Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Dead cow carcasses “resurrected” to produce cloned beef
Dead cow carcasses “resurrected” to produce cloned beef
We already know that cloned beef has entered the food supply both in the United States and the UK. Now, thanks to revelations from JR Simplot, a U.S. company specializing in the cloning of cows for beef production, we’re learning that dead cows are cloned to produce the next generation of beef cattle.
Here’s how it works: A large number of cows are slaughtered and then chopped into steaks that are tested for their flavor, texture and other qualities important to steak eaters. The source animal of each steak is recorded, and cells from that source carcass are preserved for possible cloning in case the steak turns out to taste good. Once all the steaks are gauged for their desirability, the dead cow carcasses from which the flesh was cut to produce the steaks are harvested for their DNA.
This DNA is then used to clone new cows who are fed, raised and slaughtered to see how their flesh steaks taste. This cycle is repeated through multiple generations in order to “evolve” cow clones with great-tasting flesh.
“The animals are hanging on a rail ready to go to the meat counter,” JR Simplot employee Brady Hicks (yes, that’s his real name) told BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-e…). “We identify carcasses that have certain carcass characteristics that we want, but it’s too late to reproduce the genetics of the animal. But through cloning we can resurrect that animal.”
This “bovine resurrection,” it turns out, is just the latest mad science idea from an industry that recognizes no value in the life of a cow but tremendous value from its dead carcass.
Frankenfood beef
The upshot of all this is that the beef people are buying and eating in the US and UK right now could be from cow clones raised from the dead carcasses of other cows whose DNA were harvested for cloning. Yep: Only in the food industry do you see this sort of Frankenstein science — trying to create life from dead body parts through a process they call “resurrection”… and then serving up Frankenfoods to consumers.Far from the world of live foods, beef products are dead food made from dead cows that were given life by taking dead cells from the carcasses or other dead cows who were only kept alive in order to harvest their dead DNA. If it sounds a little sick and demented, that’s because it undoubtedly is. This process violates so many principles of ethics and spirituality that it’s hard to even know where to begin.
Of course, by the time a thousand cow carcasses are all ground up, mixed together, extruded, irradiated and packaged, no one can tell where the beef actually come from… or even if it was cloned in the first place. Slap a greasy patty of cloned beef between two hamburger buns at a fast food joint and no one is the wiser.
That’s sort of the point, actually: The beef industry knows that people don’t really have much of a clue where their beef comes from — and they don’t want to know! So even if beef comes from cloned animals raised from the harvested DNA of dead cow carcasses, the average consumer remains clueless.
The high price of low cost
The goal of the beef industry is to create the best-tasting beef in the world at the lowest cost possible. Period.There is no consideration in the industry for the experience of the cow, nor the ethics of playing God with bovine DNA, nor compassion for the suffering of these animals when they are slaughtered, nor the impact of factory farming on the environment. It’s all about corporate profits at the expense of the cows who are born, bred, cloned and slaughtered merely to produce another quarter-pounder that ratchets up another dime in profits for the beef factories.
If you haven’t yet seen The Meatrix, be sure to check it out: www.TheMeatrix.com
Think about that the next time you dare to buy anything made from cow parts. You may be buying Franken-cow beef originating from the “resurrected” DNA of a bovine carcass.
By the way, very few American consumers know the truth about this. They have no idea cows are being cloned from dead carcasses to create cloned beef that the FDA has already declared to be “safe” for the food supply. To help spread the word, please share this story using the Facebook or Twitter buttons above. People need to know the truth about what’s really going into their foods.
Whole Foods, by the way, has banned cloned meat products in its stores. So if you do eat beef, you can safely shop for it at Whole Foods without encountering cloned beef. Of course, you’d probably be better off with a predominantly plant-based diet, but that’s another article altogether.
Cloned beef will NOT be labeled as “cloned” in the USA. So there’s no way to know whether conventional beef you’re buying at the grocery stores (or eating at a restaurant) actually contains cloned beef. The industry will lobby hard to avoid honest labeling in much the same way that the GMO industry doesn’t want foods labeled as “genetically modified.”
There’s one thing we all know for sure: The beef industry prefers to keep consumers in the dark about where all that beef really comes from.
Cloned Meat: British Consumers Have Eaten Parts of at Least Two Bulls
Cloned meat: British consumers have eaten parts of least two bulls
Wednesday 4 August 2010 18.06 BST
The FSA confirmed that meat from a second bull bred in the UK from embryos from a cloned US cow had entered the food chain. Photograph/Alamy
Investigators were satisfied, however, that milk from at least one dairy cow bred from an embryo had not been sold, the FSA said. The history of two other dairy cows was still being investigated.
The agency had now identified all eight animals bred in the UK from cloned embryos from the one cow. While it was working to find their offspring, it said, these would be at present too young to be used for breeding or to provide milk.
The FSA previously revealed that meat from one bull had been eaten; meat from a third bull, which was slaughtered last week, was stopped from being sold as food. At least two of the bulls were on the same farm, near Inverness in Scotland.
The agency remained of the view that owners of such cattle destined for food were technically in breach of the law despite European commission officials suggesting that was not the case.
In a statement, the FSA said: "Four of these embryos resulted in male calves and four were female. Aall were Holstein animals. The FSA can confirm that meat from a second bull, Parable, has entered the food chain. Parable was born in May 2007 and was slaughtered [on] 5 May 2010. This is in addition to the confirmation given yesterday that meat from another of the bulls, Dundee Paratrooper, entered the food chain in 2009.
Meat from both of these animals will have been eaten.
The statement said a fourth male calf died at around one month old. No meat or products from this young animal entered the food chain and its carcass was disposed of legally.
"Of the four cows, Dundee Paradise is alive on a UK dairy farm. Following a visit from local authority officials the agency has been informed that there is no evidence milk from this animal has entered the food chain," said the FSA.
"The agency has traced two other cows that we believe are being kept as part of dairy herds but at present we cannot confirm whether or not milk from these animals has entered the food chain. Local authority officials are visiting the farms on which these animals are kept.
"The fourth female calf died at less than a month old. No meat or products from this young animal entered the food chain."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/04/cloned-meat-british-bulls-fsa
Food Standards Agency identifies all eight animals bred from cloned embryos as fears mount over traceability of livestock
Wednesday 4 August 2010 18.06 BST
Consumers have eaten food from at least two British bulls bred from embryos of a cloned US cow, the Food Standards Agency said tonight as concerns mounted over the traceability of such livestock.
The agency had now identified all eight animals bred in the UK from cloned embryos from the one cow. While it was working to find their offspring, it said, these would be at present too young to be used for breeding or to provide milk.
The FSA previously revealed that meat from one bull had been eaten; meat from a third bull, which was slaughtered last week, was stopped from being sold as food. At least two of the bulls were on the same farm, near Inverness in Scotland.
The agency remained of the view that owners of such cattle destined for food were technically in breach of the law despite European commission officials suggesting that was not the case.
In a statement, the FSA said: "Four of these embryos resulted in male calves and four were female. Aall were Holstein animals. The FSA can confirm that meat from a second bull, Parable, has entered the food chain. Parable was born in May 2007 and was slaughtered [on] 5 May 2010. This is in addition to the confirmation given yesterday that meat from another of the bulls, Dundee Paratrooper, entered the food chain in 2009.
Meat from both of these animals will have been eaten.
"While there is no evidence that consuming products from healthy clones, or their offspring, poses a food safety risk, meat and products from clones and their offspring are considered novel foods and would therefore need to be authorised before being placed on the market."
"Of the four cows, Dundee Paradise is alive on a UK dairy farm. Following a visit from local authority officials the agency has been informed that there is no evidence milk from this animal has entered the food chain," said the FSA.
"The agency has traced two other cows that we believe are being kept as part of dairy herds but at present we cannot confirm whether or not milk from these animals has entered the food chain. Local authority officials are visiting the farms on which these animals are kept.
"The fourth female calf died at less than a month old. No meat or products from this young animal entered the food chain."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/04/cloned-meat-british-bulls-fsa
Inspecting Chinese Facilities - How Effective are these Audits?
Whenever I read a news story that uncovers atrocities at Chinese factories, there always seems to be a representative from that company stating "we have quality control measures", "we continously inspect these facilities", "we perform thorough audits", etc.
In a recent blog entry I had posted a news article from John Matarese, "Do your kids' juice boxes come from China?" in which Nestle defends its use of Chinese apples, saying, "We audit these facilities".
I suppose those words are supposed to offer a guarantee that the food we consume will be safe and that we should be comforted in knowing that these "audits" will ensure no human rights violations and exploitations are occurring in these facilities. And where exactly do the audits originate? Are these audits performed in the actual Chinese apple orchards? Does Nestle ensure that these apple orchards are not being labored upon by political prisoners or other forced, slave labor? Are children picking the Juicy Juice apples? Does Nestle also monitor the pesticides and chemicals used on these apple orchards? I know Juicy Juice does not claim to be organic, however, if pesticides and chemicals are used in these Chinese apple orchards, are they in compliance with U.S. FDA safety standards? Or does Nestle only audit the Chinese factory where the apples are delivered? Nestle's vague answer of auditing doesn't really answer anything. As many Americans know, even our own food industry is ineffective, especially when it comes to USDA inspections of slaughterhouses and beef processing plants (I intend to post more in depth on this topic throughout my blog--another reason why everyone should get to know their local farmers and ranchers. Another alternative that I have chosen for spiritual/ethical reasons is to reduce or eliminate beef from the diet--but I'll go more in depth on that later).
I am really curious about these auditing and inspection processes in place, especially since so many of the products found in our market come from China. I found the following 2010 news article from Nicholas Kolakowski in which he investigates the inadequacies of inspection processes in Chinese facilities:
In a recent blog entry I had posted a news article from John Matarese, "Do your kids' juice boxes come from China?" in which Nestle defends its use of Chinese apples, saying, "We audit these facilities".
I suppose those words are supposed to offer a guarantee that the food we consume will be safe and that we should be comforted in knowing that these "audits" will ensure no human rights violations and exploitations are occurring in these facilities. And where exactly do the audits originate? Are these audits performed in the actual Chinese apple orchards? Does Nestle ensure that these apple orchards are not being labored upon by political prisoners or other forced, slave labor? Are children picking the Juicy Juice apples? Does Nestle also monitor the pesticides and chemicals used on these apple orchards? I know Juicy Juice does not claim to be organic, however, if pesticides and chemicals are used in these Chinese apple orchards, are they in compliance with U.S. FDA safety standards? Or does Nestle only audit the Chinese factory where the apples are delivered? Nestle's vague answer of auditing doesn't really answer anything. As many Americans know, even our own food industry is ineffective, especially when it comes to USDA inspections of slaughterhouses and beef processing plants (I intend to post more in depth on this topic throughout my blog--another reason why everyone should get to know their local farmers and ranchers. Another alternative that I have chosen for spiritual/ethical reasons is to reduce or eliminate beef from the diet--but I'll go more in depth on that later).
I am really curious about these auditing and inspection processes in place, especially since so many of the products found in our market come from China. I found the following 2010 news article from Nicholas Kolakowski in which he investigates the inadequacies of inspection processes in Chinese facilities:
Microsoft's Chinese Factory Inspection Could Prove Ineffective
By: Nicholas Kolakowski
2010-04-15
2010-04-15
Microsoft has promised to dispatch an investigative team to a Chinese factory allegedly engaged in workplace violations, with a full audit to be conducted the week of April 19. However, the National Labor Committee report that sparked Microsoft’s action also documents how the KYE factory in Dongguan has a supposed history, according to its sources, of covering up violations such as the use of underage workers ahead of both government and corporate audits. That report also alleges that workers are coached on what to say to auditors before their arrival. Microsoft insists it has been monitoring workplace conditions at the factory on a regular basis.
Microsoft announced plans April 15 to investigate allegations of labor violations at a Chinese factory building its products, in response to an April 13 report by the National Labor Committee. However, that same report suggests the factory’s management has a system for disguising potential violations before audits, putting into doubt the efficacy of any investigation.
The National Labor Committee, a nonprofit nongovernmental organization (NGO) that seeks to draw attention to labor and human rights abuses, documented workplace abuses at the KYE factory in Dongguan City that range from excessive working hours and harassment by security guards to restricted freedom of movement and inability to use the bathroom during their shift. The report, which quotes one unnamed worker as saying, "We are like prisoners," can be found here.
Microsoft insists that it has been auditing the situation at the KYE factory on a regular basis, and that it has dispatched an investigative team to the facility to review the veracity of the National Labor Committee’s report.
Microsoft insists that it has been auditing the situation at the KYE factory on a regular basis, and that it has dispatched an investigative team to the facility to review the veracity of the National Labor Committee’s report.
"We should note that as part of Microsoft’s ongoing supplier SEA (Social and Environmental Accountability) program, an independent auditor has been inspecting the KYE factory annually," Brian Tobey, corporate vice president of manufacturing and operations for Microsoft’s Entertainment & Devices division, wrote in an April 15 posting on the Official Microsoft Blog. "In addition, Microsoft personnel conduct quarterly on-site assessments, and receive weekly reports from KYE on key labor and safety criteria that we monitor as part of our supplier SEA program."
Over the past two years, Tobey continued, "we have required documentation and verification of worker age, and no incidence of child labor has been detected. Worker overtime has been significantly reduced, and worker compensation is in line with the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition standards for the Dongguan area."
That runs contrary to the National Labor Committee report, which documents substandard factory conditions extending back to at least 2007.
Tobey also stated that a "comprehensive on-site audit of the facility will be conducted next week, with the specific goal of investigating the allegations raised in the NLC report." Monitors will apparently be present at the KYE factory until that investigation’s conclusion.
Microsoft’s Vendor Guidelines and Vendor Code of Conduct can be found on this corporate site. The company’s remedial measures for vendor violations of the code apparently include retraining and termination of the business relationship.
The question becomes whether such monitoring actually works. The National Labor Committee’s report devotes a chapter to government and corporate audits of the KYE factory facility, describing how "someone in KYE management was alerted with sufficient time to round up the hundreds of workers who were under 18 years old" ahead of a supposedly unannounced government visit.
Microsoft representatives who visited the factory, according to the report, were "always … accompanied by mid- and high-level managers. On these walk-throughs, U.S. company representatives hardly ever speak to the workers." Ahead of corporate audits, workers are apparently coached about what to say with regard to working conditions, dorms, meals and shift length.
Images accompanying the report were apparently smuggled out of the KYE factory "over the last three years" and show makeshift dorms and young workers passed out at their stations.
A Microsoft spokesperson declined to answer eWEEK’s questions about why the company’s previous audits might have failed to reveal any workplace violations, instead referring to Tobey’s blog posting. If the National Labor Committee report’s description of KYE management’s response to investigations holds true, though, then the factory has ample time to prepare a response to an audit.
Other tech companies have experienced similar controversy over their Chinese vendors within the past year. In a 2009 audit, Apple found 17 violations of its Code of Conduct in a review of 102 facilities. Additionally, a July 2009 engineer suicide at Foxconn, which manufactures the Apple iPhone and iPod, raised an issue over workplace conditions there.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Fruit & Nut Oils
Most everyone is familiar with the plethora of health benefits from olive oil. Olive oil is notorious for its culinary uses as it lends a distinct yet subtle buttery, peppery flavor to salads, soups, and pasta dishes. Olive oil has been an ancient resource for food, cosmetics and many other purposes. But olive oil is not the only benevolent fruit oil out there. There exists so many more fruit and nut oils that provide a multitude of beneficial uses--avocado, hazelnut, walnut, raspberry seed, macadamia, grape seed, argan, apricot seed, and the list goes on and on. The choices are many for those searching for alternatives to olive oil that are sustainable and local. I hope to highlight the various oils available throughout the United States, because there are many noteworthy brands that deserve attention in todays fruit and nut oil markets.
I live in the region of Hill Country Texas, fortunately for me I have access to quality olive oils. My favorite olive oil is First Texas Olive Oil produced by Bella Vista Ranch in Wimberley Texas:
I toured Bella Vista Ranch back in July 2010 and met the owner of the olive orchard, Jack Daugherty. I found Mr. Daugherty to be extremely knowledgeable about agricultural practices and passionate about his cultivating philosophies. But what is most remarkable is the flavor of his olive oil, absolutely delicious. Having lived and traveled around the world, I can taste that Daugherty's tenacity has paid off--First Texas Olive Oil rivals other established oliviers from California, Italy, and Greece. Perhaps it does not have the same fruity flavor of the many olive oils that hale from Spain, but it has its own unique Hill Country flavor, exemplifying the "terroir" of this region. First Texas Olive Oil can hold its own amongst many international olive oils. I would describe it as grassy and finishing with a peppery bite on the back of the tongue. You can learn more about First Texas Olive Oil here:
http://www.ksat.com/video/24374293/
http://www.texasoliveoil.com/Olives-OliveOil.htm
Bella Vista Ranch, Olive Orchard, July 2010:
China: Drug ‘Rehabilitation’ Centers Deny Treatment, Allow Forced Labor
China: Drug ‘Rehabilitation’ Centers Deny Treatment, Allow Forced Labor
Anti-Drug Law Perpetuates Rights Abuses
By Human Rights Watch
Inmates sew at a compulsory drug detention center in Yunnan province.
© 2008 路透社
(New York) - Chinese authorities are incarcerating drug users in compulsory drug detention centers that deny them access to treatment for drug dependency and put them at risk of physical abuse and unpaid forced labor, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. Half a million people are confined within compulsory drug detention centers in China at any given time, according to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).
The 37-page report, "Where Darkness Knows No Limits," based on research in Yunnan and Guangxi provinces, documents how China's June 2008 Anti-Drug Law compounds the health risks of suspected illicit drug users by allowing government officials and security forces to incarcerate them for up to seven years. The incarceration is without trial or judicial oversight. The law fails to clearly define mechanisms for legal appeals or the reporting of abusive conduct, and does not ensure evidence-based drug dependency treatment.
"Instead of putting in place effective drug dependency treatment, the new Chinese law subjects suspected drug users to arbitrary detention and inhumane treatment," said Joe Amon, the Health and Human Rights Division director at Human Rights Watch. "The Chinese government has explained the law as a progressive step towards recognizing drug users as ‘patients,' but they're not even being provided the rights of ordinary prisoners."
The report documents how individuals detained in some drug detention centers are routinely beaten, denied medical treatment, and forced to work up to 18 hours a day without pay. Although sentenced to "rehabilitation," they are denied access to effective drug dependency treatment and provided no opportunity to learn skills to reintegrate into the community.
Human Rights Watch said that over the past decade, the Chinese government has promoted progressive policies that embrace some harm reduction strategies as part of a pragmatic response to high rates of drug use and HIV/AIDS. Partnering with local and international nongovernmental organizations, the Chinese government has expanded community-based methadone therapy and piloted needle exchange programs in some areas with high HIV/AIDS rates. A statement released by the Office of China National Narcotics Control Commission in June 2008 declared that "drug treatment and rehabilitation is in accordance with human-centered principles." In March 2009 a high-ranking government official stated, "The Chinese Government maintains that drug treatment and rehabilitation should proceed in a people-oriented way."
However, Human Rights Watch said that in practice, the new law is compounding the health risks, social marginalization, and stigmatization of suspected drug users.
Although the implementation of the Anti-Drug Law ended the practice of sentencing suspected drug users to Re-Education Through Labor (RTL), the Anti-Drug Law expands the sentence in a compulsory drug detention center to a minimum of two years, up from the previously mandated six to twelve month sentence. These drug detention centers permit the same abuses of unpaid forced labor, physical abuse, and the denial of basic health care common under the RTL system.
Abuses have led to the death of detainees in some cases, according to former detainees interviewed by Human Rights Watch. The law also adds an undefined "community-based rehabilitation" period of up to four years, effectively permitting incarceration without trial for up to seven years.
"The Chinese government should stop these abuses and ensure that the rights of suspected drug users are fully respected," said Amon. "Addressing illicit drug use requires developing voluntary, community-based, outpatient treatment based upon effective, proven approaches to drug addiction. Warehousing large numbers of drug users and subjecting them to forced labor and physical abuse is not ‘rehabilitation.'"
Accounts from former detainees of China's drug detention centers in Yunnan, 2009:
"I was leaving work when I was ambushed by several plainclothes police. They started beating me and put handcuffs on me. No one on the street tried to help because they just assumed I was a criminal. The police said if I didn't give them 3,000 RMB [US$440] they would put me in a drug detention center. They brought me to my house and told me if I didn't get the money they would keep beating me. They waited while I was inside and waited while my family found 3,000 RMB from relatives."
"When we are on the street, in a restaurant, anywhere, the police can just grab us and make us do a urine test. Whenever we use the national identity card they can make us do a urine test."
"The police stopped me and they wanted money. I said, ‘Please don't use violence. Please don't use violence.' But they beat me."
"I am a former drug addict. I started using in 1990. I've tried to get clean and have been in compulsory labor camps more than eight times. I just cannot go back to a forced labor camp - [it is] a terrifying world where darkness knows no limits."
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/07/china-drug-rehabilitation-centers-deny-treatment-allow-forced-labor
The 37-page report, "Where Darkness Knows No Limits," based on research in Yunnan and Guangxi provinces, documents how China's June 2008 Anti-Drug Law compounds the health risks of suspected illicit drug users by allowing government officials and security forces to incarcerate them for up to seven years. The incarceration is without trial or judicial oversight. The law fails to clearly define mechanisms for legal appeals or the reporting of abusive conduct, and does not ensure evidence-based drug dependency treatment.
"Instead of putting in place effective drug dependency treatment, the new Chinese law subjects suspected drug users to arbitrary detention and inhumane treatment," said Joe Amon, the Health and Human Rights Division director at Human Rights Watch. "The Chinese government has explained the law as a progressive step towards recognizing drug users as ‘patients,' but they're not even being provided the rights of ordinary prisoners."
The report documents how individuals detained in some drug detention centers are routinely beaten, denied medical treatment, and forced to work up to 18 hours a day without pay. Although sentenced to "rehabilitation," they are denied access to effective drug dependency treatment and provided no opportunity to learn skills to reintegrate into the community.
Human Rights Watch said that over the past decade, the Chinese government has promoted progressive policies that embrace some harm reduction strategies as part of a pragmatic response to high rates of drug use and HIV/AIDS. Partnering with local and international nongovernmental organizations, the Chinese government has expanded community-based methadone therapy and piloted needle exchange programs in some areas with high HIV/AIDS rates. A statement released by the Office of China National Narcotics Control Commission in June 2008 declared that "drug treatment and rehabilitation is in accordance with human-centered principles." In March 2009 a high-ranking government official stated, "The Chinese Government maintains that drug treatment and rehabilitation should proceed in a people-oriented way."
However, Human Rights Watch said that in practice, the new law is compounding the health risks, social marginalization, and stigmatization of suspected drug users.
Although the implementation of the Anti-Drug Law ended the practice of sentencing suspected drug users to Re-Education Through Labor (RTL), the Anti-Drug Law expands the sentence in a compulsory drug detention center to a minimum of two years, up from the previously mandated six to twelve month sentence. These drug detention centers permit the same abuses of unpaid forced labor, physical abuse, and the denial of basic health care common under the RTL system.
Abuses have led to the death of detainees in some cases, according to former detainees interviewed by Human Rights Watch. The law also adds an undefined "community-based rehabilitation" period of up to four years, effectively permitting incarceration without trial for up to seven years.
"The Chinese government should stop these abuses and ensure that the rights of suspected drug users are fully respected," said Amon. "Addressing illicit drug use requires developing voluntary, community-based, outpatient treatment based upon effective, proven approaches to drug addiction. Warehousing large numbers of drug users and subjecting them to forced labor and physical abuse is not ‘rehabilitation.'"
Accounts from former detainees of China's drug detention centers in Yunnan, 2009:
"I was leaving work when I was ambushed by several plainclothes police. They started beating me and put handcuffs on me. No one on the street tried to help because they just assumed I was a criminal. The police said if I didn't give them 3,000 RMB [US$440] they would put me in a drug detention center. They brought me to my house and told me if I didn't get the money they would keep beating me. They waited while I was inside and waited while my family found 3,000 RMB from relatives."
"When we are on the street, in a restaurant, anywhere, the police can just grab us and make us do a urine test. Whenever we use the national identity card they can make us do a urine test."
"The police stopped me and they wanted money. I said, ‘Please don't use violence. Please don't use violence.' But they beat me."
"I am a former drug addict. I started using in 1990. I've tried to get clean and have been in compulsory labor camps more than eight times. I just cannot go back to a forced labor camp - [it is] a terrifying world where darkness knows no limits."
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/07/china-drug-rehabilitation-centers-deny-treatment-allow-forced-labor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)