The cost to fix a group of buildings in San Diego that many have found terribly offensive has skyrocketed. The buildings were supposed to have been modified nearly three years ago, but the complex has not been touched. As a result, the Navy's plan was to spend $625,000 on a single-rooftop canopy to mask the design. However, that plan was quickly scrapped because many saw it as insufficient. The price tag for the Navy's latest proposal is between $17 million and $40 million, and it is to be submitted for the 2011 fiscal year. A former member of the military, Deniston said she is sympathetic toward those who are offended by the design, but also finds the proposed cost of the Navy's plan "offensive."



The Department of Homeland Security is set to spend $80 million dollars on hiring a raft of armed guards to protect IRS and other government buildings in upstate New York during "public demonstrations" and "civil disturbances",once again prompting concerns that the federal agency is preparing for food stamp riots, anti-tax demonstrations or some other form of domestic unrest.

In March, Arkansas State Fusion Center Director Richard Davis admitted that the federal agency spies on Americans deemed to be "anti-government", noting that the DHS concentrates on, "domestic terrorism and certain groups that are anti-government. We want to kind of take a look at that and receive that information", so-called threats which included people, "putting political stickers in public bathrooms or participating in movements against the death penalty".



"In line with its procurement policy, the House of Commons Catering Service avoids, wherever identifiable, the procurement of foods that contain genetically modified organisms," reads a statement by the U.K. Parliament's food supplier. "To this end, as part of the tendering process, food suppliers are required to work to a strict GM organisms policy and give assurances that goods supplied be free from genetically modified materials," adds the group, noting that "customer choice" is responsible for keeping GMOs out of Parliament cafeterias.

Infant formula, like no other food, is regulated by its own law, the Infant Formula Act of 1980 as amended in 1986. The act sets lower limits on 29 nutrients (so-called "table nutrients" because they appear in table form. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 21 CFR 107.100). . . . Manufacturers are required to follow "good manufacturing practice", but no requirement for sterility is specified. . . . Powdered formula is not guaranteed nor required to be free of pathogenic organisms (Baker, 2002).

"We will continue until Monsanto complies with consumer demand. They are poisoning our children, poisoning our planet", she said. "If we don't act, who's going to?"

The "Monsanto Protection Act" effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future. The advent of genetically modified seeds -- which has been driven by the massive Monsanto Company -- and their exploding use in farms across America came on fast and has proved a huge boon for Monsanto's profits.



"Well, we're in business to make money. We can't just strip all GMO products off the shelves. We have to bow to the free market, to the customer".

WHOLE FOODS spokesperson