From YouTube description: SSRI stands for Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitor, and it is a class of drugs that is often used to treat depression and anxiety. It includes Prozac, Zoloft, Celexa, Paxil and a host of other commonly prescribed antidepressants. And the perpetrators of a raft of school shootings, mass murders and other violent incidents in recent years have been taking them.
(http://intellihub.com)Arizona has been furiously trying to convert as much of its electricity to solar power, which has cut into the profits of Arizona Public Service, a major energy provider. Much of the money for this conversion process has come from a surprising source: the Chinese.
Why would the Chinese want to invest in American solar power? Perhaps Senator Harry Reid would know, considering his long history of facilitating Chinese energy deals at the expense of the American taxpayer. The latest example of this is the standoff that recently took place at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada between private citizens and heavily armed federal agents attempting to steal cattle and land to make room for a Chinese solar power plant.
And our federal government is giving these favors to a country that openly declared their intent to launch a first strike on America.
"Seen from the changes in the World situation and the United States' hegemonic strategy for creating monopolarity, war is inevitable. We cannot avoid it. The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war," said Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian in January 2000, as quoted by Dave Hodges for Intellihub. Initiative is a military term which means "first strike."
It is already well known how vulnerable America's power grid is; it would only take a single high-altitude EMP blast to shut off electricity to the entire country. If the Chinese build their facilities to be EMP-resistant, then an EMP attack would leave them in charge of producing America's power, essentially allowing them to control the country.
With our corrupt politicians giving land to the Chinese to develop power plants, and with our aging, defenseless electric grid, it is imperative that we monitor and regulate Chinese developments, as well as improve our own grid, in order to prepare for a coming EMP attack.
that organic foods from China might as well be from the sewers of New York City, with all the industrial waste and chemical pollution that invades those foods and products in general
about how nearly all edible oils create disease and disorder in the body, except for coconut oil and organic olive oil
that Monsanto will do anything to have total immunity from lawsuits that arise from their pesticide food they feed the masses
that Monsanto has grown because Obama puts their leaders in charge of the FDA, USDA, CDC and more
This spring, we also covered the standoff at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada between private citizens and federal agents armed with assault rifles, sniper rifles, helicopters, attack dogs and Tasers, which they used to assault innocent bystanders. The feds even set up a "First Amendment area" -- three miles from the protest site -- to restrict citizens from exercising free speech, though it was ignored anyway. The Mainstream Media failed to cover this story, obscuring facts or ignoring it altogether. But thanks to legally armed concerned citizens, alternative media and social media, news got out about the situation, and the government ended up backing off.
Natural News has covered all this and more, serving to disseminate information about health, organic agriculture and liberty to America and the world. Thousands of articles, scientific studies and more on these topics are available to anyone seeking to educate themself on natural health and news.
Benjamin Bratton, an Associate Professor of Visual Arts at the University of California, San Diego, recently gave a TED Talk explaining how TED Talks are worthless. In his speech, Bratton covers the issues of TED Talks and how they are little more than ineffective placebos and simplified infotainment for the public that promotes exciting new ideas while stifling real progress and innovation.
(http://www.usatoday.com)The Editorial Board at USA Today recently ran an opinion piece in which they praised the vaccine industry and espoused Big Pharma propaganda and myths to convince Americans to be vaccinated.
USA Today also promotes the unscientific "herd immunity" theory. According to this theory, if enough of the population is vaccinated, then immunity is somehow achieved for everyone. The problem with this theory is that vaccines only affect those who receive them. They cause a reaction in the body which may produce antibodies that can help prevent or mitigate the disease, thus building temporary "immunity." However, those who don't receive vaccines usually develop these antibodies, and immunity, naturally and permanently. In many cases, vaccines destroy the immune system, making it easier for the body to succumb to disease and disorder. Vaccinated individuals also serve as carriers of disease, spreading it to the rest of the population and putting those who haven't developed immunity yet at risk.
"Herd immunity" has never been scientifically validated, nor has the efficacy of vaccines to prevent disease. Yet, some actually believe that unvaccinated children put vaccinated ones at risk of catching disease, and that vaccines only work when a certain amount of the population has received them.
Furthermore, vaccines have been linked to a number of health issues, including developmental problems, autism, gastrointestinal issues and brain inflammation.
USA Today claims that parents "ought to be able to opt out for strictly defined medical or religious reasons" but not for "personal opinions." They then conclude, "Everyone enjoys the life-saving benefits vaccines provide, but they'll exist only as long as everyone shares in the risks." On the contrary, vaccines only "benefit" those who receive them, and parents should have the right to decide whether to subject their children to a cocktail of chemicals, heavy metals and biological tissue, which could cause permanent, life-damaging harm. To suggest otherwise, while ignoring the hazards of vaccines and promoting their manufacturers' non-scientific theories on immunity, is misleading and immoral.
http://www.independentsentinel.comIn the end, there is only one reason why the Bundy ranch was besieged. President Obama had to have taken the lead. He knew it was going on and he sanctioned it. Beyond oil, solar, and Chinese Communists with money, lurks Obama's Agenda.
InfoWars has found a smoking gun in the case of embattled rancher Cliven Bundy. A lucrative contract - which will benefit Harry Reid and his son Rory Reid - specifically mentions the need to rid the land of Cliven Bundy. In addition, Natural News pointed out that the BLM is in the business of selling lucrative oil and gas leases. It does answer the question, Why now?
There is a much bigger picture in all of this, however, and that is the fact Mr. Obama believes the government should control the land and water in the United States. He sees the government as the protector of the nation's resources. It is his belief. He does not respect private property - it is the government's to take. That should now be obvious to everyone.
In the state of Nevada, Cliven Bundy and his family are currently caught in a fight over land with the Federal government. This is over his long-standing refusal to acknowledge a 1993 modification to grazing rights on the land that his family has been working since the 1800s.
Hundreds of federal officials invaded the land on Saturday, bringing in helicopters, low-flying aircraft and hired cowboys to round up and steal Bundy's cattle from the land, at a cost of $3 million to taxpayers. Federal agents at the site are armed with assault rifles and sidearms, and they have sniper rifles trained on cameramen and protestors. Federal agents have closed off public and private land owned by the State of New Mexico and the Bundy's, essentially enforcing undeclared martial law. One Bundy member family who violated this martial law was tackled by about 20 people and then taken to prison. Federal agents did set up a "First Amendment Area" for people to exercise free speech, which was completely ignored by everyone there, since free speech is a right not restricted to specific areas.
Government agents have claimed that their reason for trespassing Bundy's ranch is to protect the desert tortoise, which is classified as a "vulnerable species," despite the fact that the federal government is planning on killing at least 700 of them by the end of 2014.
Pete Santilli, a former U.S. marine, who reported from the scene for NextNewsNetwork, said that it is entirely likely that the federal government is merely using the desert tortoise as a pretext to clear the land for later corporate interests. He also compared the situation to incidents in the 1990s such as the Ruby Ridge standoff and the Waco siege; during the latter of which, federal agents set fire to the Branch Dravidian compound, killing innocent civilians, women and children.
The worst thing about the Bundy ranch situation is the complete lack of support from the state and the local sheriff, who has legal authority to order the BLM to leave. The Bundys have received a notable amount of support from peaceful militia members; however, they are still outnumbered and outgunned by the BLM, so more help and support is desperately needed.
(http://www.breitbart.com)The United States Constitution gives Congress authority to create patents and copyrights, but only for the specific purpose of promoting "the sciences and useful arts." The purpose of patents is to incentivize innovation and content creation, by ensuring that inventors have an exclusive right to use their developments for a set amount of time. However, when the patent system is ill-managed, as it has been in recent years, it can stifle innovation and content creation.
James Madison warned Americans over 200 years ago that copyrights and patents must be "guarded with strictness against abuse," because they are so easy to abuse. The type of abuse that Madison warned us about then is now becoming increasingly prevalent. The most notable abusers of the patent system in recent years have been called "patent trolls." Patent trolls are people or companies that obtain an obvious or frivolous patent for a technology that they often don't even use; instead, they go after those that actually do use the technology, in some way or another, to contribute to society, extorting them for money with threats of costly litigation. Advocates for businesses and American innovation have brought much attention to patent trolls recently, but in order to solve the problem, the patent system itself must be fixed.
The Federal Trade Commission released a report in 2003 which stated: Poor patent quality and legal standards and procedures that inadvertently may have anticompetitive effects can cause unwarranted market power and can unjustifiably increase costs. Such effects can hamper competition that otherwise would stimulate innovation.
Patent trolls now cost the economy more than $29 billion per year, according to Derek Khanna. He reported at Breitbart.com that "instead of seriously solving the holistic problem of junk patents, Washington is avoiding going after the big players that have large patent portfolios for non-inventions. While big companies with large patent portfolios are increasingly coming around to supporting the idea of dealing with patent trolls, not surprisingly, they thus far have opposed legislation to solve the bigger problem that helps enable patent trolls."
We should now heed Madison's warning and pressure legislators to fix our nation's patent laws. Khanna concludes, "We need a system that compensates content holders and inventors, and clearly defines the rules of the roads, but does so for the constitutionally-enumerated purpose of spurring innovation and content creation, not at the costs of inhibiting them."
Does Chili's hate kids? Probably not, but maybe, considering their recent double cross of the National Autism Association (NAA). Chili's had previously announced a "Give Back Event" to help support children with autism and families affected by the disease by donating 10 percent of their earnings on April 7 to the association.
Many people are becoming aware that infants should not be injected with cocktails of chemicals and organic matter to prevent sexually transmitted diseases (hepatitis B) and other overblown concerns, and that doing so can cause inflammation, disrupt the immune system and has been associated with autism. Despite scientific evidence supporting this, there are many who still buy into the government-industry pro-vaccine propaganda which falsely promotes them as completely safe and necessary. The NAA, an organization that seeks to help autistic children and their families, also provides information about the disease on their website, including its link to vaccines. That is why, when Chili's announced that it would be supporting autism awareness through the NAA, comments came pouring in from misinformed skeptics and sheeple, demanding that the event be canceled.
Afraid of losing a substantial amount of customers and damaging its reputation, Chili's caved in to the Medical Mafia pressure and canceled its event altogether. So now, thanks to pro-vaccine shills, scientific information continues to be suppressed and autistic children have lost out on much needed support.
Chili's released a statement about the canceled event:
While we remain committed to supporting the children and families affected by autism, based on the feedback we heard from our guests, we are canceling Monday's Give Back Event.
We believe autism awareness continues to be an important cause to our guests and team members, and we will find another way to support this worthy effort in the future with again our sole intention being to help families affected by autism.
While it's great that they say they will still find a way to help families affected by autism, they should have stuck with their original choice. The facts may not be settled on the vaccine-autism link, but denying the evidence hampers science and exacerbates the problem, possibly causing more harm to children, which is what Chili's has done by cancelling the Give Back Event.
(http://www.breitbart.com)Google has recently decided to cancel WorldNetDaily's (WND) Adsense account after the conservative-leaning news site published an honest report on mobs of teenagers roaming streets and taking part in the so-called "Knockout Game." According to Google, reports on the subject violated the company's negative/hate speech policy with multiple references to "black mobs." The problem with this "hate speech" violation, though, is that it was not actual hate speech but fearless reporting on a social issue being experienced more prevalently in a particular demographic.
Joseph Farah, the Editor-in-Chief of WND, learned about their account's cancelation through an email from Google, which said that it was due to "a policy violation email this morning regarding negative/hate speech particularly with the repeated references to 'black mobs,' although I don't know that this is specifically what it's limited to." The email went on to state, "The reviewers cited a number articles [sic] with usage of this term specifically and in general asks that no ad code is placed on articles containing hate/anti or sensitive content as this is against Adsense policies and does not provide a good experience for users and advertisers."
The Knockout Game, as many should remember, was where mobs of teenagers wandered city streets, looking for defenseless victims, mostly white and Jewish people, to attempt to knock out with one punch to the back of the head. Elderly persons were also often the victims, and deaths from such incidents have been reported. The controversy on reporting these hateful, deadly attacks comes from the fact that most of the attackers have been black. Logically then, in this specific case, mobs of teenagers who are black would technically be black mobs, simply because they happen to be black. Mentioning that is no more racist than reporting that victims have frequently been white or Jewish. It is simply a fact in the incident determined by its very perpetrators.
Despite this, it's not really surprising to see Google attempt to censor such viewpoints, as noted by Ben Shapiro for Breitbart News: "Google has long been a leftist company. Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of the company, is a heavy supporter of President Obama financially, helping him with campaign advice in 2008 and 2012; Obama reportedly considered him repeatedly for slots within his administration before Schmidt was picked as Obama's transition advisory board, as well as for a position on the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, or PCAST. Obama's campaign manager, Jim Messina, received personal training from Schmidt. So did Obama for America Chief Technology Officer Harper Reed and Engineer Mark Trammell."
Google's famous doodles are usually political as well; while they specifically avoid honoring national Christian holidays, such as Christmas and Easter, they do make sure to recognize progressive icons like Martin Luther King Jr., Jackie Robinson and Cesar Chavez (who do deserve their fair amount of recognition). Google was also once in favor of net neutrality, a policy that would have the government require "non-discrimination" with regard to bandwidth use for internet service providers; however, the company became an opponent of net neutrality after entering the broadband business with its GoogleFiber.
"Google is a private company," Shapiro concludes. "It has the capacity to utilize its massive power for whatever political agenda it chooses. But for it to pretend to be an advocate for internet freedom while simultaneously disadvantaging messages it finds politically incorrect is deeply hypocritical."
Kevin and Sam Sorbo are giving support to a new documentary which was banned from Kickstarter but is now receiving crowdfunding donations via Indiegogo. The documentary will cover the crimes and practices of America's most prolific serial killer, Kermit Gosnell, the late-term abortion doctor who was convicted of multiple murders and 21 illegal abortions. Court testimony revealed that Gosnell would kill live babies after botched abortions by stabbing a pair of scissors into their necks, and he would also cut off infants' feet to be kept in jars in his office.
The film is being produced by Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney, who previously worked on the documentary FrackNation. They originally planned to raise funds for their project through Kickstarter, but after that site decided to censor them, they turned to Indiegogo instead. American culture can often seem obsessed with serial killers, for example, there "have been four movies about Ted Bundy, five about the Zodiac killer, three about John Wayne Gacy, and the Lifetime network has already made and broadcast a film about Jodie Arias - who killed one person," McAleer said. It's odd, then, that the mainstream media has been so reluctant to cover this story, the most probable reason being their immense left-wing bias, which includes support for abortions.
And it is that bias and lack of coverage that has made the Gosnell documentary necessary. Kevin Sorbo and his wife, Sam, recognize this necessity, declaring their support and calling for others to do the same in an emotional video which you can view above.
As reported by Breitbart News:
"If the media won't do their job, then we can do it ourselves. We can, and we must," Kevin Sorbo says. "Many people knew what was going on and did nothing. It's almost impossible to believe, but it's true. We have the trial transcripts and grand jury testimony to prove it."
The couple then read some of said testimony:
"Over the years there were hundreds of snippings. Sometimes if Gosnell was unavailable the snipping was done by one of his fake doctors or even by one of the administrative staff ... everyone there acted as if it weren't murder at all," Sam Sorbo said with an emotional catch in her voice.
"We pray that the thousands of babies slaughtered are not forgotten," Kevin Sorbo says.
"We need to confront and expose this story," Sam Sorbo says.
(http://www.killerculture.com)No fewer than five research studies have shown that wearing constrictive bras for long periods of time contributes to breast cancer, an association that is acknowledged by many healthcare providers, including medical doctors and oncologists. Even some lingerie manufacturers have responded to this fact by developing new bras designed to minimize lymphatic constriction, thus minimizing the cancer risk. But not everyone has been as accepting of such research.
The American Cancer Society (ACS) and the Susan G. Komen Foundation, two organizations that at least seem to care about cancer patients, are denying the bra-cancer link. What many people don't realize about these organizations is that they don't care about preventing cancer; instead, they are obsessed with raising funds for cancer "research" and the ever-elusive "cure." In a flat-out denial of scientific evidence, the ACS and Komen Foundation consider the link between breast cancer and bras to be absurd and not worth taking seriously.
Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer, a married couple of medical anthropologists, led research on bra wearing habits of U.S. women with and without breast cancer which showed "that the tighter and longer a bra is worn the higher the [breast cancer] incidence rose, up to 100 times greater for 24/7 bra wearers," Singer wrote in a recent article.
She continued, writing that when her and her husband "first notified cancer organizations about their discovery, they were completely ignored or ridiculed. Now, 20 years later, the American Cancer Society and the Susan G. Komen Foundation still ridicule the information out of hand, and try to explain away the link as a ridiculous 'myth.'"
Over the past 20 years that these two organizations have stonewalled this important information, 2,000,000 women just in the U.S. were diagnosed with breast cancer, which might have been prevented simply by loosening their bra or wearing it for a shorter time each day. Even if the link weren't conclusive, it is unethical to ignore it, as it pertains to such a life-threatening condition and should at least undergo further scientific evaluation.
So why is it that the ACS and the Komen Foundation are continuing to downplay these important findings? Maybe it's because of the donations they receive from lingerie companies, or their reluctance to challenge the cultural norm of wearing a bra, or the perhaps fact that, if people focused on breast cancer prevention rather than treatment and detection, these organizations would lose their importance and hence much of their funding.
This is speculation, of course, but why else would these two organizations, whose ostensible purpose is to help cancer patients, attempt to restrict information that could save lives? Whatever the reason, it is unscientific and immoral, and to protest their cover-up of the bra-cancer link, Singer and other scientists are calling for a boycott against the Komen Foundation and the ACS.
"Singer and Grismaijer suggest that whenever the ACS or Komen Foundation ask for a donation, send them your bra, instead! This will give them the message, and help you prevent breast cancer at the same time."
(http://cyberharassment.org/)Cyber-harassment and cyberstalking, where people harass and stalk others using the internet, have been on the rise. According to a Harvard University study, about 25 percent of stalking incidents involving female college students could be classified as cyberstalking. The Los Angeles District Attorney's office extimates that 20 percent of the cases handled by its Stalking and Threat Assessment Unit involve email or other electronic communication. Around 40 percent of the cases handled by the New York City Police Department's Computer Investigations and Technology Unit involve electronic threats and harassment. And, although one major internet service provider received practically zero cyberstalking complaints just a couple of years ago, it now reports receiving 15 such complaints per month.
Women, children, those new to the internet and the emotionally unstable are the most common targets of cyber-harassment. To combat this growing mental and emotional health threat, Brand.com founded CyberHarassment.org, a nonprofit corporation whose purpose is to "spearhead an effort to increase public recognition of cyberbullying and online harassment." They also offer resources to help victims recover from cyber-harassment, reclaim their online identity and prevent future attacks.
One former victim of cyberstalking is Robin Savage. A few years ago, Savage made the mistake of dating someone who should have set off red flags from the beginning, as he was constantly texting her things like "Where are you now?" and "Why didn't you answer my text right away?" as well as treating waiters with verbal abuse. Two years after Savage left the unhealthy relationship, a long-time friend notified her that she was on a "hate site." When she looked up the website, she was shocked by false allegations that she was sexually promiscuous, "had given men Aids" and "was in jail for hurting [her] sons." She provided proof to the hate site and Google that the allegations were false, but to no avail; the negative report followed Robin for years, inflicting untold emotional pain and leading her to abandon her family and live in her car in desperation as she was unable to find work.
A lawyer at Brand.com read a report of Robin's experience in Forbes and decided to help. CyberHarassment.org was thus created, and Robin has been receiving assistance to fix her online reputation and get her life back to normal. "I'm so thankful," she says. "This has helped show me that my purpose could be positive, a gift instead of a tragedy."
If you or someone you know has been the victim of cyberbullying, or would like to learn ways to prevent it, you can visit CyberHarassment.org's "Tools and Resources" page. If you have been attacked, you can visit the Cyber Bullying Forum to share your story. You can also report a cyberbully here.
(http://www.breitbart.com)As you likely already know, President Obama took a "victory lap" on Tuesday (April Fool's Day), touting Obamacare's 7 million sign-ups before the latest enrollment deadline. However, according to an as yet unpublished study from the RAND Corporation, only about 23 percent of those new enrollees were previously uninsured, and only 53 percent of that group, around 850,000, has actually paid for insurance. Furthermore, it's absurd to think of this law as being successful when it is being forced on the American people against their will and generating so few enrollments, despite the deadline being delayed unconstitutionally several times, as noted by Jimmy Fallon on The Tonight Show:
That's right, the White House said that it surpassed its goal for people enrolled in Obamacare. It's amazing what you can achieve when you make something mandatory and fine people if they don't do it. And then keep extending the deadline for months. It's like a Cinderella story. It's just a beautiful thing. You make everyone do it. Isn't it great how many people do it? But if you still haven't enrolled, you might have to pay a penalty called the individual shared responsibility payment, which is 1 percent of your salary. Then Americans said, "Man, good thing I don't have a job."
Click here to watch the funny, yet sadly true, video of Jimmy Fallon discussing Obamacare at Breitbart.com.
(http://www.foxnews.com)Unlike modern conventional agriculture, which uses pesticides and chemicals indiscriminately in factory farms, organic farming relies on natural and traditional practices such as using home-made fertilizer, naturally occurring, plant-derived pesticides and pest repellants, and irrigation from open creeks.
Chemical pesticides are used in abundance across America, and studies have shown that exposure to these chemicals, even at low levels from just being in the vicinity, can cause life-threatening conditions, chronic disease and developmental disorders in children and unborn infants.
As noted by Deirdre Imus, founder of environmental health site dienviro.org, in an article for Fox News:
The EPA acknowledges that pesticide exposure causes problems, "that may occur over a long period of time," which basically means that any health problem experienced now or in the future by you or your kids could be caused by pesticides, or not. You'll never know for sure, and neither will I.
Despite this, pesticide use continues, increasingly, nationwide, especially on genetically modified crops that have been manipulated to resist herbicidal chemicals like glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, which contains a number of other chemicals that make the formula even more deadly.
The agricultural industry relies on pesticides and herbicides to protect their crops, and their profits, from infestations of pests and weeds, but there is nothing in place to protect consumers from those toxic chemicals. "For now, that responsibility falls to organic farmers, whose integrative practices, like using compost on crops, help avoid injections of carcinogenic chemicals into our food supply," Imus concludes.
(http://www.theonion.com)In recent decades, efforts to improve animal rights and food sustainability have led consumers to become increasingly concerned about how livestock animals are raised, and how they are slaughtered. The vast majority of Americans are meat eaters, but few stop to think about the welfare of cattle before biting into a juicy cheeseburger. Americans would love to assume that the meat they consume falls straight off of docile cattle after they painlessly pass away without giving it a second though. Sadly though, that is not the case.
Even beef labeled as "organic grass fed" or "certified humane raised" usually die in a horrifically traumatic fashion, which prompts the question: what is meant by humane? Certainly, there is no such thing as a cruelty-free burger, as exemplified in a recent article by the satirical news source The Onion:
Consumers today are more conscientious than ever about the choices they make at the supermarket. They want to know that the food they put on the table for their family is all-natural, environmentally friendly, and humane. And that's why we here at Nature's Acres Ranch hold ourselves to a higher standard and produce only the finest grass-fed and 100 percent additive-free beef. We guarantee that our cows are ethically raised on sustainably grown pastures before we hang them upside down from a moving conveyor and slice their throats wide open.
The Onion piece satirizes the use of the word humane by the meat industry and how it's used to trick consumers into feeling no guilt from killing another living being for food. The article continues, saying that the fictional ranch is committed to "making sure that you, the customer, receive the best-tasting, highest quality beef from cows that are healthy, active, and eventually suspended fully conscious inside a facility thick with hot, blood-choked air and the frantic bellows of dangling, profoundly fearful animals."
While slaughterhouses generally use a device called a "stunner" ostensibly to kill the brain and remove pain before being killed, by injecting a metal bolt between the eyes, the entire process is nonetheless traumatic, stressful and possibly still painful, as cattle watch their brethren kick and spurt blood in their last few chaotic moments clinging to life.
We shouldn't blindly trust certifications just to eat a steak without feeling guilt. Consumers should be conscious of the entire process. In that way, we can move forward to truly treating animals humanely, while respecting them for the sustenance they can provide.
Mocking "humane" slaughterhouses and the gullible customers who support them, The Onion's article concludes: "So next time you choose a steak or ground chuck to throw on the grill, consider a healthier, more humane, and tastier option, and look no further than the Nature's Acres Ranch line of products. We're the one with the smiling cow on the label!"
Be sure to check out The Onion to read the satirical article in full.
(http://www.cornucopia.org)The Cornucopia Institute (CI) is calling on citizen-lobbyists to testify at the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meeting in San Antonio, Texas, April 29-30. Experts dedicated to the integrity of organic agriculture are being asked to attend and will make brief, one- to four-minute speeches. Additional background information on the issues being considered by the Board will be provided by CI, as well as assistance with logistics.
Anyone who meets the above criteria, is interested in helping out and lives near San Antonio should contact Jason Cole at cole(at)cornucopia.org or (608) 625-2000 by April 7. The meeting will be held at the St. Anthony Hotel at 300 East Travis Street in San Antonio, Texas. More information can be found at the National Organic Program's (NOP) web page on USDA.gov. An agenda of the Spring 2014 meeting is available in PDF format here. Public comments are being accepted until April 8, 2014, and can be submitted here.
The NOSB usually meets twice a year; however, the meeting last year was canceled due to the government "shutdown" in October. So, this year's meeting will be like two in one. CI has raised concern in three particular areas, including rule changes to the NOP's sunset process, antibiotics used in agriculture and the NOP's failure to enact recommendations regarding organic aquaculture. CI's preliminary comments for the Spring 2014 meeting can be viewed here.