Category: Veterans – Patriotism

Synthetic Biology Is Changing What We Eat.

Civil Eats

Synthetic Biology Is Changing What We Eat. Here’s What You Need to Know.

From bleeding burgers to vegan shrimp, synbio food is backed by billions of dollars in funding, but questions remain about its safety and possible risks.

By Meg Wilcox, Food Safety, Technology     May 14, 2019 

Impossible’s “bleeding” veggie burger, shrimp made of algae, and vegan cheeses that melt are all making their way into restaurants and on to supermarket shelves, offering consumers a new generation of plant-based proteins that look, act, and taste far more like the real thing than ever before.

What consumers may not realize, however, is that many of these new foods are made using synthetic biology, an emerging science that applies principles of genetic engineering to create life forms from scratch.

Originally used to produce medicines, biofuels, and super bacteria designed to eat oil spills, synthetic biology is increasingly being applied to the production of food and fiber—from vegan burgers to “spider silk,” feed for farmed fish, synthetic flavors, and animal-free egg whites.  A California accelerator, IndieBio, is helping to churn out many of these new businesses. Synthetic biology applications span from simple gene editing combined with fermentation processes, to cellular meats that culture food products from animal cells in the lab, to gene drive applications intended to change an organism’s genetics in the environment, such as a mosquito’s ability to spread malaria. For purposes of this discussion, we focus on products and processes that rely on gene editing combined with fermentation.

Synthetic biologists identify the gene sequences that give food or fiber certain qualities, like the gooiness of cheese or the tensile strength of silk. Often, it’s a protein produced by plant or animal cells that imparts the desired quality. Once identified, the gene sequence for that protein is created chemically in a lab and inserted into yeast or bacteria cells. Then, much like brewing beer, a fermentation process turns the microbes into tiny factories that mass produce the desired protein—which is then used as a food ingredient or spun into fiber. The Impossible Burger, for example, contains an engineered heme, a protein originally derived from soy plant roots, that gives the burger its pseudo-meat flavor, color, and texture.

Most of the companies using synthetic biology are still in the startup phase and may fail to gain traction, just as the earlier applications of synthetic biology for biofuels failed to reach scale. But there are billions of dollars in funding behind these products, and plenty of desire for them to succeed. And while many synbio products promise to use fewer natural resources, similar to cellular “meat,” a general lack of public information and transparency from many companies about their processes and what their supply chains will entail when brought to scale leaves unanswered questions about the safety and ultimate environmental, economic, and social sustainability of these products.

In the interest of trying to track down answers to some of these questions, Civil Eats asked six companies using synthetic biology, as well as two industry associations—including Bolt Threads, Impossible Foods, Gingko Bioworks, and IndieBio—for comment; although many declined to comment, the answers we received—plus the many questions that remain unanswered—suggest how much we still need to know about the potential impacts of this food of the future.

How it Works: Fish Food as an Example—and a Source of Concern

Each synthetic biology process is unique, but take the example of bacteria-based fish feed produced by KnipBio, the first company of its kind to receive U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approval as GRAS (“generally recognized as safe”). KnipBio uses a microbe commonly found on leaves that naturally produce carotenoids, anti-oxidants that can be vital for fish health.

Through simple edits to the bacteria’s genetic makeup, KnipBio CEO Larry Feinberg says he can “turn up or turn down the valves to make things of interest,” like variations on the carotenoids. Next, he ferments the microorganisms in a tank, feeding them methanol—an alcohol derived from methane gas—or corn waste by-products to stimulate them to reproduce and make the carotenoids. The fermented bacteria are then pasteurized and dried, which Feinberg says kills them, and formulated into a flour that is milled into fish feed. It has taken KnipBio five years to refine this process.

Critics say that synthetic biology’s dangers lie in the potential release of gene-edited organisms into the wild, human health impacts, and disruption to agricultural communities, should engineered food or fiber displace natural products.

Rebecca Burgess, the founder of Fibershed, which last fall produced a report with ETC Group on the hazards of clothing made from genetically modified or synbio-derived materials, questions the efficacy of methods to keep gene-edited material from getting into the environment. “The concern is that they’re using base life forms that grow rapidly and transfer genes rapidly and they’re not considering the future of genetic pollution.”

Feinberg responded to this concern by saying that ensuring microbes are dead before release outside the lab is “microbiology 101,” like milk pasteurization. Nevertheless, “there should be, and will be, safety redundancy built into containment at an industrial biotech operation,” he adds. Furthermore, Feinberg says that research shows that modified bacteria tend to revert back to their “wild type” when they’re no longer housed in the optimized conditions created in the lab.

Piers Millet, vice president of safety and security at iGem, a non-profit organization that runs a global synthetic biology competition, agrees. “One of synthetic biology’s biggest challenges is getting the new traits to stick past a few generations [which typically last days or weeks]. In almost every case, the alterations you’re making make those organisms less suitable for natural environments.”

That challenge leaves Michael Tlusty, associate professor of sustainability and food solutions at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, “guardedly optimistic” that synthetic biology will have beneficial applications, like the creation of alternative fish feeds to reduce the pressure on forage fish. Tlusty also notes, “we’ve been editing bacteria for a long time, medically, such as for insulin.”

Health Impacts?

Bacterial engineering processes for medicine have been established for 40 years.  We’ve also been editing bacteria to create the vegetable rennet in cheeses since 1990. In fact, 90 percent of U.S. cheese today is produced with what’s known as fermentation-produced chymosin, or FPC, a vegetable rennet.

There are no reports of health or environmental impacts from FPC to date, but neither does it appear that anyone has researched the question.

The main health concern with synthetic biology products is that they add new proteins to foods, and those new proteins may be allergenic, says Dana Perls, senior food and agriculture campaigner with Friends of the Earth. “We need to understand the short- and long-term impacts before these ingredients and products enter the market or the environment,” she says of products genetically engineered to replace animal products, and stresses the need for stronger regulations for all genetic engineering.

Most consumers wouldn’t know that the cheese they buy is produced using gene modification, because it isn’t labeled as GMO. The FDA ruled that because FPC was identical to the chymosin found in animal rennet, it didn’t require labeling.

GMO labeling laws in the U.S. don’t apply to products made using synthetic biology, which makes it tough for consumers to make informed choices. Most recently, the FDA announced that labeling isn’t required for ingredients made from GMO crops if no modified genetic material is detectable.

Cell-based meat, which is grown in a lab by multiplying entire stem cells taken from animal muscle, will be regulated by both the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture  (USDA), though it’s not yet clear what that means in practice.

Synthetic biology is advancing so meteorically, regulatory schemes are hard pressed to keep up, Millet says, adding that, besides national laws, the industry follows World Health Organization biosafety guidance and other international regulations. But that guidance is updated every five years, so there can be a lag before the newest technology will be considered.

“The new wave of genetic engineering is slipping through very large loopholes,” says Perls. “People who are trying to purchase food or clothing that reflects their values are in the dark.”

Social Disruption Ahead?

As a disruptive technology, advocates fear that synthetic biology may also pose harm to the livelihoods of farmers, particularly in the developing world.

Oakland Institute’s Executive Director Anuradha Mittal is especially concerned that the rise of synthetic biology for products such as vanilla, coconut oil, and silk poses a threat to the livelihoods of smallholder and indigenous farmers if those engineered products replace their natural counterparts. Many of these farmers, like the Filipino coconut growers facing super typhoons year after year, are on the front lines of climate change, and Mittal notes that synbio alternatives could increase their vulnerability at a time when they need solid markets to help them adapt to climate change.

“These artificial solutions that are manufactured in petri dishes threaten smallholder farmers,” she told Civil Eats. “The devastation of women’s livelihoods in particular in India would be huge from these fancy silks.”

Fibershed’s Burgess worries that artisanal farmers and agroecologists could lose their sovereign rights if the synthetic biology world takes over fiber production and patents its processes.

Burgess’ concerns of farmer’s livelihoods being displaced are not unfounded, according to Todd Kuiken, senior research scholar at the Genetic Engineering & Society Center at North Carolina State University. “There are winners and losers. All of that needs to be evaluated and put on the table so people can make informed decisions,” says Kuiken, who previously led the Wilson Center’s Synthetic Biology Project. Companies need to conduct full life cycle assessments of their products, including both environmental and socio-economic impacts, he says. He knows of few companies that have done this, however.

Finally, Feedstocks

Fermentation requires carbohydrates—think barley or wheat for beer brewing—and that raises a key sustainability concern: What feedstocks will be used, and how much?

U.S. synbio companies are largely using sugar from GMO corn, because of its abundant supply, according to Bolt Threads, a leading manufacturer of Spider Silk, on its website, adding, “It is widely believed that large-scale fermentation will be possible with non-food crops … in the future.”

Some companies like KnipBio, however, are choosing to work from day one with more sustainable feedstocks, like agricultural waste or methane gas. “Feedstocks that don’t compete with humans—that has to be part of the consideration. We have to make things more efficient,” says Feinberg.

FOE’s Perls worries that synbio companies could simply perpetuate “unsustainable, pesticide-intensive, industrial agriculture,” by requiring massive amounts of GMO corn or sugar cane.

“If we now have to scale monoculture 2,4-D corn to feed these fermentation tanks,” notes Fibershed’s Burgess, “what does that mean for the [U.S.] Midwest or the Cerrado in Brazil?”

Until recently, life cycle assessments that could answer the feedstock question were hard to come by. Recently, Impossible Burger became the first to release an environmental life cycle analysis of its burger. Peer-reviewed and produced by independent auditor Quantis, the assessment found that the Impossible Burger requires 87 percent less water, 96 percent less land, and produces 89 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than an equivalent beef burger.

The heme protein that’s synthetically produced is but one ingredient of the burger, which is made from plant-based proteins, fats, oils, and binders. Spider silks or other products that are principally made from proteins produced by synthetic biology will likely have a different footprint that may or may not be as environmentally beneficial.

And while Impossible Burger has taken initiative on environmental transparency, its life cycle analysis didn’t consider potential socio-economic impacts. That’s important, says Kuiken, because “say Impossible Burger takes over the world: You’d reduce the number of animal products; you need to understand all of [the] socio-economic interaction[s]” of a reduction in demand for products from farmers and ranchers and the resulting impacts on their livelihoods.

Need for Dialogue

For those raising these questions, the lack of information and transparency on the part of most synbio companies fuels mistrust and prevents broader dialogue about the best solutions for the future of food, much like the lack of transparency on the part of cellular ag startups.

Garrett Broad’s 2017 essay in Civil Eats, “Why We Should Make Room for Debate about High-Tech Meat,” speaks to the dilemma. “I find myself with mixed feelings about the whole enterprise,” Broad wrote. “On one hand, I’m skeptical that these technological fixes will automatically lead us to some sort of agricultural utopia. But I’m also concerned that many who identify with the food movement might be missing out on the chance to shape the future of food because they’re turning their backs on food science altogether.”

iGEM’s Millet acknowledges there is some consumer distrust. “My feeling is that a lot of the leftover concerns about genetic modification has to do with the nature of power relationships, about very powerful companies controlling technology,” he says. “But that doesn’t mean we can’t have a different type of relationship.”

Dialogue with impacted communities is key, he says. Furthermore, Millet believes that synthetic biology can be used “to create a much fairer world, where people have more access to the tools they need to solve the problems challenging them, as opposed to mega-corporations selling the solution to them.” He cites an iGEM project in Sumbawa, Indonesia, where a poor community used synthetic biology to develop a genetic test to stop the pirating of its famous honey, a key revenue source for the island.

That vision of a fairer future is shared by others, like Oakland’s Counter Culture Labs, a “community supported microbiology maker space,” but not necessarily by the synbio companies remaining tight-lipped about their enterprises.

As in any industry, there are a range of players, with some more focused on sustainability than others. Whether synthetic biology can meet its promise by helping address some of agriculture’s biggest impacts and feeding the world—without causing harm—remains to be seen and will likely be project-dependent.

In the meantime, “people want real food, they want transparency, and nobody wants to be an experiment,” says Perls.

Trump is a ‘malignant narcissist’ and committed ‘the ultimate high crime’

Yahoo News

Kadia Tubman        May 12, 2019
President Trump and George Conway (Photos: Alex Wong/Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
President Trump and George Conway (Photos: Alex Wong/Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

 

George Conway, the husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, lashed out at President Trump Sunday for his view of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation as “purely in terms of your own ego,” adding that the president “should pay with your office.”

“Think of it,” Conway, an outspoken critic of President Trump, started in a lengthy Twitter thread. “The Russia investigation was a legitimate investigation, with a legitimate basis, into how a hostile foreign power tried to interfere with and undermine our democracy. It was in the best interests of the nation — in the interests of all Americans, no matter who they voted for — that this investigation be allowed to proceed to its rightful conclusion, without improper attempts to obstruct it, if only so that we could all know what really happened and take steps to see that it never happens again.”

Conway blamed Trump’s take on the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election on his being “a malignant narcissist — a person with both narcissistic and antisocial personality disorders,” a diagnosis he has repeatedly applied to his wife’s boss.

“Instead of complying with your oath of office, and instead of taking stock of what was in the best interests of the nation whose Constitution and laws you swore to uphold, you viewed the matter purely in terms of your own ego,” said Conway. “You viewed the investigation as casting doubt on what you perceive as your great election victory (in which your opponent garnered nearly three million more votes than you did), and so you took multiple steps to obstruct, and repeatedly lied about, the investigation from the outset.”

Conway was responding to Trump, who tweeted Sunday morning: “Think of it. I became President of the United States in one of the most hard fought and consequential elections in the history of our great nation. From long before I ever took office, I was under a sick & unlawful investigation concerning what has become known as the Russian Hoax.”

He added: “My campaign was being seriously spied upon by intel agencies and the Democrats. This never happened before in American history, and it all turned out to be a total scam, a Witch Hunt, that yielded No Collusion, No Obstruction. This must never be allowed to happen again!”

Although Mueller’s two-year probe found no conspiracy between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia, the redacted report detailed “multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.” It also stated that “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him” on the obstruction of justice issue.

Still, despite laying out the evidence of possible obstruction like attempting to get Mueller fired, no conclusions were drawn on the matter, and Attorney General William Barr decided not to bring charges against the president, which Trump declared as “complete and total exoneration.”

“Even today, despite the well-founded assessments of the intelligence community, and despite the damning evidence laid out in the Mueller report, you refuse to take what the Russians did seriously,” said Conway. “Instead, you continue to lie, calling the investigation a ‘hoax’ and an ‘attempted coup,’ and you didn’t even mention Russia’s conduct in your recent 90-minute conversation with Putin, the man who seeks to undermine our institutions.”

Last week, before the Judiciary Committee voted to hold Barr in contempt of Congress, Trump asserted executive privilege over the unredacted Mueller report to keep it away from the House Judiciary Committee and instructed his former aides not to comply with a congressional subpoena to testify about the report’s findings.

Conway ended his condemnation by accusing Trump of putting his own interests before the nation’s, an offense for which, he said, the president should leave office, without specifying resignation or impeachment.

“Put simply, you put your own perceptions of your self-interest above the national interest, which you seem unable to comprehend or respect,” he wrote. “That is your greatest offense against the country, an offense that incorporates but vastly exceeds the statutory crimes you’ve committed. It is the ultimate high crime or misdemeanor under the Constitution, and under the Framers’ wise design, it is an offense for which you should pay with your office, regardless of whether you are ultimately brought to justice in the courts of law.”

4 reasons why forgiving U.S. student debt makes sense

Yahoo News

Aarthi Swaminathan        May 12, 2019.
How one woman paid off $100,000 in student debt in 15 months – and why she wants to help others achieve financial freedom.

 

 

The student loan system is $1.5 trillion mess that has attracted a ton of attention from policymakers to presidential candidates, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) proposing to cancel large amounts of outstanding debt.

That kind of debt relief would have clear benefits, according to a new report from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

Researchers looked at debt relief data from the credit bureau as well as from a lawsuit filing from 2017, related to National Collegiate — which held 800,000 private student loans totaling over $12 billion or about 11% of all outstanding student debt at the time — and concluded that there are “benefits of intervening in the student loan market to reduce the consequences of debt overhang problems by forgiving student debts.”

The report asserted that four things happened to borrowers in default who experienced debt relief: They saw their overall indebtedness reduced by 26%, were 12% less likely to default on other accounts, gained increased mobility when it came to job opportunities, and were more likely to increase consumption overall.

A 2016 graduate of Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey, U.S., May 15, 2016. (Photo: REUTERS/Mike Theiler)
A 2016 graduate of Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey, U.S., May 15, 2016. (Photo: REUTERS/Mike Theiler)

 

Since those examined in the report were already in default, they weren’t making student loan repayments. But even though their monthly expenses hadn’t changed, the experience of debt relief led them to manage other debt differently.

“The thing that was interesting about this study is that the people that got the forgiveness weren’t paying anyway, so it actually did not change their monthly loan payments at all,” Ben Miller, the senior director for post-secondary education at the Center for American Progress, told Yahoo Finance. So “it suggests there might be some sort of psychological benefit to this relief that goes beyond the household balance sheet.”

“That to me is really interesting,” Miller added, “because it suggests that there may be external benefits to debt relief that you don’t otherwise see.”

Student debt has soared in the 21st century. (Graphic: David Foster/Yahoo Finance)
Student debt has soared in the 21st century. (Graphic: David Foster/Yahoo Finance)
Borrowers could see overall debt reduce by 26%

The first effect of student debt relief is that borrowers reduce their total liabilities by about $4,000 beyond the cancelled loan liabilities, according to the study. This means that with an average level of debt at $15,317, borrowers could see a 26% reduction.

“We find that consistently across all debt categories, and both with and without county-month fixed effects, the treated borrowers are significantly more likely to reduce the number of accounts,” the researchers wrote.

The study estimated that debt relief on average would reduce credit card debt specifically by $350, auto loans by $300, and mortgages by about $1,000.

“Overall, these findings suggest that treated individuals are significantly more likely to reduce their leverage after the debt is discharged,” said the report.

FILE- In this March 14, 2019, file photo students walk on the Stanford University campus in Santa Clara, Calif. Before student loans, people who couldn’t afford to go to college usually didn’t. Even though tuition was cheaper, it was still cost-prohibitive for many, who turned to solutions such as working through school, getting help from their parents or finding scholarships. (AP Photo/Ben Margot, File)
Students walk on the Stanford University campus in Santa Clara, Calif. (Photo credit: AP Photo/Ben Margot, File)
Borrowers less likely to default or go delinquent on other debt

The second effect of debt relief is that borrowers saw the likelihood of default on all types of accounts reduced by 12%. Borrowers would also be less likely to miss payments on credit cards and mortgages, both massive and ballooning components of household debt that Deutsche Bank Economist Torsten Slok warned was a cause for concern in the U.S. economy.

“These findings speak to the potential spillover effects across liabilities and to a potential indirect benefit of intervening in this market by helping borrowers unable to afford their student loan debts,” the researchers noted.

Borrowers likely to move and get better-paying jobs

The third effect was that borrowers who experience debt relief were more likely to consider moving for a job opportunity and thereby see their incomes rise.

“Consistent with a debt overhang problem affecting these borrowers, we find that the treated individuals are significantly more likely to move when their student loans get discharged,” said the researchers.

And once debt is discharged, borrowers also saw income rise by $4,000 over three years, estimated the researchers, which is roughly equivalent to two months’ salary, “likely due to the borrowers’ ability to accept better jobs.”

These 25 US. metro areas have the highest rate of delinquencies on student loans. (Graphic: David Foster/Yahoo Finance)
These 25 US. metro areas have the highest rate of delinquencies on student loans. (Graphic: David Foster/Yahoo Finance)
Overall consumption could rise

The final effect the researchers found was that with student loan debt relief, borrowers were more likely to increase consumption overall.

“We show that borrowers that were delinquent exclusively on their student debts are significantly more likely to increase their consumption after the court decision,” the report stated.

With 11.5% of outstanding student loans in serious delinquency, the average student borrower — who is putting off major milestones like starting a family and owning a home — would see considerable relief in their overall indebtedness and thus be more likely to spend.

That relief could prevent the potential drag on growth that Fed Chair Jerome Powell acknowledged in March when he said that as the student debt crisis “goes on and as student loans continue to grow and become larger and larger, then it absolutely could hold back growth.” (Powell added that student debt should be discharged in bankruptcy.)

“Our findings suggest that the costs of the rising student debt burden on the new generations can indeed have important effect: student debt limits the borrowers’ access to better opportunities and also has significant spillover effects to other debt classes,” the NBER researchers wrote.

Miller stressed that while “student loans aren’t as large as the housing market was and they’re not going to likely bankrupt the entire economy, they do matter for kind of generational wealth building for young people.”

Washington, D.C. On Saturday, May 7 at Howard University Upper Quandrangle University Campus, Howard University School of Communications graduate (Public Relations major) Cierra Jefferson stands and cries, as Commencement speaker President Barack Obama tells her story of struggle and triumph, at the 148th Commencement Convocation. (Photo by Cheriss May/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
A Howard University School of Communications graduate stands and cries, as Commencement speaker President Barack Obama tells her story of struggle and triumph, at the 148th Commencement Convocation. (Photo credit: Cheriss May/NurPhoto/Getty Images)
‘Student loan debt is holding back a generation’

“Since 11 percent of borrowers are 90 days or more delinquent on their student debts, rising student debt is considered one of the creeping threats of our time,” the researchers wrote.

And while debt cancellation was initially perceived as radical — particularly when Senator Warren pitched her $640 billion plan — the NBER study provides an argument for the clear benefits of that kind of approach.

“If student loan debt is holding back a generation from improving their financial situation, it seems safe to assume that discharging this debt would help graduates more fully participate in the economy,” Student Loan Hero Student Loan Debt Expert Rebecca Safier told Yahoo Finance.

Safier added that this kind of mass loan forgiveness “could improve borrowers’ financial lives on an individual level and, in turn, have a positive impact on the economy as a whole.”

Aarthi is a writer for Yahoo Finance. 

Read more:

Gig economy employees are facing a heightened retirement crisis

Yahoo – Finance

Aarthi Swaminathan        May 12, 2019
Uber Driver Critical of Employee Treatment from all Ride-Hailing Services
Americans are increasingly falling behind on their retirement savings, and it could be even worse for the millions working in the gig economy.

 

Despite the overall gig economy booming with companies like Lyft and Uber going public, the companies’ staunch resistance to meet drivers’ demands for full-time employment and benefits “has the potential” to worsen the retirement crisis, Chad Parks, Founder and CEO of Ubiquity Retirement + Savings told Yahoo Finance.

“To the best of our knowledge, ride-share companies have not formalized retirement savings options for their drivers,” Parks explained. And “in today’s world where most companies have abandoned pension plans and Social Security provides a very small portion of your retirement income, it puts the onus squarely on you to save for your future. It’s unfortunate, but this is the reality.”

This Friday, May 3, 2019 photo shows Uber driver and NYTWA member Inder Parmar in his vehicle in New York.
Uber driver and NYTWA member Inder Parmar in his vehicle in New York. (Photo credit: AP/Mary Altaffer). 

‘This is a sick joke right?’

There are nearly 16 million workers in the gig economy, according to a report by MBO Partners. Most are part-timers who freelance on the side to supplement their paychecks. For example, during the government shutdown, many federal workers actually took on drivers jobs to keep themselves adrift while their paychecks were suspended.

But for those who drive for Lyft or Uber full-time, the lack of proper health insurance or retirement savings plan — on top of dealing with an average hourly wage of $9.21 — is a big pain point.

“Unfortunately, like a lot of other Americans, drivers are not thinking about retirement as much as they should,” TheRideshareGuy.com Founder Harry Campbell told Yahoo Finance. “But this is also a function of the fact that nearly all of their pay is going to cover the day-to-day expenses.”

To be fair, Uber has been offering some sort of retirement savings option for drivers with a partnership with a robo-advisor called Betterment. But skepticism is rampant.

“I wouldn’t involve Lyft or Uber with my retirement planning,” one driver wrote on Uberpeople, an online forum for Uber drivers. “Odds are you’re not going to be working for them for very long, at least in the present form.”

Another wrote: “This is a sick joke right?”

Campbell sided with the drivers.

“The betterment partnership was a lot more fluff than substance in my opinion seeing as Uber didn’t contribute any money to the plan,” said Campbell. “A lot of drivers are struggling to get by as evidenced by the recent strikes and protests against Uber, so unfortunately saving for retirement is the last thing on their mind.”

Protesters hold a rally and stop traffic on Market Street outside of Uber headquarters Wednesday, May 8, 2019, in San Francisco. Some drivers for ride-hailing giants Uber and Lyft turned off their apps to protest what they say are declining wages as both companies rake in billions of dollars from investors. Demonstrations in 10 U.S. cities took place Wednesday, including New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. The protests take place just before Uber becomes a publicly traded company Friday. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)
Protesters hold a rally and stop traffic on Market Street outside of Uber headquarters Wednesday, May 8, 2019, in San Francisco. (Photo credit: AP/Eric Risberg)
‘Financial services industry is misaligned with the realities of the modern workplace’

And, unfortunately, the existing system also doesn’t do much for gig workers since they don’t have an established employer.

“The financial services industry is misaligned with the realities of the modern workplace, such as companies like Uber with a strong force of independent contract workers,” said Parks. “You can’t rely upon the government or your employer to take care of your retirement savings.”

Parks, the Ubiquity Retirement + Savings CEO, did offer three solutions for gig workers looking for a retirement savings vehicle: a traditional IRA plan, a Roth IRA plan, and an individual 401(K) plan.

The first one was good for those over 40, while Roth IRA was better for those under 40, he added. Both of those would be tax-deferred. And the individual 401(K) plan is “especially attractive for higher earners,” he added.

Aarthi is a writer for Yahoo Finance. 

Breastfeeding Could Protect Babies From Obesity

EcoWatch – Childrens Health

Breastfeeding Could Protect Babies From Obesity, WHO Study Finds

By San Nickerson       May 3, 2019

tatyana_tomsickova / iStock / Getty Images Plus

Breastfeeding may reduce the likelihood of child obesity, new research from the World Health Organization has found.

According to the study, led by WHO/Europe and the National Institute of Health in Portugal, infants who are never breastfed are 22 percent more likely to end up obese, while those who are exclusively breastfed for at least six months are 25 percent less likely to be obese.

Published in Obesity Facts and presented at this year’s European Congress on Obesity, the study looked at the data of nearly 30,000 children from 22 countries in the Childhood Obesity Surveillance Initiative and specifically at breastfeeding rates for 16 European countries, The Guardian reported.

The study indicates that breastfeeding has a “protective effect” against obesity, which strengthens the longer a child is breastfed. For instance, children who were breastfed for at least six months, even if they were also bottle-fed formula, still had a 22 percent reduced risk of obesity. That said, there appears to be a minimum threshold before breastfeeding becomes beneficial: children who were breastfed for less than six months were 12 percent more at risk of becoming obese.

The researchers suggest this could be because protein-heavy formula derived from cows’ milk can lead to higher blood insulin levels and stimulate fat cell growth, Yahoo reported, while breast milk contains hormones that will regulate energy balance throughout life. The researchers also note that breastfeeding could delay the introduction of energy-dense solid foods into a baby’s diet, The Guardian reported.

Previous research into the benefits of breastfeeding has run the gamut, showing that exclusive breastfeeding as an infant can lead to healthier cholesterol levels in teen years while also not revealing any protective effects against obesity or diabetes.

Senior author of the WHO study, Dr. Joao Breda of the WHO European Office for Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases, acknowledged that other factors like healthier lifestyles of families that breastfeed could play a role, but stood by the results.

“The evidence is there. The benefit is outstanding so we should be telling people,” he told The Guardian.

The WHO recommends that mothers should breastfeed exclusively for their baby’s first six months before combining breast milk with complementary foods until they are at least two years old. The organization has set a goal to increase the prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months to 50 percent by 2025.

In most of the countries studied, more than 77 percent of children were breastfed. On the other end of the spectrum, 46 percent of children in Ireland, 38 percent in France and 35 percent in Malta were never breastfed, and only four countries had a 25 percent or higher prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding.

The researchers believe that the areas in Europe falling short of the WHO’s recommendations are doing so because of misleading marketing of formula milk, poor maternity leave options and a lack of promotion.

“The promotion of breastfeeding presents a window of opportunity for obesity prevention policy to respond to the problem of childhood obesity in the European Region,” said Breda in a WHO announcement.

Why We Took Trump Off The Forbes 400 During His Decade Of Tax Losses

Forbes

Why We Took Trump Off The Forbes 400 During His Decade Of Tax Losses

By Dan Alexander, Forbes Staff            May 8, 2019

Trump taxes new york times forbes net worth

Donald Trump listed $1.2 billion of losses on his tax filings from 1985 to 1994, according to a blockbuster report released by the New York Times Tuesday. Those were high-flying years for Trump, then a young, brash businessman getting more headlines-per-square-foot than any other developer. In 1985, Trump appeared by himself on the Forbes 400 list of America’s richest people for the first time, after inventing a fake persona to lie about a transfer of wealth from his father.

Forbes fell for that ruse—taking Fred Trump off the list and listing Donald alone. But five years later, we published an explosive story, uncovering the trouble brewing inside Trump’s empire. Leaning on nonpublic documents, Forbes writers Richard L. Stern and John Connolly identified the same sort of profitability problems that are still making headlines 29 years later. Forbes took Donald Trump off its list for the first time that year, explaining that a “decline in Atlantic City gaming revenues, unmasking of misstated asset values, declining real estate values and massive debt may have put The Donald within hailing distance of zero.”

Here, Forbes republishes the 1990 magazine story, putting it online for all to read:

By Richard L. Stern and John Connolly

WHAT IS DONALD TRUMP really worth? His estranged wife, Ivana, would like to know. So would his creditors, who are many. The public, fascinated with Trump’s exploits and his bigger-than-life personality, relishes the guessing game. This we can say with confidence: His net worth is nothing like the $3 billion Business Week magazine estimated three years ago and has dropped considerably from our own 1989 estimate of $1.7 billion.

Forbes has obtained nonpublic documents submitted by Trump to a governmental body. In it, he lists his assets and liabilities as of May 31, 1989. The documents — which have been amended to include some more recent acquisitions — claim a net worth for Donald Trump, after deducting all debts and mortgages, of $1.5 billion.

Why SunPower Corporation’s Shares Jumped 14.4% Today

Motley Fool – Business

Travis Hoium, The Motley Fool,      May 10, 2019
What happened

Shares of SunPower Corporation (NASDAQ: SPWR) jumped as much as 14.4% in trading Friday after the solar manufacturer reported first-quarter 2019 results. Shares gave back some of those gains midday, but at 12:15 p.m. EDT shares were still up 9.5% on the day.

So what

Quarterly revenue was $348.2 million and net loss was $89.7 million, or $0.63 per share on a GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) basis. On a non-GAAP basis, revenue was $411.6 million and the loss was $57.4 million, or $0.41 per share. Adjusted EBITDA was negative $23.8 million, down from a gain of $32.3 million a year ago.

Carport with solar panels.Image source: SunPower Corporation.

Management also said it continues to expect 1.9 to 2.1 gigawatts of solar deployed with $1.9 to $2.0 billion of non-GAAP revenue for 2019. What investors likely gravitated to was management increasing the lower end of adjusted EBITDA guidance for 2019 from $80 million to $90 million, while keeping the $110 million top end of the range the same.

Now what

There weren’t any huge surprises in the quarter, but investors are likely relieved that operating conditions are expected to get better as the year goes on. The solar industry has been very competitive in the last few quarters, and price wars can lead to lower margins across the board. SunPower says it’s expecting margins to improve as new high-efficiency solar panels are rolled out and U.S. residential and commercial markets grow. That’s why there’s optimism today, and now the company needs to execute on rising expectations.

What Happens When a Bad-Tempered, Distractible Doofus Runs an Empire?

The New Yorker

What Happens When a Bad-Tempered, Distractible Doofus Runs an Empire?

By Mirandea Carter       June 6, 2019

During Kaiser Wilhelm II’s reign, the upper echelons of the German government began to unravel into a free-for-all, with officials wrangling against one another. Photograph by Hulton-Deutsch Collection / Corbis via Getty

One of the few things that Kaiser Wilhelm II, who ruled Germany from 1888 to 1918, had a talent for was causing outrage. A particular specialty was insulting other monarchs. He called the diminutive King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy “the dwarf” in front of the king’s own entourage. He called Prince (later Tsar) Ferdinand, of Bulgaria, “Fernando naso,” on account of his beaky nose, and spread rumors that he was a hermaphrodite. Since Wilhelm was notably indiscreet, people always knew what he was saying behind their backs. Ferdinand had his revenge. After a visit to Germany, in 1909, during which the Kaiser slapped him on the bottom in public and then refused to apologize, Ferdinand awarded a valuable arms contract that had been promised to the Germans to a French company instead.

Not that this deterred the Kaiser. One of the many things that Wilhelm was convinced he was brilliant at, despite all evidence to the contrary, was “personal diplomacy,” fixing foreign policy through one-on-one meetings with other European monarchs and statesmen. In fact, Wilhelm could do neither the personal nor the diplomacy, and these meetings rarely went well. The Kaiser viewed other people in instrumental terms, was a compulsive liar, and seemed to have a limited understanding of cause and effect. In 1890, he let lapse a long-standing defensive agreement with Russia—the German Empire’s vast and sometimes threatening eastern neighbor. He judged, wrongly, that Russia was so desperate for German good will that he could keep it dangling. Instead, Russia immediately made an alliance with Germany’s western neighbor and enemy, France. Wilhelm decided he would charm and manipulate Tsar Nicholas II (a “ninny” and a “whimperer,” according to Wilhelm, fit only “to grow turnips”) into abandoning the alliance. In 1897, Nicholas told Wilhelm to get lost; the German-Russian alliance withered.

About a decade ago, I published “George, Nicholas and Wilhelm: Three Royal Cousins and the Road to World War I,” a book that was, in part, about Kaiser Wilhelm, who is probably best known for being Queen Victoria’s first grandchild and for leading Germany into the First World War. Ever since Donald Trump started campaigning for President, the Kaiser has once again been on my mind—his personal failings, and the global fallout they led to.

Trump’s tweets were what first reminded me of the Kaiser. Wilhelm was a compulsive speech-maker who constantly strayed off script. Even his staff couldn’t stop him, though it tried, distributing copies of speeches to the German press before he’d actually given them. Unfortunately, the Austrian press printed the speeches as they were delivered, and the gaffes and insults soon circulated around Europe. “There is only one person who is master in this empire and I am not going to tolerate any other,” Wilhelm liked to say, even though Germany had a democratic assembly and political parties. (“I’m the only one that matters,” Trump has said.) The Kaiser reserved particular abuse for political parties that voted against his policies. “I regard every Social Democrat as an enemy of the Fatherland,” he said, and he denounced the German Socialist party as a “gang of traitors.” August Bebel, the Socialist party leader, said that every time the Kaiser opened his mouth, the party gained another hundred thousand votes.

When Wilhelm became emperor, in 1888, at twenty-nine years old, he was determined to be seen as tough and powerful. He fetishized the Army, surrounded himself with generals (though, like Trump, he didn’t like listening to them), owned a hundred and twenty military uniforms, and wore little else. He cultivated a special severe facial expression for public occasions and photographs—there are many, as Wilhelm would send out signed photos and portrait busts to anyone who’d have one—and also a heavily waxed, upward-turned moustache that was so famous it had its own name, “Er ist Erreicht!” (It is accomplished!)

In fact, Wilhelm didn’t accomplish very much. The general staff of the German Army agreed that the Kaiser couldn’t “lead three soldiers over a gutter.” He had neither the attention span nor the ability. “Distractions, whether they are little games with his army or navy, travelling or hunting—are everything to him,” a disillusioned former mentor wrote. “He reads very little apart from newspaper cuttings, hardly writes anything himself apart from marginalia on reports and considers those talks best which are quickly over and done with.” The Kaiser’s entourage compiled press cuttings for him, mostly about himself, which he read as obsessively as Trump watches television. A critical story would send him into paroxysms of fury.

During Wilhelm’s reign, the upper echelons of the German government began to unravel into a free-for-all, with officials wrangling against one another. “The most contradictory opinions are now urged at high and all-highest level,” a German diplomat lamented. To add to the confusion, Wilhelm changed his position every five minutes. He was deeply suggestible and would defer to the last person he’d spoken to or cutting he’d read—at least until he’d spoken to the next person. “It is unendurable,” a foreign minister wrote, in 1894. “Today one thing and tomorrow the next and after a few days something completely different.” Wilhelm’s staff and ministers resorted to manipulation, distraction, and flattery to manage him. “In order to get him to accept an idea you must act as if the idea were his,” the Kaiser’s closest friend, Philipp zu Eulenburg, advised his colleagues, adding, “Don’t forget the sugar.” (In “Fire and Fury,” Michael Wolff writes that to get Trump to take an action his White House staff has to persuade him that “he had thought of it himself.”)

More sinisterly, Wilhelm’s patronage of the aggressive, nationalistic right left him surrounded by ministers who held a collective conviction that a European war was inevitable and even desirable. Alfred von Tirpitz, Germany’s Naval chief—who realized at his first meeting with the Kaiser that he did “not live in the real world”—consciously exploited Wilhelm’s envy and rage in order to extract the astronomical sums required to build a German Navy to rival Britain’s, a project that created an arms race and became an intractable block to peace negotiations.

The Kaiser was susceptible but never truly controllable. He asserted his authority unpredictably, as if to prove he was still in charge, staging rogue interventions into his own advisers’ policies and sacking ministers without warning. “You cannot have the faintest idea what I have prevented,” his most obsequious aide, Bernhard von Bülow, complained to a friend, “and how much of my time I must devote to restoring order where our All Highest Master has created chaos.”

The Kaiser’s darkest secret was that every few years—after his meddling and blunders had exposed his incompetence or resulted in a crisis—he would suffer a full-blown collapse. His entourage would scrape him off the floor, and he would retire to one of his palaces, where, prostrate, he would weep and complain that he’d been victimized. After the moaning came the pacing, in uncharacteristic silence. Occasionally he would give way to tears. Gradually he would recalibrate his sense of reality—or unreality—and after a few weeks would bounce up again, as boisterous and obstreperous as ever.

I spent six years writing my book about Wilhelm and his cousins, King George V, of England, and Tsar Nicholas II, and the Kaiser’s egotism and eccentricity made him by far the most entertaining of the three to write about. After a while, though, living with Wilhelm—as you do when you write about another person over a long period—became onerous. It was dispiriting, even oppressive, to spend so much time around someone who never learned, and never changed.

The Kaiser wasn’t singly responsible for the First World War, but his actions and choices helped to bring it on. If international conflict is around the corner, it would seem that you really don’t want a narcissist in control of a global power. Wilhelm’s touchiness, his unpredictability, his need to be acknowledged: these things struck a chord with elements in Germany, which was in a kind of adolescent spasm—quick to perceive slights, excited by the idea of flexing its muscles, filled with a sense of entitlement. At the same time, Wilhelm’s posturing raised tensions in Europe. His clumsy personal diplomacy created suspicion. His alliance with the vitriolic right and his slavish admiration for the Army inched the country closer and closer to war. Once the war was actually upon him, the government and military effectively swept the Kaiser aside. And the gravest damage occurred only after Wilhelm abdicated, in November of 1918. (He spent the rest of his life—he survived until 1941—in central Holland.) The defeated Germany sank into years of depression, resentments sharpened, the toxic lie that Germany had been “robbed” of its rightful victory in the war took hold. The rest, as they say, is history.

I’m not suggesting that Trump is about to start the Third World War. But recent foreign developments—the wild swings with North Korea, the ditching of the Iran nuclear deal, the threat of a trade war with China—suggest upheavals that could quickly grow out of American control. Some of Trump’s critics suppose that these escalating crises might cause him to loosen, or even lose, his grip on the Presidency. The real lesson of Kaiser Wilhelm II, however, may be that Trump’s leaving office might not be the end of the problems he may bring on or exacerbate—it may be only the beginning.

Must Have Taken Lessons From Trump: Fake German heiress sentenced to 4-12 years behind bars

Associated Press

Fake German heiress sentenced to 4-12 years behind bars
Jim Mustian          May 10, 2019 

NEW YORK (AP) — Anna Sorokin, the German con artist who passed herself off as a wealthy heiress to swindle banks, hotels and even close friends as she lived out a high-society, Instagram-ready fantasy in New York, was sentenced Thursday to four to 12 years in prison.

The 28-year-old, who had played with her own tabloid image during the trial by wearing stylish dresses to court, looked despondent as the verdict was announced. She pressed her hand to her face and squeezed her eyes shut, appearing to hold back tears.

Judge Diane Kiesel said Sorokin had been “blinded by the glitter and glamour of New York City” as she turned to fraud to finance a life she could never afford. But the judge turned down a request by Sorokin’s lawyers to sentence her to the time she has already spent in jail awaiting trial.

“I am stunned by the depth of the defendant’s deception,” Kiesel said, adding that she hoped to send a message to Sorokin’s internet following “that her behavior is unacceptable.”

“Certainly she didn’t think about the people she scammed,” the judge added.

The sentencing capped a spectacular case that drew international attention and tabloid headlines. Netflix and HBO are both working on shows based on Sorokin’s audacious efforts to finagle her way into the Manhattan socialite scene.

She was convicted last month on multiple counts of larceny and theft and has been in custody since her October 2017 arrest— time behind bars that will be credited toward her sentence. The judge also ordered Sorokin to pay nearly $200,000 in restitution and a $24,000 fine.

U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement said it will seek to deport Sorokin to Germany following her release from state prison.

Moments before she was sentenced, Sorokin briefly addressed the court, saying, “I apologize for the mistakes I made.”

Her defense attorney, Todd Spodek, told a gaggle of reporters that Sorokin was “holding up OK.” He described the prison sentence as “expected” but said Sorokin will pursue an appeal.

“She’s a tough woman,” Spodek said, noting she has been at Rikers Island for more than 500 days.

Sorokin forged a new identity — Anna Delvey — and defrauded financial institutions and Manhattan celebrities into believing she had a fortune of $67 million (60 million euros) overseas that could cover her jet-setting lifestyle , high-end clothing and lavish hotel stays. She falsely claimed her father was a diplomat or an oil baron and falsified bank records. In fact, her father told New York magazine he’s a former trucker who runs a heating-and-cooling business.

Her ruse included an application for a $22 million loan to fund a private arts club, complete with exhibitions, installations and pop-up shops, prosecutors said. She was denied that loan but persuaded one bank to lend her $100,000 that she failed to repay.

In all, prosecutors accused her of stealing some $275,000, including a $35,400 bill she failed to pay for a plane she chartered to and from the Berkshire Hathaway shareholders meeting in Omaha, Nebraska. She went to great lengths to ensure others paid her way, even as she had “not a cent to her name, as far as we can determine,” prosecutor Catherine McCaw said following Sorokin’s arrest.

“An ordinary person would just take coach,” McCaw told Kiesel at Thursday’s hearing. “The defendant did not want an ordinary life, and she was willing to steal in order to get that.”

The jury convicted Sorokin of four counts of theft of services, three counts of grand larceny and one count of attempted grand larceny.

Jurors acquitted her of two counts, including an allegation that she promised a friend an all-expenses paid trip to Morocco and then stuck her with the $62,000 bill. She was also found not guilty of one of the most serious charges in the indictment: attempting to steal more than $1 million from City National Bank.

Spodek argued that Sorokin had been “buying time” and always intended to settle her debts. He portrayed her as an ambitious entrepreneur and said she lacked criminal intent.

McCaw rejected that characterization, saying Sorokin showed “almost no remorse” throughout the proceedings. The prosecutor said Sorokin seemed to revel at the plight of her victims and showed more concern for her attire than the emotions of those she hurt.

Trump is not primarily responsible for US economic success

Yahoo – Finance

Charlie Munger: Trump is not primarily responsible for US economic success

Max Zahn with Andy Serwer,Yahoo Finance       May 9, 2019

Charlie Munger joins Influencers with Andy Serwer

President Donald Trump is not primarily responsible for U.S. economic success, says Charlie Munger, the right-hand man of Berkshire Hathaway  CEO Warren Buffett.

“I think [Trump] deserves some credit, but a lot of it just happened,” says Munger, 95, in his first interview after the Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders Meeting.

The U.S. has been awash with positive economic news in recent weeks.

Last month, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reported first quarter GDP growth of 3.2%, which far exceeded expectations. Meanwhile a jobs report released last week found the economy added 263,000 jobs in April, dropping the unemployment rate to 3.6%, its lowest level since 1969.

Munger, a Republican, said the strong economic performance resulted largely from the natural economic cycle and the decisions of Trump’s predecessors in the White House.

Munger made the remarks to Editor-in-Chief Andy Serwer in a conversation that airs on Yahoo Finance on Thursday at 5 p.m. EST in an episode of “Influencers with Andy Serwer,” a weekly interview series with leaders in business, politics, and entertainment.

Munger call U.S. healthcare system a ‘national disgrace,’ economic success thanks to Trump predecessors

Berkshire Hathaway Vice Chairman Charlie Munger sits down with Yahoo Finance for a wide ranging interview with Editor-in-Chief Andy Serwer, saying that the US economic success has nothing to do with Trump. He also said that Democrats hate Trump ‘so much that they’re against him even when he’s right.’ Munger went on to call America’s healthcare system a ‘national disgrace.’

Since 1978, Munger has served as vice chairman at Berkshire Hathaway alongside Buffett. The two met 20 years earlier through a mutual contact in Omaha, Nebraska, where both were born and currently live. Berkshire Hathaway is the fourth-largest public company in the world, yielding Buffett a net worth of $83.1 billion and Munger one of $1.7 billion.

Berkshire Hathaway owns over 60 companies, like Geico and Dairy Queen, plus minority stakes in Apple, Coca-Cola, among others.

Berkshire Hathaway Chairman and CEO Warren Buffett, left, and Vice Chairman Charlie Munger, briefly chat with reporters Friday, May 3, 2019, one day before Berkshire Hathaway's annual shareholders meeting. An estimated 40,000 people are expected in town for the event, where Buffett and Munger preside over the meeting and spend hours answering questions. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)
Berkshire Hathaway Chairman and CEO Warren Buffett, left, and Vice Chairman Charlie Munger, briefly chat with reporters Friday, May 3, 2019, one day before Berkshire Hathaway’s annual shareholders meeting. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)
‘Presidents have always done this’

In his interview with Yahoo Finance, Munger dismissed criticism of Trump’s efforts to pressure Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell on interest rates.

“I think presidents have always done this,” Munger says. (Indeed, past presidents including Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, and Lyndon Johnson tried to influence the Fed.)

But Munger sharply rebuked Trump’s policy goals at the Fed, arguing that a push to keep benchmark interest rates low will ultimately backfire.

“If you’re a politician in a democracy, of course you want people to print money and spend it,” Munger says. “And of course, it’s not a good idea.”

“There comes a point when printing money is counterproductive,” he adds.

Andy Serwer is editor-in-chief of Yahoo Finance.