No way... people who are experts in the food/health industry are involved with giving dietary advice? The horror.
Of course there isn't a link to the reports, so I have to go looking for it. Anyway here's the report. PDF - page 8 for the results. I spot-checked a few of them - the conflicts of interest I saw was in the form of companies sponsoring research done. ...which is pretty much how the majority of research gets done I believe..
Also I see coca-cola referenced ONCE as a "possible" COI
Position in industry-sponsored conferences: Dr. Booth
was selected to speak at a conference sponsored by
Bayer, Coca-Cola, and Abbott, among other industry
actors
yet this article seems to deem it alright to put it as the posterboy image and list it prominently among other unpopular company names. Also they have to link to their boogeyman reporting about aspartame. You can see where HN tore it apart here.
This is why I hate news nowadays. I could've made some good food in the past 20 minutes on a nice Saturday, but instead I wasted time finding out a guardian article was bullshit.
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons, at 4.1 million, changed little
in September. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working
part time because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs.
(See table A-8.)
A-8 seems to indicate the number of part-time jobs for economic reasons actually went down by about 100k, which seems pretty good.
Listed out like that, it’s not completely out of left field. The MAGA wing has been advocating for a few of those items on the list. It’s just bizarre that it’s being brought up as a bargaining chip /now/. You know - after obliterating the last R that worked with Dems. Like…what…?
Environmental advocates say structures will run through public lands, habitats of endangered plants and animal species like the ocelot, a spotted wild cat.
“A plan to build a wall through will bulldoze an impermeable barrier straight through the heart of that habitat. It will stop wildlife migrations dead in their tracks. It will destroy a huge amount of wildlife refuge land. And it’s a horrific step backwards for the borderlands,” Laiken Jordahl, a southwest conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity, said Wednesday afternoon.
This is no different than linking to your original source. AP isn't claiming it's going through the refuge. AP is stating that the environmentalists are saying it will. There's a difference
....what? I'm saying the claim that this is a performative gesture to score conservative votes is made up.
But since we're on the center of biological diversity, I'm going to question this site's information too.
Biden Administration Waives Laws to Rush Border Wall Construction Through Texas Wildlife Refuge
Section 2 of the document linked in my post above has the location for the barriers/walls/roads/whatever you want to call it. I noticed that a few of them mention the refuge, but none of them mention going through them - only going up to the border... and that's it.
"useless, medieval wall " - from the site.
Explicitly not what this construction is. This site's motivation is questionable.
Can't possibly be right because it's not - he pulled it out of his ass. If you look at sourced govt document, it outlines the motivation pretty clearly.
The United States Border Patrol’s (Border Patrol) Rio Grande Valley Sector is an area of “high illegal entry.” As of early August 2023, Border Patrol had encountered over 245,000 such entrants attempting to enter the United States between ports of entry in the Rio Grande Valley Sector in Fiscal Year 2023.
It's a problem area that the government's trying to get patched up. If you read the document, they list very specific spots they're putting barriers up in - it's not some brain-dead wall. And it's not for conservative brownie points. If people are illegally coming past the border, the government has an interest in stopping that no matter who's actually in charge.
A few weeks ago, ZUMA Press filed a complaint at a federal court in California, accusing Plex of using a photo of actress Cuca Escribano on its website, without permission. The photo was shot by Jose Perez Gegundez who typically licenses it to third parties for a fee.
Not the reason people would think of with this type of title.
You're right, it's not true. People need to get out of their bubble and listen to public radio in the states. Even the supposed non-biased ones love peddling the BOTH SIDES narrative bs. This is why races are almost always 50/50
You realize that article describes how Obama re-iterated his pro-choice stance when asked if he would sign FOCA, right? What did you expect him to do? Magically declare RvW into law using his Executive branch wand?
If you're hung up on the URL, I can think of one little thing congress might've been distracted by with their 72 days of supermajority.
Cool - you answered the question, gold star. Here's one more - in those 7 years, was there ever a call from the public to put RvW into law? I'll even settle for ONE call-to-action news article from that time period.
One nobody who wrote the sentence "they should make RvW into the law" while the dems had a supermajority and I'll say you have a point
Understandable. But a simple search gives a pretty straightforward answer here. I would understand the need for clarification if it were a complicated concept, but this is isn't that.
Sixth grade (also 6th Grade or Grade 6) is the sixth year of formal or compulsory education. Students in sixth grade are usually 11-12 years old. It is commonly the first or second grade of middle school or the last grade of elementary school, and the sixth school year since kindergarten.
Looks like a pretty common term in many countries to me.
No way... people who are experts in the food/health industry are involved with giving dietary advice? The horror.
Of course there isn't a link to the reports, so I have to go looking for it. Anyway here's the report. PDF - page 8 for the results. I spot-checked a few of them - the conflicts of interest I saw was in the form of companies sponsoring research done. ...which is pretty much how the majority of research gets done I believe..
Also I see coca-cola referenced ONCE as a "possible" COI
yet this article seems to deem it alright to put it as the posterboy image and list it prominently among other unpopular company names. Also they have to link to their boogeyman reporting about aspartame. You can see where HN tore it apart here.
This is why I hate news nowadays. I could've made some good food in the past 20 minutes on a nice Saturday, but instead I wasted time finding out a guardian article was bullshit.