Category Archives: conflicts of interest

GMO Foods: Seeds Of Death Are Not Listed In The Ingredients On U.S. Food Labels

I say, label all ingredients on food packages.

I will not eat ‘MYSTERY FOODS’. 

I do not consent to take part in the GMO food experiment. 

I object to being treated like a guinea pig who is fed food that is  not labeled as potentially dangerous. 

I will not eat GMO foods.  

That leaves me with the produce section of  the grocery store. I don’t bother with the packaged foods in the aisles. If it comes in a can, it is a ‘mystery food’. I am done eating ‘mystery food’.

I now avoid meat, because everything farm animals are fed is GMO. I avoid ‘fast food’ because it is always a mystery what I am eating there.


However, I get mad when I see young children and my parents eating toxic food.

Food used to be easier to identify as whole, safe and healthy.

I say NO to GMO! I will not buy CORPORATE TOXIC FOOD!


This little piggy was fed GMOs

Label GMO Foods

Was Your Chicken Nugget Made In China? It’ll Soon Be Hard To Know

by Maria Godoy

Here’s a bit of news that might make you drop that chicken nugget midbite.

Just before the start of the long holiday weekend last Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture quietly announced that it was ending a ban on processed chicken imports from China. The kicker: These products can now be sold in the U.S. without a country-of-origin label.

For starters, just four Chinese processing plants will be allowed to export cooked chicken products to the U.S., as first reported by Politico. The plants in question passed USDA inspection in March. Initially, these processors will only be allowed to export chicken products made from birds that were raised in the U.S. and Canada. Because of that, the poultry processors won’t be required to have a USDA inspector on site, as The New York Times notes, adding:

“And because the poultry will be processed, it will not require country-of-origin labeling. Nor will consumers eating chicken noodle soup from a can or chicken nuggets in a fast-food restaurant know if the chicken came from Chinese processing plants.”

That’s a pretty disturbing thought for anyone who’s followed the slew of stories regarding food safety failures in China in recent years. As we’ve previously reported on The Salt, this year alone, thousands of dead pigs turned up in the waters of Shanghai, rat meat was passed off as mutton and — perhaps most disconcerting for U.S. consumers — there was an outbreak of the H7N9 bird flu virus among live fowl in fresh meat markets.
What’s more, critics fear that the changes could eventually open the floodgates for a whole slew of chicken products from China. As the industry publication World Poultry notes:

“It is thought … that the government would eventually expand the rules, so that chickens and turkeys bred in China could end up in the American market. Experts suggest that this could be the first step towards allowing China to export its own domestic chickens to the U.S.”
The USDA’s decision comes with a backdrop of long-running trade disputes over meat between the U.S. and China. In a nutshell: China banned U.S. beef exports in 2003 after a case of mad cow disease turned up in a Washington state cow. Then, when the bird flu virus broke out widely among Asian bird flocks in 2004, the U.S. blocked imports of Chinese poultry. China challenged that decision in front of the World Trade Organization, which ruled in China’s favor in 2010.

And, chicken lovers, brace yourselves: There’s more. A report suggests chicken inspections here in the U.S. might be poised to take a turn for the worse. The Government Accountability Office said this week it has serious “questions about the validity” of the new procedures for inspecting poultry across the country.

Basically, these changes would replace many USDA inspectors on chicken processing lines with employees from the poultry companies themselves. The USDA has been piloting the new procedures, which will save money and significantly speed up processing lines, in 29 chicken plants. As The Washington Post reports, the plan is to roll out the new procedures eventually to “most of the country’s 239 chicken and 96 turkey plants.”

The problem? According to the GAO, the USDA did a poor job of evaluating the effectiveness of the pilot programs it has in place.

As a result, the report concludes, it’s hard to justify the USDA’s conclusions that the new procedures will do a better job than current approaches at cutting down on the number of dangerous bacteria like salmonella that pop up on the birds that will later end up on our dinner tables.

Still, the USDA maintains that the changes will, in fact, boost food safety. In a commentary published on Food Safety News, USDA food safety and inspections administrator Alfred Almanza writes, “If finalized and implemented broadly, this new inspection system would enable [USDA inspectors] to better fulfill our food safety mission. Nothing in the GAO’s report contradicts this basic fact.”

Huffington Post: Chinese Chicken Exported To The United States

Bloomberg: Don’t Trust A Chicken Nugget That’s Visited China

Guardian: Rat Meat Sold As Mutton In Chinese Scandal

Los Angeles Times: Rat Meat is Sold As Lamb

Promises Of ‘Free Trade’ Prosperity For Americans Are Lies!

“Give us a protective tariff, and we will have the greatest nation on earth.”   Abraham Lincoln

“If the Americans should manufacture a lock of wool or a horse shoe, I would fill their ports with ships and their towns with troops.”  William Pitt- Prime Minister of  Great Britain( 1766-1768)

Via: Huffington Post

by Ian Fletcher

Contemporary American politics is conducted in the shadow of historical myths that inform our present-day choices. Unfortunately, these myths sometimes lead us terribly astray. Case in point is the popular idea that America’s economic tradition has been economic liberty, laissez faire, and wide-open cowboy capitalism. This notion sounds obvious, and it fits the image of this country held by both the Right, which celebrates this tradition, and the Left, which bemoans it. And it seems to imply, among other things, that free trade is the American Way. Don’t Tread On Me or my right to import.

It is, in fact, very easy to construct an impressive-sounding defense of free trade as a form of economic liberty on the basis of this myth. Unfortunately, this myth is just that: a myth, not real history. The reality is that all four of the four presidents on Mount Rushmore were protectionists. (Even the pseudo-libertarian Jefferson came around after the War of 1812.) Historically, protectionism has been, in fact, the real American Way.

This pattern even predates American independence. During the colonial period, the British government tried to force its American colonies to become suppliers of raw materials to the nascent British industrial machine while denying them any manufacturing industry of their own. The colonies were, in fact, the single biggest victim of British trade policy, being under Britain’s direct political control, unlike its other trading partners. The British knew exactly what they were doing: they were happy to see America thrive, but only as a cog in their own industrial machine. As former Prime Minster William Pitt, otherwise a famous conciliator of American grievances and the namesake of Pittsburgh, once said in Parliament,

If the Americans should manufacture a lock of wool or a horse shoe, I would fill their ports with ships and their towns with troops.

Thus the American Revolution was to some extent a war over industrial policy, in which the commercial elite of the Colonies revolted against being forced into an inferior role in the emerging Atlantic economy. This is one of the things that gave the American Revolution its exceptionally bourgeois character as revolutions go, with bewigged Founding Fathers rather than the usual unshaven revolutionary mobs.

It is no accident that after Independence, a tariff was the very second bill signed by President Washington. It is also no accident that the Constitution — which notoriously does not authorize a great many things our government does today — explicitly does give Congress the authority “to regulate commerce with foreign nations.” (Article I, Section 8.) This fact drives flag-draped libertarians crazy, but there it is.

Full Article

Free Trade– The Price Paid

Free Trade Is UnAmerican

The Case Against Free Trade

Are Police And Other Government Employees ‘Fishing For Revenue’ Without A License?


By Duane Sipe

Fellow anglers, a question for you. What are the penalties for fishing without a license? And for fellow citizens; what are the penalties for public servants who ‘fish’ without a license?

From Black’s Law Dictionary, First Edition 1891, we get the definition of ‘license’: A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort.
Has there been some illegal fishing going on by our public servants? Fishing in the form of police officers here in Ravalli County stopping motorists, for no other reason than to, ‘check papers’, because they were instructed to make at least one stop per hour.

That’s it?
Where is the probable cause?
Please say it isn’t true.
We the people, through our written instruments of law called Constitutions, confer permission to no one, any arbitrary ‘licenses’ for this kind of activity; in fact, quite the opposite. The 4th amendment to the United States Constitution says: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In case one is inclined to believe that this amendment has no effect at the state level, please refer to this writer’s previous article concerning the supremacy clause.
And Article II, Section 11 of the Montana Constitution says: The people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant to search any place, or seize any person or thing shall issue without describing the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized, or without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation reduced to writing.
Let’s look at ‘probable cause’, shall we? In Brinegar v. United States (1949), the Supreme Court defined ’probable cause’ as information that would lead “a man of reasonable caution” to believe “that an offense has been or is being committed.” Even further, in Illinois v. Gates (1983), the Court described probable cause as, “a fair probability.”
In regards to our ‘fishing expedition’ what is the offense that our public servant has information on, that would need them to stop a passing motorist? Is there psychic ability by the officer, being able to determine that there is no proof of insurance, or an expired driver’s license, in the vehicles they so choose to stop?
The ‘license to fish’, by our public servants, comes in the form of a properly executed and signed warrant, resulting from the previously determined ‘probable cause’. And the only ‘fish’ that may be caught are the specific items delineated within that warrant.
And, just as a friendly reminder to all who are interested, and especially for the protection of our public servants; the U.S. Code and the Montana Code, in support of their respective Constitutions, spell out the ramifications for anyone who willfully violates any person’s constitutionally secured rights, while performing their duties under the color of law. Here are the specific texts:
US Code:
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 (abbreviated)
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned … or both; … and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section … shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Montana Code:
45-7-401. Official misconduct. (1) A public servant commits the offense of official misconduct when in an official capacity the public servant commits any of the following acts: …
(b) knowingly performs an act in an official capacity that the public servant knows is forbidden by law;
(2) A public servant convicted of the offense of official misconduct shall be fined not to exceed $500 or be imprisoned in the county jail for a term not to exceed 6 months, or both.
46-6-420. Arrest, citation, or stop quotas prohibited. (1) A state or local government agency employing a peace officer may not adopt and require a peace officer to comply with a quota and may not suggest a quota for arrests, citations, or investigative stops for any criminal offense or class of criminal offenses, including violations of traffic or motor vehicle laws, contained in state law, an administrative rule adopted by an agency of the state government, or a local government ordinance.
(2) For purposes of this section, “quota” means a specific number of arrests, citations, or investigative stops.
Yes, tough economic times are upon us. But, that doesn’t give a person the right to rob his neighbor of food just because he’s hungry. And as well, it wouldn’t justify the unlawful activity by public officials ‘fishing for revenue’ in the form of fines.
For the sake of preserving our Constitutional Republic(s), let’s hope we are not heading down this, another, slippery slope.


Militarized Police Gone Wild Across America

Lawyers: Illegal Body Cavity Searches Of Women

Want One Of The New Jobs Created In The American Economy Of 2013? Can You Say Paper Or Plastic?

Via: Zero herdge by Tyler Durden

No Manufacturing  Jobs But More Waiters And Bartenders Than Ever

The New Abnormal is turning out to be quite an embarrassment for Obama’s “manufacturing renaissance” agenda not to mention high paying, manufacturing jobs but at least it explains why Bernanke doesn’t mind sending the USD surging when all other central banks are now talking their currencies down (especially if it means fresh S&P records benefiting the 0.1%): after all, if you have nothing to export, who cares what the relative value of your currency is.

There is good news however. Even as the manufacturing jobs continue to collapse, posting their fourth consecutive monthly drop in June to 11.964 million jobs, minimum wage waiters and bartenders have never been happier. In June Restaurant and Bar employees just hit a new all time high of 10,339,800 workers, increasing by a whopping 51,700 in one month. 

Summarizing the “economy” of Bernanke and Obama: in 2013 239,000 minimum wage restaurant and bar jobs have been created. As for manufacturing jobs: 13,000.

New Abnormal indeed.

Behold an economy dominated by waiters and bartenders.

Full Article

The American System Of Prosperity

Free Trade Is UnAmerican

Trans-Pacific Partnership Breaks Down Sovereignty and GMO Protections

Via: Activist Post

Multilateral trade agreement crafted by megacorporations would undermine jobs, expand GMOs and Big Pharma, restrict Internet freedom and strengthen global government.

by Aaron Dykes

Japan is joining negotiations with 11 other countries in an ongoing effort to create a Trans-Pacific Partnership that participants hope to finalize by the end of the year. Led by the U.S., partner nations already on board include Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Brunei, Malaysia, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam.

Many voices in the public, however, oppose the deal on the grounds that its formation favors the business interests of megacorporations who would profit off of global trade at the expense of internet freedom, national sovereignty, food independence and jobs. Moreover, the deal has been worked out largely in secret and without consulting Congress.

U.S. trade representative Michael Froman visited Japan ahead of the TPP negotiation to iron out agreements and rally against protective interests in Japan who see the agreement, and particularly its loosening of tariffs as a threat. According to the WSJ, concerns persist over the ‘rice, beef, pork, dairy, wheat and sugar’ markets and other industries:

Japan’s Central Union of Agricultural Cooperatives adopted a declaration on Aug. 8. saying it has “grave problems” with the TPP, as it could jeopardize food safety and universal healthcare services, and undermine the nation’s sovereignty. “It’s extremely regrettable that the government has entered the negotiations without clarifying such concerns,” the statement said.

Mr. Froman said “Barriers to access to Japan’s automotive and insurance markets, and non-tariff measures and other sectoral and cross-cutting areas hold back growth and innovation, undermine competitiveness, and hurt workers, businesses and consumers in both our countries.” [emphasis added]

Michael Froman’s previously worked with Citigroup and was a senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations, putting him in square alliance with unlimited globalization. The CFR recently interviewed Mireya Solís, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies, who described the gravity of trade represented under the TPP.

Japan’s participation in the latest round could “triple the economic gains that the United States can expect from the TPP,” Solís says, and “with Japan on board, the Asian identity of the TPP is more than solidified.” The TPP currently comprises Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Japan, the United States, and Vietnam, which together make up roughly 40 percent of global gross domestic product and about a third of world trade.

[…] To be frank, we are talking about a level of liberalization when it comes to Japan that is unprecedented.

Globalization agreements, including the likes of GATT, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA and other multilateral treaties, establish more than just trade between nations. Their deconstruction of trade barriers and tariffs are touted for creating cheaper goods, but often criticized for hurting farmerssmall businesseshome-based industriesenvironmental factors and workers.

GMO / Agribusiness Dominance

One of the major concerns that has been raised about the scope of the Trans-Pacific Partnership is its impact on genetically modified foods, which observers say will favor big players in the biotech industry and undermine labeling laws and bans on growing GMO crops and/or imports.

While the North American Union nations – U.S., Canada and Mexico – have no labeling laws for GM foods, Australia, New Zealand and Japan do. Further, Peru recently declared a 10-year moratoriumon genetically modified crops, but the TPP deal could change that.

Full Article


Do Quotas Pervert Police Priorities?

[Justin Hanners:]
“The role of police in the society I believe are to interfere with the lives of the people as little as possible, but protect them from you know, the 1% element that wants to victimize them. You know, let them be free to live their lives, but protect the people and the property, and that’s what they pay us to do.” (source)

“I got into law enforcement to serve and protect, not be a bully.”      transcript

Bugs Not Berries Might Color Your Yogurt Red!

Via: CBS12 by Scott T. Smith

If you’ve never stopped to think about how the food you eat gets its color… Maybe it’s time you did.

A non-profit health and consumer watchdog is raising concerns about how some yogurt companies color their products.

What gives Dannon strawberry yogurt its pink color? If you thought berries … would you ever be wrong.

It’s bugs!

Cochineal insects are valued for their vibrant red color when crushed. In just seconds it turns into a brilliant, scarlet red dye.

Last year, Starbucks said it would stop using the bug dye in products like its strawberries and cream frappuccino.

And now the Center for Science in the Public Interest says dannon should get it out of its yogurts.

They say dannon is being deceptive…

The average yogurt eater sees the redness and thinks strawberries. There’s a picture of a strawberry on the label. Not an insect.

And the group says says dozens of consumers have complained that the bug coloring, called carmine, has caused vomiting, hives, and swelling.

In a statement, Dannon said: “carmine is a safe, FDA approved, vivid red color that many food makers use, including Dannon in some of our products, because it delivers the best color throughout shelf life of the product.”

Dannon says if consumers want to avoid it… They can just look at the label.

But it’ll say “carmine.” It won’t say “bugs.”


Huffington Post: Berries Over Bugs

Center For Science In The Public Interest: When I buy a berry flavored yogurt, I want berries and yogurt, not red dye from bugs!

‘Crushed bug dye’ is the tip of the odd food ingredient iceberg

Pharma Food: Pharmaceuticals engineered to grow in the food


by Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton

“Philanthropic” causes self-appointed to look after the global good, including the Rockefeller Foundation and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, began funding the development of edible vaccines as far back as 1996. Ostensibly, this is to allow the poor and developing sectors of the world easy access to medicine in their food supply. A quick (and profitable) fix to save the planet!

In the real world, this is a dark twist on the old adage “Let your food be your medicine, and your medicine be your food.”

Private vaccine developers have worked aggressively to develop these genetically-engineered pharmaceuticals and put them on the shelf, hoping they will be part of a multi-billion dollar drug market. Government grants and agency support contributed towards their rapid creation in the first decade of the 21th Century, licensing corn fields and other test crop sites throughout the U.S. midwest and beyond – with pharmaceutical crops being grown in at least 11 states.

Firms like Prodigene and Epicyte were on the cutting edge of this new “pharming” paradigm, which created its own controversy. Prodigene was fined after two of its sites containing experimental drugs for HIV, hepatitis and other serious diseases accidentally contaminated some food crops headed for human consumption. Meanwhile, Epicyte raised eyebrows and anxious questions after developing contraceptive corn, an edible spermicide that produces sperm antibodies in both sexes.

Would you trust food aid if you knew the United States’ foreign policy declared “food as a weapon” back in 1974 in the unspoken war of controlling population in your country or one near you?

Would you believe in the bold claims that genetically-engineered enriched foods can deliver necessary nutrition and medicinal treatments, knowing the complications and risks of GMO foods that have already been documented?

Would you eat Pharma Flakes if they were marketed and sold to your family, and made a part of your ‘complete’ breakfast?

And what if your cereals and other food stocks weren’t even labeled? Would you really know what was in your food? And would you do anything about it if you found out the truth? Would you have eyes to see it for what it was, if it were population control?

Example: Contraceptive ‘Engineered’ Corn Makes Men And Women Sterile

Rich People Don’t Create Jobs: Jobs Are The Consequence of A Feedback Loop Between Customers And Businesses

Via: Bloomberg BusinessWeek

by Nick Hanauer

It is a tenet of American economic beliefs, and an article of faith for Republicans that is seldom contested by Democrats: If taxes are raised on the rich, job creation will stop.

Trouble is, sometimes the things that we know to be true are dead wrong. For the larger part of human history, for example, people were sure that the sun circles the Earth and that we are at the center of the universe. It doesn’t, and we aren’t. The conventional wisdom that the rich and businesses are our nation’s “job creators” is every bit as false.

I’m a very rich person. As an entrepreneur and venture capitalist, I’ve started or helped get off the ground dozens of companies in industries including manufacturing, retail, medical services, the Internet and software. I founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. in 2007 for $6.4 billion. I was also the first non-family investor in Inc.

Even so, I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.

That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.

Theory of Evolution

When businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it is like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it’s the other way around.

It is unquestionably true that without entrepreneurs and investors, you can’t have a dynamic and growing capitalist economy. But it’s equally true that without consumers, you can’t have entrepreneurs and investors. And the more we have happy customers with lots of disposable income, the better our businesses will do.

That’s why our current policies are so upside down. When the American middle class defends a tax system in which the lion’s share of benefits accrues to the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.

And that’s what has been happening in the U.S. for the last 30 years.

Since 1980, the share of the nation’s income for fat cats like me in the top 0.1 percent has increased a shocking 400 percent, while the share for the bottom 50 percent of Americans has declined 33 percent. At the same time, effective tax rates on the superwealthy fell to 16.6 percent in 2007, from 42 percent at the peak of U.S. productivity in the early 1960s, and about 30 percent during the expansion of the 1990s. In my case, that means that this year, I paid an 11 percent rate on an eight-figure income.

One reason this policy is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the average American, but we don’t buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, I go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.

It’s true that we do spend a lot more than the average family. Yet the one truly expensive line item in our budget is our airplane (which, by the way, was manufactured in France by Dassault Aviation SA), and those annual costs are mostly for fuel (from the Middle East). It’s just crazy to believe that any of this is more beneficial to our economy than hiring more teachers or police officers or investing in our infrastructure.

More Shoppers Needed

I can’t buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can’t buy any new clothes or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the tens of millions of middle-class families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.

Full Article

We All Do Better When We All Do Better