Legal Issues

If there’s anything you read – or share – let this be it. The content of this article has potential to radically shift the world in a variety of positive ways.

And as Monsanto would love for this article to not go viral, all we can ask is that you share, share, share the information being presented so that it can reach as many people as possible.

In 2006, a patent was granted to a man named Paul Stamets. Though Paul is the world’s leading mycologist, his patent has received very little attention and exposure. Why is that? Stated by executives in the pesticide industry, this patent represents “the most disruptive technology we have ever witnessed.” And when the executives say disruptive, they are referring to it being disruptive to the chemical pesticides industry.

What has Paul discovered? The mycologist has figured out how to use mother nature’s own creations to keep insects from destroying crops. It’s what is being called SMART pesticides. These pesticides provide safe & nearly permanent solution for controlling over 200,000 species of insects – and all thanks to the ‘magic’ of mushrooms.

Paul does this by taking entomopathogenic Fungi (fungi that destroys insects) and morphs it so it does not produce spores. In turn, this actually attracts the insects who then eat and turn into fungi from the inside out!

This patent has potential to revolutionize the way humans grow crops – if it can be allowed to reach mass exposure.

It was announced this week that over 30,000 doctors and health experts throughout Latin America are demanding that Monsanto’s products be banned. One of the primary cases that these doctors are bringing against Monsanto is the recent confirmation that their main herbicide RoundUp is actually responsible for causing cancer.

“In our country glyphosate is applied on more than 28 million hectares. Each year, the soil is sprayed with more than 320 million liters, which means that 13 million people are at risk of being affected, according to the Physicians Network of Sprayed Peoples (RMPF),” Argentina’s union of medical professionals, Fesprosa said in a statement.

The Fesprosa union is comprised of over 30,000 medical health professionals, most of whom wish to enact the ban on Monsanto products, and specifically the chemical glyphosate, the active chemical in RoundUp.

“We believe the precautionary principle should be applied, and that we should stop accumulating studies and take decisions that could come too late. We advocate a ban on glyphosate which should take effect in the short term with restrictions on purchasing, spraying and packaging,” Javier Souza, coordinator of Latin American pesticide action network said.

” We cannot allow the business interests of a North American multinational to be more important than the health of the people of our region. Governments should promote the technology and practices of organic farming to protect growers, consumers and the environment,” Franco Segesso, coordinator of the campaign at Greenpeace Andino said.

As we reported earlier this year, Monsanto is continuing to lose profits into the second quarter of 2015, shedding an exceptional 15% profit amid falling GMO seed sales – even more than most experts projected.

John Vibes writes for True Activist and is an author, researcher and investigative journalist who takes a special interest in the counter culture and the drug war.

.

Who made your clothes?

Who doesn’t love a great deal? Whether it’s on household appliances or a new t-shirt, consumers worldwide are always looking for a great bargain.

So of course when shoppers came across a vending machine in Berlin, Germany selling t-shirts for only 2 Euros each (about $2.19), they flocked to benefit from the supreme sale.

€2…? Seems like a bargain!

But there was a catch…

In order to buy a €2 t-shirt, shoppers had to first watch a video about the exploited sweatshop laborers that make cheap clothing possible.

The video showed who is behind the cheap clothing for sale…

Often under-age employees are the laborers, who work for up to 16 hours a day.

…and for as little as 13 cents an hour.

“Do You Still Want To Buy This 2€ T-Shirt?”

Not surprisingly, most chose to donate instead of purchase the t-shirt.

This brilliant social experiment was put on by the non-profit Fashion Revolution, who wants shoppers to reconsider how they shop for their clothes. Watch the entire experiment below:

The video was released on April 24th, or Fashion Revolution Day. This day commemorates the collapse of the Rana Plaza in Bangladesh in 2013, which killed more than 1,000 garment workers who had been making clothing for American brands, like J.C. Penney, Benetton, Walmart, and others, in unsafe conditions.

The workers at such factories, according to aplus, are often underage, and most are also underpaid and overworked. Fashion Revolution wants to encourage people to start asking questions about their clothes, like where they were made and under what conditions they were manufactured.

“We’re not asking people to boycott their favorite stores, we need to change the fashion industry from within by asking the brands and retailers where we like to shop ‘Who made my clothes?'” Fashion Revolution Day founder Carry Somers told Marie Claire.

As you can see in the video above, consumers’ reactions to the video were varied, but almost everyone chose to donate to the cause instead of support cheap labor. This goes to show how powerful a tool education is.

“Consumers didn’t cause this problem, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be part of the solution,” she added. And by encouraging people to take a stand and show fashion brands they need to start taking responsibility for their actions, Fashion Revolution is already helping to inspire much-needed change. To learn more, follow the #fashrev hashtag on social media.

What are your thoughts? S hare in the comments section below.

.

With California facing one of its most severe droughts in memory, and the state gearing up for the first mandatory water restrictions in history, much attention is being paid to California’s farmers who aren’t being asked to cut back as much as the rest of the state’s citizens.

At the opposite end of the economic scale, however, little attention is being paid to the Golden State’s other water-guzzling citizens: the rich folks who live in wealthy enclaves like Beverly Hills, Malibu, and other desirable zip codes.

According to the LA Times, Beverly Hills and other affluent cities use far more water per capita than less-wealthy communities, prompting concerns that threats of fines for not observing mandatory restrictions may have little effect on those who can easily pay them without missing a beat.

In 2011, when lower income communities like Santa Ana in Orange County used approximately 38 gallons a day per capita, residents in wealthier areas like Palos Verdes Estates and Newport Beach were using more than 150 gallons, or almost four times the amount per day.

According to George Murdoch, general manager of utilities in Newport Beach, “Some people – believe it or not – don’t know we are in a drought. We have people that own a home here but aren’t around a lot, so they could miss a leak.”

Stephanie Pincetl, who worked on a UCLA water-use study, has another theory: wealthy Californians are “lacking a sense that we are all in this together.”

“The problem lies, in part, in the social isolation of the rich, the moral isolation of the rich,” Pincetl said.

Beverly Hills officials explain that they have focused on water saving education so far, instituting an emergency water conservation plan that calls for voluntary limits on use of fountains that don’t use recycled water, eliminating pavement washing, and cutting back on lawn watering by 10 percent.

But officials are concerned that the governor’s call to reduce water consumption by 25 percent may fall on the deaf ears of people unaccustomed to having to listen to things they don’t want to hear.

An entertainment industry worker who identified himself only as Eric said he has cut back on water usage, but admits he has a fountain, a jacuzzi, and lemon and orange trees to consider.

“This is America. You gotta live it up a little bit, right?” he said.

City officials in Newport Beach and Beverly Hills, have seen a steady drop in water use over the last few months, but remain concerned how much people in their upscale communities will cut back despite the threat of fines.

“In this part of town, everyone is just too important to see outside themselves,” explained Kay Dangaard, a longtime Beverly Hills resident. “Where are these people going to go with all their money when the water is gone?”

Coal ash, which contains many of the world’s worst carcinogens, is what’s left over when coal is burnt for electricity. An estimated 113 million tons of coal ash are produced annually in the US, and stored in almost every state — some of it literally in people’s backyards. With very little government oversight and few safeguards in place, toxic chemicals have been known to leak from these storage sites and into nearby communities, contaminating drinking water and making residents sick.

On February 2, 2014, up to 39,000 tons of coal ash and 27 million gallons of contaminated water spilled out into the Dan River in North Carolina after a pipe broke underneath a coal ash pond at a Duke Energy power plant. The environmental disaster thrust Duke Energy, the country’s largest electricity company, into the spotlight, revealing a history of violations and inadequate oversight of ponds at all of its plants across the state.

In part one, VICE News travels to North Carolina to visit a river that’s been poisoned with arsenic from a nearby Duke Energy site, speak with a resident who has found toxic heavy metals in her drinking water, and question a Duke Energy spokesperson about the power company’s policies.

Watch “Showdown in Coal Country”

Watch “Petcoke: Toxic Waste in the Windy City”

Read “Humans Are Destroying the Environment at a Rate Unprecedented in Over 10,000 Years”

Read “The Economic Cost of Carbon Pollution Is Much Greater Than Estimated, Say Stanford University Researchers”

Read “The EPA Tightened Rules on Coal Waste, But Not Enough, Say Environmentalists”

BY KRISTEN WYATT
ASSOCIATED PRESS

DENVER (AP) — Colorado’s marijuana experiment was designed to raise revenue for the state and its schools, but a state law may put some of the tax money directly into residents’ pockets, causing quite a headache for lawmakers.

The state constitution limits how much tax money the state can take in before it has to give some back. That means Coloradans may each get their own cut of the $50 million in recreational pot taxes collected in the first year of legal weed. It’s a situation so bizarre that it’s gotten Republicans and Democrats, for once, to agree on a tax issue.

Even some pot shoppers are surprised Colorado may not keep the taxes that were promised to go toward school construction when voters legalized marijuana in 2012.

“I have no problem paying taxes if they’re going to schools,” said Maddy Beaumier, 25, who was visiting a dispensary near the Capitol.

But David Huff, a 50-year-old carpenter from Aurora, said taxes that add 30 percent or more to the price of pot, depending on the jurisdiction, are too steep.

“I don’t care if they write me a check, or refund it in my taxes, or just give me a free joint next time I come in. The taxes are too high, and they should give it back,” Huff said.

Legal weed has collided with the tax limitation movement because a 1992 voter-approved constitutional amendment called the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights requires all new taxes to go before voters.

The amendment also requires Colorado to pay back taxpayers when the state collects more than what’s permitted by a formula based on inflation and population growth. Over the years, Colorado has issued refunds six times, totaling more than $3.3 billion.

Republicans and Democrats say there’s no good reason to put pot taxes back into people’s pockets, and state officials are scrambling to figure out how to avoid doling out the money. It may have to be settled by asking Colorado voters, for a third time, to cast a ballot on the issue and exempt pot taxes from the refund requirement.

Republicans concede that marijuana is throwing them off their usual position of wanting tax dollars returned to taxpayers. But they also tend to say that marijuana should pay for itself – that general taxes shouldn’t pay for things like increased drug education and better training for police officers to identify stoned drivers.

“I think it’s appropriate that we keep the money for marijuana that the voters said that we should,” said Republican Senate President Bill Cadman. His party opposes keeping other refunds based on the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights but favors a special ballot question on pot taxes.

“This is a little bit of a different animal. There’s a struggle on this one,” said Sen. Kevin Grantham, one of the Republican budget writers.

After legalizing marijuana in 2012, Colorado voters returned to the polls the following year and approved a 15 percent excise tax on pot for the schools and an additional 10 percent sales tax for lawmakers to spend.

Voters were told those taxes would generate about $70 million in the first year. The state now believes it will rake in about $50 million.

But because the economy is improving and other tax collections are growing faster, Colorado is obligated to give back much of what it has collected. Final numbers aren’t ready, but the governor’s budget writers predict the pot refunds could amount to $30.5 million, or about $7.63 per adult in Colorado.

“It’s just absurd,” said Democratic state Sen. Pat Steadman, one of the Legislature’s budget writers.

The head-scratching extends to Colorado’s marijuana industry. Several industry groups actively campaigned for the pot taxes but aren’t taking a position on whether to refund them.

Mike Elliott of the Denver-based Marijuana Industry Group said it isn’t pushing for lower taxes, but that’s an option lawmakers don’t seem to be considering. State law doesn’t bar lawmakers from cutting taxes without a vote.

Lawmakers have a little time to figure out how to proceed. They’ll consider pot refunds and a separate refund to taxpayers of about $137 million after receiving final tax estimates that are due in March.

When they talk about pot refunds, they’ll have to figure out if the money would go to all taxpayers, or just those who bought pot. Previous refunds have generally been paid through income tax returns, but Colorado also has reduced motor vehicle fees or even reduced sales taxes on trucks.

Lawmakers seem confident that the refund mechanism won’t matter because voters would approve pot taxes a third time if asked.

“This is what the voters want, and if we’re going to have (pot), and the constitution says it’s legal, we damn well better tax it,” Steadman said.