry’s ice cream got shrapnel from some of these “Traitor’s Boycotts” because its parent company Unilever funded to prevent labeling. Ben & Jerry’s will remove its GM ingredients by the end of 2013.
The funded and questionable failure of California’s Proposition 37 has stoked the flames since last September.
Consumers have even themselves begun labeling grocery products with a passionate drive to bring awareness to others. Wal-mart got flak last summer for selling unlabeled and possibly dangerous GM sweet corn.
Most recently, Washington state introduced a labeling initiative for the 2013 ballot.
Their concern is not only about “right to know” but surrounds fears that unlabeled genetic salmon and apples could seriously damage the economy by getting their exports blocked – especially from countries that require labeled GM food. It is estimated that at least 20 other states are considering labeling initiatives.
This amalgam is perhaps why there is talk of Wal-mart, PepsiCo, ConAgra and at least 20 major food companies possibly switching sides and lobbying for national labeling.
It’s probably the very least all those companies could do after spending more than $45 million to keep food unlabeled. Gary Hirshberg of Just-Label-It and chairman of Stonyfield Organic called it a poor return on their investment, referring to their actions provoking demand instead of squashing it. Too late – money talks both ways, but now they are starting to get it.
Organic Consumers Association (OCA) reported earlier that those companies, the FDA and some advocacy groups met in January behind closed doors at the Meridian Institute, a major discussion hub.
It appears that some Fortune 500 companies have now shied away from Monsanto. Consumer activism works.
Ronnie Cummins of OCA warned to keep watch:
We should be wary of any compromise deal at the federal level, one that would preempt the passage of meaningful state GMO labeling laws that have real teeth.
How many of you saw a red flag for a case of Problem-Reaction-Solution or Controlled Opposition? Are they discussing a watered-down solution – a strategic attack? At the very least, they know that they have a problem.
While so many consumers are adamantly opposed to GMOs existing anywhere close to planet Earth, some law makers like Senator Jamilah Nasheed of St. Louis simply feel:
I don’t want to hinder any producer of genetically modified goods — However, I strongly feel that people have the right to know what they are putting into their bodies.
Fighting the presence of GMOs and trying to raise awareness has been an uphill and often unseen battle for over 20 years.
Not only have the FDA and USDA failed to help, but they have systematically ushered them in with no safety testing and have covered up studies proving hazards.
At least with consumer awareness reaching critical mass (we vote with our forks and dollars), big companies like Wal-Mart and food giants finally voicing labeling desires is a step in a good direction if they stop selling us out for profits.
Let’s continue giving them an uphill battle to win back our patronage – if ever. They don’t want to keep shelling out millions to further provoke us if they have to keep doing it repeatedly to their own demise. If they want people’s money, they had better listen.
The definitive movie on genetically modified foods – watch Genetic Roulette: The Gamble of Our Lives for free, limited time only.
By Robin McKie, The Observer
Saturday, February 2, 2013 19:01 EST
Golden rice, a new strain that boosts vitamin A levels and reduces blindness in developing countries, is about to be sown in the Philippines – and is the new battleground crop
Scientists say they have seen the future of genetically modified foods and have concluded that it is orange or, more precisely, golden. In a few months, golden rice – normal rice that has been genetically modified to provide vitamin A to counter blindness and other diseases in children in the developing world – will be given to farmers in the Philippines for planting in paddy fields.
Thirty years after scientists first revealed they had created the world’s first GM crop, hopes that their potential to ease global malnutrition problems may be realised at last. Bangladesh and Indonesia have indicated they are ready to accept golden rice in the wake of the Philippines’ decision, and other nations, including India, have also said that they are considering planting it.
“Vitamin A deficiency is deadly,” said Adrian Dubock, a member of the Golden Rice project. “It affects children’s immune systems and kills around two million every year in developing countries. It is also a major cause of blindness in the third world. Boosting levels of vitamin A in rice provides a simple, straightforward way to put that right.”
Recent tests have revealed that a substantial amount of vitamin A can be obtained by eating only 60g of cooked golden rice. “This has enormous potential,” said Dubock.
But scientists’ satisfaction over the Golden Rice project has been tempered by the fact that it has taken an extraordinarily long time for the GM crop to be approved. Golden rice was created late last century, but its development and cultivation has been opposed vehemently by campaigners who have flatly refused to accept that it could deliver enough vitamin A, and who have also argued that the crop’s introduction in the developing world would make farmers increasingly dependent on western industry. The crop has become the cause célèbre of the anti-GM movement, which sees golden rice as a tool of global capitalism.
This view is rejected by the scientists involved. “We have developed this is conjunction with organisations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a way of alleviating a real health problem in the developing world,” says Dubock. “No one is going to make money out of it. The companies involved in developing some of the technologies have waived their licences just to get this off the ground.”
This view is shared by Mark Lynas, the environmental campaigner and one of the founders of the anti-GM crop movement. He has publicly apologised for opposing the planting of GM crops in Britain. “The first generation of GM crops were suspect, I believed then, but the case for continued opposition to new generations – which provide life-saving vitamins for starving people – is no longer justifiable. You cannot call yourself a humanitarian and be opposed to GM crops today.”
Mikael Thalen, Contributor
Washington state recently made national news after the “Label It Wa” grassroots campaign successfully collected and submitted over 350,000 signatures in order to get “I-522 The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act” on the 2013 ballot. This bill would require genetically engineered food in the state to be labeled.
Also in Washington, San Juan County residents and farmers passed Initiative Measure No. 2012-4 to ban the growth of genetically modified organisms. Now, Republican Representative Cary Condotta has stepped up and introduced House Bill 1407, which aims to remove the bureaucratic red tape, allowing local legislative authorities to regulate genetically modified organisms from foods to seeds as they see fit, instead of relying on the state to take action.
“When we saw San Juan do this, we thought it was great, so we see this on a different path than I-522 but we made sure to put a provision in HB 1407 that none of it would override I-522, so if the labeling bill passes all food will still be labeled state wide still, this just gives the local level even more control,” explained Rep Condotta.
HB 1407 leaves no stone unturned on what local citizens can decide regarding GMO. Section 1 reads:
It is within the jurisdiction of the local legislative authority to determine the parameters of regulation, which may include the production, use, advertising, sale, distribution, storage, transportation, formulation, packaging, labeling, certification, registration, propagation, cultivation, raising, or growing of genetically modified organisms.
“If Monsanto wanted to come in and sue San Juan county for whatever reason, San Juan county would have to defend itself. If it was this bill from the legislature that they acted upon, then the Attorney General would have to defend it and that would be a much better opportunity against Monsanto so that’s why were trying to have a state bill that says you cities and counties want to do this? We’ll back you up on it,” explained Condotta.
Many farmers and residents in Douglas county have been discussing their worry over genetically modified Wheat infecting their crops through cross pollination. This bill would give the local residents more power to regulate or ban GM Wheat if HB 1407 passed.
“I think this has a great chance of passing because its not prescriptive. It will be very hard for anyone to argue against this bill because nobody has to do anything. We can pass this bill and nobody could ever write an ordinance, so its not forcing anybody to do anything and there is no cost involved, but it allows people who want to get involved who feel passionately about this issue to protect themselves from what they don’t like on the local level,” said Condotta.
This article first appeared at The Examiner
Mikael Thalen is a political activist and a self proclaimed history buff and current events junkie. He prides himself on being non partisan and standing up for fiscal responsibility and personal liberty in government.
Posted: January 31, 2013 | Independent Science News
How should a regulatory agency announce they have discovered something potentially very important about the safety of products they have been approving for over twenty years?
In the course of analysis to identify potential allergens in GMO crops, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has belatedly discovered that the most common genetic regulatory sequence in commercial GMOs also encodes a significant fragment of a viral gene (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This finding has serious ramifications for crop biotechnology and its regulation, but possibly even greater ones for consumers and farmers. This is because there are clear indications that this viral gene (called Gene VI) might not be safe for human consumption. It also may disturb the normal functioning of crops, including their natural pest resistance.
What Podevin and du Jardin discovered is that of the 86 different transgenic events (unique insertions of foreign DNA) commercialized to-date in the United States 54 contain portions of Gene VI within them. They include any with a widely used gene regulatory sequence called the CaMV 35S promoter (from the cauliflower mosaic virus; CaMV). Among the affected transgenic events are some of the most widely grown GMOs, including Roundup Ready soybeans (40-3-2) and MON810 maize. They include the controversial NK603 maize recently reported as causing tumors in rats (Seralini et al. 2012).
Read more here: http://independentsciencenews.org
By Dawie Coetzee
January 31, 2013
While we are agreed that the prevalent system of State capitalism depends on the maintenance of artificial scarcity, there seems to be some lack of clarity about the ways in which this is achieved.
Specifically there are questions over whether the result of artificial scarcity is an increase or a decrease in industrial output.
It would seem obvious, absent other factors, that the way to create scarcity is to withhold output. In many cases this is however not so: the creation of scarcity depends on a significant increase in output.
The variable factors are the choice of technique and the role of the State in maintaining conditions under which certain technical options are viable.
The techniques of mass production are both model-specific and capital-intensive, and therefore offer an advantage over artisanal or other techniques only when the rate of output is sufficient to cover the costs involved. That is, if the saving on unit cost multiplied by the number of units produced within a given time exceeds the costs specific to the technique: the so-called economies of scale.
The problem for industry arises when there is insufficient demand to warrant the techniques of mass production. The options then are either to fall back on artisanal techniques or somehow to create the necessary demand artificially. With the former the way to create artificial scarcity would be to ensure that one’s output is always less than demand, the viability of which would be severely limited by competition, absent State intervention. But given the opportunity to suppress competition the amount of artificial scarcity that may be generated is still limited by the demand that exists.
With the latter option, artificial scarcity is created by cultivating structures of need in order to ensure that demand is greater even than may be satisfied by the vast outputs at which the techniques of mass production are advantageous. This is not easily achieved without State intervention. Once established, however, structures of need may be built up over time to a scale wholly disproportionate to the original demand. The amount of artificial scarcity that may be generated thus is almost limitless.
It is obvious, then, that given the opportunity, capitalist industry will be more inclined to create scarcity by artificially multiplying and remultiplying demand than by withholding output.
It is important to understand that the very existence of certain techniques in certain industries presupposes some means of effecting the requisite levels of remultiplied demand, improbable except though the coercive monopoly of the State. It is erroneous to believe that such demand would persist in the absence of the coercive monopoly of the State except in the very short term.
Though there have been historical instances of direct conscious collusion (one thinks of the Great American Streetcar Scandal of c.1936-on) the usual way in which these conditions are created is by means of a future vision, which the State is eager to equip with the requisite hardware and infrastructure, not to mention legislative framework. In this the idea of spontaneous, linear technological progress and its underlying world-view play a large part.
Thus the future vision may be presented as inevitable as well as exciting; “This is how we will live in the world of tomorrow!” And hence the task of creating the practical system which brings about the structure of contingent (i.e. indirect) needs, never quite consciously understood as a programme to create artificial economic demand, becomes an ostensibly noble labour of public service. And being established, the vision as built generates the desired plausible projections of future demand, and thus the necessity of adding more and more is not questioned.
Thus the manufacture of demand becomes a normal part of industry, and thus universalized the greater the concentration of industrial power, the greater the output, though this is ever insufficient to meet our needs.
Herein lies the core of a libertarian ecology: industry really does produce too much stuff, but not because consumers have insatiable appetites for stuff. It is not justified to chastise people for wanting a little when they have been made to need a lot. Their wildest desires are probably mostly rather modest compared with the structures of artificial need to which they are subjected. If we could eliminate the vastly greater part of our necessary consumption there would be ample world left over for all the unnecessary consumption we could imagine. This is quite contrary to what we are told, that only the longest-faced austerity can save us.
Expressed differently, we are making far too much for the amount of fun we are having doing so. The amount of creativity that is happening is spread over too great a volume of production. To make is a privilege, when making anything requires making several million more of the same, lest my and your efforts collapse the requisite demand. It should not be this way.
Feb 1, 2013
During a recent lecture the head of the elite-funded, soap opera-producing Population Media Center admitted that his organization encounters “very little opposition of the public because of the very gradual evolution of the characters”.
The US-based Population Media Center, which produces soap operas worldwide with the aim of reducing populations, said that his organization hardly encounters any resistance from both governments and audiences in the nations where its melodramas are aired:
In answer to a question by an audience member if his organization experiences any opposition from the governments in the nations concerned, Ryerson stated:
“Hardly any. (…) One of the things about this strategy is: because we’re working to support the governments’ policies, they are very enthusiastic about it.”
“We get very little opposition of the public because of the very gradual evolution of the characters.”, Ryerson said.
The president of the Population Media Center makes clear: the strategy employed by the Media Center in its international programs is based on anincremental introduction of “reproductive health” issues. The justification given for its infilitrations: global agreements on population such as the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population, organized as part of Agenda 21. Ryerson explains (1:05):
“When we go into a country, we explain to them we are there to help them promote their policies”. Reason he gives for this statement: because those nation are signatories to global “agreements” like the UN population summit in 1994. Also: the idea of using incrementalism as a way to not incite suspicion among the viewing audience is something already tried and tested in South-America. As Ryserson explained in a 2005 paper:
“Serial melodramas using the methodology developed by Miguel Sabido of Mexico for promoting reproductive health have been remarkable in that they have attracted no serious opposition in any country.(…). Through the gradual evolution of characters in response to problems that many in the audience also are facing, soap operas can show adoption of new, non-traditional behaviors in a way that generates no negative response from the audience.”
“No negative response”- that’s the thing, according to Ryerson. In his 2005 paper he continues to note that “because of the bonds that have been formed by this stage between audience members and characters, and because of the commonality of problems between characters and the audience, audience members tend to accept these changes, even though they may challenge some cultural traditions. Because they deal with issues that are as sensitive as sexual relationships and reproduction, it is especially important that such programs are designed not to build opposition or cause a backlash.”
In his recent speech, Ryerson stressed that his organization is “working with the Hollywood community” with the stated goal of convincing audiences in the US to stop producing children because “Americans have the highest per capita output of greenhouse gas”.
“Decisions on reducing family size, in developed countries in particular, are the least expensive intervention we can make to reduce impact on the climate”.
He stresses that “if we don’t solve the population problem, we are not going to solve the climate crisis either”.
Ryerson’s Population Media Center is involved in the writing and producing of soap operas with embedded messages designed to convince people all over the world to cut the number of children. He recently bragged that its population control brainwashing campaign in developing nations has been “a smash hit.” During an interview with PeakProsperity’s Chris Martenson, Ryerson boasted that (radio) soap operas are by far the most effective way to cull populations worldwide.
“One of the things that we do – and that is the primary thing we do – is to use a strategy of communications that has turned out, from everything we have been able to measure, to be the most cost-effective strategy for changing behavior with regard to family size and contraceptive use on a per-behavior change basis of any strategy we have found on the planet.”
Ryserson explains that fictional platforms have proven to be quite successful as carriers of crypto-eugenic messages aimed at population reduction:
“(…) the use of long-running serialized dramas, melodramas like soap operas, in which characters gradually evolve from the middle of the road in that society into positive role models for daughter education, delaying marriage and childbearing until adulthood, spacing of children, limiting of family size, and various other health and social goals of each country.
And we have now done such programs in forty-five countries.”
“That”, Ryerson explained, “is the kind of thing that can dramatically change demographic trends globally. We need to greatly expand this type of work.”
In the speech, Ryerson pledged his allegiance to the father of modern-day crypto-eugenics: Paul Ehrlich- who, by the way, called for sterilants in the water to depopulate the United States. To illustrate how Ryerson views coercive methods of birth control, the following example gives you some idea. In his lecture Ryerson (34.00) said he had been in India in 1975, when Indira Gandhi imposed involuntary sterilization campaigns. Ruerson goes on to decry that the family planning efforts by the “international community” collapsed as a result of her programs.
“It was a total mess”, Ryerson said. ” She was very concerned about India’s population problem but she didn’t try the right strategy.”
No moral indignation from Ryerson about Gandhi’s mandatory sterilization campaigns- just poor strategy.
Ryerson continues by stating that emotion outplays the intellect when it comes to the population reduction propaganda effort (36:30):
“What psychologists tell us is that emotional involvement enhances memory. So if you’re highly involved emotionally, in an emotionally-based melodrama, and you learn lessons from it, you’ll remember those for the rest of your life.”
To illustrate that Ryerson’s arrogance knows no bounds, here’s a clip from an interview two days ago, where he told San Diego local television that the soap-operas they produce “make better mothers”.
Ryerson told San Diego’s KPBS that the soap operas produced by his Population Media Center promote gender-equality as a means of lowering birth rates worldwide. He added that their soaps, which include messages to women about the advantages of limiting their households to one or two children, also “make better mothers”.
As I pointed out in an earlier article, Ryerson’s Media Center is heavily sponsored by the corporate and “philanthropic” elites. On its slick-looking website, the Center states “contributions from and partnerships with the following organizations have enabled us to do work which initiates improved health in people all around the world, while providing engaging entertainment!”. Their list counts many UN affiliates among its “contributors”, as well as USAID divisions operating in so-called “high-fertility nations”:
“The Population Institute, Population Matters, PSI, RAES, Rare, Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, Save the Children Norway/ Ethiopia, Save the Children US, Texas A&M University, Tree Aid, UCLA School of Public Health, UNDP Burkina Faso, UNDP Headquarters, UNDP Kyrgyzstan, UNDP Papua New Guinea, UNDP Swaziland, UNDP Sierra Leone, UNFPA Burkina Faso, UNFPA Ethiopia, UNFPA Headquarters, UNFPA Jamaica, UNFPA Kyrgyzstan, UNFPA Malawi, UNFPA Nigeria, UNFPA Papua New Guinea, UNFPA Philippines, UNFPA Rwanda, UNFPA Senegal, UNFPA Sierra Leone, UNFPA Vietnam, UNICEF Ethiopia, UNICEF Headquarters, UNICEF Kyrgyzstan, UNICEF Sierra Leone, The Unitarian Society, University Research Co. LLC, UN Women, USAID Jamaica, USAID Kyrgyzstan, USAID Mali, USAID Niger, USAID Rwanda, USAID Senegal, US Embassy/Department of State, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.”
In addition, the Center receives funding from literally all the major foundations including the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences Foundation, Bank of America Charitable Gift Fund, The David Rockefeller Fund, Ford Foundation, and the IMF Employees’ Fund.
When we take a look at the Center’s program advisory board we encounter some familiar names, including Paul and Anne Ehrlich, as well as World Bank luminary Herman Daly (who recently called for smaller, less “resource-intensive” people top bred into existence). Interestingly, some names from Hollywood pop up, advising the population center on how to best convince audiences worldwide to cull themselves. Among the names mentioned we find director Jeremy Kagan, renound because of his many film and television projects.
By stating that his organization encounters “very little opposition” from governments and audiences worldwide, not to mention that his soap operas “make better mothers”, Ryerson is out in the open about a conscious effort to use the fictional format in order to reduce the world’s population.
Jurriaan Maessen is the writer and editor at ExplosiveReports.Com
Published: 01 February, 2013, 07:05
Safe food activists protested a shareholder meeting at Monsanto’s HQ, calling for more transparency in the company’s actions. Adam Eidinger, who bought shares only to have a say, revealed what they discussed behind the scenes.
About a dozen protesters calling themselves Occupy Monsanto spent several hours near Monsanto’s headquarters in Creve Coeur, Missouri as shareholders voted on members for the company’s Board of Directors.
The protesters called for more transparency in the multinational company’s operations especially in labeling, research and business practices.
Adam Eidinger who owns 75 Monsanto shares read his speech to the protesters before heading to the meeting to address shareholders with a statement on behalf of Pesticide Action Network, the company, which submitted the study on potential risks of using GMOs.
RT: You are a Monsanto shareholder, so you’re obviously interested in the company making a profit. But you are planning to speak on behalf of the company which submitted the study on the potential risks of Monsanto products. Why are you doing this?
AE: Well the resolution we had would have required a report to be written that could be shared with researchers and scientists across the globe about the risks that they know – the company knows already – about their genetically modified crops. Which many safe food activists believe make us more reliant on herbicides and chemicals that the company also sells. And these chemicals may be what’s causing higher rates of cancer in industrialized nations across the globe.
We know how it caused tumors in rats that were fed in long term studies last year. Dr. Seralini’s study was a topic during this shareholder meeting, I brought it up. I was able to speak during the meeting.
And this meeting was closed to the public, as you said. And one of the things we are asking for is in the future this to be live-streamed. People around the world care about what’s going into the food. They may not want to own Monsanto stock.
I only bought the stock so I could speak at this shareholder meeting.
by Anthony Gucciardi
January 31st, 2013| Updated 01/31/2013 at 12:29 am
Right now we stand on the forefront of intellectual battle against biotechnology giants such as Monsanto who seek to monopolize the food supply through the extensive use of their genetically modified organisms, but what about tomorrow? It’s crucial that we continue the fight against Monsanto and GMO ingredients within the food, but as many are busy campaigning against the visible roots of GMO technology, the unseen roots of the biotech industry have grown much deeper — deep enough to delay any debate over today’s biotech initiatives until tomorrow.
It’s a powerful technique to utilize within the media, and I will highlight the specific key points in how it is deployed. You see as we are hammering Monsanto day in and day out over their pollution of the seed supply, corporations like Dow AgroSciences are working overtime on separate and far more serious initiatives. Initiatives are being set in motion to extend genetic modification to the human body at large. And it’s no longer being done behind the scenes.
By JG Vibes
January 29, 2012
The vast majority of mainstream environmental organizations and bureaucracies have nothing to do with protecting the environment.
Environmentalism just happens to be the public relations scheme that they use to as a pretense for their bureaucracy.
With that being said, I never put any trust in the “World Business Council for Sustainable Development” to begin with, but now anything coming from this group will be even more questionable, because it was just announced that they are teaming up with Monsanto.
“Monsanto has joined the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and is offering the WBCSD’s Business Ecosystems Training (BET) course globally for employees, according to the agribusiness company.
Monsanto says the BET course will enhance employees’ understanding of the links between ecosystems and business.
The UN expects the global population to reach 9 billion by 2050, which will mean farmers will need to grow 70 percent more food by that time, and demand for water from agriculture will likely rise from 70 percent in 2012 to at least 89 percent by 2050.
This will also put increasing strains on land and ecosystem services.
Agriculture depends on healthy ecosystems for services such as pollination for nearly 75 percent of the world’s crop species, as well as fresh water, erosion control and climate and water regulation, according to an Environmental Leader column by DuPont’s Amanda DeSantis and World Resources Institute’s Janet Ranganathan.
WBCSD and Monsanto say the growing population requires new agriculture systems and products that are more productive and more sustainable.
To this end, in addition to joining WBCSD, Monsanto is a member of Field to Market, which has developed a free online Fieldprint Calculator to help growers analyze how their farming practices impact natural resources.
The company also reduced its direct greenhouse gas emissions 2.5 percent and fresh water consumption 2.1 percent compared to 2010 levels, according to its most recent corporate social responsibility and sustainability report.”
The article did happen to shed a bit of light on Monsanto’s poor environmental record:
“However, Monsanto took 498th place in the Newsweek Green Rankings for 2012, an annual environmental ranking of the 500 largest publicly traded companies in the world.
Newsweek said the company lacks fixed targets for emissions, waste and water. Its CSR report, in line with GRI Level C guidelines, has not been externally verified.
The company is often surrounded by controversy – not only for being a leading producer of genetically engineered seeds, but also for its seed patenting model, which critics say has pushed farmers into debt.
In joining WBCSD, Monsanto is taking a step toward more sustainable agriculture, WBCSD president Peter Bakker said.
Some 200 companies, including Dow Chemical, General Electric, the Coca-Cola Company and UPS are WBCSD members. The organization says its member companies represent all business sectors and all continents, and have a combined revenue of more than $7 trillion.
In November 2012, the WBSCD along with the Prince of Wales’ Corporate Leaders Group on Climate and the International Emissions Trading Association called on policymakers to develop a clear, transparent and unambiguous global carbon price to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
It is likely that this is just a public relations ploy to cover up the fact that they are destroying the environment and poisoning the food supply. Additionally, they can now use this organization to promote population control through sustainable development.
BASF said it will “discontinue the pursuit of regulatory approvals for the Fortuna, Amadea, and Modena potato projects in Europe because continued investment cannot be justified due to uncertainty in the regulatory environment and threats [over the destruction of crops].”
Environmental activists have destroyed genetically modified crops on fields in Europe for fears they might harm health and erode biological diversity.
BASF also said it will continue its crop biotechnology business in the U.S. and has added corn as a target crop under its fungal resistance research.
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) It has been more than four months now since the most comprehensive study evaluating the health risks associated with a lifetime of consuming genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) was published in a credible, peer-reviewed scientific journal. And to this day, the mainstream scientific community is still busy manufacturing lies about the study in an attempt to discredit it.
In case you missed it, a French study back in September found that rats fed a lifetime of Monsanto’s GM NK603 corn developed severe organ damage and cancerous tumors, among other major health problems. The study is the only one, to date, to fully evaluate the effects of GMO consumption over a lifetime, as opposed to the typical 90 days maximum typically evaluated by the biotechnology industry. (http://www.naturalnews.com)
But the release of this timely and pertinent study has not been received well by those with a vested interest in promoting GMOs, not to mention scientists who benefit handsomely from industry-backed grants and other corporate financial support. Thus, there has been an onslaught of misinformation released regarding the study that aims to minimize and discredit its findings.
“Within hours of the study’s release, it was shouted down as flawed and meaningless by a chorus of scientist critics,” writes Claire Robinson for Public Service Europe (PSE) about the unfolding scenario surrounding the study’s release. “The focus of the story shifted from the alarming healthrisks of a poorly tested GM food to ‘junk science’ that should never have been published.”
By Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse Blog
January 24, 2013
According to a new report from the World Development Movement, Goldman Sachs made about 400 million dollars betting on food prices last year.
Overall, 2012 was quite a banner year for Goldman Sachs. As I reported in a previous article, revenues for Goldman increased by about 30 percent in 2012 and the price of Goldman stock has risen by more than 40 percent over the past 12 months.
It is estimated that the average banker at Goldman brought in a pay and bonus package of approximately $396,500 for 2012. So without a doubt, Goldman Sachs is swimming in money right now. But what is the price for all of this “success”?
Many claim that the rampant speculation on food prices by the big banks has dramatically increased the global price of food and has caused the suffering of hundreds of millions of poor families around the planet to become much worse. At this point, global food prices are more than twice as high as they were back in 2003.
Approximately 2 billion people on the planet spend at least half of their incomes on food, and close to a billion people regularly do not have enough food to eat.
Is it moral for Goldman Sachs and other big banks such as Barclays and Morgan Stanley to make hundreds of millions of dollars betting on the price of food if that is going to drive up global food prices and make it harder for poor families all over the world to feed themselves?
This is another reason why the derivatives bubble is so bad for the world economy. Goldman Sachs and other big banks are treating the global food supply as if it was some kind of a casino game.
This kind of reckless activity was greatly condemned by the World Development Movement report…
“Goldman Sachs is the global leader in a trade that is driving food prices up while nearly a billion people are hungry. The bank lobbied for the financial deregulation that made it possible to pour billions into the commodity derivative markets, created the necessary financial instruments, and is now raking in the profits. Speculation is fuelling volatility and food price spikes, hurting people who struggle to afford food across the world.”
So shouldn’t there be a law against this kind of a thing?
Well, in the United States there actually is, but the law has been blocked by the big Wall Street banks and their very highly paid lawyers. The following is another excerpt from the report…
“The US has passed legislation to limit speculation, but the controls have not been implemented due to a legal challenge from Wall Street spearheaded by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, of which Goldman Sachs is a leading member.
Similar legislation is on the table at the EU, but the UK government has so far opposed effective controls. Goldman Sachs has lobbied against controls in both the US and the EU.”
Posted below is a chart that shows what this kind of activity has done to commodity prices over the past couple of decades. You will notice that commodity prices were fairly stable in the 1990s, but since the year 2000 they have been extremely volatile…
The reason for all of this volatility was explained in an excellent article by Frederick Kaufman…
The money tells the story. Since the bursting of the tech bubble in 2000, there has been a 50–fold increase in dollars invested in commodity index funds. To put the phenomenon in real terms: In 2003, the commodities futures market still totaled a sleepy $13 billion. But when the global financial crisis sent investors running scared in early 2008, and as dollars, pounds, and euros evaded investor confidence, commodities — including food — seemed like the last, best place for hedge, pension, and sovereign wealth funds to park their cash. “You had people who had no clue what commodities were all about suddenly buying commodities,” an analyst from the United States Department of Agriculture told me. In the first 55 days of 2008, speculators poured $55 billion into commodity markets, and by July, $318 billion was roiling the markets. Food inflation has remained steady since.
The money flowed, and the bankers were ready with a sparkling new casino of food derivatives. Spearheaded by oil and gas prices (the dominant commodities of the index funds) the new investment products ignited the markets of all the other indexed commodities, which led to a problem familiar to those versed in the history of tulips, dot–coms, and cheap real estate: a food bubble. Hard red spring wheat, which usually trades in the $4 to $6 dollar range per 60-pound bushel, broke all previous records as the futures contract climbed into the teens and kept on going until it topped $25. And so, from 2005 to 2008, the worldwide price of food rose 80 percent –and has kept rising.
Are you angry yet?
You should be.
Poor families all over the planet are suffering so that Wall Street bankers can make bigger profits.
Many big financial institutions just seem to love to make money on the backs of the poor. I have previously reported on how JP Morgan makes billions of dollars issuing food stamp cards in the United States. When the number of Americans on food stamps goes up, so does the amount of money that JP Morgan makes. You can read much more about all of this right here: “Making Money On Poverty: JP Morgan Makes Bigger Profits When The Number Of Americans On Food Stamps Goes Up“.
Sadly, the global food supply is getting tighter with each passing day, and things are looking rather ominous for the years ahead.
According to the United Nations, global food reserves have reached their lowest level in nearly 40 years. Global food reserves have not been this low since 1974, but the population of the world has greatly increased since then. If 2013 is another year of drought and bad harvests, things could spiral out of control rather quickly…
World grain reserves are so dangerously low that severe weather in the United States or other food-exporting countries could trigger a major hunger crisis next year, the United Nations has warned.
Failing harvests in the US, Ukraine and other countries this year have eroded reserves to their lowest level since 1974. The US, which has experienced record heatwaves and droughts in 2012, now holds in reserve a historically low 6.5% of the maize that it expects to consume in the next year, says the UN.
“We’ve not been producing as much as we are consuming. That is why stocks are being run down. Supplies are now very tight across the world and reserves are at a very low level, leaving no room for unexpected events next year,” said Abdolreza Abbassian, a senior economist with the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).
The world has barely been able to feed itself for some time now. In fact, we have consumed more food than we have produced for 6 of the last 11 years…
Evan Fraser, author of Empires of Food and a geography lecturer at Guelph University in Ontario, Canada, says: “For six of the last 11 years the world has consumed more food than it has grown. We do not have any buffer and are running down reserves. Our stocks are very low and if we have a dry winter and a poor rice harvest we could see a major food crisis across the board.”
“Even if things do not boil over this year, by next summer we’ll have used up this buffer and consumers in the poorer parts of the world will once again be exposed to the effects of anything that hurts production.”
We desperately need a good growing season next summer, and all eyes are on the United States. The U.S. exports more food than anyone else does, and last summer the United States experienced the worst drought that it had seen in about 50 years. That drought left deep scars all over the country. The following is from a recent Rolling Stone article…
In 2012, more than 9 million acres went up in flames in this country. Only dredging and some eleventh-hour rain kept the mighty Mississippi River from being shut down to navigation due to low water levels; continuing drought conditions make “long-term stabilization” of river levels unlikely in the near future. Several of the Great Lakes are soon expected to hit their lowest levels in history. In Nebraska last summer, a 100-mile stretch of the Platte River simply dried up. Drought led the USDA to declare federal disaster areas in 2,245 counties in 39 states last year, and the federal government will likely have to pay tens of billions for crop insurance and lost crops. As ranchers became increasingly desperate to feed their livestock, “hay rustling” and other agricultural crimes rose.
Ranchers were hit particularly hard. Because they couldn’t feed their herds, many ranchers slaughtered a tremendous number of animals. As a result, the U.S. cattle herd is now sitting at a 60 year low.
What do you think that is going to do to meat prices over the next few years?
Meanwhile, the drought continues. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, this is one of the worst winter droughts the U.S. has ever seen. At this point, more than 60 percent of the entire nation is currently experiencing drought.
If things don’t turn around dramatically, 2013 could be an absolutely nightmarish year for crops in the United States. If 2013 does turn out to be another bad year, food prices would soar both in the U.S. and on the global level. The following is from a recent CNBC article…
The severe drought that swept through much of the U.S. last year is continuing into 2013, threatening to cripple economic growth while forcing consumers to pay higher food prices.
“The drought will have a significant impact on prices, especially beef, pork and chicken,” said Ernie Gross, an economic professor at Creighton University and who studies farming issues.
So let us hope for the best, but let us also prepare for the worst.
It looks like higher food prices are on the way, and millions of poor families all over the planet will be hard-pressed to feed their families.
Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Posted: January 28, 2013
Critics call it “Frankenfish,” but the trade name is AquAdvantage – an Atlantic salmon endowed with DNA and growth hormones from both the Chinook salmon and an eel-like ocean pout.
The result is a fish that reaches market weight in one-half the normal time.
Once approval is granted – and it is expected to come soon – the transgenic salmon will be the world’s first genetically engineered animal available for human consumption. It’s a worrisome prospect for some, but to the biotech industry, the road to approval has been one frustrating delay after another.
The fast-growing AquAdvantage salmon has a competitive edge over conventional fish farming, but getting the new fish to market has taken much longer than expected. Massachusetts-based AquaBounty Technologies first sought U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 1989, and their creation has remained under scrutiny ever since.
Read more here: http://www.theepochtimes.com
Jan. 24, 2013 — With projections of 9.5 billion people by 2050, humankind faces the challenge of feeding modern diets to additional mouths while using the same amounts of water, fertilizer and arable land as today.
Cornell researchers have taken a leap toward meeting those needs by discovering a gene that could lead to new varieties of staple crops with 50 percent higher yields.
The gene, called Scarecrow, is the first discovered to control a special leaf structure, known as Kranz anatomy, which leads to more efficient photosynthesis. Plants photosynthesize using one of two methods: C3, a less efficient, ancient method found in most plants, including wheat and rice; and C4, a more efficient adaptation employed by grasses, maize, sorghum and sugarcane that is better suited to drought, intense sunlight, heat and low nitrogen.
“Researchers have been trying to find the underlying genetics of Kranz anatomy so we can engineer it into C3 crops,” said Thomas Slewinski, lead author of a paper that appeared online in November in the journal Plant and Cell Physiology. Slewinski is a postdoctoral researcher in the lab of senior author Robert Turgeon, professor of plant biology in the College of Arts and Sciences.
Posted: January 28, 2013
The European Commission (EU) has announced its plans to reopen the debate on a draft legislation that would allow each Member State to choose whether to grant or refuse permission to cultivate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on their own territory. The draft law, which must be approved by a majority of governments and the European Parliament before becoming law, was submitted by the Commission in 2010 but blocked by France, Germany and Britain.
In the statement issued last week, the EC said that was not planning to proceed with the pending approval of several new GM crops in the immediate future, but first wants an agreement on the draft legislation. “We are going to discuss the issue with the three governments to see if we can reopen negotiations on the proposals,” said Frederic Vincent, spokesman for EU Health Commissioner Tonio Borg last week. Currently, EU rules state that any GM crop approved for cultivation can be grown anywhere inside the bloc, unless countries have specific scientific reasons for banning their cultivation.
Only two GM crops have been approved for cultivation in Europe to date, and many consumer and environmental groups are vocal in their opposition. Seven crops are currently waiting approval for cultivation on the continent, developed by agri-giants Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, and Syngenta.
Read more here: http://www.slowfood.com
Anne Gordon RN, Contributor
Perhaps you’ve heard about Morgellons Disease, and by now you know about GM (genetically modified) food, but the link between the two, is possibly connected according to Professor Joe Cummins, Professor Emeritus at the University of Western Ontario. Most people are aware that soybeans, canola, and corn are GM foods ubiquitous in our food chain.
However, sadly 75% of US food contains unlabeled GM ingredients. Many processed foods contain things we cannot dream of as being edible, much less healthy. We are what we eat, lets face it.
Professor Cummins noted that Morgellons sufferers tested for Agrobacterium tumefaciens (AT) infestation. Agrobacterium tumefaciens is a bacteria used to create intercellular plant transport in GM (genetically modified food), a technique used for genetic manipulation.
The Morgellons disease is characterized by skin lesions where afflicted individuals claim they can feel something crawling, biting, and stinging under their skin… some people have pulled fibers out, with documented photographs. Right out of a horror movie, right?
So many people were inflicted that the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) did study this at one time, with Kaiser Hospital in California. Unfortunately, the study was inconclusive and thought to be a delusional disease.
Throughout the world, it is estimated that millions suffer from this disease. Why would there be so many delusional people? The bulk of the cases have been reported in California, Florida, and Texas…and the numbers keep rising. Some people believe that it is contagious.
Theories on Morgellons range from nanotechnology in foods, aerosol experimental spraying (persistent contrails), weird pesticides, and now, the link with Agrobacterium Tumefaciens, these appear to be possible causes of this strange disease. Prominent individuals claim to suffer from Morgellons, such as Joni Mitchell, and former baseball player Billy Koch. Morgellons is still a mysterious condition without a known cure.
Whatever Morgellons disease is, people are experiencing something consistent as reported. Explanations for Morgellons do not exist. The long term studies on GM foods are difficult to find. There are emerging new diseases, besides Morgellons, Winter Vomiting, obesity, and new ‘flu’ strains, plaguing people globally…how we connect the dots, might determine how well we live.
Anne Gordon is an RN, an Author, Researcher, and a computer artist. Fascinated with societies, and the future, she is drawn to medical health trends of tomorrow. What will health look like? Will we be more mechanical than spiritual? These are some of the concepts she is looking at. Many of her articles like her art, are slightly outside the mainstream box, aimed towards thought stimulation. She is also extremely curious about how the ‘business’ of healthcare, and wellness intertwine today. Her artwork, is a combination of photography and painting, and is publicly shown. In her spare time, she teaches in a local community college.
This article first appeared at GreenMedInfo. Please visit to access their vast database of articles and the latest information in natural health.
(NaturalNews) The approval process in many countries for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their chemical-based treatment technologies is largely a secretive affair, as the public is typically not made privy to the data used in the decision making process, nor the rationale behind officials’ ultimate decision to green-light a particular crop or chemical. But this appears to be changing in Europe, where the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recently made public all available data originally submitted by Monsanto in 2003 for the approval of a popular GM corn variety known as NK603.
According to the Nature news blog, EFSA intends to eventually iron out a full-scale plan to make all data on GMOs and chemicals publicly available. But at this point in time, the regulatory body is starting the process by responding to requests from members of the independent scientific community and the public about the details behind NK603’s approval. With the exception of “a small amount of commercially confidential information,” EFSA has reportedly publicly released all the data submitted by Monsanto for NK603.
“Given the level of public interest, EFSA will make all data on genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 publicly available on its website today (14 January),” explained EFSA in a statement about its new transparency initiative. “While the Authority has already made available these data upon specific request on several occasions, any member of the public or scientific community will now be able to examine and utilize the full data sets used in this risk assessment.”
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer
(NaturalNews) In the aftermath of the defeat of Proposition 37 in California, many more Americans are now aware of the existence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their unlabeled presence throughout the food supply. But with this awareness has come a lot of confusion, as the processed food and biotechnology industries have spent a lot of money and effort spreading propaganda and lies about GMOs. So to help set the record straight, we have outlined seven specific ways in which GMOs damage animals, plants, soil, and ultimately humanity.
1) GMOs disrupt digestion. Purveyors of GMOs claim that the human body is unable to tell the difference between GMOs and natural food. But a 2004 study published in the journal Nature Biotechnology tells a different story, having found that transgenic plant DNA actually persists in the human gastrointestinal tract upon consumption. According to this important study, which is the closest thing to a human clinical trial that has ever been conducted with GMOs, genetic material from GMOs actually transfers into the DNA of living bacteria in the gut, where it reproduces indefinitely. (http://www.anh-usa.org)
2) GMOs cause cancer. The most recent study to identify a link between GMO consumption and the formation of cancer, the so-called Seralini Study provides solid evidence showing that GMOs are processed by mammals far differently than natural foods. According to this study’s findings, rats fed a lifetime of GMOs sprayed with the toxic Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide developed serious tumors that took over their entire bodies. An earlier study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences arrived at similar results, with the addition of organ failure as a symptom of GMO consumption. (http://www.naturalnews.com)
3) GMOs increase herbicide use. Contrary to industry claims, GMOs have not reduced the need for chemical inputs, but rather greatly expanded it. According to a comprehensive, 16-year review of chemical use in conjunction with the advent of GMOs in 1996, researchers from Washington State University‘s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources found that herbicide use has increased by an astounding 527 millions pounds since GMOs were first introduced. To make matters worse, Roundup, the chemical of choice for many GMOs, has been found to persist in soils, waterways, and other environmental nooks and crannies, and sometimes it even ends up contaminating water supplies. ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com)
4) GMOs damage native species. A major point of contention with GMOs is that they can very easily pass their traits onto non-GMO, organic, and native crops and other plants, effectively destroying their very integrity permanently. Hundreds of farmers have actually been sued by Monsanto and other GMO giants over the years after their crops were inadvertently contaminated by GMOs. GMOs are also responsible for killing off bees, bats, butterflies, and other pollinators, whose bodies are unable to handle the onslaught of altered DNA and chemicals that are characteristic of GMO technologies. (http://www.naturalnews.com/035511_insecticide_bees_collapse.html)
by Stefano Gennarini, J.D. | New York, NY | LifeNews.com | 1/31/13 5:55 PM
A major disagreement among demographic experts threatens to upend efforts to include population control and family planning programs in the United Nations new development agenda. Experts who view population growth as an obstacle to development are criticizing the “laissez-faire attitude” of developing countries toward population growth and high fertility. Yet other experts disagree, saying that population control and family planning are not essential to development strategies.
At a briefing last week for UN member states, John Wilmoth, the new head of a UN population office, acknowledged that population control had become a “dirty word” and a paradigm shift was necessary to secure the same objective. Wilmoth asked delegates if there are “policies that create incentives that would nudge people in the right direction without violating fundamental freedoms?” He suggested the new focus should be on “enabling individuals” and “education and access to family planning services” as opposed to “targets.” Countries could, for example, “encourage adults to have fewer children because they are expensive to raise.”
A recent online exchange between demographic experts John Bongaarts and David Lam highlights diverging theories on the impact of high fertility and rapid population growth on development.
Bongaarts, who is with the Population Council, maintains that countries should invest in family planning in order to reduce fertility and level the booming populations of the African continent. Current projections estimate that at the current growth rate the African continent may have upwards of 3 billion people by 2100, but that family planning programs may reduce that to just over 1 billion.
Population Campaign Director, Center for Biological Diversity
Is it getting crowded in here?
By the time today’s over, there were will about 200,000 more people on the planet than there were yesterday. The world population topped 7 billion in 2011 and we’re on our way toward 10 billion by the end of this century.
All this rapid population growth comes at a price: we’re gobbling up wild land and water, polluting our air, altering our climate and squeezing out plants and animals that have, until now, survived on our planet for thousands of years.
We’re long past due to talk about population, consumption and a smarter way of growing and surviving on Earth.
Even the federal government is starting to pick up on it. Last month, the National Marine Fisheries Service proposed Endangered Species Act protections for 66 coral species, acknowledging they face a variety of threats like climate change and changing ocean waters. Then, though, the agency pointed out:
The common root or driver of most, possibly all, of these threats is the number of humans populating the planet and the level of human consumption of natural resources, both of which are increasing in most areas around the globe.
Around the same time, the U.S. Forest Service predicted 34 million acres of forest in the United States would be lost to sprawl in the next 50 years. To top the tri-fecta off the Department of the Interior released a troubling report on the future of the Colorado River, which provides water for some 40 million people in the West. The report found that that rising demand and falling supply will result in the mighty Colorado failing to meet the needs of a burgeoning human population. (The study offered up a few desperate schemes, including harvesting water from icebergs.)
And my home state of Florida — where 600 new residents arrive every day — there’s disturbing new evidence that the aquifer that 19 million people rely on for drinking water is becoming salty because of over-use, rising sea levels and out-of-control growth.
By Kay Steiger
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 9:35 EST
A Stanford professor and author of The Population Bomb recently published a paper in a scientific journal re-emphasizing climate change and population growth pose existential threats to humanity and in an interview with Raw Story said that giving people the right to have as many children as they want is “a bad idea.”
“The only criticism we’ve had on the paper is that it’s too optimistic,” said Paul Ehrlich, Bing professor of population studies at Stanford University and president of the Center for Conservation Biology. “You can’t negotiate with nature.”
The study, published the Proceedings of the Royal Society B journal earlier this month says that climate change is “driven by overpopulation, overconsumption of natural resources and the use of unnecessarily environmentally damaging technologies and socio-economic-political arrangements to service Homo sapiens‘ aggregate consumption.”
“Overall, careful analysis of the prospects does not provide much confidence that technology will save us or that gross domestic product can be disengaged from resource use,” the paper continued. The way to stop this is to “stop treating population growth as a ‘given’ and consider the nutritional, health and social benefits of humanely ending growth well below nine billion and starting a slow decline. This would be a monumental task, considering the momentum of population growth. Monumental, but not impossible if the political will could be generated globally to give full rights, education and opportunities to women, and provide all sexually active human beings with modern contraception and backup abortion.”
“Giving people the right to have as many people as many children that they want is, I think, a bad idea,” Ehrlich told Raw Story. “It’s not giving people the right to have as many children as they want, it’s giving people the right to control their reproduction so that they don’t have so many children that their children’s and grandchildren’s lives are in danger.”
“Nobody, in my view, has the right to have 12 children or even three unless the second pregnancy is twins,” Ehrlich continued. “That may be a hard-nosed view, but if you look at the entire situation, it’s crystal clear if we keep the populations of the rich growing, then the poor aren’t going to have a chance, and eventually, the descendants of the rich aren’t going to have a chance either.”
By Michael Snyder
January 24, 2013
There is a clear consensus among the global elite that overpopulation is the primary cause of the most important problems that the world is facing and that something desperately needs to be done about it.
They truly believe that humans are a plague upon the earth and that we will literally destroy the planet if we are left to our own devices.
To the elite, everything from global warming to our growing economic problems can be directly traced back to the lack of population control.
They warn that if nothing is done about the exploding population, we will be facing a future full of poverty, war and suffering on a filthy, desolate planet.
They complain that it “costs too much” to keep elderly patients that are terminally ill alive, and they eagerly promote abortion for babies that are “not wanted” because they would be “too much of a burden” on society.
Anything that reduces the human population in any way is a good thing for those that believe in this philosophy. This twisted philosophy is being promoted in our movies, in our television shows, in our music, in countless books, on many of the most prominent websites in the world, and it is being taught at nearly all of the most important colleges and universities on the planet.
The people promoting this philosophy have very, very deep pockets, and they are actually convinced that they are helping to “save the world” by trying to reduce the size of the human population.
In fact, many of them are entirely convinced that we are in a “life or death” struggle for the fate of the planet, and that if humanity does not willingly choose to embrace population control soon, then a solution will have to be “forced” upon them.
Yes, I know that all of this may sound like something out of a science fiction novel. But there are a whole lot of people out there that are absolutely obsessed with this stuff, and many of them are in very prominent positions around the globe.
The following are 30 population control quotes which show that the elite truly believe that humans are a plague upon the earth and that a great culling is necessary…
1. UK Television Presenter Sir David Attenborough: “We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now”
2. Paul Ehrlich, a former science adviser to president George W. Bush and the author of “The Population Bomb”: “To our minds, the fundamental cure, reducing the scale of the human enterprise (including the size of the population) to keep its aggregate consumption within the carrying capacity of Earth is obvious but too much neglected or denied”
3. Paul Ehrlich again, this time on the size of families: “Nobody, in my view, has the right to have 12 children or even three unless the second pregnancy is twins”
4. Dave Foreman, the co-founder of Earth First: “We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.”
5. CNN Founder Ted Turner: “A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
6. Japan’s Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso about medical patients with serious illnesses: “You cannot sleep well when you think it’s all paid by the government. This won’t be solved unless you let them hurry up and die.”
7. David Rockefeller: “The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”
8. Environmental activist Roger Martin: “On a finite planet, the optimum population providing the best quality of life for all, is clearly much smaller than the maximum, permitting bare survival. The more we are, the less for each; fewer people mean better lives.”
9. HBO personality Bill Maher: “I’m pro-choice, I’m for assisted suicide, I’m for regular suicide, I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving – that’s what I’m for. It’s too crowded, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.”
10. MIT professor Penny Chisholm: ”The real trick is, in terms of trying to level off at someplace lower than that 9 billion, is to get the birthrates in the developing countries to drop as fast as we can. And that will determine the level at which humans will level off on earth.”
11. Julia Whitty, a columnist for Mother Jones: “The only known solution to ecological overshoot is to decelerate our population growth faster than it’s decelerating now and eventually reverse it—at the same time we slow and eventually reverse the rate at which we consume the planet’s resources. Success in these twin endeavors will crack our most pressing global issues: climate change, food scarcity, water supplies, immigration, health care, biodiversity loss, even war. On one front, we’ve already made unprecedented strides, reducing global fertility from an average 4.92 children per woman in 1950 to 2.56 today—an accomplishment of trial and sometimes brutally coercive error, but also a result of one woman at a time making her individual choices. The speed of this childbearing revolution, swimming hard against biological programming, rates as perhaps our greatest collective feat to date.”
12. Colorado State University Professor Philip Cafaro in a paper entitled “Climate Ethics and Population Policy”: “Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do so.“
13. Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka: “I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.”
14. Detroit News Columnist Nolan Finley: “Since the national attention is on birth control, here’s my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime and bring down our embarrassing drop-out rate, we should swap contraceptives for fluoride in Michigan’s drinking water.
We’ve got a baby problem in Michigan. Too many babies are born to immature parents who don’t have the skills to raise them, too many are delivered by poor women who can’t afford them, and too many are fathered by sorry layabouts who spread their seed like dandelions and then wander away from the consequences.”
15. John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University College London: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.”
16. Democrat strategist Steven Rattner: “WE need death panels. Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.”
17. Matthew Yglesias, a business and economics correspondent for Slate, in an article entitled “The Case for Death Panels, in One Chart”: “But not only is this health care spending on the elderly the key issue in the federal budget, our disproportionate allocation of health care dollars to old people surely accounts for the remarkable lack of apparent cost effectiveness of the American health care system. When the patient is already over 80, the simple fact of the matter is that no amount of treatment is going to work miracles in terms of life expectancy or quality of life.”
18. Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class”
19. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
20. Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
21. Salon columnist Mary Elizabeth Williams in an article entitled “So What If Abortion Ends Life?”: “All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides.”
22. Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne in a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics: “[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”
23. Nina Fedoroff, a key adviser to Hillary Clinton: “We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people.”
24. Barack Obama’s primary science adviser, John P. Holdren: “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
25. David Brower, the first Executive Director of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
26. Thomas Ferguson, former official in the U.S. State Department Office of Population Affairs: “There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…”
27. Mikhail Gorbachev: “We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”
28. Jacques Costeau: “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.”
29. Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola: “If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die”
30. Prince Phillip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II and co-founder of the World Wildlife Fund: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
There is so much more that could be said about all of this.
If you would like to learn more, the following are 10 of my previous articles about the population control agenda of the global elite…
#2 “They Love Death”
February 5, 2013
There are new electric meters being installed on homes in metro Detroit and they’re causing controversy. They are called smart meters and they use electromagnetic frequency to send DTE information about power use.
This gets rid of the need for meter readers and notifies the power company about outages. It also cuts down on costs to the power company, and allows for quicker response should you lose power. Some customers have also used it to monitor their power use online and save money.
However, some say the EMF from the meters is making them sick.
“I suffered headaches, body aches… flu-like symptoms,” said Lillian Cusumano.
WINNIPEG — A proposal to build the city’s first shipping container housing project will head to city hall Tuesday.
David Penner Architects has submitted designs and variance requests to build a three-storey project out of shipping containers at 956 Notre Dame Ave.
Called Nightingale 956, the project would include 18 rental units of 440 square feet each, plus a mezzanine, elevator, common corridors and storage modules.
To build it, the company would have to get city approval for dramatically smaller lot sizes than normal — 7,000 square feet instead of 20,000.
They’re also asking for a reduction in the required number of parking spaces from 20 to five.
The proposal includes a plan to put a Peg City Car Co-op parking location on the site, allowing tenants — and others in the neighbourhood — to access shared cars, through membership in the co-op.
At least one car would be available to tenants, according to the document, which also notes condo projects with no parking and car-sharing plans have recently been built in Vancouver and Edinburgh.
GLASGOW WINS £24 million FUTURE CITIES competition … Glasgow City Council has welcomed news that it has won a £24 million future cities competition to showcase how UK cities can grow their local economy and improve the lives of their citizens by making the most of new technologies and by integrating and connecting city systems. The Future Cities Demonstrator competition, managed and funded by the government’s innovation agency, the Technology Strategy Board, saw Glasgow secure the major funding in an open competition against 30 other UK cities. Making the announcement today in Glasgow’s City Chambers, David Willetts, the Minister for Universities and Science, said:”With more people than ever before living in our cities, they need to be able to provide people with a better quality of life and a thriving economy. This £24 million investment will make Glasgow a city of tomorrow, demonstrating how cities can work more efficiently with a reduced environmental impact. – GlasgowGov UK
Dominant Social Theme: Wow, we won best “smart city”! Aren’t we grand?
Free-Market Analysis: Glasgow, come on down! Congratulations … not.
Sure, this rundown union municipality in Scotland is now going to receive 24 million pounds to help it convert to a smart city of the future. But this is actually a marriage of union socialism and technocratic fascism. Let us explain.
There are “smart meters.” Just search for that term and “Daily Bell” and you can read what Smart Meters are REALLY intended to do and why cities are trying to install them. Hint: It has nothing to do with make residents’ lives easier or less expensive.
And “smart city” is a similar euphemism. In fact, it’s just a way to install advanced spy methodologies that will make middle class living even more miserable. It’s like yet another miserable euphemism: Sustainability.
The top elites that are trying to create world government use such euphemisms to conceal their intentions. In the latter case, they are whittling away at the middle class through the mechanism of what they call “sustainability.”
Really, there is no definition for sustainability when you look for one. Gradually you realize that by keeping the definition amorphous the concept becomes a weapon that can be used against the middle classes that wish to adopt it and support it.
Smart Cities are a further elaboration on this theme. Cars can be restricted, homes monitored for power, video cameras installed throughout public and private facilities. Monitoring of people can be accomplished in a variety of ways.
The entire municipality can be further controlled and scrutinized under the justification that is being made “smarter.” Here’s some more from the article:
“We are in a global race and Glasgow can keep the UK at the forefront of innovative technology ideas. From transport systems to energy use and health, this demonstrator will play a key part in the Government’s industrial strategy and give real insight into how our cities can be shaped in the future.”
Led by Glasgow City Council in partnership with key public, private and academic organisation including the University of Strathclyde, the demonstrator project will be run over an 18 month period.
Councillor Gordon Matheson, Leader of Glasgow City Council, said: “This is a huge boost to Glasgow’s ambitions to build a better future for our city and its people. This investment and the work we will be doing will put us at the forefront of innovative and smart cities not just in the UK but in Europe and beyond.
“Glasgow is a city which is constantly evolving and regenerating and we are always looking to the future.
“Winning this money will put us years ahead of other UK cities in terms of integrating our technological systems to make them work for and talk to each other …
Councillor Matheson added: “By using technology intelligently we can bring together all the different aspects of our city’s life. We will be able to make Glasgow smarter, healthier, safer – helping it to continue to thrive and attract new businesses and residents.
“By linking everything from foot and vehicle traffic to council tax collection and hospital waiting lists we can ensure we are being as innovative and smart to meet the continued challenges of a modern and future city life. One practical result will be a Glasgow smartphone app which will allow members of the public to also interact with the new technology.”
Note the last paragraph. The modern Western paradigm is that government is a helpful adjunct to civil society. But this legacy is hardly a viable one. Modern cities – modern society generally – has been reshaped to aggressively establish the global governance long sought by the powers-that-be.
Two vocal opponents of Naperville’s initiative to install wireless electric meters on homes were arrested after interfering with the installation process, according to city officials.
Police are accompanying crews this week as they install smart meters at homes that previously sent away installers.
“The previous installation attempts were met with some resistance and we wanted to ensure our employees’ safety,” City Manager Doug Krieger said.
Naperville has installed smart meters on 57,000 homes and is about 99 percent through with the process. Officials have said the project will make the electric system more reliable and efficient and reduce costs.
New York City’s first “micro-unit” building will have apartments as small as 250 square feet (23 square meters) and pantries that pull out from the wall, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced today.
The “My Micro NY” building, a conversion of a city-owned property at 335 E. 27th St., will be the first multifamily building in Manhattan to be built entirely from prefabricated modular pieces, the mayor said in a statement. Monadnock Development LLC, Actors Fund Housing Development Corp. and nArchitects, the project’s developers, won the adAPT NYC competition, which sought proposals for space-optimizing units.
“The growth rate for one- and two-person households greatly exceeds that of households with three or more people, and addressing that housing challenge requires us to think creatively and beyond our current regulations,” Bloomberg said in the statement.
Per situs pasti menjemput 2 judi poker wazir jadinya tidak mengecewakan tiga kupon. Simak pengalaman Baccarat tidak sulit menurut diperoleh karena kupon pujaan Sesuai dengan berbagai kompetisi kartu lainnya, Baccarat juga menginginkan berjibun kunci keberhasilan dengan demikian kompensasi yang bagus menurut mengolah perasaan penggemar. delapan – 9 nomor: Mengang patut terjadi (alami). Ilmu mau memperlihatkan...
Derajat = 6: Dealer mendorong ada banyak sepanjang angka judi kartu ke 3 pecandu sebelumnya 6, 7. Di atas seseorang infokan jaman dulu tentang Baccarat. beberapa hari hingga sebagian banyak tujuan memakai pilihan 1 bandar. Barometer gambar cukup banyak voucer didalam bandar judi poker Baccarat Yaitu cukup banyak pertandingan permainan poker online selain itu, Baccarat...
Mesin alternatif slot kuno dengan hanya ketiga gulungan, oleh sebab itu saat ini, jika teknologi tidak kuno dan desakan yang semakin dari bettor, penemu telah meningkatkan alat gulir maksimal menjadi pertaruhan slot di sangat mengagumkan, dan lebih modern. Dengan akan melaporkan hasilnya hingga otomatis sampai layar permain. Casino poker pun menyiapkan permainan slot. Mereka dibuat...
Siapa saja bisa mempelajari yaitu cepat dan juga mendapatkan kemenangan. Saat melakukan call, kemungkinan besar petaruh itu memiliki kartu yang cukup baik dan masih dapat bersaing, tetapi kartu tersebut tidak terlalu menjanjikan. Tidak perlu repot lagi mengejar kasino memang. Bila memang sedang beruntung, bisa jadi saat itu ada banyak jumlah kemenangan sehingga dapat anda terima....
Provider Slot IsoftBet IsoftBet sudah pasti menjadi provider terkemuka untuk paling peminatnya, biasanya provider dibawah ini tidak mampu teruntuk menaklukkan kedua provider semerbak laksana untuk usai hamba kembang yang diatas. Animasi kartun yang akan unik saja memanjangan mata yang akan sangat bertarung permainan-permainan terkait tidak akan mencari jemu & boleh jadi tiada gerak dalam permainan...