Author Archives: GuillerIpu

VICTORY! EPA Cancels 12 Bee-Killing Pesticides

Anyone who loves the planet, the bees and food (isn?t that just about everyone?) will be celebrating thanks to the recent victory against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That?s because, on May 20, 2019, the EPA announced its final notices for the registration of 12 neonicotinoid pesticides.

Known as neonics, this group of pesticides has been the bane of most environmentalists? existences for many years. They have long been known for destroying bee populations, building up in groundwater, killing frogs, worms, birds and fish. Largely used in agricultural applications such as soil treatments, seed treatments, commercial turf products, neonics have also been used on trees, animal insect treatments and even domestic lawn products.

The Center for Food Safety, Sierra Club, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Environmental Health, Pesticide Action Network and four commercial beekeepers: Steve Ellis, Jim Doan, Tom Theobald and Bill Rhodes banded together to initiate litigation against the EPA starting in March 2013. The environmentalists, food safety organizations and beekeepers spent the last 6 years holding the EPA accountable for its lack of diligence in preventing or addressing bee Colony Collapse Disorder and to demand that the EPA protect livelihoods, rural economies and the environment.

Monday?s announcement that the EPA is cancelling the registration of 12 neonicotinoid that are known to kill bees and endangered species is part of the settlement the EPA accepted as part of the litigation process.

Two years ago, a federal court ruled that the EPA systemically violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA)?a critical wildlife protection law, after noting that the government agency had unlawfully issued 59 pesticide registrations between 2007 and 2012 for a wide range of agricultural, landscaping and ornamental uses. Seeds coated with neonics are used on over 150 million acres of American soy, corn, cotton and other crops.

According to the Center for Food Safety, neonics are chemically-related to nicotine and interfere with the nervous system of insects, causing tremors, paralysis and death even when they are administered at extremely low doses. Unlike other pesticides, neonics become dispersed throughout plants, causing the entire plant to become toxic. When bees or other pollinators are exposed to the chemicals through the pollen, nectar, dust or even dew droplets on the plants, they suffer nervous system damage and ultimately death.

Neonics were heavily used in the mid-2000s, around the same time beekeepers noted vast colony losses of bees.

Regulatory agencies in the United States, Canada and many other countries have been lax on their legislation which currently allows the sale and use of these destructive products. According to the Lori Ann Burd, the director at the Center for Biological Diversity, the EPA had actually considered increasing the use of neonicotinoids.

In Canada, The David Suzuki Foundation, Friends of the Earth (Canada), Ontario Nature and The Wilderness Committee filed a lawsuit against the Canadian federal government for allowing the use of two common neonic pesticides that had already been banned in the European Union. Sadly, the Canadian case had a different outcome as the case was dismissed by the Canadian federal court for a supposed lack of merit earlier this month.

According to the David Suzuki Foundation, there is already extensive scientific evidence (over 1100 studies) of neonicotinoid-caused destruction to the environment, which includes:

  1. Becoming embedded into seeds that are planted
  2. Treated seeds are eaten by birds
  3. The dust from the seeds contaminates the air during planting
  4. Pollen and nectar eaten by bees is contaminated
  5. The insecticides wash into waterways like streams, rivers and oceans
  6. The soil is contaminated from year-after-year buildup

Of course, it is great news that the EPA has been forced to finally do the right thing. After all, without bees to pollinate food plants, our entire food supply is threatened.

Additionally, neonic exposures have been linked to human fatalities, developmental and neurological abnormalities, anencephaly, autism spectrum disorder, memory loss, liver cancer and tremors. Neonics have been found to affect receptors in the body that are critical to brain function, memory, cognition and behavior.

Related Stories:

7 Essential Oils for Arthritis
5 Essential Oils for Better Digestion
8 Essential Oils to Help with Emotional Healing

Dr. Michelle Schoffro Cook, PhD, DNM shares her food growing, cooking, preserving, and other food self-sufficiency adventures at FoodHouseProject.com. She is the publisher of the free e-newsletter World?s Healthiest News and an international best-selling and 20-time published book author whose works include: The Cultured Cook: Delicious Fermented Foods with Probiotics to Knock Out Inflammation, Boost Gut Health, Lose Weight & Extend Your Life. Follow her work.

Link: 

VICTORY! EPA Cancels 12 Bee-Killing Pesticides

Posted in alo, bigo, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on VICTORY! EPA Cancels 12 Bee-Killing Pesticides

One Side In the Ad-Blocker Wars Is Doomed

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

MoJo editor Clara Jeffrey points me to this today:

Ad blocking has become a hot-button media issue as consumers push back on perceived ad overload and tracking mechanisms across the internet. Research firm Ovum estimates that publishers lost $24 billion in revenue globally last year due to ad blocking.

Hmmm. $24 billion. I wonder how research firm Ovum came up with that number? Let’s hop over and—oh, hold on. Just wait a few years and we’re headed toward Armageddon:

Players in the digital publishing industry can’t stop talking about ad blocking. And they shouldn’t — according to Ovum’s new Ad-Blocking Forecast, the phenomenon will result in a 26% loss in Internet advertising revenues in 2020, which equates to $78.2bn globally. However, if publishers act now, that percentage could be as little as 6%, or $16.9bn. The question is: How can publishers make that much of a difference?

Yikes! I’ve put this forecast into handy chart form since numbers always look more official when you do that. But I still don’t know how Ovum came up with these figures, since I’m not a client and don’t have access to their reports. Which is fair enough. Nonetheless, I’m intrigued by this:

To take back control, publishers need to show consumers why advertising is needed and that it can be a positive addition to content.

….Publishers also need to work with advertisers to improve the consumer experience. The quality of the adverts is a major issue for many consumers. There are not enough examples of web-delivered adverts that enhance the experience for the reader….Forcing adverts on consumers through ad reinsertion or by blocking users of ad blockers from accessing content will have a negative long-term effect….Ovum predicts that the ad blockers — with input from a network of unpaid developers — will win the battle and ad blockers will remain more advanced than the anti-ad blockers in the long term.

Not only will websites that try to force the issue risk annoying consumers further but these websites also risk driving readers toward their competitors who don’t require ad blockers to be switched off or who provide an alternate means of paying for content.

I’d like to make fun of this, but it’s actually decent advice. The current hysteria over ad blockers reminds me of the hysteria over TiVo when it first arrived in 1999—which itself was just an updated version of the hysteria over VCRs back in the 80s. If people can record shows, they’ll skip the ads! We’re doomed!

But no. TV ad revenue has been surprisingly stable since 1999 despite a decline in viewership. The big problem, it turns out, isn’t the ad skippers, it’s the number of people watching TV in the first place. I suspect the same is true of online journalism. Ad blockers aren’t the problem, readership is. Provide a well-targeted audience and advertisers will pay for it. The folks who skip the ads probably weren’t very good sales prospects anyway.

In any case, it doesn’t matter: Ovum is almost certainly correct that ad-blockers will win the war against ad-blocker-blockers, which means that online sites are waging a losing battle that does nothing but piss off their customers. So cut down on the quantity of ads and target them better instead. That may or may not work, but it’s likely to work a lot better than continuing to fight the ad-blocker wars.

More:

One Side In the Ad-Blocker Wars Is Doomed

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on One Side In the Ad-Blocker Wars Is Doomed

Adding a Private Option to VA Health Care Is Going to Cost a Bundle. We Should Study Whether It Works.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

As part of the deal to fund new VA facilities in underserved areas, Democrats agreed to a Republican proposal that would allow veterans to seek private health care if they live more than 40 miles from a VA facility or if they have been waiting more than 30 days for an appointment. Here’s what the CBO has to say about that:

Maybe this is a good thing. Better access to health care means more people will sign up for health care, and they’ll do it via private providers. That’s the basic idea behind Obamacare, after all. Of course, it’s also possible that this might be a bad thing. As Phil Longman points out, outsourced care lacks the very thing that makes VA care so effective: “an integrated, evidence-based, health care delivery system platform that is aligned with the interests of its patients.”

Because the VA truly is a system, it can coordinate among all the different specialists and other health care providers who are necessarily involved in patient care these days. And because it operates as a system, the VA can also make sure that all these medical professionals are working from a common electronic medical record and adhering to established, evidence-based protocols of care—not inadvertently ordering up dangerous combinations of drugs, or performing unnecessary surgeries and tests just to make a buck.

So which is it? Beats me. That’s why I sure hope someone is authorizing some money to study this from the start. It’s a great opportunity to compare public and private health care on metrics of both quality and cost. It’s not a perfect RCT, but it’s fairly close, since the people who qualify for private care are a fairly random subsegment of the entire VA population. If we study their outcomes over the next few years, we could learn a lot.

And that’s important, because this isn’t cheap. As CRFB points out, if this policy is extended beyond its initial pilot period it will cost more than we saved from the entire defense sequester and more than Medicare Part D. This is an opportunity that shouldn’t be passed up.

See the article here: 

Adding a Private Option to VA Health Care Is Going to Cost a Bundle. We Should Study Whether It Works.

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Adding a Private Option to VA Health Care Is Going to Cost a Bundle. We Should Study Whether It Works.