chinese-ethnic-furniture.com

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

A National Academy of Sciences report (.pdf) last year said that while the milk and meat from cloned animals would not likely make anyone sick, more research should be performed. Now, a new US-Japan study published in the April 11 online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says that milk and meat from cloned cattle does indeed appear to meet industry standards and appears to be safe for human consumption.

As BBC News reports, the scientists, led by Professor Jerry Yang from the University of Connecticut, compared the produce from two beef and four dairy clones, all derived from a single Holstein dairy cow and a single Japanese black bull, with the produce from normal animals of similar age and breed.

The meat was analysed against more than 100 physiological, tissue and cellular components, while the milk was analysed for protein, fat and other variables. No significant differences between the produce of cloned and normal cattle were found. Higher levels of fat and fatty acids were found in the cloned cow meat, but they still fell within beef industry standards.

While the study showed the cloned produce to be within the range approved for human consumption, the scientists stressed that the research was still in its early stages. Their findings, they said, provide “guidelines” for further research with larger numbers of clones from different genetic backgrounds.

Cloning livestock may one day increase yields by copying those animals that are especially productive and especially resistant to disease.

“The milking production levels in the US are three to four times higher than levels in China; maybe even five times or more compared to cows in India and some other countries,” Professor Jerry Yang told BBC News. “Therefore cloning could offer technology for duplicating superior farm animals. However, all the products from these cloned animals must be safe for human consumption. …and it is a major issue for scientists to provide a scientific basis for the data and information to address this question.”

As USA Today reports, there is currently no law governing the sale of meat or milk from the estimated 1,000 to 2,000 cloned farm animals in the USA. But since 2003, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has asked producers to voluntarily keep the meat and milk of these animals, and that of their offspring, out of the food supply.

Wired News reports that companies like ViaGen and Cyagra, which offer livestock-cloning services, have also been waiting for several years for a final say from the FDA.

“For the United States agricultural industry, (cloning) can reduce the number of cows necessary for milking,” said Jerry Yang “They can have a pleasant environment and produce even more milk.” He also said that cloning cattle from the United States, where genetic breeding is more advanced, could save developing countries 50 years of breeding.

The idea of cloning animals for human consumption is not without its critics. First, there are the welfare concerns, as most cloned animals do not make it to term before being born, and many of those that do are born deformed or prone to illness. The Humane Society of the United States has asked for a ban on milk and meat from clones for just this reason. Second, there is still the concern that healthy clones may have subtle defects that could make their food products unsafe to eat.

As the Washington Post reports, some critics are asking why it is necessary to clone cows that produce huge amounts of milk when surpluses, rather than shortages, are the main problem facing the U.S. dairy industry today.

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Indian authorities today declared an intent to force web companies to screen content for “offensive” and “blasphemous material”. The move follows failed talks yesterday with Facebook, Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft.

Communications Minister Kapil Sibal says “My aim is that insulting material never gets uploaded”, and that web firms “will have to give us the data, where these images are being uploaded and who is doing it.” The government’s planned new policy is in response to web-based firms informing him they could not prevent such material being uploaded. “They have given it to me in writing that they will not do anything until we get an order from the court,” even though “At a meeting on 4 November, we showed them some of the photos and they too agreed that the photos were offensive,” said Sibal. The disputed material was first discussed three months ago.

Sibal calls the situation “unacceptable” and disputes the firms’ defence of being merely “platforms” for others to add material. He claims they showed their “intention was not to cooperate”. Facebook promised ongoing dialogue in a statement and “[recognise] the government’s interest in minimising the amount of abusive content”. They also promised to “remove any content that violates our terms, which are designed to keep material that is hateful, threatening, incites violence or contains nudity off the service.”

Google say they remove material breaching their policies and to comply with local legislation. “But when content is legal and doesn’t violate our policies, we won’t remove it just because it’s controversial, as we believe that people’s differing views, so long as they’re legal, should be respected and protected,” the company added.

“We have to take care of the sensibilities of our people, we have to protect their sensibilities. Our cultural ethos is very important to us,” Sibal said today. A response from web firms of “we throw up our hands, we can’t do anything about this” would not be tolerated.

Although some reports suggest the spat has been triggered by critiques of powerful politician Sonia Gandhi, Sibal claims the firms have previously hesitated to respond to requests for details of “terrorists”. All the material the government wishes to censor is “absolutely illegal, defamatory, pornographic or other similar kind of material” says Congress spokesman Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Material in question includes cartoons of Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and material mocking religion including an image depicting pigs in Mecca.

Indian computer security expert Vijay Mukhi rubbished the suggestions. “The idea of prescreening is impossible. How will they do it?… There is no technology currently that determines whether content is ‘defamatory’ or ‘offensive’,” he told Reuters. This sentiment was broadly echoed by large numbers on Twitter; the tag #IdiotKapilSibal was among the nation’s Twitter users’ most-used today. Twitter and Facebook were the organising points earlier this year for an anti-graft campaign that saw thousands protesting and new laws passed.

Internet companies insist too much material flows through the web to make such screening plausible. Sibal says the firms are applying US standards which do not take Indian needs into account.

Research in Motion last year resisted Indian security demands for access to encrypted BlackBerry communications. The government gave up that request but did manage to gain limited access to some BlackBerry communications. Skype and Google were told then that local servers would be mandatory, allowing the government to inspect emails.

About 100 million of India’s 1.2 billion people are online. There are 28 million Indian Facebook profiles. Google says it has received 68 content removal requests from Indian officials this year, and there have also been concerns Google Earth could be used to plan militant attacks.

India’s new moves follow criticism of the United Kingdom earlier this year. The UK proposed social media restrictions following riots while the Foreign Secretary simultaneously criticised other nations using social media controls to limit protest.

Monday, September 12, 2005

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is being criticized for misallocation of personnel in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. FEMA representatives said they requested volunteers from fire departments around the U.S., to handle its community relations campaign. However, a document FEMA sent to local fire departments asked for firefighters with very specific skills and who were capable of working in “austere conditions”. Fire departments around the nation responded by sending crews to the FEMA staging ground in Atlanta. Some of these crews were unaware that they were only going to be used for public relations work. Others, however, merely hoped that FEMA would allocate them to rescue and damage control operations once it saw their qualifications.

The firefighter’s objections are particularly poignant as one of FEMA public relations training seminars coincided with New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin plea for firefighters on national television, to relieve his own exhausted crews. It is unclear if FEMA’s request for firefighters prevented any municipalities from responding to Mayor Nagin’s request.

Some firefighters have objected to their use as FEMA public relations officers because their municipalities must bear the cost of their salaries, as well as endure reduced firefighting capacity. FEMA has stated that it sought to use firefighters to avoid background checks required of federal employees.

Firefighters began receiving their assignments Monday, September 5th. Among these was a crew of 50 assigned to tour the devastated areas with President Bush and the press.

Sunday, October 7, 2007

Lloyd Helferty is running for the Green Party of Ontario in the Ontario provincial election, in the Thornhill riding. Wikinews’ Nick Moreau interviewed him regarding his values, his experience, and his campaign.

Stay tuned for further interviews; every candidate from every party is eligible, and will be contacted. Expect interviews from Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, New Democratic Party members, Ontario Greens, as well as members from the Family Coalition, Freedom, Communist, Libertarian, and Confederation of Regions parties, as well as independents.

Monday, August 27, 2012

London, England — As Paralympians ready for the Games which are set to open later this week, they have access to a world class fitness center inside the Paralympic Village which is designed to maximise their pre-Game preparations.

According to volunteers staffing the center, instead of being a single large room, as in Beijing, the building has numerous rooms. It, along with the adjacent Village Services Centre, is designed to be converted into a school after the games conclude. Rooms have been structured as a gym, an auditorium, and science laboratories.

Gym equipment is supplied by Technogym, an Italian firm that has supplied gym equipment for the Olympics since 2000. Equipment has been provided not just for for the Fitness Centre, but for gyms at all the Olympic venues. The newest equipment is oriented toward maximum flexibility, allowing athletes to exercise the particular muscles that they most require for their sport.

In addition to the equipment, the Fitness Centre also provides instructors trained in the use of the equipment, the likes of which athletes from many countries have never seen before. There are also a number of instructors available to provide motivational training.

Wednesday, June 23, 2021

On Monday, Canada, the European Union (EU), the United Kingdom and the United States imposed new sanctions on senior officials and entities in Belarus over the May 23 diversion of a Ryanair flight and subsequent arrest of dissident journalist Roman Protasevich and his girlfriend Sofia Sapega, as well as “repressive practices” committed by the Belarusian government.

The joint action was aimed at putting pressure on Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko’s “regime”, a joint statement read, citing “continued attacks on human rights, fundamental freedoms, and international law”, as well as the “politically motivated” arrest of Mr Protasevich and Ms Sapega.

The statement went on to express support for “the long-suppressed democratic aspirations of the people of Belarus”, calling for Belarusian co-operation in investigations into the incident, the release of all political prisoners, adherence to the recommendations of an expert mission by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), of which Belarus is a participating state, and OSCE-facilitated dialogue between the government and opposition.

The circumstances surrounding the forced landing of Ryanair flight FR4978 from Lithuania to Greece in Minsk, the Belarusian capital, are contested. As reported by Sky News, state media says the diversion was due to threat of explosives on board, a claim Global Affairs Canada calls “dubious and still unverified”.

Total restrictive measures varied between the countries and regional organisation. Canada sanctioned 17 new individuals for a total of 72, and five entities described in a press release as being “due to the ongoing disregard for human rights demonstrated”.

The EU, through the Council of the European Union, extended its restrictive measures by 78 individuals and eight entities related either to human rights violations or the “forced and unlawful landing”, to a total of 166 individuals and fifteen entities. Those who are impacted, including judges, businesspeople, university rectors and government ministers, will be subject to an asset freeze, and persons affected prohibited to enter or transit through EU territory.

The measures also prohibit EU citizens and companies from making money available to the designated. According to the Associated Press, EU policy chief Josep Borrell said the measures “are going to hurt […] the economy of Belarus heavily”. The decision to affect entities, not just individuals, foreign minister of Germany Heiko Maas said, will impact the “economic areas that are of particular significance for Belarus and for the regime’s income”; those targeted include the export of fertiliser ingredient potash, and those of tobacco and petroleum.

The United Kingdom furthered sanctions levied with Canada in September on eight Belarusian officials, including Lukashenko, his son, and senior government members. New restrictions include eleven individuals and two entities, which are henceforth subject to asset freezes and travel bans.

Among those targeted includes petroleum exporter BNK (UK) Ltd, which, according to its 2019 report of the director presented to Companies House, “provides intermediate services to oil sector companies” in Belarus. According to a government press release, UK foreign secretary Dominic Raab said “cutting off oil export revenue streams” was one way the government would “hold the [Belarusian] regime to account”.

The United States, through the State Department and Office of Foreign Assets Control under the Treasury Department, imposed visa restrictions on 46 Belarusian individuals holding “key positions” in the country, according to a press release, and added 16 individuals and five entities to a designated list. In addition to concerns of the country’s “transnational repression” and “affronts to international efforts”, the US also cited the “fraudulent” 2020 Belarusian presidential election as cause for the sanctions’ imposition.

The timing of the sanctions was questioned by Belarusian Nikolai Shchekin on state media network the Belarusian Telegraph Agency, noting the date June 21 is one day before the anniversary of the start of the German invasion of the Soviet Union, or the “Great Patriotic War”. According to CNN, the US attempted to announce its sanctions earlier, prior to a meeting between US president Joe Biden and president of Russia Vladimir Putin, but was held up by the EU.