So What is Neoliberalism all About?

Neoliberalism means:

–controlling the economy by shifting from the public sector to the private sector;

–the reduction of deficit spending;

–limiting subsidies;

–reforming tax law often by lowering taxes for the wealthy while spreading the tax base;

–opening up markets to trade and limiting protectionism;

—privatizing state-run businesses;

–encouraging de-regulation;

–holding private property as sacrosanct.

–representing the aims and views of the World bank coupled with the IMF/ECM

Consumers Will Soon Have Devices In Their Hands To Detect GMO and Toxic Foods

In the not too distant future, consumers will be able to run on-the-spot tests for environmental toxins, GMOs, pesticides, food safety and more with their smartphones and other hand-held devices.

Every human being on every developed nation on Earth, whether living in a rural or isolated area, in the middle of a large city, or near an industrialized area, now contains at least 700 contaminants in their body including pesticides, pthalates, benzenes, parabens, xylenes and many other carcinogenic and endrocrine disrupting chemicals.

We are being bombarded on a daily basis by an astronomical level of toxicity, all controlled by chemical terrorists on behalf of the food industry. Morever, many of these toxins affect our fertility and those of successive generations.

It’s time for people to know exactly what they are putting in their bodies and technology is coming to the rescue. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign researchers have developed a cradle and app that uses a phone’s built-in camera and processing power as a biosensor to detect toxins, proteins, bacteria, viruses and other molecules.

“We’re interested in biodetection that needs to be performed outside of the laboratory,” said team leader Brian Cunningham, a professor of electrical and computer engineering and of bioengineering at Illinois. “Smartphones are making a big impact on our society — the way we get our information, the way we communicate. And they have really powerful computing capability and imaging. A lot of medical conditions might be monitored very inexpensively and non-invasively using mobile platforms like phones. They can detect molecular things, like pathogens, disease biomarkers or DNA, things that are currently only done in big diagnostic labs with lots of expense and large volumes of blood.”

“Modern biological research is also allowing an extension of laboratory devices on to small computer chips to detect biological information within DNA sequences,” said biotech specialist Dr. Marek Banaszewski. “Bioinformatic algorithms within programs will aid the identification of transgenes, promoters, and other functional elements of DNA making detection of genetically modified foods on-the-spot and real-time without transportation to a laboratory.”

The wedge-shaped cradle created by Cunningham’s team contains a series of optical components — lenses and filters — found in much larger and more expensive laboratory devices. The cradle holds the phone’s camera in alignment with the optical components.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

At the heart of the biosensor is a photonic crystal. A photonic crystal is like a mirror that only reflects one wavelength of light while the rest of the spectrum passes through. When anything biological attaches to the photonic crystal — such as protein, cells, pathogens or DNA — the reflected color will shift from a shorter wavelength to a longer wavelength.

The entire test takes only a few minutes; the app walks the user through the process step by step. Although the cradle holds only about $200 of optical components, it performs as accurately as a large $50,000 spectrophotometer in the laboratory. So now, the device is not only portable, but also affordable for fieldwork in developing nations.

In a paper published in the journal Lab on a Chip, the team demonstrated sensing of an immune system protein, but the slide could be primed for any type of biological molecule or cell type. The researchers are working to improve the manufacturing process for the iPhone cradle and are working on a cradle for Android phones as well. They hope to begin making the cradles available next year.

In addition, Cunningham’s team is working on biosensing tests that could be performed in the field to detect toxins in harvested corn and soybeans, and to detect pathogens in food and water.

Researchers at the Fraunhofer Research Institution for Modular Solid State Technologies EMFT in Regensburg have also engineered an ingenius solution to detecting toxins – a glove that recognizes if toxic substances are present in the surrounding air.

The protective glove is equipped with custom-made sensor materials and indicates the presence of toxic substances by changing colors. In this regard, the scientists adapted the materials to the corresponding analytes, and thus, the application. The color change — from colorless (no toxic substance) to blue (toxic substance detected). The researchers also envision other potential applications for the glove in the food industry.

Other handheld devices currently in development are portable chemiluminescence detectors, but based on enzyme-catalyzed reactions emitting light. The detection devices for nucleic acids, biotin associated with the target DNA provides the handle for the chemiluminescent detection. The non-radioactive DNA detection chemistry will be able to readily identify single-copy genes in transgenic plants making them suitable for GMO detection.

Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health p

via » Consumers Will Soon Have Devices In Their Hands To Detect GMO and Toxic Foods Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!.

Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops

How should a regulatory agency announce they have discovered something potentially very important about the safety of products they have been approving for over twenty years?

In the course of analysis to identify potential allergens in GMO crops, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has belatedly discovered that the most common genetic regulatory sequence in commercial GMOs also encodes a significant fragment of a viral gene (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This finding has serious ramifications for crop biotechnology and its regulation, but possibly even greater ones for consumers and farmers. This is because there are clear indications that this viral gene (called Gene VI) might not be safe for human consumption. It also may disturb the normal functioning of crops, including their natural pest resistance.

What Podevin and du Jardin discovered is that of the 86 different transgenic events (unique insertions of foreign DNA) commercialized to-date in the United States 54 contain portions of Gene VI within them. They include any with a widely used gene regulatory sequence called the CaMV 35S promoter (from the cauliflower mosaic virus; CaMV). Among the affected transgenic events are some of the most widely grown GMOs, including Roundup Ready soybeans (40-3-2) and MON810 maize. They include the controversial NK603 maize recently reported as causing tumors in rats (Seralini et al. 2012).

The researchers themselves concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes”. They reached this conclusion because similar fragments of Gene VI have already been shown to be active on their own (e.g. De Tapia et al. 1993). In other words, the EFSA researchers were unable to rule out a hazard to public health or the environment.

In general, viral genes expressed in plants raise both agronomic and human health concerns (reviewed in Latham and Wilson 2008). This is because many viral genes function to disable their host in order to facilitate pathogen invasion. Often, this is achieved by incapacitating specific anti-pathogen defenses. Incorporating such genes could clearly lead to undesirable and unexpected outcomes in agriculture. Furthermore, viruses that infect plants are often not that different from viruses that infect humans. For example, sometimes the genes of human and plant viruses are interchangeable, while on other occasions inserting plant viral fragments as transgenes has caused the genetically altered plant to become susceptible to an animal virus (Dasgupta et al. 2001). Thus, in various ways, inserting viral genes accidentally into crop plants and the food supply confers a significant potential for harm.

The Choices for Regulators

The original discovery by Podevin and du Jardin (at EFSA) of Gene VI in commercial GMO crops must have presented regulators with sharply divergent procedural alternatives. They could 1) recall all CaMV Gene VI-containing crops (in Europe that would mean revoking importation and planting approvals) or, 2) undertake a retrospective risk assessment of the CaMV promoter and its Gene VI sequences and hope to give it a clean bill of health.

It is easy to see the attraction for EFSA of option two. Recall would be a massive political and financial decision and would also be a huge embarrassment to the regulators themselves. It would leave very few GMO crops on the market and might even mean the end of crop biotechnology.

Regulators, in principle at least, also have a third option to gauge the seriousness of any potential GMO hazard. GMO monitoring, which is required by EU regulations, ought to allow them to find out if deaths, illnesses, or crop failures have been reported by farmers or health officials and can be correlated with the Gene VI sequence. Unfortunately, this particular avenue of enquiry is a scientific dead end. Not one country has carried through on promises to officially and scientifically monitor any hazardous consequences of GMOs (1).

Unsurprisingly, EFSA chose option two. However, their investigation resulted only in the vague and unreassuring conclusion that Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes” (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This means literally, that changes of an unknown number, nature, or magnitude may (or may not) occur. It falls well short of the solid scientific reassurance of public safety needed to explain why EFSA has not ordered a recall.

Can the presence of a fragment of virus DNA really be that significant? Below is an independent analysis of Gene VI and its known properties and their safety implications. This analysis clearly illustrates the regulators’ dilemma.

The Many Functions of Gene VI

Gene VI, like most plant viral genes, produces a protein that is multifunctional. It has four (so far) known roles in the viral infection cycle. The first is to participate in the assembly of virus particles. There is no current data to suggest this function has any implications for biosafety. The second known function is to suppress anti-pathogen defenses by inhibiting a general cellular system called RNA silencing (Haas et al. 2008). Thirdly, Gene VI has the highly unusual function of transactivating (described below) the long RNA (the 35S RNA) produced by CaMV (Park et al. 2001). Fourthly, unconnected to these other mechanisms, Gene VI has very recently been shown to make plants highly susceptible to a bacterial pathogen (Love et al. 2012). Gene VI does this by interfering with a common anti-pathogen defense mechanism possessed by plants. These latter three functions of Gene VI (and their risk implications) are explained further below:

1) Gene VI Is an Inhibitor of RNA Silencing

GENE VI (UPPER LEFT) PRECEDES THE START OF THE 35S RNA

RNA silencing is a mechanism for the control of gene expression at the level of RNA abundance (Bartel 2004). It is also an important antiviral defense mechanism in both plants and animals, and therefore most viruses have evolved genes (like Gene VI) that disable it (Dunoyer and Voinnet 2006).

GENE VI (UPPER LEFT) PRECEDES THE START OF THE 35S RNA

This attribute of Gene VI raises two obvious biosafety concerns: 1) Gene VI will lead to aberrant gene expression in GMO crop plants, with unknown consequences and, 2) Gene VI will interfere with the ability of plants to defend themselves against viral pathogens. There are numerous experiments showing that, in general, viral proteins that disable gene silencing enhance infection by a wide spectrum of viruses (Latham and Wilson 2008).

2) Gene VI Is a Unique Transactivator of Gene Expression

Multicellular organisms make proteins by a mechanism in which only one protein is produced by each passage of a ribosome along a messenger RNA (mRNA). Once that protein is completed the ribosome dissociates from the mRNA. However, in a CaMV-infected plant cell, or as a transgene, Gene VI intervenes in this process and directs the ribosome to get back on an mRNA (reinitiate) and produce the next protein in line on the mRNA, if there is one. This property of Gene VI enables Cauliflower Mosaic Virus to produce multiple proteins from a single long RNA (the 35S RNA). Importantly, this function of Gene VI (which is called transactivation) is not limited to the 35S RNA. Gene VI seems able to transactivate any cellular mRNA (Futterer and Hohn 1991; Ryabova et al. 2002). There are likely to be thousands of mRNA molecules having a short or long protein coding sequence following the primary one. These secondary coding sequences could be expressed in cells where Gene VI is expressed. The result will presumably be production of numerous random proteins within cells. The biosafety implications of this are difficult to assess. These proteins could be allergens, plant or human toxins, or they could be harmless. Moreover, the answer will differ for each commercial crop species into which Gene VI has been inserted.

3) Gene VI Interferes with Host Defenses

A very recent finding, not known by Podevin and du Jardin, is that Gene VI has a second mechanism by which it interferes with plant anti-pathogen defenses (Love et al. 2012). It is too early to be sure about the mechanistic details, but the result is to make plants carrying Gene VI more susceptible to certain pathogens, and less susceptible to others. Obviously, this could impact farmers, however the discovery of an entirely new function for gene VI while EFSA’s paper was in press, also makes clear that a full appraisal of all the likely effects of Gene VI is not currently achievable.

Is There a Direct Human Toxicity Issue?

When Gene VI is intentionally expressed in transgenic plants, it causes them to become chlorotic (yellow), to have growth deformities, and to have reduced fertility in a dose-dependent manner (Ziljstra et al 1996). Plants expressing Gene VI also show gene expression abnormalities. These results indicate that, not unexpectedly given its known functions, the protein produced by Gene VI is functioning as a toxin and is harmful to plants (Takahashi et al 1989). Since the known targets of Gene VI activity (ribosomes and gene silencing) are also found in human cells, a reasonable concern is that the protein produced by Gene VI might be a human toxin. This is a question that can only be answered by future experiments.

Is Gene VI Protein Produced in GMO Crops?

Given that expression of Gene VI is likely to cause harm, a crucial issue is whether the actual inserted transgene sequences found in commercial GMO crops will produce any functional protein from the fragment of Gene VI present within the CaMV sequence.

There are two aspects to this question. One is the length of Gene VI accidentally introduced by developers. This appears to vary but most of the 54 approved transgenes contain the same 528 base pairs of the CaMV 35S promoter sequence. This corresponds to approximately the final third of Gene VI. Deleted fragments of Gene VI are active when expressed in plant cells and functions of Gene VI are believed to reside in this final third. Therefore, there is clear potential for unintended effects if this fragment is expressed (e.g. De Tapia et al. 1993; Ryabova et al. 2002; Kobayashi and Hohn 2003).

The second aspect of this question is what quantity of Gene VI could be produced in GMO crops? Once again, this can ultimately only be resolved by direct quantitative experiments. Nevertheless, we can theorize that the amount of Gene VI produced will be specific to each independent insertion event. This is because significant Gene VI expression probably would require specific sequences (such as the presence of a gene promoter and an ATG [a protein start codon]) to precede it and so is likely to be heavily dependent on variables such as the details of the inserted transgenic DNA and where in the plant genome the transgene inserted.

Commercial transgenic crop varieties can also contain superfluous copies of the transgene, including those that are incomplete or rearranged (Wilson et al 2006). These could be important additional sources of Gene VI protein. The decision of regulators to allow such multiple and complex insertion events was always highly questionable, but the realization that the CaMV 35S promoter contains Gene VI sequences provides yet another reason to believe that complex insertion events increase the likelihood of a biosafety problem.

Even direct quantitative measurements of Gene VI protein in individual crop authorizations would not fully resolve the scientific questions, however. No-one knows, for example, what quantity, location or timing of protein production would be of significance for risk assessment, and so answers necessary to perform science-based risk assessment are unlikely to emerge soon.

Big Lessons for Biotechnology

It is perhaps the most basic assumption in all of risk assessment that the developer of a new product provides regulators with accurate information about what is being assessed. Perhaps the next most basic assumption is that regulators independently verify this information.  We now know, however, that for over twenty years neither of those simple expectations have been met. Major public universities, biotech multinationals, and government regulators everywhere, seemingly did not appreciate the relatively simple possibility that the DNA constructs they were responsible for encoded a viral gene.

This lapse occurred despite the fact that Gene VI was not truly hidden; the relevant information on the existence of Gene VI has been freely available in the scientific literature since well before the first biotech approval (Franck et al 1980). We ourselves have offered specific warnings that viral sequences could contain unsuspected genes (Latham and Wilson 2008). The inability of risk assessment processes to incorporate longstanding and repeated scientific findings is every bit as worrysome as the failure to intellectually anticipate the possibility of overlapping genes when manipulating viral sequences.

This sense of a generic failure is reinforced by the fact that this is not an isolated event. There exist other examples of commercially approved viral sequences having overlapping genes that were never subjected to risk assessment. These include numerous commercial GMOs containing promoter regions of the closely related virus figwort mosaic virus (FMV) which were not considered by Podevin and du Jardin. Inspection of commercial sequence data shows that the commonly used FMV promoter overlaps its own Gene VI (Richins et al 1987). A third example is the virus-resistant potato NewLeaf Plus (RBMT-22-82). This transgene contains approximately 90% of the P0 gene of potato leaf roll virus. The known function of this gene, whose existence was discovered only after US approval, is to inhibit the anti-pathogen defenses of its host (Pfeffer et al 2002). Fortunately, this potato variety was never actively marketed.

A further key point relates to the biotech industry and their campaign to secure public approval and a permissive regulatory environment. This has led them to repeatedly claim, firstly, that GMO technology is precise and predictable; and secondly, that their own competence and self-interest would prevent them from ever bringing potentially harmful products to the market; and thirdly, to assert that only well studied and fully understood transgenes are commercialized. It is hard to imagine a finding more damaging to these claims than the revelations surrounding Gene VI.

Biotechnology, it is often forgotten, is not just a technology. It is an experiment in the proposition that human institutions can perform adequate risk assessments on novel living organisms. Rather than treat that question as primarily a daunting scientific one, we should for now consider that the primary obstacle will be overcoming the much more mundane trap of human complacency and incompetence. We are not there yet, and therefore this incident will serve to reinforce the demands for GMO labeling in places where it is absent.

What Regulators Should Do Now

This summary of the scientific risk issues shows that a segment of a poorly characterized viral gene never subjected to any risk assessment (until now) was allowed onto the market. This gene is currently present in commercial crops and growing on a large scale. It is also widespread in the food supply.

Even now that EFSA’s own researchers have belatedly considered the risk issues, no one can say whether the public has been harmed, though harm appears a clear scientific possibility. Considered from the perspective of professional and scientific risk assessment, this situation represents a complete and catastrophic system failure.

But the saga of Gene VI is not yet over. There is no certainty that further scientific analysis will resolve the remaining uncertainties, or provide reassurance. Future research may in fact increase the level of concern or uncertainty, and this is a possibility that regulators should weigh heavily in their deliberations.

To return to the original choices before EFSA, these were either to recall all CaMV 35S promoter-containing GMOs, or to perform a retrospective risk assessment. This retrospective risk assessment has now been carried out and the data clearly indicate a potential for significant harm. The only course of action consistent with protecting the public and respecting the science is for EFSA, and other jurisdictions, to order a total recall. This recall should also include GMOs containing the FMV promoter and its own overlapping Gene VI.

Footnotes

1)  EFSA regulators might now be regretting their failure to implement meaningful GMO monitoring. It would be a good question for European politicians to ask EFSA and for the board of EFSA to ask the GMO panel, whose job it is to implement monitoring.

via Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops.

via Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops.

Vatican reeling as DNA tests show communion wafers contain 0% Christ

The Vatican is this morning facing a further crisis after routine DNA tests revealed that the communion wafers used in Sunday mass contain 0% of the body and blood of Christ.

The findings are sure to pile further pressure on the ailing religious organisation, just days after their Chief Executive resigned citing ‘personal reasons’ and ‘being a bit old’.

The news will concern billions of Catholic consumers, previously led to believe they were consuming Christ himself each Sunday morning.

Catholic Simon Williams told us, “So what have I been eating all these years? It’s not bloody horse is it?”

“With the amount of cash I’m encouraged to put in the collection plate I can’t believe they’re scrimping on the ingredients.”

“You’ll be telling me next that the stuff they dip the wafer in isn’t actually blood.”

Catholic crisis

A spokesperson for the Vatican explained that the DNA test results merely highlight the incompatibility of science and religion.

They told us, “Where is your faith that the wafer is the body of Christ? Science can’t tell you everything, and just as it can’t prove God doesn’t exist, it can’t prove the wafer ISN’T the body of Christ.”

“Oh, it has? Right. Well, there’s probably something in the Bible about that. I’ll have to go and look.”

via Vatican reeling as DNA tests show communion wafers contain 0% Christ.

via Vatican reeling as DNA tests show communion wafers contain 0% Christ.

Scientist: Physicians report increased cancers around nuclear site — Birth defects, still births, spontaneous abortions on rise

 Nuclear radiation impact being ignored?

 

[…] the ‘Interim Report on Tarapur( India)’ has found indicators which show radiation-related problem among employees of Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS) and villages close to it. […]

Cancer, goitre, infertility, mental retardation common […]

Goitre cases have also been found in the surrounding villages, local physicians corroborated in the report. […]

Cases of mental retardation, including Down’s Syndrome, autoimmune arthritis, particularly rheumatoid arthritis, were found in villagers along with high instances of cataract and myopia at a young age. […]

Full report here

Dr V Pugazhenthi from Tamil Nadu, renowned for studies on the health impact of radiation around the Kalpakkam nuclear site

“I found 100 cases of cancer in 2010 among TAPS employees. Local physicians said that incidents of cancer have been on the rise in the area in the last few years, particularly hepatoma, ovarian cancer, bone cancer, breast cancer and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. But there has been no intervention for the victims.”

“A casual walk through the villages helped me identify 15-20 Goitre cases. TAPS doctors had carried a survey on thyroid problems by the medical superintendent denied it.”

“Spontaneous abortions, still births, hormonal imbalances in women in the form of excessive bleeding, decreased birth weight and birth defects on the rise.”

RK Gupta, who worked for Bhabha Atomic Research Centre for over 30 years in the fuel reprocessing division in the plutonium plant

“Exposures are a regular affair. Workers have died of skin diseases and cancer. Despite this, international rules for workers are not fully implemented. There is a silence about this as people compromise because of their economic condition. Even contaminated tools that are stolen and scarp metal slow poison people. Just like people get poisoned from fish exposed to radiation very far from the site.”

See also: German Gov’t Study: Children living near nuclear plants have double leukemia rates, high incidence of solid cancers — Reactors cannot prevent radiation from escaping

 

All nuclear power plants leak radiation, within fifty miles you get dosed.

via Scientist: Physicians report increased cancers around nuclear site — Birth defects, still births, spontaneous abortions on rise.

via Scientist: Physicians report increased cancers around nuclear site — Birth defects, still births, spontaneous abortions on rise.

Tesco Burgers Are 29% Horsemeat: See What Else Goes Into Their ‘Everyday Value’ Products

Tesco Burgers Are 29% Horsemeat: See What Else Goes Into Their ‘Everyday Value’ Products

So what about Tesco Beer?

Tesco Burgers Are 29% Horsemeat: See What Else Goes Into Their ‘Everyday Value’ Products.

 

Tesco- “Mon Petit Cheval” -Burger News

I see the Tesco horse burger is the mane news item on Twitter

Typicl food snobbery – okay to eat a pig, not okay to eat a horse; fine to eat a leg, awful to eat tripe… I’m a meat eater – i eat animals, horse=big-nosed-pig-on-stilts to me.

‘I got some Tesco burgers out of the freezer earlier aaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnndddddddddd they’re off!

Why were they testing the DNA in the first place?” Someone found a jockey’s whip in their 1/4 pounder.’

Can’t believe that woman was sent to hospital after eating a horse meat burger…… Her condition is said to be stable.’

‘Is eating horsemeat really that bad? Let’s put it to the vote. All those in favour say ‘aye’, all those against say ‘neigh’.’

Traces of Zebra found in Tesco barcodes.

29% of the meat content in Tesco’s hamburgers turns out to be horse?! No wonder they gave me the trots!

A Tesco burger walks into a bar. “Pint please”. “I can’t hear you” says the barman. “Sorry” replies the burger. “I’m a little bit horse”.

Best burgers recipe. Mince meat, garlic powder, paprika, fresh herbs, an egg and fine diced stallions. I mean…. Scallions..

went to a Tesco café yesterday and ordered a burger. They asked me if I
wanted anything on it, and I said: ‘Yes – a fiver each way.’
Does anyone have a tooth pick? I had a Tesco burger last night and there’s
still a bit between my teeth.

My daughter has always wanted a pony, so I’m buying her a Tesco Quarter
Pounder for her birthday.

My doctor told me to watch what I eat, so I went out and bought tickets for
the Grand National.

If you think horse meat’s bad, wait until you try Tesco’s veggie burgers.
They’re made of genuine uniQuorn.

Scientist: ‘Sir, we’ve discovered horse meat in your burgers.’
Tesco boss: ‘Why the long face?’

I won’t eat Tesco burgers. They may be low in fat, but they have a very
high Shergar content.

Tesco are giving treble points on your Clubcard for all burgers and petrol,
starting today. The deal’s called Only Fuel and Horses.

What do you call a burnt Tesco burger? Black Beauty.
A motorist gets pulled over by a police officer, who asks him to blow into
a breathalyser. The machine beeps. ‘I’m sorry Sir,’ says the officer.
‘You’re over the limit. Can you tell me what you have had tonight?’
‘Nothing Officer,’ replies the man. ‘Just a burger from Tesco.’ ‘That
explains it,’ says the policeman. ‘I knew I could smell Red Rum.’

They’ve found horse meat in Tesco burgers? It’s an unbridled disaster.

A Tesco burger walks into a bar. ‘A pint please.’
‘I can’t hear you,’ says the barman.
‘Sorry’ replies the burger. ‘I’m a little bit horse.’

I selected some burgers on the Tesco website. And then clicked ‘Add to
cart.’

Those Tesco horse burgers were nice, but I prefer My Lidl Pony.

A woman has been taken to hospital after eating Tesco burgers. Her
condition is said to be stable.

I used to work on the Tesco meat counter, but it was like flogging a dead
horse.

Last night I ate a Tesco burger, an Iceland burger and an Aldi burger to
find out which had the best taste. Tesco won by a short head.

I think someone may be sending me death threats. I woke up this morning
with a Tesco burger in my bed.

Have you heard? Now traces of zebra have been found in Tesco barcodes.
I bought an ‘award-winning’ Tesco burger. I didn’t realise they meant it
had won the Cheltenham Gold Cup.

I used to work for Tesco, but I was fired. I got an email about a delivery
of horse meat and I marked it as spam.

Horse meat in Tesco burgers? What are the odds on that?

I tried to take some burgers back to Tesco but they said they wouldn’t
accept them. Looks like I’m saddled with them.

Husband: ‘I’m so hungry I could eat a horse.’
Wife: ‘Why don’t you go to Tesco?’

Personally, I think people who don’t like eating horse meat are being a bit
blinkered.

Despite the recent news, Tesco says that their beef burger sales remain
stable.

Are you in favour of horse meat in your burgers? Yay or Neigh?

I won’t be switching to Tesco Finest burgers. They’re so expensive that
buying enough for a big family dinner won’t leave you much change from a
pony.

I was going to give up fast food for January, but I fell at the final
hurdle and had a Tesco burger.

Just been to Tesco and bought a bottle of Bacardi, a bottle of Lamb’s and
some burgers. So that’s white rum, navy rum and Red Rum.

Unused HMV vouchers are now being accepted at Tesco. Just tell them HMV
means ‘Horse Meat Voucher’.

Despite the recent scandal, Tesco insist they use only meat of the highest
quality. A spokesman said: ‘Our meat has to clear several hurdles before it
goes on sale.’ And the most groan-inducing’.’.’. What’s in this burger? It
just jumped over my chips. I don’t know why there’s a fuss all of a sudden.
There’s been horse meat in Tesco burgers for donkey’s years.

I like my burgers with a side saddle and neighonnaise.

I hope Tesco were selling those burgers at hoof price.

So there’s horse meat in Tesco’s burgers. Don’t worry, it’s not the mane
ingredient.

Forget the Everyday Value burgers – I only eat those mini-burgers you have
as snacks. You know, the horse d’oeuvres.

I bought some Tesco burgers – I wanted to get venison ones, but they were
dead dear.

I ordered a Tesco burger the other day – but asked them to hold the
dressage.

Tesco would’ve got away with it if it wasn’t for the DN Neigh test.

New Food Scandal

The Government advised today that it has come to light that Fish Fingers contain no fingers.

Minister Simon Coveney on release of this news stated this revelation came as a bolt out of the blue to him.

The minister stated that his department had looked at many photos of fish and that they have yet to find a fish with fingers.

He then rather oddly stated this investigation had been on going for a number of years and that the total cost for the investigation came up just short of a hundred million. Due to the fact that the figure was under the hundred million mark the Minister felt the taxpayer had got good value for money.

The Minister has ordered an immediate withdrawal of all bogus fish fingers from retail outlets. He went on to state no horse meat or beef was found in the bogus fingers 

A blood test to reveal how long you have to live

A simple blood test could help predict how long

you are going to live, new research suggests.

Researchers have successfully measured the speed of ageing in wild birds, opening up the possibility of doing the same for humans.

The test allows you to look at the “biological age” of individuals and also accurately predict, major illness aside, their lifespan.

The test measures the average length of tiny structures called telomeres, which are known to get shorter each time a cell divides during an organism’s lifetime.

The length of telomeres provide a more accurate estimate of a person’s true biological age rather than their actual chronological age.

This has led some experts to suggest that telomere tests could be used to estimate how long they have left to live, assuming they die of natural causes.

At least one company is offering a £400 blood test in the UK for people interested in seeing how fast they are ageing based on their average telomere length.

Telomere tests have been widely used on animals in experiments, now scientists have performed them on an isolated population of songbirds in the Seychelles, the Independent has reported.

“We saw that telomere length is a better indicator of life expectancy than chronological age,” said David Richardson, of the University of East Anglia.

“So by measuring telomere length we have a way of estimating the biological age of an individual – how much of its life it has used up,”

The researchers tested the average telomere lengths of a population of 320 Seychelles warblers on Cousin Island, which ornithologists have studied for 20 years.

“Our results provide the first clear and unambiguous evidence of a relationship between telomere length and mortality in the wild, and substantiate the prediction that telomere length and shortening rate can act as an indicator of biological age further to chronological age,” says the study, published in the journal Molecular Ecology.

Dr Richardson said: “We investigated whether, at any given age, their telomere lengths could predict imminent death.

“We found that short and rapidly shortening telomeres were a good indication that the bird would die within a year.

“We also found that individuals with longer telomeres had longer lifespans overall.

“However while telomeres do shorten with chronological age, the rate at which this happens differs between individuals of the same age.

“This is because individuals experience different amounts of biological stress due to the challenges and exertions they face in life. Telomere length can be used as a measure of the amount of damage an individual has accumulated over its life.”

Telomeres are often said to be to chromosomes what plastic tips are to shoelaces.

As we age they get shorter and more ragged and lead to damage to the chromosome and DNA.

via A blood test to reveal how long you have to live – Health News, Health – Independent.ie.

via A blood test to reveal how long you have to live – Health News, Health – Independent.ie.