(TMU) — The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced on Monday that it launched an investigation into the fast-growing phenomenon of people getting “severe” lung disease in connection with vaping.

According to the CDC, nearly 100 people have contracted serious and often life-threatening lung illnesses that may be linked to their use of illicit e-cigarettes, which heat oils into inhalable aerosols, allowing users to consume nicotine, THC or CBD in a highly discrete and smoke-free manner.

The news comes as counterfeit vaping cartridges proliferate across the U.S. with generic packaging and false labels that obscure the fact that they contain a number of mysterious adulterants including cough syrup, various hydrocarbons, toxic heavy metals such as lead, and dangerous synthetic cannabinoids —a category that includes the lethal drug K2 or “spice.”

In many cases, black-market cartridges also contain myclobutanil—a fungicide that when heated releases hydrogen cyanide, a chemical found in Zyklon-B, the poison used in Nazi gas chambers during the Holocaust.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B0zjDSrBPVx/

On Saturday, the CDC confirmed that they were looking into “94 possible cases of severe lung illness associated with vaping reported in 14 states from June 28, 2019, to August 15, 2019 (this includes 30 cases in Wisconsin).” Other states involved in the investigation include California, Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota.

The CDC further stated that they would investigate “a cluster of pulmonary illnesses linked to e-cigarette product use, or ‘vaping,’ primarily among adolescents and young adults. Additional states have alerted CDC to possible (not confirmed) cases and investigations into these cases are ongoing. There is no conclusive evidence that an infectious disease is causing the illnesses. While some cases in each of the states are similar and appear to be linked to e-cigarette product use, more information is needed to determine what is causing the illnesses.”

The announcement comes after officials in Kings County, California announced last Wednesday that seven people have been hospitalized with pneumonia-like symptoms in the rural town of Hanford after buying unregulated cannabis vaporizer cartridges tainted with deadly toxins.

Within the past month alone, six people in their 20s and one 60-year-old have been placed in intensive care for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (SARDS), with two of the patients requiring mechanical ventilation to prevent them from dying, reports Leafly.

Officials in California have long urged consumers to avoid unlicensed cannabis vaping cartridges, colloquially known as “carts,” due to the lack of rigorous testing that legal cannabis products undergo. Officials aren’t yet certain that illegal carts are the culprit in the hospitalizations, but the common nexus in each of the cases is that those who fell ill were using bootleg cartridges.

In each of the cases, patients bought untested THC products that looked remarkably similar to those sold in legal dispensaries. Street dealers typically need only to buy empty vape cartridges from China, through eBay or other intermediaries like Alibaba, before filling them with raw THC oil cut with a variety of different additives ranging from vegetable glycerin to fungicides, and packaging it in generic boxes that falsely advertise the alleged properties and strains contained in the product.

Before long, users who imbibe of the counterfeit carts often report having heart palpitations, shortness of breath, headaches, and other symptoms related to inhaling the mysterious oils.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bz4EKIBhILh/

Dr. Milton Teske, a health officer with the Kings County Department of Public Health and longtime emergency room physician, said:

“If you’re going to vape THC, get it from a licensed dispensary where you know there’s a certain amount of testing required to do. It sounds like it’s going to cost twice as much as the stuff on the street, but you don’t want to end up in with a life-threatening respiratory condition … Anyone that vapes THC they got off the street and has shortness of breath, tightness in the chest, and trouble breathing—go to the ER and tell them you’re vaping, and have heard about this acute respiratory distress syndrome developing from that.” 

Teske explained:

“Almost every patient had a different brand name … And everyone had purchased it on the street.

Whoever is mixing it up in their garage, they’re adding other flavors, I suspect, or it’s how they’re diluting it. I suspect it’s some type of hydrocarbon.”

In another case that has been gaining widespread media coverage, a 26-year old Wisconsin man has been placed in a medically-induced coma after vaping bootleg cannabis oil sold under the popular black-market brand name, Dank Vapes. The patient’s brother has told a number of outlets that he holds the notorious brand responsible for the life-threatening lung and heart damage the young man sustained.

In a newly-published investigative report by Inverse, the so-called cartridge company Dank Vapes—whose products can be found from Toronto to Mexico City—was exposed as being not so much an actual cannabis company, but as a purveyor of packaging for illicit cartridges.

Mark Hoashi, the founder of Doja App, explained:

“They act like a cannabis company but they actually don’t exist. They’re in the packaging industry … These are just people filling cartridges as ‘Dank Vapes.’ It’s not a singular facility. It’s just people in their garages filling them and selling them.”

Most alarmingly, the problem of black-market cartridges likely won’t go away any time soon. After all, people want to get high for a low price—and the prohibitively high costs of top-shelf legal cannabis will always ensure a customer base for shady cart-slangers.

As “hallinsco,” the host of the Stay High, Stay Humble podcast, told Inverse:

“The Dank Vapes brand will continue to get bigger and grow more in illegal states … They are cheaper, and even in legal states where legal meds are taxed very high, some people still prefer the cheaper options on the black market.”

In California, the Bureau of Cannabis Control is hoping that an old-fashioned campaign of public service announcements titled “Get #Weedwise” can educate consumers about the dangers of consuming black market cartridges. Bureau communications chief Alex Traverso said:

“This is the entire reason why we are running our get weed wise campaign. To educate the public about the importance of shopping from licensed retailers only. There are things out of your control when you decide to purchase cannabis from the illegal market. Your health is more important than cost.”

But for those of us who live in a state or country where legally-licensed cannabis isn’t yet a reality, it may be best to just stick to smoking flower in the analog style. As Josh Wurzer, the founder of licensed California cannabis analysis lab SC Labs told Leafly:

“Black market cannabis was a relatively safe product for so long because—outside of illegal pesticide use—it is hard or impractical to adulterate it to the point it’s going to lead to a public health issue. However with these vape cartridges, it doesn’t have to be nefarious, it can just be incompetence. You need to be very careful about the purity of the cannabinoids, terpenes, and any additives you use, but you need to monitor the quality of the materials used to manufacture the cartridges themselves.

You don’t want to trust your lungs with some chemicals someone mixed up in their garage!”

View this post on Instagram

You wouldn’t eat food that poses health risks. So why risk purchasing cannabis that contains toxic pesticides, dangerous chemicals, and harmful fungi? ??? – Know what's in your grow – Get #weedwise and purchase safe cannabis from licensed retailers only. Visit CApotcheck.com for more information. ?✅? – #cannabis #cannabiscommunity #cannabisculture #safecannabis #getweedwise #weedwise #californiacannabis #californiagrown #legalcannabis #bureauofcannabiscontrol #cannabisnews #capotcheck #retailer #dispensary #licensed #legalshop #pesticides #chemicals #safe

A post shared by Bureau of Cannabis Control (@bureauofcannabiscontrol) on Aug 14, 2019 at 2:01pm PDT

By Elias Marat | Creative Commons | TheMindUnleashed.com

In a shocking resignation letter dated March 28, 1999, a 3M environmental specialist accused the company of being more concerned with profits and image than environmental safety.

According to Richard Purdy who penned the scathing letter, PFOS “is the most insidious pollutant since PCB” and is the cause for a potential health crisis across the entire country, but most notably in the state of Michigan. PFOS is used in 3M’s ScotchGard stain-protection product line and isn’t the only PFAS chemical the company uses.

“It is probably more damaging than PCB because it does not degrade, whereas PCB does; it is more toxic to wildlife,” the letter reads.

“I have worked within the system to learn more about this chemical and to make the company aware of the dangers associated with its continued use,” Purdy wrote. “But I have continually met roadblocks, delays, and indecision. For weeks on end, I have received assurances that my samples would be analyzed soon — never to see results. There are always excuses and little is accomplished.”

A new report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Northeastern University has found that people in 43 states in the United States are exposed to drinking water contaminated with PFAS chemicals, of which PFOS is one.

Michigan has been hit hardest, with at least 46 sites where groundwater has PFAS levels above the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) lifetime health advisory guideline. According to Detroit Free Press, “The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy has estimated PFAS could be found at more than 11,300 sites in Michigan” including 17 bodies of water with “‘do not eat’ fish advisories, or limitations on consumption of fish, because of PFOS contamination.”

The revealing resignation letter was recently obtained by the Detroit Free Press along with numerous internal 3M documents. The documents were obtained by then-Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson during a 2010 lawsuit alleging environmental contamination by 3M in the state of Minnesota. The lawsuit was settled for $850 million in 2018.

While PFAS chemicals have proved useful in numerous applications including cleaning products, waterproof clothing, nonstick cookware, textiles, grease-resistant food packaging, leather, paper goods, paint and more, the very same properties that make it so successful in these applications is what makes it so harmful to environment. PFAS compounds are nearly indestructible, with some referring to them as “the forever chemicals.”

But the same qualities that made PFAS compounds so useful also makes them almost indestructible in the environment, giving them the ominous nickname “the forever chemicals.”

Documents show that 3M was, in fact, aware of PFAS toxicity in lab rats all the way back in 1950. In the mid-1970s, health concerns arose after studies of fish, rats, and monkeys. The problems were so prevalent, that the company became aware of rising levels of PFAS compounds in their employees’ blood along with a link to testicular cancer. PFAS compounds were “found to be completely resistant to biodegradation” way back in 1978.

PFAS, which have been linked to a host of medical conditions such as cancer, thyroid problems, hormone imbalances, pre-eclampsia, learning disabilities and more, are found in the blood of almost 99% of Americans.

Documents obtained during the 2010 lawsuit revealed, not only this shocking resignation letter, but documents outlining 3M’s research into PFAS compounds. It turns out, 3M has been well aware for years that the compounds do not break down in the environment as expected, that they were found in both the blood of employees and the public, and laboratory rats and other animals were experiencing negative health effects.

Despite the revelations, 3M continued to sell PFAS compounds used in a range of products including things that touch both human skin as well as food. The company also neglected to inform the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

However, in the 1990s, the EPA became increasingly aware of researching showing the presence of PFAS compounds in the environment and reached an agreement with 3M in 2000 to phase out the use of PFOS by 2003. While 3M stopped using PFOA in 2000, other companies—including DuPont, the company responsible for Teflon—continued their use until an agreement with the EPA to phase them out by 2015.

According to Purdy’s 1999 letter, the environmental specialist argued years before any action was taken that 3M had already “waited too long to tell customers about the widespread dispersal of PFOS in people and the environment.”

“3M continues to make and sell these chemicals, though the company knows of an ecological risk assessment I did that indicates there is a better than 100% probability that perfluorooctansulfonate (PFOS) is biomagnifying in the food chain and harming sea mammals. This chemical is more stable than many rocks.” 

“3M told those of us working on the fluorochemical project not to write down our thoughts or have email discussions on issues because of how our speculations could be viewed in a legal discovery process. This has stymied intellectual development on the issue, and stifled discussion on the serious ethical implications of decisions.”

Now, almost 10 years after the 2010 lawsuit in Minnesota, a new one in Michigan is using the very same internal documents.

Both current and former residents of the small midwest town of Parchment, Michigan are suing 3M and Georgia-Pacific over a toxic mess left in a landfill. PFAS compounds have leached from the landfill into the town’s water supply thanks to a paper mill responsible for manufacturing food safe paper coated with 3M’s product. As a result, thousands of current and former residents of the town were unknowingly exposed to high levels of the compound via municipal drinking water.

Nicholas Coulson, the Detroit environmental class-action attorney who is bringing the lawsuit against 3M said of the allegations against the company, “What we’re alleging that 3M did is really a crime against humanity.”

“It’s an absolute outrage that, in the name of profit, for decades they suppressed this information, and they continued to pump these chemicals out in incredible quantities into the natural environment. And the terrible result of that is that some communities, like Parchment, have had to bear the brunt of it.”

“3M had really, really sufficient notice to know that, one, these things don’t go away, they build up and build up and build up, both in the environment and the body, and two, that they cause really harmful effects,” Coulson added.

In his 1999 resignation letter, Richard Purdy concluded:

“I have worked to the best of my ability within the system to see that the right actions are taken on behalf of the environment. At almost every step, I have been assured that action will be taken—yet I see slow or no results. I am told the company is concerned, but their actions speak to different concerns than mine. I can no longer participate in the process that 3M has established for the management of PFOS and precursors. For me it is unethical to be concerned with markets, legal defensibility and image over environmental safety.”

Purdy wasn’t the only one to sound the alarm. The documents reveal that, dating back to the 1970s, numerous employees—including an employee named M.T. Case who author memos revealing toxicity, another who went by Dr. King, and Eric Reiner who worked in the company’s Environmental Engineering and Pollution Control division—urged the company to act on the research.

In a response to the Detroit Free Press, 3M seemingly bragged of their dedication to “research, technology, and clean-up” while calling the story gleaned from the internal documents “incomplete and misleading“:

“3M has dedicated substantial time and resources to researching PFAS and, to that end, we have invested more than $600 million on research, technology, and clean-up efforts related to PFAS. As a responsible steward of our community, we have a record of sharing information we learn with government regulators, the scientific community, as well as local and federal officials.

The small set of documents from the Minnesota litigation portrays an incomplete and misleading story that distorts the full record regarding 3M’s actions with respect to PFOA and PFOS, as well as who we are as a company. 3M acted responsibly in connection with products containing PFAS and we will vigorously defend our environmental stewardship.”

With 19 million people in 43 U.S. states currently exposed to drinking water contaminated with PFAS chemicals, the task of cleaning up these “forever chemicals” that are reportedly more stable than some rocks, is daunting. Companies like 3M that repeatedly prioritize profits and production of their products over people must be held accountable for the havoc wreaked on the environment, their customers, and their employees. While 3M did lose its $300 million/year revenue-maker ScotchGard after the 2000 agreement with the EPA, the loss only represented a mere 2% of 3M’s total sales. And while 3M bragged in their response to the Detroit Free Press of the $600 million spent on “research, technology, and clean-up efforts related to PFAS,” those amounts pale in comparison to the company’s profits, including the $7.9 billion earned in sales in the forth quarter of 2018 alone.

Time and time again, massive corporations that have caused harm—either knowingly or not—are tasked with clean-up costs or fines that barely make a dent in their bottomline. Without significant consequences for their actions, corporations like 3M will likely continue to prioritize profits over the health of the environment and even their customers. Perhaps the newest lawsuit against 3M will finally hold the company accountable to a degree that will impact the future.

“There is no bad guy in this,” Sgt. Joseph Corrigan propitiated of an unforgiving crackdown targeting do-gooders with the nerve to voluntarily feed people in need — part of wider law enforcement action to quash the act of feeding houseless people throughout Atlanta — to the Associated Press.

There is no bad guy in this.

Activists and advocates for homeless people everywhere in the United States opine ever-tightening legal strictures regarding ‘sharing food’ in public — how feeding houseless people is classified under the law.

According to Georgia State University Police Sgt. Corrigan, a chaplain and head of the department’s homeless outreach, and a plethora of detractors, giving people food serves an acute need, but does little if anything to solve the twin crises of hunger and shelterlessness in the long term — even exacerbating such issues as left-behind refuse, communicable disease, lack of sanitation and restrooms, and more, if allowed to continue.

Indeed, as the AP reports, “About 40 cities nationwide had active laws to restrict food sharing as of November 2014, and a few dozen more had attempted such restrictions, according to the National Coalition for the Homeless. Interim Director Megan Hustings said she doesn’t have updated numbers but that she’s heard about more cities considering such regulations.”

However, The Nation painted a more appropriately dismal if albeit embarrassing picture on the status of feeding houseless people — nearly three years ago, in February 2015 — reporting,

“According to a survey of more than 180 cities by the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, anti-homeless laws pervade urban spaces nationwide. Roughly a third of cities barred public ‘camping,’ for example, up 60 percent since 2011. Restrictions range from prohibiting sitting on sidewalks to imposing steep fees or regulations that effectively criminalize actions of charity groups, often using antiseptic ‘quality of life’ terms (a tent pitched under a bridge becomes an unauthorized ‘camp’). Palo Alto has banned sleeping in parked cars. Mobile has imposed zero-tolerance on ‘aggressive panhandling,’ which could involve just ‘request[ing] a donation from a person standing in line…no matter how mildly the request was made.’ Last year, ThinkProgress reported, Fort Lauderdale authorized police to bust people who ‘store possessions’ on public property — suggesting that homeless people don’t deserve to have what little they carry with them, let alone ‘quality of life.’”

Notably, it isn’t as if these cities have implemented far-reaching and successful programs to replace the lost assistance of do-gooders.

In essence, critics of public charitable food-giving adhere to two problematic mainstays of thought: that people must ‘pull themselves up by the bootstraps’; but, failing that, ‘teaching them to fish’ — pointing them in the direction of assistance and having them enroll, for example, in return for food — rather than simply ‘giving them fish,’ is the only valid means of assisting the neediest of individuals.

Our way or no way, they seem to suggest. There is no bad guy in this.

“We don’t want anybody to stop feeding people. We just want it done in a way that’s connected to social services providers,” George Chidi, social impact director for nonprofit community development organization, Central Atlanta Progress, averred to the Associated Press, “and not on the street corner because we can’t make sure those connections are being made in these street corner feedings.”

Thus, Atlanta joins a shamefully lengthening list of cities choosing to declare a de facto war not only against the condition of being homeless, but against anyone willing to offer the stopgap assistance of an immediate meal.

Case in point, volunteer Adele MacLean with Food Not Bombs — who takes issue with the whole of Chidi’s position — landed a citation and court summons from another University of Georgia law enforcement officer on November 19, after the awareness and advocacy group refused to cease feeding houseless people in a downtown park when threats to obtain a permit were ignored. Although the offense was ultimately tossed by a judge, she feels the incident and the fallacious premise of her supposed transgression symptomatic of the crackdown on homelessness, telling the AP,

“Food is a human right, and you don’t force people to do what you want them to do by withholding food.”

Atlanta and other cities added to obstacles between houseless people and those who would provide them nourishment, predicating any immediate assistance on their entrée into the impoverishment assistance complex — while simultaneously frustrating activists and advocates with a deluge of impossible red tape making the act of sharing food a laborious chore for those attempting to work within its confines.

Indeed, shady tactics apparently land within the purview of enforcing the law.

According to the AP, attorneys for MacLean say police have gone so far as to disseminate a “misleading pamphlet” emblazoned with the city seal and a statement indicating a permit is required to feed homeless people in public — but it isn’t true. A previously unenforced county law exists, notes Reason — which only saw enforcement beginning around Thanksgiving — but none does explicitly for the City of Atlanta.

Southern Center for Human Rights attorney Gerry Weber, representing MacLean, explained restaurants, food trucks, and festival vendors may indeed require permits from the city — people voluntarily sharing food in public without charge, not so much.

Food Not Bombs was forced to challenge a similarly callous ordinance in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, arguing before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in August such crackdowns on feeding houseless people infringe on the group’s constitutional right to free speech, since members share food “as an expression of their political message that hunger and poverty can be ended if society’s resources are redirected from the military and war.”

A decision in the matter has yet to be rendered.

In the interim, charity workers advocating for homeless people in cities across this putatively Great (or, perhaps, Getting There) nation will have to contend with an ambivalent public, ludicrous restrictions, and an eagerly authoritarian body of law enforcement in order to give hungry people food in a public setting.

“I salute genuinely the good will and good nature of all these people,” Sgt. Corrigan insisted to the Associated Press.

“There is no bad guy in this.”

Image: Public domain.

Sizable factions of the scientific community have railed against the EPA for continuing to allow the imprudent and widespread use of neonicotinoid pesticides on the nation’s crops before extensive testing can determine if the substances pose as deleterious a risk as that found in multiple studies — several of which were conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Such as ongoing analysis and the government’s latest assessment of four neonicotinoid pesticides (often referred to for brevity as ‘neonics’), two of which, EPA scientists conclude, directly threaten not only indispensable pollinators like bees and butterflies, but birds, aquatic life, other insects, and some small mammals, as well.

“The EPA’s assessments confirm neonicotinoid pesticides are extremely harmful to birds and aquatic life at the very center of our ecosystems,” asserted Center for Biological Diversity director of environmental health program, Lori Ann Burd, in a statement Friday. “With bird, aquatic invertebrate and bee populations in decline, the only way to prevent further catastrophic damage is to follow Europe’s lead and ban these dangerous pesticides.”

Dangerous, to say the least, in terms of impact to ecosystems and the broader environment — but, in particular, to the species and pollinators responsible for much of the nation’s agricultural acreage.

“In today’s assessment the EPA found that risks posed to certain birds from eating neonic-treated seeds exceeded the agency’s level of concern — the level at which harm is known to occur — by as much as 200-fold,” the Center for Biological Diversity statement continues. “In addition to killing birds, a recent scientific study also found, neonic pesticides significantly impair the migratory ability of seed-eating songbirds.

“Today’s analysis found that if neonic-treated seeds make up just 1 percent to 6 percent of a bird’s diet, serious harms could result.”

As Burd and the Center note, similar results abroad led the European Union to institute a temporary ban on neonics, while agency regulating pesticides in Canada recommended a ban for one of the most widely used neonicotinoids due to depredation of aquatic life — yet, these sobering findings from the government agency putatively tasked with protecting the environment do not necessarily secure a ban in the United States.

“The EPA’s own research leaves no question that neonicotinoids pose unacceptable risks,” the environmental health expert opined. “But while other developed nations wisely restrict use of these dangerous poisons, the United States has refused to take even the most basic steps to protect our wildlife from neonics.”

Four neonicotinoid pesticides — clothianidin, thiamethoxam, dinotefuran, and imidacloprid — are under investigation by the EPA after a growing body of evidence pegs the insidious substances responsible for sharply declining honey bee, butterfly, and other pollinator populations, as well as slumps in numbers of endangered species, in the U.S. and overseas.

But it’s the latter, imidacloprid, which is of exceptional concern to environmentalists and vigilant scientists — posing an “acute risk,” finds the EPA, to bird populations when sprayed directly onto crops. Indeed, the pernicious substances also threaten birds and animals eating neonic-treated seeds — which is one common method of delivery to treat plants, like cotton, with these pesticides.

“Neonicotinoids are a class of pesticides known to have both acute and chronic effects on honeybees, birds, butterflies and other pollinator species, and they are a major factor in overall pollinator declines,” the CBD press statement from December 15 explains. “These systemic insecticides cause entire plants, including pollen and fruit, to become toxic to pollinators; they are also slow to break down and therefore build up in the environment.”

And, as Truthout notes, “In 2016, the EPA also found that imidacloprid ‘potentially poses risk to [bee] hives when the pesticide comes in contact with certain crops that attract pollinators,’ according to a preliminary assessment released at the time.”

This November, Futurism reported on a stunning analysis of two of the world’s most popular pesticides, the neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, and the organophosphate, chlorpyrifos — widely suspected of causing brain and nerve damage, and in a class of substances which indeed do, although the assertion remains technically unproven — a long-temporarily banned pesticide removed from consideration for permanent prohibition by Trump EPA-appointee, Scott Pruitt, in March 2017, under highly suspect circumstances.

“Studies on the risks of neonicotinoids have often focused on bees that have been experiencing population declines. However, it is not just bees that are being affected by these insecticides,” Christy Morrissey, a biology professor at the University of Saskatchewan, warned in a press release announcing the study, at the time of publication.

Post-doctoral fellow and leader of that research team, Margaret Eng, added, “These chemicals are having a strong impact on songbirds. We are seeing significant weight loss and the birds’ migratory orientation being significantly altered. Effects were seen from eating the equivalent of just three to four imidacloprid treated canola seeds or eight chlorpyrifos granules a day for three days.”

She noted that although recovery from the effects was possible, “the effects we saw were severe enough that the birds would likely experience migratory delays or changes in their flight routes that could reduce their chance of survival, or cause a missed breeding opportunity.”

Futurism elaborated on the findings, “The insecticides have devastating and quick-acting effects on songbirds. They lost up to 25% of both their body mass and fat stores in addition to becoming lethargic and not eating as much (both signs of acute poisoning). They also became confused when attempting to migrate, unable to successfully orient themselves.”

Yet, the Trump administration’s EPA appears less than reluctant to allow the prolific use of all of the aforementioned pesticides.

In fact, just before press time, the Center for Biological Diversity issued yet another media statement pertaining to neonicotinoids, specifically in re, thiamethoxam, whose application for expanded use was surreptitiously slipped into the Federal Register on Friday — altogether unannounced by the dubious Environmental Protection Agency. Should the application garner approval, the substance — currently allowed to be applied as a seed coating — would be sprayed directly onto food crops, as well.

“For years the EPA and pesticide companies bragged that by using treated seeds they were avoiding spraying insecticides, and despite the science showing that these treated seeds were deadly to birds, claimed that they were environmentally beneficial,” Burd averred. “But we can expect the Trump EPA to now ignore the risks to birds and bees and approve these ultra-toxic pesticides to be sprayed across hundreds of millions of U.S. acres.”

Neonicotinoids indeed remain under ostensive review by the agency, with a determination to be delivered within the next two years.

While waiting without bated breath for government agencies to render verdict for or against an immense and ballooning body of scientific research admonishing of the dangers of neonicotinoids, consider the altogether ominous concluding thought from the Center’s newest press release — and the potentially tragic ramifications of erstwhile flippant, myopic decisions,

“A large and growing body of independent science links neonicotinoids to catastrophic bee declines. Twenty-nine independent scientists who conducted a global review of more than 1,000 independent studies on neonicotinoids found overwhelming evidence linking the pesticides to declines in populations of bees, birds, earthworms, butterflies and other wildlife.”

Image: Siam Teewareecharouen/Shutterstock.

Less than two weeks after the Department of Defense announced it would finally subject itself to a first-ever audit, a new report puts into perspective precisely why the Pentagon so sorely needs a thorough analysis of where its trillions upon trillions in taxpayer funds have gone — because a stupefying $21 trillion cannot be accounted for by just two government agencies, including the gargantuan DoD.

That sum is indeed $21 trillion — tens of trillions of dollars — spent by the DoD and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on … well, no one really knows what.

Not just that, but this rather bewildering amount slipped through cracks in only seventeen years — from 1998, the year legislation passed mandating annual audits of every government agency, through 2015.

Michigan State University Professor of Economics Mark Skidmore, who specializes in public finance, authored the study, which became his brainchild after hearing Catherine Austin Fitts, former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, remark on a report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) revealing no less than $6.5 trillion unaccounted for, but spent, by the DoD.

Skidmore, flabbergasted, had presumed from experience with previous public financing matters the astronomical figure too high not to be a mistake.

“Sometimes you have an adjustment just because you don’t have adequate transactions,” he explained of what typically happens when funds aren’t accounted for, in an interview in early December, “so an auditor would just recede. Usually it’s just a small portion of authorized spending, maybe one percent at most. So for the Army one percent would be $1.2 billion of transactions that you just can’t account for.”

Except, the erstwhile ‘missing’ monies didn’t total in the billions, and Skidmore soon confirmed the preposterous sum published in the OIG report, “Army General Fund Adjustments Not Adequately Documented or Supported,” on July 26, 2016. On December 8 — the day following the Pentagon’s audit announcement — he and Boston University Economics Professor Laurence Kotlikoff co-authored a column for Forbes explicating the research and expanding on the problematic OIG report, stating,

“The report indicates that for fiscal year 2015, the Army failed to provide adequate support for $6.5 trillion in journal voucher adjustments. According to the GAO’s Comptroller General, ‘Journal vouchers are summary-level accounting adjustments made when balances between systems cannot be reconciled. Often these journal vouchers are unsupported, meaning they lack supporting documentation to justify the adjustment or are not tied to specific accounting transactions … For an auditor, journal vouchers are a red flag for transactions not being captured, reported, or summarized correctly.’”

He continues, “Given that the entire Army budget in fiscal year 2015 was $120 billion, unsupported adjustments were 54 times the level of spending authorized by Congress.  The July 2016 report indicates that unsupported adjustments are the result of the Defense Department’s ‘failure to correct system deficiencies.’ The result, according to the report, is that data used to prepare the year-­end financial statements were unreliable and lacked an adequate audit trail. The report indicates that just 170 transactions accounted for $2.1 trillion in year-end unsupported adjustments. No information is given about these 170 transactions. In addition many thousands of transactions with unsubstantiated adjustments  were, according to the report, removed by the Army. There is no explanation concerning why they were removed nor their magnitude. The July 2016 report states, ‘In addition, DFAS (Defense Finance and Accounting Service) Indianapolis personnel did not document or support why DDRS (The Defense Department Reporting System) removed at least 16,513 of 1.3 million feeder file records during the Third Quarter.’”

Affirming the jaw-dropping anomalous figure led Skidmore promptly to enjoin Fitts for a collaboration with graduate students examining thousands of additional Inspector General reports, dating from 1998 through 2015, the last year for which data was available at the time of the project — concentrating solely on the Defense Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

“This is incomplete,” Skidmore advised, “but we have found $21 trillion in adjustments over that period. The biggest chunk is for the Army. We were able to find 13 of the 17 years and we found about $11.5 trillion just for the Army.”

Although even the preliminary numbers would sound nearly anyone’s alarm bells, Skidmore refused to propound on the nature of the unaccounted funds — whether it could have been allotted toward covert but legitimate projects, misallocated, brazenly wasted, or otherwise — but did characterize the raw findings as profoundly telling of a dearth in transparency in funding and parallel evisceration of due process in budgeting at the federal level of government.

Whether the Pentagon’s vanishing funds will ever be matched to tangible ends in its first or future financial post-mortem seems optimistically unrealistic; however, that the ball is finally rolling presents to the disgruntled public a momentous opportunity to pressure officials to be held accountable for squandering such embarrassing sums of taxpayer income.

After all, they’re listening — Skidmore’s interview with USAWatchdog came out on December 3 — with the Pentagon’s announcement following just four days later, on the 7th. Further, Skidmore noted peremptorily that, as he and Fitts scoured figures online, they observed something suspicious on the website for the Office of Inspector General, asserting in a side note,

“[A]fter Mark Skidmore began inquiring about OIG-reported unsubstantiated adjustments, the OIG’s webpage, which documented, albeit in a highly incomplete manner, these unsupported ‘accounting adjustments,’ was mysteriously taken down. Fortunately, Mark copied the July 2016 report and all other relevant OIG reports in advance [available at this link]. Mark has repeatedly tried to contact Lorin Venable, Assistant Inspector General at the Office of the Inspector General.  He has emailed, phoned, and used LinkedIn to ask Ms. Venable about OIG’s disclosure of unsubstantiated adjustments, but she has not responded.”

In fact, as noted previously by The Mind Unleashed, the Department of Defense also recently edited its original audit announcement in a superficially innocuous yet potentially insidious detail — halving the total number of auditors to descend on the military, as seen in an internet archive of the page, to just 1,200 — without explanation, notation of adjusted figure, nor any other remark explicating the adjustment a simple mistake or otherwise.

Despite a remarkable $21 trillion essentially having evaporated from just two albeit notoriously thriftless governmental agencies, Skidmore fears public apathy will reign — with predictably wearisome results.

“If the American people don’t stand up and say this is unacceptable,” the economist admonished, “nothing is going to happen. This is just wrong.”

Image: DOD, fnr.