London ~~ Thursday July 3, 2008

18,000 women and children trafficked into UK sex trade

• 6,000-18,000 Trafficked women are thought to work as prostitutes in Britain
• 167 Victims identified in a police operation to free them
• 13 Victims aged between 14 and 17
• £500,000 Amount seized in brothel raids
• 500,000 Number of women trafficked into the EU each year

 London ~~ Thursday July 3, 2008, Page 4

British-born teenagers being trafficked for sexual exploitation within UK, police say

• · Older men 'grooming' girls as young as 12
• · 33 victims in single case in Sheffield, officers fear

 By Rachel Williams

Teenage girls born in Britain are being trafficked for sexual exploitation within the UK, police said yesterday, adding that children are being "groomed" by men acting as boyfriends who carry out the abuse and then take the youngsters to other towns for further exploitation.

Officers fear that as many as 33 girls between the ages of 12 and 15 could have been involved in a case uncovered in Sheffield last year. Only one, a 15-year-old, was willing to give evidence in court, but following that a 23-year-old man was jailed for 10 years for serious sexual offences which included rape of a child. Five other men faced deportation procedures.

The victims were living in local authority care or with their families. Officers at the UK Human Trafficking Centre (UKHTC) said they had heard reports of girls as young as 12 being forced to perform sexual acts up to 20 times a night.

The Home Office minister Vernon Coaker said it was difficult to establish the scale of the internal trafficking. "It is something that increasingly people are raising and we are trying to get a better understanding of what exactly is taking place. People groom them, get their trust and then betray that trust."

Police have adopted terms like "lover boy" to describe the way older men at first act like an indulgent boyfriend, showering the young girls with drugs and gifts including money and jewellery.

According to the UKHTC, the girls are encouraged to "go missing" from home and to spend more and more time with their "boyfriends", who eventually start controlling them with threats and violence.

At this stage the children will be taken to other locations in the UK, introduced to other groups of men and asked by the boyfriend to give the others sexual favours, because they are his "friends". Terrified and dominated by the boyfriend, they feel unable to refuse. Some victims have described being subjected to extreme violence, including rape, while others have alleged they were used to transport and deal in drugs.

The details on internal trafficking emerged as the government revealed the biggest crackdown yet on traffickers bringing people into the UK to work in the sex industry. Latest estimates by police suggest there could be as many 18,000 trafficking victims being forced to work as prostitutes in the UK.

About 167 victims, including 13 children aged between 14 and 17, were rescued across Britain and Ireland, and 528 suspected traffickers were arrested during the six months of Operation Pentameter 2, which ended earlier this year.

The majority of the victims came from China and south-east Asia, with a smaller number from eastern Europe. Three children were found who had been trafficked for forced labour. More than £500,000 in cash has been recovered from those arrested, and court orders are in place to keep further criminal assets worth more than £3m.

So far more than 80 people have been charged with various offences and there have been 24 convictions, although only two people have been found guilty of human trafficking.

New measures to tackle the problem of trafficked children being forced into criminal activities, including working in cannabis farms and being brought into Britain to make fraudulent welfare claims, have been added to the government's action plan.

Victims of trafficking are also to be granted a 45-day period of grace after their rescue, even if they are in the country illegally. In many cases the victims will get a one-year temporary residency permit. The Home Office had already pledged to ratify a European agreement to give a period of 30 days' grace.

Coaker also admitted the authorities were struggling to combat the problem of children disappearing after being rescued from the hands of suspected traffickers. The Guardian revealed this year that more than 400 foreign children, many suspected of being trafficked into the sex or drug trade, had gone missing from local authority care.

Some youngsters go to extraordinary lengths to get away from the people trying to protect them, having been duped into believing they were escorted into the country in their best interests, Coaker said. "This is a huge issue, to support them and keep them safe," he said. "Short of locking them up in protective custody, we're struggling. We're looking to see what we can do to keep children safer."

Gloucestershire's chief constable, Tim Brain, who coordinated Pentameter 2, said the investigation had revealed a large number of brothels in ordinary suburban flats and houses. Of more than 800 premises visited, nearly 600 were residential, while 157 were massage parlours, saunas and nail bars.

"It is likely that in future police investigations will have to consider all kinds of premises," Brain said.

The residential locations were "very, very ordinary". He added: "In some of the cases the neighbours who live nearby have not actually suspected any kind of unusual activity."

The first phase of Pentameter, in 2006, rescued 88 victims and made 232 arrests. Brain said: "The increase in arrests is good news in terms of police and partner agency effectiveness, but it does mean that we still have an insidious problem in the heart of our society."

Coaker said there was no evidence to suggest trafficking to Britain was increasing. Although the number of arrests and victims found in the latest operation had risen, the period of the operation was twice as long.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
London ~~ Thursday July 3, 2008

A thriving sex industry is a magnet for human traffickers

Police raids can rescue some victims, but for long-term results the government must criminalise the buyers of sexual services

By Rahila Gupta

The news that a police crackdown on human trafficking netted 13 children between the ages of 14 and 17, shocking as it is, comes as no surprise to those working in the field. Although the exact number of women working in prostitution is by definition unknowable, one of the most commonly accepted statistics is that there are 80,000 women of which 70% were recruited before the age of 18 (see Paying the Price, Home Office, 2004). If you are considered to be a minor until the age of 18 under British law, and if trafficking is defined as "coercion or deceit", then it is possible to conclude that 56,000 young women or children are being trafficked into the sex industry. Most of these will not be British born, as some police estimates put numbers of women trafficked from abroad at 85% of the total.

While the rescue of even one child is to be welcomed, raids and operations like these have greater significance in leading to public pressure to bring about changes in policy and perhaps some deterrent effect on traffickers – but they do not make a substantial dent in numbers rescued. The tragedy is that many of those rescued seem to slip through the net yet again; social services and other agencies do not appear to be well resourced enough to keep hold of them.

There are many, often interconnected, issues that make local women vulnerable to traffickers in the first place: physical or sexual abuse at home; homelessness; being in care; and drug addiction. These are huge systemic issues that need tackling in the long term.

However, a short cut is available, if only the government were prepared to take it: tackle demand by criminalising the buyers of sexual services. Ironically the government is prepared to be more robust in tackling demand for forced labour in areas such as catering, cleaning or agriculture. Of the 13 children rescued, three had been trafficked for forced labour. As the law now stands, their employers could be fined and even jailed for not checking on their immigration status, but the buyers of sexual services from the other 10 would go scot-free.

The government's action plan on trafficking limply proposes to "target men who might use massage parlours, saunas or other kinds of brothel, through men's magazines, websites or other targeted media using advertisements which raise awareness of trafficking for sexual exploitation and warn of the risks involved." This is a risible response. On many internet chatrooms men exchange salacious tips about their sexual experiences with prostitutes. The younger they are or the more compliant they are because they have been trafficked, the more attractive they are to these men. Apparently the number of men who now pay for sex has doubled to nearly one in 10 since the 1990s.

The government needs to grasp the nettle and introduce legislation to make the buying of sex a criminal offence. Where this has been done, for example in Sweden, there is evidence that there has been a substantial reduction in women trafficked to those countries. A thriving sex industry is a magnet for traffickers, both national and international, and needs to be kicked where it hurts.

Thursday July 3 2008
Original at: Monday June 30, 2008

Codex Meeting: The U.S. Fights Mandatory GM Labeling

South Africa and many African countries are strong dissenting voices of the U.S. policy that all GM/GE foods are considered equal to non-GM/GE foods and are in fact deemed safe under a 1992 George H. W. Bush Executive Order.

by Dr. Gregory Damato (NaturalNews)

The U.S. and several other nations recently attended a Codex meeting in Calgary, Canada to discuss food labeling. The Codex Alimentarius Commission implements the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program, the purpose of which is to protect the health of consumers and to ensure fair practices in the food trade. The Codex Alimentarius (Latin, meaning Food Law or Code) is a collection of internationally adopted food standards presented in a uniform manner. One of the principle reasons for this forum was to discuss the necessity, or lack of necessity as the U.S. sees it, to set up mandatory labeling of GM (genetically modified) and GE (genetically engineered) foods for consumers. South Africa (SA) and many African countries are strong dissenting voices of the U.S. policy that all GM/GE foods are considered equal to non-GM/GE foods and are in fact deemed safe under a 1992 George H. W. Bush Executive Order.

Under this official policy, all GM/GE foods are not required to undergo any kind of safety testing before entering the market. Below you will find the exact policy of the FDA concerning GM food:
"FDA relies primarily on two sections of the Act to ensure the safety of foods and food ingredients. Generally, whole foods, such as fruits, vegetables, and grains, are not subject to premarket approval. The primary legal tool that FDA has successfully used to ensure the safety of foods is the adulteration provisions of section 402(a)(1). The Act places a legal duty on developers to ensure that the foods they present to consumers are safe and comply with all legal requirements. FDA has authority to remove a food from the market if it poses a risk to public health. Foods derived from new plant varieties developed through genetic engineering will be regulated under this authority as well" [1].

Hence, nearly every modified food in the U.S. is completely untested for safety. This is very noteworthy for two reasons: (a) the U.S. leads the world in GM/GE foods (with up to 80% of its prepared and prepackaged foods being modified); and (b) every other nation besides the U.S. tests all GM/GE food before they are put into the food chain. Several African nations have dubbed GM/GE foods as "lethal" and believes the U.S. is fulfilling a population reduction strategy in Africa.

During the CODEX meeting, SA, who has been demanding that Codex provide them with distinct and mandatory GM/GE labels, presented a 10-page document expressing this view. In this document the following critical points were made:

1. Unmet Religious and Ethical Concerns of Christians and Jews
a. Corruption of Divine Protection
South Africa pointed out that in nearly every country there are various religious groups with differing beliefs when it comes to ingesting certain foods. South Africa stated that these "religious and ethical concerns must be noted and respected through global mandatory labeling of foods derived from genetic engineering and biotechnology must take into account ethical and religious concerns" [2] (CCFL, 2008, p. 1). For example, kosher Jews and Halal Muslims would wish to know whether the corn they were eating had been modified with a gene from pigs. Similarly, vegetarians would certainly wish to avoid vegetables which contained animal genes inserted into them and have an ethical right to know if this was the case.

B. Moral and Ethical Protection
SA contends that Codex and the WTO (World Trade Organization) assure protection of the moral, ethical and religious rights of Christian and Jewish believers. Therefore, mandatory labeling is essential to ensure these rights are preserved. If, for example, a Christian believed that God created the heaven and earth as well as all living creatures (including food), then a serious ethical concern would arise if he or she wanted to avoid such modified foods but had no realistic way to do so.

2. Unintended Consumer Health Effects
a. Psychological and Emotional Health
SA rightfully argued that the introduction of GM/GE foods violate the principles and mandates of Codex which are in place to protect the health of the consumer. In Norway, a report on GM/GE foods stated that, "some customers may experience strong ethical, religious, emotional or other objections for purchasing certain foods. These perceived risks may influence their health. These aspects of health should also be considered when the needs for new standards are discussed"[2]. Hence, the labeling of GM/GE foods should be mandatory under such an assumption.

B. Unknown Effects of Consumption of GM/GE Biotech Foods
Due to the lack of testing on GM/GE foods, safety is a significant concern for many individuals. These individuals may wish to avoid such food out of legitimate concern for their well-being. Antibiotic-resistant super diseases may be created if the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM foods would transfer into the consumer. Furthermore, some concerning results have been evinced from animals consuming GM/GE foods. GM DNA has been found in every organ (including fetuses) of animals eating these types of food. Additionally, numerous studies have shown many deleterious short and long-term effects from the consumption of GM/GE foods. For example, spermicide-containing corn, which was developed with funds from the USDA, and results in complete sterility in males has been rampant in the food chain for some time. Without proper labeling of these types of foods, there is no way to protect the fertility of males. Several other recent studies are detailed below:

* In 2005 and 2006, researchers at the Russian Academy of Sciences reported that female rats who were fed glyphosate-tolerant GM soya produced an excessive number of stunted pups with over 50% of them dying within three weeks. The other half were all sterile. This experiment was repeated several times with the same result [3].

* Between 2005 and 2006 in the Warangal district of Andhra Pradech in India, thousands of sheep died while grazing on residues from Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis, which is a type of bacteria which is toxic to some types of insects) cotton crops [4].

* In 2003, villagers in the Philippines' south suffered mysterious illnesses when a Monsanto Bt maize hybrid came into flower. At least five have died and many villagers tested positive for antibodies to the Bt protein while others still remain chronically ill [5].

* Between 2001 and 2002, 12 cows died in Hesse, Germany after consuming Syngenta GM maize (Bt176), while many others had to be slaughtered due to mysterious illnesses [6].

* From 2002 to 2005, researchers from four Italian universities published articles indicating that GM soya adversely affected pancreatic, hepatic (liver) and testicular cells in young mice [5].

* In 2005, Australian researchers at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Canberra reported that a harmless protein in beans (alpha-amylase inhibitor-1) caused inflammation in the lungs of mice and elicited increased dietary sensitivities to other proteins when transferred to peas [7].

* In 1998, researchers reported damage to every organ system of young rats who were fed GM potatoes containing snowdrop lectin [8]. In the same year, researchers in Egypt found analogous effects on the guts of mice fed Bt potato [9].

* In 2002, Aventis, later named Cropscience, submitted research to regulators in the U.K. reporting that chicken fed glufosinate-tolerant GM maize Chardon LL were twice as likely to die prematurely than chickens in the control group [10].

C. Nutrient Non-Equivalence
SA contend that plants genetically modified may not be nutritionally equivalent, bio-available and can possibly possess toxic anti-nutrients [11]. There is no nutritional information for such foods, which raises the possibility that the modified nutrient could be toxic. Different and modified forms of nutrients may be present, which may make these foods unsafe. South Africa concluded that the risks from GM/GE food fall outside the realm of non-modified food and therefore, require strict labels.

D. Post Market Surveillance Impossible Without Labeling
Safety concerns are never over once food reaches consumers. For example, The National Institutes of Science in the U.S. reported in June of 2004 that workers processing GM celery contracted severe rashes, especially when exposed to direct sunlight. Labeling would allow handlers and consumers to become cognizant of potential risks involved with eating and processing such types of foods. Based on the principles of Codex, SA stated that it would be inconsistent and dangerous to adopt anything other than mandatory labeling of GM/GE foods. Furthermore, the absence of adequate labeling of GM/GE foods essentially equates to human experimentation without informed consent. According to Nuremberg Code,

"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved... All inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment" [12]. According to SA, mandatory labeling will allow implied informed consent, which will allow consumers to opt in and out of the experiment if they choose to do so.

After SA had submitted their highly researched rationale behind the mandatory labeling of GM/GE foods, the U.S. and its allies (e.g., Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Indonesia) jumped all over them and stated that extensive research clearly supports that GM/GE foods are safe, therefore, no labeling is necessary. This is obviously not the case (as presented by SA) and delineates the inter-meshed interests and historical marriage between U.S. and large food corporations (i.e., Monsanto, who produces up to 90% of GM/GE seeds and foods). Following the overwhelming condemnation of SA's paper from the U.S. and the extra procedural requirements the U.S. pushed for because of these comments, the SA government had it subsequently withdrawn.

As a result of this development and the constant battles with the corporations of the U.S. and their biased agendas, SA called another meeting and declared they would circumvent Codex and create their own labeling system with or without their agreement. Countries like Swaziland, Kenya, Ghana, Egypt, Cameroon, Sudan, Nigeria, South Africa and several other African countries with Japan, EU, Switzerland, Norway and many other countries stated their commitments to the mandatory labeling.

The meeting concluded with an agreement to eliminate all previous labeling documents and keep the door open for the future possibility of international labeling of GM/GE foods at a later date, which was strongly opposed by the U.S.

References:
1. Nutrition, U. S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. FDA's Policy for Foods Developed by Biotechnology. 2008 [cited May 27, 2008] .

2. CCFL 2008. Comments from South Africa Agenda Item 5. [cited May 27, 2008].

3. Ho, M.W., GM soya fed rats: stunted, dead or sterile. Science in Society, 33: (in press).

4. Ho, M.W., Mass deaths in sheep grazing on Bt cotton. Science in Society, 2006. 30: p. 12-13.

5. Ho, M.W., GM ban long overdue. Dozens ill & five deaths in the Philippines. Science in Society, 2006 29: p. 26-27.

6. Ho, M.W. and S. Burcher, Cows ate GM maize and died. Science in Society, 2004. 21: p. 4-6.

7. Ho, M.W., Transgenic peas that made mice ill. Science in Society, 2006. 29: p. 28-29.

8. Pusztai, A., S. Bardocz, and S.W.B. Ewen, Genetically modified foods: Potential human health effects, in Scottish Agricultural College, J.P.F. D'Mello, Editor. 2003, CAB International: Edinburgh.

9. Fares, N.H. and A.K. El-Sayed, Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on dendotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes. Natural Toxins, 1998. 6: p. 219-233.

10. Novotny, E., Avoid GM food, for good reasons. Science in Society, 2004. 21: p. 9-11.

11. Allinorm 08/31/34. Report of the Seventh Session of the Codex Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, Appendix III,. 24-28 September 2007: Chiba, Japan.

12. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, in Vol. 2. 1949, U. S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. p. 181-182.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dr. Gregory Damato enjoys a vegan lifestyle while residing in Perth, Western Australia and runs a Quantum Biofeedback clinic treating various clients ranging from autism to cancer. He is currently authoring a book for parents educating on the dangers of vaccines, chemical toxicity in toys, the effects of EMFs and EMRs and other hidden dangers and ways to combat rising childhood illness and neurological disease by naturally building immunity, detoxification, nutrition and energetic medicine. His website is: www.quantumenergywellness.com
   

chronic toxicity studies, and total reviews of India's experience with Bt cotton and the approval of Bt cotton in India

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 New Delhi ~~ Tuesday June 24, 2008

Total review of experience with Bt cotton sought

By ASHOK B SHARMA

New Delhi, Jun 23 Fresh troubles are brewing for the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), which is slated to meet on June 25, to take a decision on the approval of several Bt cotton hybrids for commercial cultivation in this season. The Supreme Court’s appointed invitee to the committee, Pushpa M Bhargava has not only called for a three or four years total moratorium on GM crops but has also called for ‘a total review of India’s experience with Bt cotton’.

Greenpeace India has brought to the fore cases of illegal imports of GM food, which is also the agenda for discussion.

Bhargava, who is the founder director of the Hyderabad-based Centre for Cellular and Microbiology, has alleged, “there is substantial evidence which calls for a total review of the approval of Bt cotton in India.”

He said that the GEAC relied on biosafety studies by the developer which included that on pollen flow, seed germination, soil microbial activity, toxicity and allergenicity. “Any study done by the developer is of no value. The GEAC has no mechanism to verify with the experimental and control groups nor the data is confirmed by a third party,” he said.

According to Bhargava, chronic toxicity studies should be conducted, particularly in reference to aflatoxin. For soil microbial studies it was not enough to have total number of organisms determined as the bacterial profile and the effect on soil micro-nutrient were far more important. All toxicity studies should be done on the protein in the GMOs. Toxicity studies done with the surrogate protein made, for example, in E.coli should not be accepted.

He said that no GM crop should be released without appropriate and reliable DN finger printing, proteomics analysis and studies on reproductive interferences in at least 3 mammalian species by a reputed, accredited and independent laboratory.

By Vincent Bugliosi (April Horowitz)

Vanguard Press

May 9 2008

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

Vincent Bugliosi

 May 19 2008

Vincent Bugliosi