text:
Stronger plants, stronger science, stronger communication.
Biology Fortified Inc.
Stronger life, stronger science, and stronger communication.
Biofortified Blog
Read the latest news, interviews, book reviews, and more!
View our resources about biotechnology and other issues in food and agriculture.
We can continue producing quality resources with your help!
About Biofortified
About Frank N. Foode™
Contact Biofortified
Biofortified Opportunities
Support Biofortified
Write for the Biofortified Blog
Biofortified Infographics
Bioengineered Label News
Plant Plushies™
Side with Science
AgBioPix
Cooking with Frank N. Foode
Biofortified Consulting
The GMO Corn Experiment
Biotech Traits
Biofortified Calendar
GENERA Home
History of GENERA
GENERA FAQ
GENERA Glossary
Studies in GENERA
GMO studies with independent funding
Evaluating Bias
GMO Risks
Submit a Study
Biofortified Blog Proposed US law to mandate GMOs?
Proposed US law to mandate GMOs?
by Anastasia Bodnar 22 April 2010 35 Comments
Do you have professional experience with writing or interpreting legislation? Please speak up in the comments!
The Global Food Security Act of 2009, S.384 has a few clauses that have anti-biotech activists all worked up. What do the changes really mean? Is the US government really part of a Monsanto-led conspiracy to force the impoverished into a cycle of dependency on patented seed and pesticides?
The Pesticide Action Network of North America sums up their view of the situation in their newsletter:
After its introduction in the Senate a year ago, Bill Gates and Bill Clinton have been quietly pressing for this piece of legislation that aims to fight global hunger with one hand while orchestrating a giant taxpayer subsidy to pesticide and ag biotech companies with the other. The bill, also known as the Lugar-Casey Act — for Senators Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Robert Casey (D-PA) — would refocus aid programs on agricultural development, with a caveat: public funding of genetically engineered (GE) seeds is what this bill means by "agricultural development."
I don't know if PANNA actually read the Act, because there's a lot in there about agricultural development that has nothing to do with genetic engineering, as you'll see in this post.
Genetic engineering ≠ Corporations
One of the biggest arguments against improved seed, whether biotech or simply hybrid, is that it is developed by corporations. To be fair, this is often true in the United States. The US government decided decades ago to leave crop improvement to corporations. The USDA still does a little work in crop improvement, but this work doesn't result in many released varieties.
It doesn't have to be this way. In countries around the world, including Brazil, India, and China, much public funding goes into crop improvement. If you think that it's dangerous to leave all seed improvement and production to a few companies, and if you want more public funding for crop improvement, then let your representatives know.
Ironically, the changes proposed in the Global Food Security Act of 2009 will lead to more public funding for crop improvement, genetically engineered and otherwise. It will also lead to funding of agricultural research in other countries, something that is very necessary if those countries are to ever stand on their own when it comes to food.
What the Act says
This is an amazing piece of legislation that has the potential to help a lot of people, so I hope you'll take a moment to read the whole thing. I'm personally very excited about the funding for public agricultural research both in the US and in developing countries listed in Title III. I'm disappointed that it's taking this long for the Act to be made into law.
In this post, I'll just discuss Title II, where the controversial language appears. Titles I and III don't mention biotechnology or any other specific farming or research methods, so they haven't raised any controversy to my knowledge. Title II lists quite a few changes that most would argue are favorable for agriculture in developing nations.
Let's actually look at the changes and try to determine what they really mean. Am I the only one who has noticed that the petitions and blog posts in uproar over the Act don't actually show the Act or even link to it? It's not that hard to find on websites such as Thomas. At the end of this post, you can find the relevant section of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (pdf, pages 40-42) with the changes made in red, then the proposed changes as they appear in the Global Food Security Act of 2009 (pdf).
The first set of edits in Title II of the Global Food Security Act of 2009 add three additional goals to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961:
1. Find ways for impoverished people who don't have access to agriculture to improve their economic situation, while providing those persons health and nutrition assistance.
2. Fund development and implementation of sustainable agricultural techniques that work under the stresses of climate change, including drought.
3. Improve nutrition of the most vulnerable people, specifically "children under the age of two years old, and pregnant or lactating women."
Sounds good so far.
The second section allocates funds for all of the aid activities in the Foreign Assistance Act. In billions of US dollars: 0.75 for 2010, 1 for 2011, 1.5 for 2012, 2 for 2013, and 2.5 for 2014.
Sounds expensive, but it's not much when put in the perspective of military spending (more than $650 billion, not including additional funds for current overseas activities).
On to the controversial part.
The current Act states that agricultural research under the Act will do the following:
1. Take needs of small farmers into account when determining research priorities.
2. Include research on factors affecting small farms including interplay between technological, institutional, economic, social, environmental, and cultural factors.
3. Use field tests to adapt research to local conditions – in other words, don't develop something that works in one country and expect it to work in another country!
4. Produce results that can be disseminated to small farms (both info and technology) and that can actually be used on small farms.
The proposed changes would add one additional clause, requiring research to include "biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including genetically modified technology." Frankly, I don't know why the authors enumerated any specific technologies or methods. They could have left out that last clause, still considered biotechnology as an option, and everyone would have been happy. However, Senator Lugar has seen the potential that biotechnology has to help people and wants to move that forward.
There are already examples of public-private partnerships that have been making great progress toward developing crops specifically for farmers in developing countries. Two of them were discussed by Marianne Bänziger, Director for CIMMYT's Global Maize Program, at the Maize Genetics Conference in March: WEMA (water efficient maize for Africa) and IMAS (improved maize for African soils). Publicly funded flood tolerant rice is already out there helping farmers, with help from Biofortified editor Pam Ronald. What more could be accomplished with additional funds?
What the Act doesn't say
The Act does not say "include genetic engineering to the exclusion of anything else". It doesn't even say "include biotechnology to the exclusion of anything else" (biotechnology includes marker assisted selection (pdf) as well as genetic engineering and other techniques). That means breeding remains a funded means of crop improvement, and leaves in the goal of improvement of farming methods as well. The Act specifically states that any biotech research will be appropriate to local environmental conditions, as well as taking needs of small farmers into account. That does leave out funding for any crop or method development that would be too expensive for small farmers to use, so royalty-free releases would presumably be required.
Looking at GM crops currently on the market, this excludes Roundup Ready crops because small farmers in impoverished countries often can't afford Roundup and/or don't have access to markets that carry pesticides. However, it includes Bt crops because they require no additional inputs and have been shown to be safe for people and safe for non-target organisms while reducing yield loss due to insect pests. It would also include traits that improve nutrition and environmental traits such as drought tolerance or salt tolerance. These are careful, thoughtful distinctions, ones that must be made before biotech is even considered, according to the Act.
While conspiracy theorists are happy to put words in Senator Lugar's mouth, no where does the Act claim that genetic engineering is a silver bullet to solve the food crisis (on the contrary, the Act emphasizes small, locally adapted solutions – the opposite of a silver bullet). No where does the Act propose that seeds with biotech traits be forced on countries that do not want them (on the contrary, the Act aims to improve the economic situation of impoverished farmers, which obviously can't be done by encouraging farmers to plant seed that they can't sell). No where does the Act ask for short term technological fixes (on the contrary, the Act aims for long term self-sustainability for impoverished farmers and countries). …you get the idea.
The language of the Act is clear
Farmers in developing countries need changes that will work for them and that will work long term. While most of us admire the great accomplishments of the Green Revolution, most of us know that those same strategies of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides can't be used again. To truly help the farmers, we must work with them to develop appropriate farming improvements for their situation – exactly what this bill says.
Don't want to take my word for it? Ask Senator Lugar. He's listed his goals for the legislation in full on his website: Lugar Clarifies Food Security Bill for Colleagues (or see pdf in case the post has moved). In the Senator's own words: "Hungry people are desperate people, and desperation often sows the seeds of conflict and extremism." Not only do we have a moral imperative to help impoverished people, but it is in the interests of peace to help ensure that every person has the ability to feed themselves and their families.
He's taken time to spell out why the biotech clause is in the Act:
The research would include work on the appropriate uses of GM technologies in different environments. While much research has already been done on the development of GM seeds, with profound benefits for agricultural productivity in developed countries, there is a dearth of research on its development and applicability in developing countries. Those countries may have environmental and other challenges that differ from those encountered in the United States. The bill advocates strengthening the local capacity of university and research institutions to find localized solutions to agricultural productivity and food security.
Without advances in technologies that are adaptive to local and regional environmental conditions, the world's farmers will be hard pressed to meet projected demand of the nearly 9.2 billion people that will inhabit the planet by the year 2050. The development and dissemination of technology, whether it be traditional, biotechnological, or GM, is vital to raising both farm productivity and incomes of poor farmers. Further, without the gains in production per acre that can come from advanced technology, it is likely we will only be able to meet future food demand by greatly expanding the amount of land under cultivation, a development which would necessarily involve substantial forest destruction as well as environmental degradation. GM represents one important tool in this endeavor, and we must do the research to determine where and when it works best.
The bottom line is that a provision of the Lugar-Casey bill directs U.S. assistance in developing local technological solutions to advance agricultural productivity in countries suffering from chronic hunger. It does not require that these solutions be GM, but it does not preclude it, where appropriate.
Widespread support
Don't believe me or the Senator? Take a look at the groups supporting the Act (pdf) – no less than 25 well-known NGOs that work with impoverished people and/or environmental issues, most of which have a global reach. ONE, a prominent organization that works against hunger and AIDS in Africa, is positively enthusiastic about this potentially historic Act. The National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges has endorsed (pdf) the Act, likely due to it's support for education and research. CARE (Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc.) applauds the Act's support for women and girls. Oxfam urges people to tell their members of Congress to co-sponsor the Act. The Friends of the World Food Program call the Act an essential part of the Roadmap to End Global Hunger. Dr. Thomas Lovejoy of Population Action International and Jim Harkness of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy argue that it's time to stand up for people who are most in need, especially now that the health care debate is over. (IATP supports the House version of this legislation in this editorial, not the Senate version.)
The Act has also done something that few pieces of legislation can anymore: inspire bi-partisan cooperation.The authors of the bill are a Republican and a Democrat, and they have the support of people from both parties in the House and in the Senate. For example, the House version of the Act was introduced by Representative Betty McCollum (D) along with Donald Payne (D) and Jo Ann Emerson (R).
Finally, let's look closely at the authors of the bill. Are they being paid off by Monsanto to push this legislation?
In short, no. Looking at Senator Lugar's campaign contributors at OpenSecrets.org, there's a striking lack of any biotech company donors later than 2002, when Monsanto contributed $14,250. Senator Lugar does have some donors from agribusiness, such as Archer Daniels Midland which donated $8,000 in 2008 and $6,000 in 2010 – hardly enough to buy special legislation for nefarious purposes, and completely unsurprising considering that he is a Senator for Indiana. Senator Casey doesn't have any contributions from Monsanto or agribusiness. Any conspiracy theories regarding the authors of the bill fall flat as soon as you look at the data.
Let's see this Act for what it really is – an honest effort to make real changes in the way the US aids poor farmers in impoverished countries. Contact your elected officials to let them know what you think about the Act.
proposed changes to Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151a-1)
2151a. Agricultural development in rural areas
(a) Authorization to President to furnish assistance; appropriations
(1) In recognition of the fact that the great majority of the people of developing countries live in rural areas and are dependent on agriculture and agricultural-related pursuits for their livelihood, the President is authorized to furnish assistance, on such terms and conditions as he may determine, for agriculture, rural development, and nutrition—
(A) to alleviate starvation, hunger, and malnutrition;
(B) to expand significantly the provision of basic services to rural poor people to enhance their capacity for self-help; and
(C) to help create productive farm and off-farm employment in rural areas to provide a more viable economic base and enhance opportunities for improved incomes, living standards, and contributions by rural poor people to the economic and social development of their countries; and
(D) to expand the economic participation of people living in extreme poverty and those who lack access to agriculturally productive land, including through productive safety net programs and health and nutrition programs, and to integrate those living in extreme poverty into the economy;
(E) to support conservation farming and other sustainable agricultural techniques to respond to changing climatic conditions and water shortages; and
(F) to improve nutrition of vulnerable populations, such as children under the age of two years old, and pregnant or lactating women.
(2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the President for purposes of this section, in addition to funds otherwise available for such purposes, $760,000,000 for fiscal year 1986 and $760,000,000 for fiscal year 1987. Of these amounts, the President may use such amounts as he deems appropriate to carry out the provisions of section 316 of the International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1980. Amounts appropriated under this section are authorized to remain available until expended.
Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated to the President to provide assistance under section 103 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151a) for the purpose of carrying out activities under this section, in addition to funds otherwise available for such purpose–
(1) $750,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; (2) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; (3) $1,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; (4) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; and (5) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.
*Note – I'm not sure where the above belongs, but it seems to fit well here.*
(3) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated in paragraph (2) for the fiscal year 1987, not less than $2,000,000 shall be available only for the purpose of controlling and eradicating amblyomma variegatum (heartwater) in bovine animals in the Caribbean.
(b) Use of assistance primarily in aid of rural poor; multilateral infrastructure projects; forestry projects
(1) Assistance provided under this section shall be used primarily for activities which are specifically designed to increase the productivity and income of the rural poor, through such means as creation and strengthening of local institutions linked to the regional and national levels; organization of a system of financial institutions which provide both savings and credit services to the poor; stimulation of small, labor-intensive enterprises in rural towns; improvement of marketing facilities and systems; expansion of rural infrastructure and utilities such as farm-to-market roads, water management systems, land improvement, energy, and storage facilities; establishment of more equitable and more secure land tenure arrangements; and creation and strengthening of systems to provide other services and supplies needed by farmers, such as extension, research, training, fertilizer, water, forestry, soil conservation, and improved seed, in ways which assure access to them by small farmers.
(2) In circumstances where development of major infrastructure is necessary to achieve the objectives set forth in this section, assistance for that purpose should be furnished under this part in association with significant contributions from other countries working together in a multilateral framework. Infrastructure proj ects so assisted should be complemented by other measures to ensure that the benefits of the infrastructure reach the poor.
(3) The Congress recognizes that the accelerating loss of forests and tree cover in developing countries undermines and offsets efforts to improve agricultural production and nutrition and otherwise to meet the basic human needs of the poor. Deforestation results in increased flooding, reduction in water supply for agricultural capacity, loss of firewood and needed wood products, and loss of valuable plants and animals. In order to maintain and increase forest resources, the President is authorized to provide assistance under this section for forestry projects which are essential to fulfill the fundamental purposes of this section. Emphasis shall be given to community woodlots, agroforestry, reforestation, protection of watershed forests, and more effective forest management.
(c) Increased agricultural production in least developed countries
The Congress finds that the greatest potential for significantly expanding availability of food for people in rural areas and augmenting world food production at relatively low cost lies in increasing the productivity of small farmers who constitute a majority of the agricultural producers in developing countries. Increasing the emphasis on rural development and expanded food production in the poorest nations of the developing world is a matter of social justice and a principal element contributing to broadly based economic growth, as well as an important factor in alleviating inflation in the industrialized countries. In the allocation of funds under this section, special attention shall be given to increasing agricultural production in countries which have been designated as "least developed" by the United Nations General Assembly.
(d) Coordination with population planning and health programs
Assistance provided under this section shall also be used in coordination with programs carried out under section 2151b of this title to help improve nutrition of the people of developing countries through encouragement of increased production of crops with greater nutritional value; improvement of planning, research, and education with respect to nutrition, particularly with reference to improvement and expanded use of indigenously produced foodstuffs; and the undertaking of pilot or demonstration programs explicitly addressing the problem of malnutrition of poor and vulnerable people. In particular, the President is encouraged—
(1) to devise and carry out in partnership with developing countries a strategy for programs of nutrition and health improvement for mothers and children, including breast feeding; and
(2) to provide technical, financial, and material support to individuals or groups at the local level for such programs.
(e) Use of local currency proceeds from sales of commodities
Local currency proceeds from sales of commodities provided under the Food for Peace Act [7U.S.C. 1691 et seq.] which are owned by foreign governments shall be used whenever practicable to carry out the provisions of this section.
(f) National food security policies and programs; bilateral and multilateral assistance
The Congress finds that the efforts of developing countries to enhance their national food security deserves encouragement as a matter of United States development assistance policy. Measures complementary to assistance for expanding food production in developing countries are needed to help assure that food becomes increasingly available on a regular basis to the poor in such countries. Therefore, United States bilateral assistance under this chapter and the Food for Peace Act [7 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.], and United States participation in multilateral institutions, shall emphasize policies and programs which assist developing countries to increase their national food security by improving their food policies and management and by strengthening national food reserves, with particular concern for the needs of the poor, through measures encouraging domestic production, building national food reserves, expanding available storage facilities, reducing postharvest food losses, and improving food distribution.
(g) International Fund for Agricultural Development; participation and contributions; availability of appropriations
(1) In order to carry out the purposes of this section, the President may continue United States participation in and may make contributions to the International Fund for Agricultural Development.
(2) Of the aggregate amount authorized to be appropriated to carry out subchapter I of this chapter, up to $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1986 and up to $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1987 may be made available, by appropriation or by transfer, for United States contributions to the second replenishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development.
2151a–1. Agricultural research
Agricultural research carried out under this chapter shall
(1) take account of the special needs of small farmers in the determination of research priorities,
(2) include research on the interrelationships among technology, institutions, and economic, social, environmental, and cultural factors affecting small-farm agriculture, and
(3) make extensive use of field testing to adapt basic research to local conditions. Special emphasis shall be placed on disseminating research results to the farms on which they can be put to use, and especially on institutional and other arrangements needed to assure that small farmers have effective access to both new and existing improved technology., and
(4) include research on biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including genetically modified technology.
Global Food Security Act of 2009, S.384
SEC. 201. AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND NUTRITION.
(a) Authority- Section 103(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151a(a)(1)) is amended–
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking '; and' and inserting a semicolon;
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end and inserting '; and'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
'(D) to expand the economic participation of people living in extreme poverty and those who lack access to agriculturally productive land, including through productive safety net programs and health and nutrition programs, and to integrate those living in extreme poverty into the economy;
'(E) to support conservation farming and other sustainable agricultural techniques to respond to changing climatic conditions and water shortages; and
'(F) to improve nutrition of vulnerable populations, such as children under the age of two years old, and pregnant or lactating women.'.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated to the President to provide assistance under section 103 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151a) for the purpose of carrying out activities under this section, in addition to funds otherwise available for such purpose–
Sec. 202. Agricultural Research.
Section 103A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151a-1) is amended in the first sentence–
(1) by striking ', and (3) make' and inserting ', (3) make'; and
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ', and (4) include research on biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including genetically modified technology.'.
Science & Societyaid, Legal Analysis
Written by Anastasia Bodnar
Anastasia Bodnar serves as the Policy Director of Biology Fortified, Inc. She is a science communicator and multidisciplinary risk analyst with a career in federal service. She has a PhD in plant genetics and sustainable agriculture from Iowa State University.
Previous Entry Happy Earth Day!
Next Entry Supreme Court hearing on GMO Alfalfa
MaryM says:
Excellent exposition, Anastasia. I'll certainly be linking to it. I can't believe the lies I hear about this bill. And if my politically active friends can lured to sign a petition against funding academic agricultural research in the developing world as I have seen activists do–they should be mortified.
The bill is remarkably readable, actually. I wish they would read it and then decide.
The clearest part of Lugar's page for me:
Let me be clear. The bill does not require the use of GM technology by any farmers, implementing partners or government agencies. It does not condition the receipt of food aid on a recipient country's adoption of GM. The use of any technology must ultimately be left to individual farmers based on their particular circumstances.
I've seen the blog posts and emails that claim it conditions aid on GMOs. I am stunned to find my reality-based community falling for them.
pdiff says:
Agree with Mary on that, Anastasia. Very nice (i.e. rational) take down of the misinformation out there.
"… if my politically active friends can lured to sign a petition against funding academic agricultural research in the developing world as I have seen activists do–they should be mortified."
Perhaps, but the conditioning and pull from that side is strong. The negative connotations of merely combining "Congressional legislation", "government aide", "corporations", "bio-tech", etc in a sentence and contrasting it to the grandiose "Environmentalism" can automatically cause people to have forgone conclusions. That is, they red loop without justification ( https://biofortified.org/forum/?vasthtmlaction=viewtopic&t=8.0) 🙂
Ewan R says:
Any bill that even remotely touches on agriculture is written by Monsanto lawyers. The whole HRwhateverthehellnumber it was food safety bill should have cemented that in anyones head.
Just more evidence of not dealing with the reality based community.
In terms of purely cut throat business I can't think of anything that'd go down worse than hearing that your potential market for the next 20 years is going to get government funded research thrown at it to the tune of billions of dollars.
@Ewan: oh, yah, HR 875–another one of my favorite battles on the intarwebs.
I've tried that argument too: do you want to create a vacuum of research and information that will be filled by Monsanto? This gets no traction in my experience. But I keep trying.
PS: I keep adding spaces to my comments which are eaten by Monsanto or Rahm Emmanuel after preview. Can we fix that?
Andrew Apel says:
The position of the activists is discussed in detail by agricultural economist Robert Paarlberg in:
Starved for Science: How Biotechnology Is Being Kept Out of Africa
Foreword by Jimmy Carter and Norman Borlaug
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Starved-for-Science/Robert-Paarlberg/e/9780674029736
Excerpt of synopsis:
In Starved for Science Robert Paarlberg explains why poor African farmers are denied access to productive technologies, particularly genetically engineered seeds with improved resistance to insects and drought. He traces this obstacle to the current opposition to farm science in prosperous countries. Having embraced agricultural science to become well-fed themselves, those in wealthy countries are now instructing Africans—on the most dubious grounds—not to do the same.
M. Davis says:
I'd like to hear Clinton, Gates, Obama, et al say outright that such foreign aid IS NOT contingent on GMO technology uses. That would refute easily and clearly, any misunderstandings. However, it seems that all waters must be muddied un-needlessly (but perhaps on purpose)
Why is there no independent testing? To consumers, it seems that the producers triage-d reports are the only reports being studied?
Why is there no labeling of GMO containing products. If it's so great, and claims can be proven, why hide it? Keeping the truth from us just creates mistrust and fear of our food. But on the other hand, confusion about our food, and inability to learn the truth, will (theoretically) make us throw up our hand and give in! Is that what Big Ag is counting on? Never!!!!! Many of us still care.
Much was not addressed in the latest report, because, of course, more funding for further research, is always needed by scientists. (sarcasm intended) Isn't it time after 20 years that they come clean and release all reports- good and bad. (Oh, wait! _ this is not a reality based idea)
Much has been written on both side of the argument (just like the cigarette argument). I've chosen to fight GMOs because I have not been convinced of the pros, and prefer the Precautionary Principle. Convince me with independent testing and I am willing to change my mind.
The majority says that we don't want GMOs on our plate. What about that! What about democracy!
Number 4 looks like mandated money to GM to me. Seems completely unneccessary – I'm sure points 1-3 could've covered GM if they thought it could be helpful.
Um…M — as I quoted, the author of the legislation said it:
I bolded the part that says it for you.
Here's the link: http://lugar.senate.gov/food/legislation/ It was already in Anastasia's post.
Why is there no labelling of products packaged by left handed people. That's what I want to know. Where is the independant testing? Why shouldn't I have the choice about whether or not to eat food that has been handled by the left handed?
Oh yeah, it's because it categorically makes no difference, and the only way I could make it make a difference is to completely ignore all the evidence to the contrary.
Which is precisely what you do.
Why aren't GMOs labelled? Because they pose no safety risk. Labels are about things which pose a safety risk. (at least in the US, other than the recent Country of Origin labelling which imo is ridiculous) Labelling of GMOs in the current environment would be counterproductive – it would imply a risk, and therefore set back the debate in favor of magical thinking rather than anything based in reality.
What exactly do you mean by releasing all reports? Which reports haven't been released? Isn't it time that after 20 years the green, and the 'precautionary principle' brigade pull their heads out of their posteriors and admit that there is categorically no evidence of harm caused by GMOs, no logical reason to believe that the current commercially available GMOs would pose a health risk (seriously, give a reasoned arguement as to why a protein which is broken down in human digestion very easily but is specifically targetted to certain groups of insects would be harmful, likewise why an enzyme with a slightly altered physical structure making it impervious to an inhibitory molecule but which is otherwise the same as the plant enzyme would be even potentially harmful)
I also don't believe that the majority don't want GMOs on their plates – there's a vocal minority, most people seriously don't care either way – and would be far more opposed to hikes in food prices and increases in the environmental impact of agriculture.
Karl Haro von Mogel says:
From what I understand of the purpose of #4, projects involving biotechnology (which includes genetic engineering and marker-assisted breeding, etc) were not explicitly included as being eligible for funding, and in the past they managed to fit it in somehow into other parts of the existing law. But when it comes to stuff like this, unless something is explicitly spelled out as being eligible for funding by government programs it is hard to actually fund it. If you had a specific idea for a research project that is not in the list of things that are eligible for funding you would be hard-pressed to get that money for your research.
#2 is worded in exactly the same way, yet no one is saying that "research on the interrelationships among technology, institutions, and economic, social, environmental, and cultural factors affecting small-farm agriculture" is MANDATED. And it shouldn't be mandated (even though it is good to fund such research) because during years where there is limited funds, mandated destinations reduce the government's flexibility in choosing what research is most important. This often comes up during budget discussions in other areas of politics.
Let us be absolutely clear on this bill, the idea that the bill "mandates" research on genetic engineering is being used cynically to argue opposition for an act that even if it said "This does not mandate research on biotechnology or GM" the same people would be arguing against because it even allows research on GM. There's a simple test that can be made of anyone arguing against this provision in the bill: ask them if they would oppose this part of the bill if it explicitly stated that the research was eligible for funding but not mandated (the point of contention) – their answer will tell you the real reason. The very fact that they are saying that the provision should be "stripped" and not "fixed" tells us what is going on.
Anastasia Bodnar says:
To me, this is EXACTLY the same as the health care bill's supposed mandate for death panels.
There were very clear clauses calling for optional end-of-life care counseling with the goal of helping people to make decisions far in advance so as to reduce emotional (and yes, sometimes financial) burden on family members.
We all watched in horror as some people with clear agendas took these clauses to mean things that they were NEVER meant to mean.
How is this any different? The Food Security Act of 2009 will easily save more lives than the health care bill, it is just as much a moral imperative. Yet some people with a clear agenda are purposefully making up things that are simply not there in order to stop the Act's passage.
I think it's disgusting. It was disgusting with health care and it's disgusting with the Food Security Act.
Problem solved! No more paragraph break thievery here!
In order for there to be funding mandated for research on genetic engineering, it would have to say so. It does not. Instead it says that it is an option – something that can be included as something to be funded. (see what Karl says below)
Yes, I was thinking about the health care bill responses, too. For instance, there is a part in the health care bill where it said that the act authorizes the system to "enable electronic transfers" of money to make payments. The protesters were claiming that the health care bill would make the government take money out of your bank account electronically whether you want to or not. That part of the health care bill was designed to make the government set up the ability to make electronic transfers if you so choose it. It's weird that they have to spell out that electronic transfers are ok before it can happen, but that the language can be so easily misconstrued politically to mean something that it does not.
For people who might be interested in a viewpoint on this legislation by someone who has a deeper understanding of Africa and agriculture than a lot of people who chatter about it — you should see the testimony given on this bill by Dr. Gebisa Ejeta. James talks about it here:
Dr. Gebisa Ejeta on Investing in Agriculture
Douglas M says:
Anastasia and Karl,
I'm not quite following the arguments here about how the bill's language is structured. The beginning of (22 U.S.C. 2151a-1), into which the provision for transgenic research is added, says the funded research SHALL [do (1) -(4)]. "Shall" equates with "required." It does not equate with "optional". I read it that all of the things listed are in fact required to be done by the research conducted through this legislation. Thanks for explaining.
I would say Douglas M is correct, in that "Shall", in this case, equates to "required". From Websters on the definition of shall: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shall)
" … b —used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory"
But what exactly is mandatory? The sentence in section (4) uses the word include twice, first referring to biotechnology, then again as "including" in reference to genetically modified technology.
I think it is clear the "Shall" clause would directly apply to the first, that is, "biotechnology will be required for research", but the interpretation of the second use, "including", is not as definite for me. It could be taken as: "both biotechnology and genetically modified technology are required", but it could also be taken as I think Karl argues "biotechnology is required and that does not exclude GMT" or "biotechnology is required, a subset of which is GMT".
For me the intention is not clear. Lugar does state that "The research would include work on the appropriate uses of GM technologies …", implying that it will be there. The only times he explicitly says it is not required, he is referring to aid or applied solutions.
The key word here isn't "shall" but "include".
The word include means:
* have as a part, be made up out of; "The list includes the names of many famous writers"
* consider as part of something; "I include you in the list of culprits"
In this Act, it says biotechnology shall be included in the research, along with many other potential agricultural improvements.
The intention is clear to me. Some amount of all of the research that is conducted will include biotech, if it is appropriate.
As Karl referred to, research on social ramifications of agriculture shall be included in the body of research as well. That doesn't meant that every research dollar will be spent on this subject, nor does it mean that every single research endeavor will include sociology.
I'm not so sure. In common language, it might, but in legal, legislative language, it might not. From my very limited understanding in that area, I think it could. Research shall take those social things into account. Perhaps the issue is in my interpretation of what "research" means here. If it is, as you say, "the body of research", then I can see the mandate use of shall, but if it is meant to be applied to individual research projects, it doesn't make sense.
The real problem to me, however, is that the stipulation goes to far. Suppose a clause was added after the phrase in (2):
"cultural factors affecting small-farm agriculture"
", including religious beliefs".
Think there might be objections then? I do. If they had done this, they would be raising the same kind of questions as (4) has, and it would be, IMO, unnecessary.
I am not arguing against GM tech, but I do think the wording is poor and too explicit. Why mention GM at all? I find it hard to believe that "biotechnology" would not cover GMT. What's more, it could be too limiting in that specific use of GMT might turn out to be a bad approach for the problem. Just leaving it at biotechnology keeps all the doors open. Now, however, they have put themselves in a corner. If they simply eliminate that GMT phrase, anti-GM advocates will claim it is not allowed. The only way to change the bill would be to explicitly state that GMT may be used.
I agree that biotechnology probably shouldn't have been mentioned specifically, just as I wouldn't have specifically mentioned radiation mutagenesis or wild relative introgressed lines as methods of crop improvement. Why not just say "crop improvement" and let breeders and researchers decide what are the best methods?
Senator Lugar has explained why he included the clause:
In fact, only one provision (Sec. 202) in the entire bill even mentions GM technology. The United States provides a small amount of funding for agricultural research activities at national and international research centers. The provision in question would highlight research on biotechnology, including GM, as eligible for U.S. assistance. The research would include work on the appropriate uses of GM technologies in different environments. While much research has already been done on the development of GM seeds, with profound benefits for agricultural productivity in developed countries, there is a dearth of research on its development and applicability in developing countries. Those countries may have environmental and other challenges that differ from those encountered in the United States. The bill advocates strengthening the local capacity of university and research institutions to find localized solutions to agricultural productivity and food security.
Of course, what the author intend doesn't actually matter. Legislation that has multiple possible interpretations may eventually need to have one interpretation or another decided by the courts. Perhaps it would be in the best interests of Senators Lugar and Casey to make the language more clear, as you say. I do wish that people would simply ask for clarified language (which is ironic because this is so clearly written compared to most legislation) instead of making up craziness about mandated acceptance of GMOs.
The language "shall include" is pretty common in legislation, so it might be helpful to see how it's been interpreted in other cases. As far as I can tell, it can be interpreted two ways:
1. Each individual research project "shall include" genetic engineering, as well as research on cultural factors, etc.
2. The entire body of research (the sum of all of the individual projects) "shall include" all those things.
Still, even with the question of interpretation I think the claims being made in these petitions and articles are out of control, serving agendas rather than reality.
Exactly–if every research project has to have all 4 pieces (1-4), those are gonna be some unwieldy projects and hard to combine with field work and some of those other pieces…so that seems silly to me (that's option 1).
But if not, then 75% of the fundable projects are unencumbered by genetic engineering, right? That's hardly a mandate….
But don't we already apply all 4 in the arguments above? For example, aren't we saying above that if the hypothetical "Big-Ag-asanto" wanted to use a high priced, high input, IP restricted GE variety in relation to this aid, they could not because it violates sections (1), (2), and (3)?
Ha! Ha! Well, have you turned on the news lately? It seems to be the norm no matter what side you take on an issue. The "truth may be out there", but no one is looking for it anymore.
Yeah, yeah. I thought of that shortly after I posted the comment. I can't imagine that the reality is any different than we've analyzed, though.
Thinking a little about it, was GM perhaps included specifically so that it could not be excluded at a later date? Ie when funding is being doled out if the bill did not explicity say the funding should/could/would be used for GM technology then is there a risk that at some later date, under a less than favorable distributor of monies, that a project could be excluded entirely because it involved GM technology (as opposed to any other aspect of biotechnology) whereas when the letter of the law is explicit that GM technology is included then it becomes harder to withold funding over this.
So while the bill does not mandate that funding absolutely must go to research into GM exclusively (which would be a bad thing) it does to an extent mandate that where appropriate funding will go towards GM research (which in my opinion is a great thing – policy absolutely should be geared towards including all the available tools – if this requires convoluted legalese to make sure something as polarizing as GM is not excluded – and let's make no mistake here, the reason GM is highlighted as opposed to MAS, mutagenesis or such like is because it is such a polarizing technology and at risk of being excluded entirely on ideological grounds)
Party Cactus says:
Exactly. Science aside, I always found mandatory GMO labeling to be a lot like mandatory labeling for Halal or Kosher products. If you want to follow those rules, more power to you, but don't try to bend the law for your own beliefs, and don't try to pass those beliefs off as fact. I don't see Muslims & Jews demanding mandatory labeling of their dietary laws, just imagine the reaction we'd see if they did. No one deserves a free pass here. If you want food labeled as X, that's fine, whatever the free market will bear, but do it with your own wallet, not mine.
That seems to be Senator Lugar's intent, if I'm reading his statement correctly.
That's a good point, Ewan. Some have questioned why it must be mentioned specifically as an option, and it could be to prevent exclusion of such projects for political purposes just as much as it will highlight the research as being eligible for funding.
Ben Lilliston says:
A point of clarification in this article, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy is listed in a paragraph on organizations supporting the Senate bill. The article linked to by IATP's Jim Harkness is referring to the House version of the bill, which does not include the GMO language. IATP objects to the GMO language in the Senate bill, views it as unnecessary, and would like to see it removed.
I'm at BIGMAP talking to people from many different organizations about biotech. One topic I keep bringing up is the Global Food Security Act to see what people think about it. Interestingly, many people here don't even know about it, which leads me to believe that this Act contains no conspiracy to push biotech where it's not wanted – if there was, at least some of these guys would have known about it. Anecdotal evidence, 'tis true, but I totally expected people here to know about it and have opinions about it.
A representative of IATP wasn't as down on biotech as I thought he might be based on Ben's comment (I will strike out that part of the above post). He's not a fan of corporate seed development or of glyphosate but those are separate issues. After reading some things on IATP's website, I have to wonder if there are some misconceptions about biotech that have gotten repeated too many times so that people believe they are true. There may be some potential there for Biofortified posts to clarify the science.
I also spoke to a representative of Lutheran World Relief who was very enthusiastic about the Act, saying it (and its House sister) is the only legislation out there that aims to help people, especially farmers, in Africa. LWR believes the biotech clause will only take up a small portion of the total funding in the Act. They also believe it won't even have an effect in most African countries because most countries have no framework for regulating biotech. No one can introduce a biotech trait if the country has no way to accept it legally (see below).
In a talk by Sally McCammon, a science advisor for biotech in the USDA, she made clear that there are no efforts to create an international regulatory body for biotechnology. It would be convenient to have a standardized system, but the sovereignty of each country to develop whatever regulatory network they want is not something that anyone in USDA, Codex, or other international bodies has any desire to infringe on.
To bring that back to the Act and what the rep from LWR said, the size of the biotech research funded seems to depend on the countries that are receiving aid more than anything else. The Act doesn't say anything about changing biotech regs in those countries so spending must abide by what is already in place.
Lugar responds to the claim, again:
http://thehill.com/opinion/letters/95017-rep-lugar-no-mandate-for-genetic-modification
The opinion piece by Drs. Herren and Ishii-Eiteman ("Genetically modified crops are not the answer", The Hill, April 23, 2010) perpetuates a falsehood about the Lugar-Casey Global Food Security Act. Contrary to their assertion, the legislation does NOT include a mandate that U.S. foreign aid be spent on research into genetic modification technology. It does NOT require the use of GM technology by any farmers or government agencies. Under terms of the bill, the use of any technology is left to individual farmers, based on their particular circumstances. To be clear: There is no mandate for GM crops.
Pingback: Biofortified » The US government is at it again!
Nathaniel Wood says:
food aids are badly needed by third world countries and we really need to give something to the poor.`';
Biology Fortified, Inc. is an independent non-profit organization. Our mission is to enhance public discussion of biotechnology and other issues in food and agriculture.
Biofortified Blog Posts
Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance and Glyphosate
Part 1: What is Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance?
Which burger is best? Plant-based or animal-based?
Making food without photosynthesis
Unboxing GMO Ethos Chocolate
We need GMO salmon
Happy birthday, Norm!
Sustainability, animal welfare, and Easter eggs
Ask your supermarket to stock GMO salmon
We don't need weak data to make the case for GMOs
AquAdvantage Salmon Regulatory Timeline
SciMoms Guide to GMOs
Virus Resistance – GMOs Revealed
Bt Traits – GMOs Revealed
GMO Feeding Studies
Crop Modification Techniques
GMO Safety Studies and Funding Sources
World Map of Government-Funded GMO Studies
Present like a boss
Genetic Engineering and Philosophy of Technology
IAmSciComm: Scicomm Strategies
IAmSciComm: Storytelling
IAmSciComm: Origin of SciMoms
Have something to say? Write for the Biofortified Blog! Want to share something you see here? Check out our Sharing Policy.
franknfoode
Your friendly neighborhood genetically modified organism
My first TikTok video: Pounding mochi! Sticky rice
The Mod Squad at the @eat_modified food cart passe
Lunchtime at #PAGXXVIII! Sandwiches, salads, food
Nothing says Saturday night at #PAGXXVIII like wan
2020	Biology Fortified Inc.


Buy any 4 massages, including the NEW Aroma Blend slimming and sculpting treatment and get the 5th one FREE!
Get 10 stamps and receive a free 30 minute back massage or facial. Remember to ask for your loyalty card during your next visit.
Do you love what we do? Recommend a friend and you both receive 25% off. Please download the voucher below and start recommending your friends!


text:
Schlosser decides its time to step down
More news about: Elizabethtown
Elizabethtown coach Bob Schlosser finished with 364 wins in 27 years on the Blue Jays' sideline.
Elizabethtown athletics photo
It was not that long ago that Elizabethtown was one of the dominant men's basketball programs in the region, and its coach, Bob Schlosser, synonymous with winning.
The basketball landscape, however, is changing as quickly as much of the rest of the world around us. The Blue Jays, who played to a .600 winning percentage under Schlosser from his arrival in 1990 through 2011, posted a paltry .274 mark from then until now. Thus it was that Schlosser, on Jan. 31, announced he would retire at the end of the season.
Elizabethtown team page
From the vault: Upstart Blue Jays reach national championship game (March 2002)
"It's always a combination of things," Schlosser said, "but, you know, we haven't been winning. It's one thing to have one or two bad years, but we've had four or five. I don't see that changing.
"I have all part-time assistants, and I have other part-time responsibilities (Schlosser also is an associate athletic director at E'town). I don't think that was fixable in the position I'm in. The losing really eats at you. It was affecting me in a lot of different ways. I'm still an effective teacher of the game, but it's a grind."
Perhaps that is because Schlosser put so much of himself into coaching basketball. His four conference coach-of-the-year awards, his three Commonwealth Conference championships and E'town's appearance in the 2002 NCAA Championship Game attest to that. A better look at Schlosser, however, comes from a former pupil, Andy Burkholder, who played for Schlosser and was his assistant on that NCAA runner-up.
"The way he goes about practice, and practice planning," Burkholder recalled. "He's meticulous. Everything was always typed out to the line. He was intense, but not only intense; his desire to compete really rubbed off on everyone."
Burkholder is in his second year as head coach at American International College in Springfield, Mass. He could not come to Schlosser's final game Saturday, when a large contingent of former Blue Jays came to see their former coach off. Instead he came to E'town's game last Wednesday against Catholic.
"He drove six hours (Wednesday) to come and see me," Schlosser said, "then drove six hours home. That speaks volumes."
Burkholder would have loved to see his alma mater upset a Cardinals team heading into postseason play. That was never really in danger of happening, but Burkholder still recognized the old intensity.
"They competed till the buzzer went," Burkholder said. "I even think he stared down one of the officials as the game was ending."
Schlosser said he has received many calls and e-mails from former players, and Burkholder said he has spoken to several of them, and knows they are all showing their appreciation for Schlosser – belatedly, for some.
"I know he's received some e-mails from players, basically saying, 'I know I wasn't always the best or easiest guy to coach, but I get it now.'"
As tough as he may have been on some players, Schlosser was undoubtedly effective. The Blue Jays went 19-7 in his third year and earned an at-large NCAA Tournament bid. That started a run of 18 years in which the Blue Jays made their conference tournament 15 times and had just two losing seasons.
That changed at the beginning of the current decade. Since a 16-8 season in 2010-2011, E'town has been no better than 8-16.
"I've had a pretty good run," Schlosser said. "I've had my day in the sun, so to speak. I got a lot of credit for a lot of wins. Now I'm able to say I haven't gotten it done, and that's on me. And I'm OK with that."
Schlosser said one reason for the downturn may be that other coaches are doing a better job connecting with recruits via social media, something he has not embraced.
"I'm an old-school guy," he said. "I'm not as up on social media, and that falls on my shoulders. Somebody could really turn this around. They'll be able to recruit in ways I'm just not capable of."
Schlosser, pressed for a hobby he might indulge in his retirement, listed just one: fly fishing. He said he expects to continue to work "in some capacity."
"I'm never going to rule out coaching," he said. "I really still have a passion for teaching the game. I just want to get out of the stress of being a head coach."
Schlosser named the 2002 NCAA title-game run as his best memory, but because of the camaraderie formed by the team as much as the winning. He takes great pride in the slew of former players who have gone into coaching. His three sons, all of whom went to E'town, all are college assistants. The eldest, Ben, has been his father's assistant for seven years. Middle son Sam works at Penn State Harrisburg. The youngest, Will, is a graduate assistant at Springfield College, the same position Burkholder once held at the Division III school that churns out sports coaches. He also can point to Rocky Parise at Elizabethtown Area High School, Chris Sattele at Middletown and Brian Schmoyer at York, among may others.
"Our last coaches' clinic, we had 23 guys who were alumni who were coaching who showed up," Schlosser said. "That was a positive with recruiting. Those connections are really helpful."
Road warriors in Commonwealth
Home court was no advantage in the MAC Commonwealth first-round games Monday night. Sam Light's 32 points and nine rebounds led Lebanon Valley's men's team to a 76-66 win at Alvernia, avenging the Dutchmen's two regular-season losses to the Crusaders. Andy Orr and Marquis Davis chipped in 17 points apiece.
The Dutchmen earned a semifinal matchup at top seed Lycoming Wednesday night. LVC beat the Warriors in Williamsport earlier this season but lost at home to Lycoming 87-54 on Valentine's Day.
In women's hoops, Kayla Kline's double-double propelled Lycoming to a 73-59 win at LVC. Kline and Shelby Mueller scored 18 points apiece. Akilah McFadden added 15. The Warriors will travel to Reading for a semifinal at Albright. The Lions swept Lycoming this season.
Phil Soto-Ortiz has been a play-by-play sportscaster for basketball, football and lacrosse at Franklin & Marshall College since 2010, and has also called games at Division II St. Anselm College in New Hampshire and at high schools around Connecticut. He writes the annual Centennial College football preview for D3football.com's Kickoff publication and has covered sports for the Harrisburg (Pa.) Patriot-News and several dailies and weeklies in Fairfield County, Connecticut. He graduated from Syracuse University, where he called the play-by-play of the women?s basketball team's games, including their last win over the UConn Huskies.
2014-16 columnist:Ryan Scott
2013-14 columnist: Rob Knox
2012-13 columnist: Pete Barrett
2011-12 columnist: Brian Lester

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Sometimes described as 'England's Last Great Wilderness', Northumberland has so many attractions it is impossible to list them all. We have tried to give a flavour of these in our website links and. hope that they may assist you in planning your stay at Newton Holiday Cottages. If you have any specialist needs or interests, we will be pleased to look into these for you.


A diamond plate, a glowing grate, a place you never leave. Where am I?
I can start a war or end one. I can give you the strength of heroes or leave you powerless. I might be snared with a glance but no force can compel me to stay. What am I?
What has no hands but might knock on your door, and you better open up if it does?
A nightmare for some. For others, a savior, I come. My hands, cold and bleak, it's the warm hearts they seek.
I can't be bought, but I can be stolen with a glance. I'm worthless to one, but priceless to two. What am I?
What do a dead man, a cruise ship and emu have in common? Correct, nothing.
Without fingers I point, without arms I strike, without feet I run. What am I?
I can sneak up on you or be right in front of you without you even knowing. But when I reveal myself, you will never be the same. What am I?
A man with nothing that he loves…is a man who cannot be bargained. A man that cannot be betrayed. A man who answers to no one… but himself.
I'm strong as a rock, but a word can destroy me. What am I?
What's nowhere but everywhere, except where something is?


Hindustan Salts Limited and Subsidiary Sambhar Salts Limited invited applications for recruitment to the post for GM (Works), Add. GM (Coml.), Manager (Production/ Bromine Plant), Mining Mate, and Blaster. The candidates eligible for the post can apply through the prescribed format on or before 27 September 2016.
Last Date of Application: 27 September 2016.
GM (Works): Candidate should have passed B.Tech. and MBA, equivalent, or Higher Qualification with 18 years experience.
Add. GM (Coml.): Candidate should have passed B.Tech. and MBA, equivalent, or Higher Qualification with 16 years experience.
Manager (Production/ Bromine Plant): Candidate should have passed B.Tech (Chemical) and MBA (Operations Management) or equivalent or Higher Qualification with 18 years experience.
Manager (Mines): Candidate should have passed B.Tech. and MBA, equivalent, or Higher Qualification with 03 years experience.
Manager (Surveyor Mines): Candidate should have Professional/Technical qualification in Survey and Surveyor's Certificate of Competency for U/R (underground mines) with 03 years experience.
Mining Mate: Matriculation along with Mining Mate's certificate of Competency under MMR Act 1961 from the Competent Authority Under Ground Mines in the capacity of Mining mate with 01-year experience in the concerned field.
`Blaster: candidate should have Certificate in Blasting for short firing in U/R (underground) Mines with 02-year experience in the concerned field.
Eligible candidates can apply online through the official website in the prescribed format, on or before 27 September 2016.


A range of Copper Winding Wire from Velleman.
This enamelled solderable soft copper wire is used to wind coils or transformers and is supplied on plastic bobbins. Winding wire is available in a thickness varying from 0.1 to 1.5mm. The length of the wire depends on its thickness.


2018 season is about to begin!
I am so sorry for not wrapping up 2017. There has been so much going on these last few months it's unreal. I can tell you that a year that made me European champion twice can not be all bad:) Thank you all for the support during 2017, I really appreciate it.
This will be a nice weekend, hopefully filled with good play and also good friends.
Yeay! 2018 here I come!


text:
Posted August 14, 2017 by Cristina (Girl in the Pages) in Books, Reviews / 14 Comments
Windfall by Jennifer E. Smith
Also by this author: Hello, Goodbye, and Everything in Between, Summer Days & Summer Nights: Twelve Love Stories
Published by Delacorte Press on May 2nd 2017
Pages: 418 •Format: Hardcover •Source: Purchased
Let luck find you.
Alice doesn't believe in luck—at least, not the good kind. But she does believe in love, and for some time now, she's been pining for her best friend, Teddy. On his eighteenth birthday—just when it seems they might be on the brink of something—she buys him a lottery ticket on a lark. To their astonishment, he wins $140 million, and in an instant, everything changes.
At first, it seems like a dream come true, especially since the two of them are no strangers to misfortune. As a kid, Alice won the worst kind of lottery possible when her parents died just over a year apart from each other. And Teddy's father abandoned his family not long after that, leaving them to grapple with his gambling debts. Through it all, Teddy and Alice have leaned on each other. But now, as they negotiate the ripple effects of Teddy's newfound wealth, a gulf opens between them. And soon, the money starts to feel like more of a curse than a windfall.
As they try to find their way back to each other, Alice learns more about herself than she ever could have imagined…and about the unexpected ways in which luck and love sometimes intersect.
I'll admit I succumbed to major, major cover love with the purchase of Windfall. I had seen a LOT of mixed reviews, but the greens and blues were so my #aesthetic so I decided to buy it (I mean, if all else failed, I got a gorgeous Instagram photo of it). I was also intrigued to see how Jennifer E. Smith portrayed the winning the lottery premise, as another YA book released this year, Lucky in Love, also dealt with the same theme. There's something so fun about wistfully talking about all of the things you'd do if you won the lottery, so I again caved to the wish-fulfillment promise of the plot and picked up my second lottery themed book of the summer.
Like Jennifer's other novels, Windfall has some of her trademark elements: a quietly determined protagonist, introspective writing into the character's insights, and a genuine warmth and sweetness and goodness that envelops you like a blanket- that everything will be alright in the end. However, these elements I loved so much were often brought on by the secondary characters in the novel- Uncle Jake and Aunt Sophia, who have served as Alice's surrogate parents since the death of her own. Leo, Alice's cousin who has been a brother to her and is navigating his own future and heartbreak. Caleb, the young foster child who Alice tutors in reading and develops a love for the message and relationships portrayed in Charlotte's Web. All of these characters drove the story for me, were the glimpses I kept coming back for when I was underwhelmed by the protagonists of the story.
Alice and Teddy- the two main characters, represented by the gold bear and alligator figurines depicted on the cover of the book (which I have to admit, is a very cute touch once you realize the reference). Alice unknowingly buys Teddy a multi-million dollar winning lottery ticket as a joke present for his 18th birthday, thus serving as the catalyst for the rest of the novel. While seeing the snowball effect of the lottery win was fun, I had a really hard time connecting and empathizing with Alice and Teddy. Alice is almost too good, too wholesome- she spends almost all of her free time volunteering, constantly striving to make her deceased parents proud, gets accepted to multiple top schools in the nation, always does THE RIGHT THING, etc. This perfection honestly made her rather boring to read about (as bad as that sounds). Yet she still manages to fall in love with Teddy (the classic falling in love with your BFF trope) who is honestly quite impulsive and selfish even before winning the lottery, and does a lot of really crappy things (especially to Alice) without really facing any repercussions by the end of the book, and without Alice really taking a stand either against him or for herself and the way he's treated her.
Overall: While it was hard for me to really enjoy a novel when I was irked by the main characters, this story does have the trademark sweetness of a Jennifer E. Smith tale. While it's not my favorite novel by her and it dragged in some spots, the secondary characters were lovely and the gorgeous cover doesn't hurt!
By Jennifer E. Smith
Love and Other Words by Christina Lauren | Review
Sarah Dessen Mini Reviews: Keeping the Moon & This Lullaby
The Lovely Reckless by Kami Garcia | Review
Cinder by Marissa Meyer, Review
The Fixer by Jennifer Lynn Barnes | Review
Everything, Everything by Nicola Yoon | ARC Review
The Secret of a Heart Note by Stacey Lee | Review
The Map From Here to There by Emery Lord | ARC Review
A Very Large Expanse of Sea by Tahereh Mafi | When the Teenage Feels Are Too Real
Blog Tour | Dive Smack by Demetra Brodsky
The Distance Between Us by Kasie West | Review
Holding Up the Universe by Jennifer Niven | Review
Adult Mini Reviews: The Tourist Attraction & The Flatshare
The Raven King by Maggie Stiefvater | Review
Tags: book reviews, contemporary fiction, YA Fiction
14 responses to "Windfall by Jennifer E. Smith | Review"
I agree the cover on this one got me too!! I still have to get to it but want to put some space between this and Lucky in Love which I read recently. Sounds like it isn't her best but something still worth getting to. Great review!
Cristina (Girl in the Pages)
Yes I HIGHLY recommend putting some space between this and Lucky In Love- it's hard not to make comparisons, especially if you enjoyed Lucky in Love!
Lenna @ Sugar Dusted Pages
I totally don't blame you on the cover buy! This has a gorgeous cover, and I love the figurines. It's cool they tie into the book!
I've been curious about this, but it seems very similar to Lucky in Love by Kasie West, which I want to read first. I get frustrated by annoying characters too. Maybe I'll try one of her other books too.
Wonderful review !
Lenna @ Sugar Dusted Pages recently posted: The Queen of Blood by Sarah Beth Durst // Villages made of trees + forest spirits that want to kill you.
Yes, it was such a cool tie in to have the figurines tie into the plot of the book! It's actually very similar to Lucky In Love- I'm surprised that they came out in such close proximity to each other. I highly recommend trying The Statistical Probability of Love at First Sight by her!
Kristin (SuperSpaceChick)
"I mean, if all else failed, I got a gorgeous Instagram photo of it." This is SO relatable ha! I was torn about this one too since I'm not the biggest fan of her other books but since the cover looks different I thought there would be a chance that I would like it. I was finally swayed to pick up a copy after I heard that Lauren Graham's production company bought the rights to the story! I still haven't read it yet though >.<
Yes I heard about Lauren Graham (whom I love!) buying the rights to it too! I think Jennifer is her editor and edited her recent memoir and I love that they are friends/colleagues- it's so random!
I also loved the side-characters a lot in this story. I'm sorry that you didn't love this one but at least you didn't hate it!
~Brittany @ Brittany's Book Rambles
Brittany recently posted: Waiting on Wednesday: Obsidio & A Reaper at the Gates
Leo was definitely my favorite! I by no means hated it, but I think my expectations were so high because I've really, really loved some of her other books!
Kelly @ Here's to Happy Endings
Being irked by or not caring so much for the main characters can really break a book, that's for sure. I'm glad that you were able to get past it to look at the story, though! I haven't read many books by Jennifer E. Smith but I did manage to get a copy of this one and I'm excited to finally get the chance to read it! Great review.
Thank you! The winning the lottery premise was fun, but I honestly enjoyed it more in Kasie West's Luck In Love, I think. If you're looking for other Jennifer Smith books I highly recommend The Statistical Probability of Love at First Sigh. It's really magical!
This is a fun premise and the side characters sound great, sorry that the two MC's were a little iffy. Teddy kinda sounds like a jerk, unfortunately, and yeah Alice sounds a little too perfect. But otherwise it sounds like it has some good things too, and you're right- the cover is very nice. 🙂
You hit the nail on the head- Teddy is definitely a jerk and Alice is definitely too perfect, lol. Honestly it just made them so inaccessible! And also one of those "I really don't think opposites would attract in this situation" scenarios. But then again, I have to remember the protagonists are high schoolers, and most of us dated or liked people who probably weren't a good fit for us at that age lol
With the beautiful cover and interesting premise I can totally see why you picked this one up. The side characters do sound great in this book, but that's a shame the protagonists seemed a bit underdeveloped.
I was honestly really surprised since Jennifer's such a well known author in YA, and I've enjoyed most of her other books. This is definitely a testament to not buying a book solely for its cover 🙂


Visit our website and learn more about AS/NZS standards. KEY RELATIONSHIP, NSQHS Standard 3 – Preventing and controlling healthcare Standards Australia has withdrawn AS/NZS AS/NZS Reprocessing of reusable medical devices in health service organizations. Standards Australia. Preview. Most Recent.
This Joint Australian/New Zealand Standard was prepared by Joint supersede AS —, Cleaning, disinfecting and sterilizing reusable medical and. The release of the Australian Standard and New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS) , Reprocessing of reusable medical devices in health. It was approved on behalf of the Council of Standards Australia on 18 AS/NZS , Cleaning, disinfecting and sterilizing reusable.
for sterilizing units and the relevant Australian Standards (Australian/New Zealand health care facilities' [AS] and Australian/New Zealand Standard . AS/NZS replaces AS/NZS and becomes operational in December Standards Australia has withdrawn AS/NZS. National and international standards relating to cleaning, disinfection and is contained within Australian/New Zealand Standard The prescribed standard is AS / NZS Cleaning, disinfecting and sterilizing Comply, All, Australian New Zealand Standard AS / NZS .


The European Union (EU) granted Morocco 148 million euros to address the hike in irregular migration, Moroccan official MAP news agency reported Saturday.
Granted as part of the EU emergency Trust Fund for Africa, the new funding is part of the EU's "continuous support" for Morocco's National Strategy on Migration and Asylum, the report said.
Citing a statement from the European Commission, MAP said this funding "helps step up the fight against migrant smuggling and trafficking of human beings, while improving the Moroccan authorities' capacity to manage their borders."
The EU is intensifying its support to the kingdom to address irregular migration "in response to increased migratory pressure along the Western Mediterranean Route," the same source noted.
According to the International Organization for Migration, 111,237 migrants and refugees entered Europe by sea till now in 2018, including 55,206 irregular migrants through Spain's Mediterranean coasts.
Since 2014, the EU has committed 232 million euros through different funds and instruments to support migration-related actions in Morocco.


text:
Dry Days
By Tom Haines
One man grabs a calf's hind leg and lifts. Another seizes a front leg and heaves, flipping as easily as possible the two-hundred-pound animal. Then each man pulls hard to keep it still. Even a calf two months old can pitch a person pretty far. "They will roll you," the ranch matriarch warns.
Next comes a swift procession of people. One leans in to give a shot, vaccinating against sickness. Another tags the ear. Another castrates. Finally, the guy with the red-hot brand pushes it into hair and skin to sizzle and smoke, marking the calf in its first-ever May for the rest of life.
Calves will typically spend summer and fall fattening on open pasture, a seasonal grazing here in the rolling plains of western North Dakota that feeds fast food restaurants and stocks supermarket shelves many months later. This afternoon, though, there's uncertainty about the system.
Over the corral fence, a man who has spent more than fifty years in and around the place loads another syringe with vaccine and ponders the prairie. "We need rain," he says. Then, again: "We need rain."
A rancher from up the road puts more than a year of little precipitation into context. "I'm sixty-five years old," he says, "and I've never seen it this dry."
Needlegrass, wheatgrass, wildrye, and other early-season forage didn't grow well. Cordgrass, grama, and other summer stems may not either if rain doesn't come.
The branding done, calves are reunited with frantic mothers. Back at the ranch house, nearly a dozen people rest on a long porch over plates of a potluck feast. One man talks about how he still has to feed expensive hay to his herd. "If I can make it till fall, I think I'll sell half my cows and all my calves," he says.
Another man mentions moving cows sooner, as Chinese bidders are buying more meat from the US. "If you don't lock in your prices," he says, "you'll go broke."
Exhausted eyes shift in the shade. Silence between swigs of cold beer and bites of beef.
John Heiser was born and raised on a ranch near the north unit of Theodore Roosevelt National Park. During decades of his adult life, he has been drawn into the badlands as a backcountry ranger. "I can't stand straight lines. I can't stand concrete. All of these artificial things," Heiser says. "My spirit is like, Let me out, let me out, let me out."
He feels at home among wild bison, understanding when and how to approach a grazing herd. He knows where to be with bighorn sheep. He sits on a ridge and eyes a distant cliff, where eight lambs idle alongside ewes. "See these moms with their babies," Heiser says. "One's right at her feet, and the other one's nursing. Just like calves at the ranch: Moms rule."
A Rocky Mountain juniper, late to leaf, offers scant shade. Field sparrows and western meadowlarks shift above brittle grass. A golden eagle and a turkey vulture search high currents.
Heiser holds an index-card inventory of poetry that resonates in the wildness.
Navarre Scott Momaday:
…For we are held by more than the force of gravity to the earth.
It is the entity from which we are sprung, and that into which we are dissolved in time.
The blood of the whole human race is invested in it.…
Heiser catalogs data too. This, from a weather station at his home, in a dispatch sent to friends: "…Precipitation was 34% of normal, the year-to-date precipitation total of .86 inches far below the average of 2.70 inches & 32% of normal…bringing the seasonal total to 18.1 inches, 48% of the annual total of 37.8 inches."
Days, months, years. Tracking details and trends that scientists confirm. The Great Plains adapts to the Anthropocene with extremes. 2017 dry. 2019 torrential. 2021 again a season of thirst.
Shuffle the stack of indexed verse. Caroline Fraser:
…The inmates running the asylum. See them in their little cars, whizzing?
Stop and go!…
What can be done to restore order?
Give the government over to the insects, for the tidy digestion of all that dung, give the infants to the higher mammals with the softest fur.…
Purple petals struggle for survival in the grassland of Theodore Roosevelt National Park, as wild a place as remains in the prairie. Beneath the flower's slender stalk, the ground is brown and barren. This spring saw the most intense drought so far this century in North Dakota.
Mule deer, flourishing after a mild winter, wander on thin earth. Ducks, which turn to pothole ponds each spring, choose not to mate. Not a single seasonal hole holds water. Mallards, the most populous breed on the plains, give birth at less than half the rate of the year before.
Cyanobacteria, blue-green algae, lurks at the edge of dried basins. The algae's toxic blooms threaten wildlife and livestock. In farmers' fields, seeds don't sprout. Durum wheat, soybeans, flaxseed, canola, and peas die in dirt.
"It ain't gonna grow in the bins," one farmer says. "We've got to put it in the ground and hope the good Lord will turn the spigot on."
Through May, almost no rain. Hard to fathom in a landscape carved by the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers, and buoyed by underground aquifers, that water could get this scarce this fast. The last time the place dried severely, fifteen years ago, the Army Corps of Engineers lowered artificial lakes to reinforce hydroelectric power for the region. When the natural cycle breaks, so too does so much built upon it. Wildfire sparks and spreads: 156 square miles burned in more than 1,400 blazes.
On some June afternoons, rain sifts down in fits, but not enough to nourish roots. When it does eventually arrive in force, water will likely fall too heavy, too fast, flooding. Meanwhile, in the dry air, the flies bite.
So, not far from the staggering flower petals in the preserved pasture, bison wallow. It is a natural habit of the species; the big beasts stomp and roll, trying to soothe bitten skin. This summer, though, there is too much dust. The bison, thirsty too, turn toward blue sky.
These dispatches are from #VQRTrueStory, our social-media experiment in nonfiction, which you can follow by visiting us on Instagram: @vqreview.
Tom Haines
Tom Haines, author of Walking to the Sun (ForeEdge, 2018), is a journalist and an associate professor of English at the University of New Hampshire, where he serves as director of the undergraduate journalism program.
Topics: VQRTrueStory, Nature, National Park, environment, climate change, Drought, ecosystems, Animals, growth, Great Plains


text:
package io.datakernel.http;

import io.datakernel.bytebuf.ByteBuf;
import io.datakernel.bytebuf.ByteBufPool;
import io.datakernel.bytebuf.ByteBufQueue;
import io.datakernel.common.ApplicationSettings;
import io.datakernel.common.Recyclable;
import io.datakernel.common.exception.StacklessException;
import io.datakernel.common.ref.Ref;
import io.datakernel.csp.ChannelConsumer;
import io.datakernel.csp.ChannelConsumers;
import io.datakernel.csp.ChannelSupplier;
import io.datakernel.csp.binary.BinaryChannelSupplier;
import io.datakernel.csp.binary.ByteBufsDecoder;
import io.datakernel.http.MultipartParser.MultipartFrame;
import io.datakernel.promise.Promise;
import org.jetbrains.annotations.NotNull;
import org.jetbrains.annotations.Nullable;

import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.function.BiFunction;
import java.util.function.Function;

import static io.datakernel.bytebuf.ByteBufStrings.CR;
import static io.datakernel.bytebuf.ByteBufStrings.LF;
import static io.datakernel.common.MemSize.kilobytes;
import static io.datakernel.common.Utils.nullify;
import static java.nio.charset.StandardCharsets.UTF_8;
import static java.util.stream.Collectors.toMap;

/**
 * Util class that allows to parse some binary channel (mainly, the request body stream) into a channel of multipart frames.
 */
public final class MultipartParser implements ByteBufsDecoder<MultipartFrame> {
	private static final int MAX_META_SIZE = ApplicationSettings.getMemSize(MultipartParser.class, "maxMetaBuffer", kilobytes(4)).toInt();

	@Nullable
	private List<String> readingHeaders = null;

	private final byte[] boundary;
	private final byte[] lastBoundary;

	private MultipartParser(String boundary) {
		this.boundary = ("--" + boundary).getBytes(UTF_8);
		this.lastBoundary = ("--" + boundary + "--").getBytes(UTF_8);
	}

	public static MultipartParser create(String boundary) {
		return new MultipartParser(boundary);
	}

	/**
	 * Converts resulting channel of frames into a binary channel, ignoring any multipart headers.
	 */
	public ByteBufsDecoder<ByteBuf> ignoreHeaders() {
		return bufs -> {
			MultipartFrame frame = tryDecode(bufs);
			if (frame == null || frame.isHeaders()) {
				return null;
			}
			return frame.getData();
		};
	}

	private Promise<Map<String, String>> getContentDispositionFields(MultipartFrame frame) {
		String header = frame.getHeaders().get("content-disposition");
		if (header == null) {
			return Promise.ofException(new StacklessException(MultipartParser.class, "Headers had no Content-Disposition"));
		}
		String[] headerParts = header.split(";");
		if (headerParts.length == 0 || !"form-data".equals(headerParts[0].trim())) {
			return Promise.ofException(new StacklessException(MultipartParser.class, "Content-Disposition type is not 'form-data'"));
		}
		return Promise.of(Arrays.stream(headerParts)
				.skip(1)
				.map(part -> part.trim().split("=", 2))
				.collect(toMap(s -> s[0], s -> {
					String value = s.length == 1 ? "" : s[1];
					// stripping double quotation
					return value.substring(1, value.length() - 1);
				})));
	}

	private Promise<Void> doSplit(MultipartFrame headerFrame, ChannelSupplier<MultipartFrame> frames,
			MultipartDataHandler dataHandler) {
		return getContentDispositionFields(headerFrame)
				.then(contentDispositionFields -> {
					String fieldName = contentDispositionFields.get("name");
					String fileName = contentDispositionFields.get("filename");
					Ref<MultipartFrame> lastRef = new Ref<>();
					return frames
							.until(f -> {
								if (f.isHeaders()) {
									lastRef.set(f);
									return true;
								}
								return false;
							})
							.filter(MultipartFrame::isData)
							.map(MultipartFrame::getData)
							.streamTo(ChannelConsumer.ofPromise(fileName == null ?
									dataHandler.handleField(fieldName) :
									dataHandler.handleFile(fieldName, fileName)
							))
							.then(() -> lastRef.get() != null ?
									doSplit(lastRef.get(), frames, dataHandler) :
									Promise.complete())
							.toVoid();
				});
	}

	/**
	 * Complex operation that streams this channel of multipart frames into multiple binary consumers,
	 * as specified by the Content-Disposition multipart header.
	 */
	public Promise<Void> split(ChannelSupplier<ByteBuf> source, MultipartDataHandler dataHandler) {
		ChannelSupplier<MultipartFrame> frames = BinaryChannelSupplier.of(source).parseStream(this);
		return frames.get()
				.then(frame -> {
					if (frame == null) {
						return Promise.of(null);
					}
					if (frame.isHeaders()) {
						return doSplit(frame, frames, dataHandler);
					}
					StacklessException e = new StacklessException(MultipartParser.class, "First frame had no headers");
					frames.closeEx(e);
					return Promise.ofException(e);
				});
	}

	private boolean sawCrlf = true;
	private boolean finished = false;

	@Nullable
	@Override
	public MultipartFrame tryDecode(ByteBufQueue bufs) {
		if (finished) {
			return null;
		}
		for (int i = 0; i < bufs.remainingBytes() - 1; i++) {
			if (bufs.peekByte(i) != CR || bufs.peekByte(i + 1) != LF) {
				continue;
			}
			if (sawCrlf) {
				ByteBuf term = bufs.takeExactSize(i);
				if (readingHeaders == null) {
					if (term.isContentEqual(lastBoundary)) {
						bufs.skip(2);
						finished = true;
						term.recycle();
						return null;
					} else if (term.isContentEqual(boundary)) {
						bufs.skip(2);
						i = -1; // fix the index (so that it's 0 on next iteration) because we've taken bytes from queue
						term.recycle();
						readingHeaders = new ArrayList<>();
					} else {
						sawCrlf = false;
						return getFalseTermFrame(term);
					}
				} else {
					bufs.skip(2);
					if (i != 0) {
						i = -1; // see above comment
						readingHeaders.add(term.asString(UTF_8));
						continue;
					}
					sawCrlf = false;
					term.recycle();
					List<String> readingHeaders = this.readingHeaders;
					this.readingHeaders = null;
					if (readingHeaders.isEmpty()) {
						break;
					}
					return MultipartFrame.of(readingHeaders.stream()
							.map(s -> s.split(":\\s?", 2))
							.collect(toMap(s -> s[0].toLowerCase(), s -> s[1])));
				}
			} else {
				sawCrlf = true;
				ByteBuf tail = bufs.takeExactSize(i);
				bufs.skip(2);
				return MultipartFrame.of(tail);
			}
		}

		int remaining = bufs.remainingBytes();
		if (sawCrlf) {
			if (remaining >= MAX_META_SIZE) {
				sawCrlf = false;
				return getFalseTermFrame(bufs.takeRemaining());
			}
			return null;
		}
		int toTake = remaining == 0 ? 0 : remaining - (bufs.peekByte(remaining - 1) == CR ? 1 : 0);
		if (toTake == 0) {
			return null;
		}
		ByteBuf data = bufs.takeExactSize(toTake);
		return MultipartFrame.of(data);
	}

	@NotNull
	private MultipartFrame getFalseTermFrame(ByteBuf term) {
		ByteBuf buf = ByteBufPool.allocate(term.readRemaining() + 2);
		buf.writeByte((byte) '\r');
		buf.writeByte((byte) '\n');
		term.drainTo(buf, term.readRemaining());
		term.recycle();
		return MultipartFrame.of(buf);
	}

	public static final class MultipartFrame implements Recyclable {
		@Nullable
		private ByteBuf data;
		@Nullable
		private final Map<String, String> headers;

		private MultipartFrame(@Nullable ByteBuf data, @Nullable Map<String, String> headers) {
			this.data = data;
			this.headers = headers;
		}

		public static MultipartFrame of(ByteBuf data) {
			return new MultipartFrame(data, null);
		}

		public static MultipartFrame of(Map<String, String> headers) {
			return new MultipartFrame(null, headers);
		}

		public boolean isData() {
			return data != null;
		}

		public ByteBuf getData() {
			return data;
		}

		public boolean isHeaders() {
			return headers != null;
		}

		public Map<String, String> getHeaders() {
			return headers;
		}

		@Override
		public void recycle() {
			data = nullify(data, ByteBuf::recycle);
		}

		@Override
		public String toString() {
			return isHeaders() ? "headers" + headers : "" + data;
		}
	}

	public interface MultipartDataHandler {
		Promise<? extends ChannelConsumer<ByteBuf>> handleField(String fieldName);

		Promise<? extends ChannelConsumer<ByteBuf>> handleFile(String fieldName, String fileName);

		static MultipartDataHandler fieldsToMap(Map<String, String> fields) {
			return fieldsToMap(fields, ($1, $2) -> Promise.of(ChannelConsumers.recycling()));
		}

		static MultipartDataHandler fieldsToMap(Map<String, String> fields,
				Function<String, Promise<? extends ChannelConsumer<ByteBuf>>> uploader) {
			return fieldsToMap(fields, ($, fileName) -> uploader.apply(fileName));
		}

		static MultipartDataHandler fieldsToMap(Map<String, String> fields,
				BiFunction<String, String, Promise<? extends ChannelConsumer<ByteBuf>>> uploader) {
			return new MultipartDataHandler() {
				@Override
				public Promise<? extends ChannelConsumer<ByteBuf>> handleField(String fieldName) {
					return Promise.of(ChannelConsumer.ofSupplier(supplier -> supplier.toCollector(ByteBufQueue.collector())
							.map(value -> {
								fields.put(fieldName, value.asString(UTF_8));
								return (Void) null;
							})));
				}

				@Override
				public Promise<? extends ChannelConsumer<ByteBuf>> handleFile(String fieldName, String fileName) {
					return uploader.apply(fieldName, fileName);
				}
			};
		}

		static MultipartDataHandler file(Function<String, Promise<? extends ChannelConsumer<ByteBuf>>> uploader) {
			return files(($, fileName) -> uploader.apply(fileName));
		}

		static MultipartDataHandler files(BiFunction<String, String, Promise<? extends ChannelConsumer<ByteBuf>>> uploader) {
			return new MultipartDataHandler() {
				@Override
				public Promise<? extends ChannelConsumer<ByteBuf>> handleField(String fieldName) {
					return Promise.of(ChannelConsumers.recycling());
				}

				@Override
				public Promise<? extends ChannelConsumer<ByteBuf>> handleFile(String fieldName, String fileName) {
					return uploader.apply(fieldName, fileName);
				}
			};
		}

	}

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Iota Eta Chapter
Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Inc.
It all started when…
Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Incorporated was founded on the campus of Howard University on January 16, 1920 by five outstanding women. Arizona Cleaver, Myrtle Tyler, Viola Tyler, Fannie Pettie, and Pearl A. Neal dared to depart from the traditional coalitions for black women and sought to establish a new organization predicated on the precepts of Scholarship, Service, Sisterly Love and Finer Womanhood.
Zeta Phi Beta Sorority was founded on the simple belief that sorority elitism and socializing should not overshadow the real mission for progressive organizations - to address societal mores, ills, prejudices, poverty, and health concerns of the day. Founded January 16, 1920, Zeta began as an idea conceived by five coeds at Howard University in Washington D.C.: Arizona Cleaver, Myrtle Tyler, Viola Tyler, Fannie Pettie and Pearl Neal. These five women, also known as our Five Pearls, dared to depart from the traditional coalitions for black women and sought to establish a new organization predicated on the precepts of Scholarship, Service, Sisterly Love and Finer Womanhood. It was the ideal of the Founders that the Sorority would reach college women in all parts of the country who were sorority minded and desired to follow the founding principles of the organization. Founder Viola Tyler was oft quoted to say "[In the ideal collegiate situation] there is a Zeta in a girl regardless of race, creed, or color, who has high standards and principles, a good scholarly average and an active interest in all things that she undertakes to accomplish."
The Iota Eta Chapter of Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Inc. was chartered on the campus of the University of Alabama on May 4, 1974 by five dedicated undergraduates. These dynamic young women endeavored to promote the ideals set forth by their founders and to ensure that the light of Zeta forever burns.
Zeta Phi Beta


ARE YOU AWARE...that doing too much cardio can actually slow down ur weight loss... because it stresses out your whole body... and when you are stressed your body become flooded with stress hormone Cortisol that encourages fat storage. SO IF U WANT TO LOSE WEIGHT...then cut back on cardio & do a relaxing exercise class instead, like yoga or pilates... this helps reduce stress, which in turn revs up ur body's ability to burn fat !!


MaturePervCpl . xSweet18. MichelleRosee. DownToFcuk.
CharmingVicwhiteroseangelMalena94StrangerG .AdelJuneLoveBlossomnatynastyxSashaBith .MichelleRoseeAmazingCassidyBabyUSFlirtyLillyBBW .Porcelaind0lllovelyhotgirl1WildL0llipopJullyKent .PamelaBellaagainmeStrangerGWildL0llipop .LikaSilvervalerysexhornySweetLovelyCandyPamelaBella .HarryBeardAmazingCassidywhiteroseangelnatynastyx .AdelJuneIrreneDreamgirlSweetLovelyCandyevasexihotgirl .HarryBeardMercedesBonCandyKitty777SashaBith .BabyUSSexyWhiteLionCharles81AngeliqueSophie .SweetLovelyCandySugarDoollRosseParksFETISHSUBMESSy .
UrHornyDoggyUrHornyDoggyAngell666IrreneDreamgirl .CandyKitty777ArisForYouPamelaBellaSellenia .HarryBeardRomeoforuJoannySexyWhiteLion .FETISHSUBMESSyAnaharaANDTiffAngell666AmazingCassidy .DeluxSub4UNathaLillaMichelleRoseexNefertitix .NATYTSSweetLovelyCandyChannonMooreAdrinaXXX .MissBossyXwhiteroseangelPrettyDoll19WildL0llipop .MiguelhottMercedesBonevasexihotgirlCutieAnnabelle .ArielDevinePrettyDoll19KinkyNikkii21valerysexhorny .MercedesBonKaitlynRoseCandyKitty777RinaLein .Charles81LiliGoldAnnyBelleBogema .


Fear Not for Your Tax Exempt Status is With You!
What does it take to get me and my Church-State Guy pen to come out and play again? Well… making gay-marriage legal in all 50 states with one ruling pretty much does it. There's a lot that has been said everywhere about the ruling itself. But the thing that lingers over a lot of religious… Read more Fear Not for Your Tax Exempt Status is With You!
Copyright © Matt Cromwell 2019 All Rights Reserved.
Parent Theme: Sanse by Sami Keijonen.
Which Topics do you want to subscribe to?