Good morning 99percenters!
Morning news dump and music by Blinddog Smokin"

America’s silent-but-deadly billionaires: How our tight-lipped overlords are waging stealth campaigns against the middle class
New research reveals the surreptitious ways in which the richest of the rich try to influence politics

Teddy Roosevelt famously argued that, when it comes to foreign policy, one should “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.” Similarly, an apt summation of the political inclinations of billionaires might be, “Speak softly, and carry a big check.”

While some billionaires, like Warren Buffett, are outspoken on political issues, most tend to say very little, or speak in vague generalities. But a new working paper by political scientists Benjamin Page, Jason Seawright and Matthew Lacombe finds that what billionaires say and what they do are dramatically different. While billionaires rarely go on the record discussing Social Security and taxes, they work behind the scenes to oppose policies favored by average Americans. Often, there are deep disconnects between what billionaires say regarding policies and which organizations they fund.

The new study examines an even smaller and more insular group than the previous work of Page and Seawright: the richest 100 American billionaires. Together, the billionaires were worth $1,291 billion (more than the entire GDP of Mexico). Obviously, the billionaires weren’t going to sit down for lengthy interviews on policy priorities. Instead, the authors combed through nearly every public statement by the billionaires on two subjects: tax policy and Social Security. The project required a massive amount of work: Lacombe spent nearly 400 hours conducting the related searches. One of the first things the authors find is that even the politically active wealthy rarely take overt public stances. They write, “The Koch brothers (David and Charles) are a leading example of this: they generally combine public silence about policy with large financial contributions to political causes.” Though they intend to contribute nearly a billion dollars to influence the 2016 election cycle, they “generally make only vague political comments, if any comment at all.”

Horse Meat in the U.S. Food Chain? Neigh It Ain't So
Just because a package is labeled 100% Angus Beef doesn't mean that's what it is.

Scientists have detected the presence of horse DNA in America's food supply chain. The discovery was made by researchers at Chapman University's Food Science Program in two separate studies on meat mislabeling in consumer commercial meat products sold in the United States. Co-authored by Dr. Rosalee Hellberg, a food scientist and assistant professor at Chapman's Schmid College of Science and Technology in Orange, Calif., and published in the journal Food Control, both DNA-based studies discovered products that were labeled as one species but contained other species.

One study analyzed the species found in commercial ground meat products sold by retailers in the United States, including local supermarkets and online specialty meat distributors. The researchers found that out of 48 meat samples tested, 10 were mislabeled. Of those 10, nine were found to contain additional species. Even more worrisome is the fact that horse meat, which is illegal to sell in the U.S. commercial market, was detected in two of the samples.

"We always suspected and now there is proof," the non-profit Equine Welfare Alliance wrote in an email, about the discovery of horse DNA in the food chain.

A Labor Day Worry: The Court’s Right-Wingers Are Sharpening Their Knives

We don’t officially celebrate International Workers’ Day on May 1 in this country, even though the worldwide holiday was originated to memorialize the Chicago Haymarket Square Riot of 1886 and the long and often bloody movement waged by American workers to establish the eight-hour workday. Instead, we hold a watered-down substitute, observing Labor Day on the first Monday of September. Each year, the commemoration grows more tepid and disconnected from the historical and current struggles of working people.

If the U.S. Supreme Court’s dominant Republican majority has its way when the panel’s new term commences in October, we might as well dispense with the holiday altogether, or at least drop the term “labor” from its title. Among the most important cases the court will consider when it reconvenes is Friedrichs v. California Teachers, which poses what some observers have called an “existential threat” to public unions and by extension to the entire labor movement.

At issue in Friedrichs is the right of public sector unions to collect limited “fair-share” fees in lieu of full formal dues from nonunion workers to defray the costs of collective bargaining that benefits all employees. A decision against the teachers association would have the potential to bankrupt government employee unions and turn the nation’s entire public sector into one enormous “right-to-work” jurisdiction.

Growing Doubt: A Scientist's Experience of GMOs

By training, I am a plant biologist. In the early 1990s I was busy making genetically modified plants (often called GMOs for Genetically Modified Organisms) as part of the research that led to my PhD. Into these plants we were putting DNA from various foreign organisms, such as viruses and bacteria.

I was not, at the outset, concerned about the possible effects of GM plants on human health or the environment. One reason for this lack of concern was that I was still a very young scientist, feeling my way in the complex world of biology and of scientific research. Another reason was that we hardly imagined that GMOs like ours would be grown or eaten. So far as I was concerned, all GMOs were for research purposes only.

Gradually, however, it became clear that certain companies thought differently. Some of my older colleagues shared their skepticism with me that commercial interests were running far ahead of scientific knowledge. I listened carefully and I didn't disagree. Today, over twenty years later, GMO crops, especially soybeans, corn, papaya, canola and cotton, are commercially grown in numerous parts of the world.

Depending on which country you live in, GMOs may be unlabeled and therefore unknowingly abundant in your diet. Processed foods (e.g. chips, breakfast cereals, sodas) are likely to contain ingredients from GMO crops, because they are often made from corn or soy. Most agricultural crops, however, are still non-GMO, including rice, wheat, barley, oats, tomatoes, grapes and beans.

Crucial Food Chain Bacteria Altered by Climate Change

Climate change will have irreversible and unprecedented impacts on crucial ocean microorganisms that could trigger dramatic effects further up the food chain, according to scientists.

The bacteria trichodesmium is known for surviving in nutrient-poor parts of the ocean, where it converts nitrogen gas into a material that can be used by other forms of life – from plankton to whales – which all require it to grow.

This process of “nitrogen fixation” makes the bacteria “the fertilizing agent of the open ocean,” says Eric Webb, co-author of the study published in Nature Communications. Although a microorganism, it forms in colonies that can be seen by the naked eye, earning it the name “sea sawdust."

When the scientists placed it in conditions simulating carbon dioxide levels in 85 years’ time, the bacteria went into reproductive overdrive. The scientists say that this could cause it to go into reproductive overdrive in the future, consuming vast quantities of nutrients – such as iron and phosphorus – that are in limited supply in the ocean.

After Canadian Court Ruling, Has Law 'Finally Caught Up With Chevron'?
Decision is 'the beginning of the end of Chevron's abusive and obstructionist litigation strategy,' says Ecuadorian activist

In a unanimous ruling hailed as "a major victory for human rights and corporate accountability," the Canadian Supreme Court declared on Friday that a group of Ecuadorian villagers can pursue a multi-billion pollution lawsuit against oil giant Chevron in the province of Ontario.

"The law has finally caught up with Chevron," the nonprofit Amazon Watch said in a press statement.

As a result of the ruling, the Ecuadorian villagers may now continue with a 2012 lawsuit they launched against Chevron's Canadian subsidiary in Ontario. They claim Chevron's activities have caused "horrific contamination"—and an Ecuadorian court agreed, ruling in 2011 that Chevron should pay $9.5 billion for the destruction it caused. 

California EPA mulls labeling Monsanto’s Roundup as being ‘known to cause cancer’

The EPA’s office of environmental health hazard assessment in California wants to label four chemicals, including the most popular herbicide and key ingredient of Monsanto’s Roundrup, glyphosate, as “known to cause cancer,” following the most recent WHO cancer research division’s report.

The “notice of intent” envisions placing Glyphosate within 30 days to the list of chemicals that are known to cause cancer, classification of which falls under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, or the Proposition 65. Under the Act any chemicals that threatens human life require a businesses to provide a "clear and reasonable" warning label before exposing individuals to a chemical on the list.

In March the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as being “probably” carcinogenic to humans forcing the agrochemical giant Monsanto to furiously reject the conclusions.