Free School Meals Could Be Cut

school meals

The government is looking into cutting free school meals for infants at lunchtime.


The Liberal Government of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman launched free school meals for children from poverty-stricken families in 1906, and by 1914 children were given free meals once a day.

Nourishment for school children is extremely crucial, the problem is, it’s costing the government too much money, and it disheartens me to think that in due course free school meals will be a thing of the past.

The scheme saves parents of reception, year one and year two pupils about £400 per child, per year, which is going to take its toll on a parent’s funds if free school meals are scrapped altogether.

It would be a catastrophe if the system was relinquished, and it will put a considerable strain on numerous parents that can’t pay for school meals because there’s not enough money, and a great deal of children will go hungry.

Bringing in free school meals for children was a significant step forward for a child’s well-being, and educational performance, as nearly all packed lunches don’t have nowhere near the nutritional value as school meals.

When a child doesn’t have enough to eat, in nearly all instances the student isn’t able to learn owing to poor nutrition or sufficient hydration.  Within the student’s brain, a biochemical process of learning is happening, by making connections, finding meaning, and working out problems that need lightening fast electrical impulses between areas of the brain.

The development of memory needs physical growth, and reshaping the matrix of brain cells. So that marvellous experience, when the light goes on, and the student says, “I get it!”, is a Neuro-chemical process, as well as an educational one, and by nourishing the brain with healthy food and water, it will optimise the inner environment, allowing a student to truly engage in the classroom environment, and attain their potential.

Nevertheless, they don’t want them to reach their potential, that’s the whole point of taking free school meals from the shelf.

Next they’ll be telling us that we in fact don’t need to send our children to school – no of course they won’t do that because they want our children to be regimented, because after all, education is run through a politically operated structure that’s designed to keep society, which starts with our children, so that they can dumb them down, lacking the ability of either creative or logical intelligence.

You don’t have to be a fortune teller to see that what we call education is really not intended to better the lives of the children, their families, or society in general.


The basis of education is to suppress society, to produce robotic clones that are purely cogs in the wheel, that only know how to do their little job that they’ve been given to do, and to stop people from having self determination.

The problem with governments is that they’re besotted with making a race of clones that they can have power over at any given time. It’s complete insanity, however, it’s been going on for such a long time now, that nearly all of the generation now have no clue of what’s going on because they, unbeknown to them, have already been cloned.

Looks like the “lights are on, but nobodies at home! ”

Jeremy Corbyn’s Parliamentary Sketch

I quite like Jeremy Corbyn’s Political sketch, however, on the other hand, I dare say it could in fact look a bit like a Punch a Judy show, even though David Cameron had to be on his best behaviour, and that I like even more.

It’s all about the people (men, women, children), the citizens of the United Kingdom, however, the government is a bit inclined to forget about the people of the United Kingdom, unless, of course, there Toffs like David Cameron, and his menagerie of animals he calls his cabinet.

I consider that the people should have their say, and be able to ask questions, instead of MP’s sitting in parliament talking over what and what not we should be entitled without any response from their constituents.


What was it George Orwell said. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. ”

Well, he wasn’t incorrect there.  It’s not about possessions, or the house that we live in, it’s about the quality of life we have while we’re here.

We’re an extraordinary race, and consequently the government should secure that, and make sure of that, instead of overpowering us. However, their behaviour isn’t without condemnation, and therefore it’s only right that the public should be permitted to respond to questions for the Prime Minister, and he should reply to them with good faith, and if he can’t do that, then maybe he should stand down as PM.

Sadly, man is the only real opponent that we have, because many of them are prejudiced, particularly those MP’s with their narrow mindedness, and their creative transactions.

Never listen when they tell you that we all have a shared interest, that the success of one is the prosperity of the others.  It’s all lies.  They’re abusers of the truth, and so are their accomplices, they just wish to draw the life out of you.

Man is your opponent, he has no compassion, he will not pity you, or even give you his acceptance.  The government is just a hindrance, however, they will make you think that you’re the obstacle.

It’s us human beings that are the thinkers, and the whole administration and planning of this nation should be upon us, not the government.  Day and night we should be watching over our well being.

The government just aggravates the situation that we’re in, and we need to take action, because the government we have at the moment need to be kicked from their seats.

The people in government don’t really work, all that they do is direct and oversee others, because with all their higher-level knowledge they think that they have, they just assume their leadership.

They have this huge congregation of people they call cabinet ministers, and they have this huge social event where they all sit in parliament where they condemn the people, and consider us as the parasites of this world.

They sit there and demolish our spirit to the point of no return, and when we object, we either get taken into custody for doing so because we have no power of speech any longer, however, who needs to speak eloquently when you have a pack of attack dogs biting your arse?

They’re just a manipulating pack of animals that sit in parliament and fabricate untruths, as well as promising things that they can’t really bring to the table, which brings them beneath condemnation.


Most of us work hard, but have to live frugally, unless you’re David Cameron, Iain Duncan Smith or George Osborne. It’s a lot easier to tell other people that they should be giving up their iPads and Starbucks lattes when you’ve just bought yourself a £2,000 Italian espresso machine.

To be honest, keeping up with the government regulations is much harder than remembering what we had to eat. They bring in new rules daily, and they hold us accountable for these new regulations, they never hold themselves responsible.

It all appears to come down to class distinction, however, you as an individual can select not to be defined by a category. This is difficult because people have an inclination to be a part of some club, even if it’s the club of losers.

We’re inclined to put things and people into conceptual boxes, and we classify. This produces categorial identity. Rationalising in terms of boxes is occasionally convenient, up to a point, but then we have a strong tendency to give an essence to that box.

People have a varied relationship with money. Some people gather their money, some people love to make money, some people love to squander money, and some people are afraid of it.

Treating everybody the same sources vast difficulties. On the other hand, it makes me unhappy when people believe they’re higher ranking because of their relationship with money.

I wouldn’t say that money is equivalent to affluence, however, it’s a bounty that comes at a considerable price, furthermore, it definitely doesn’t give us our well-being, however, people appear to salivate over these paper notes that we call money.

Nevertheless, what we salivate over is just paper, and we can splash the cash, and advertise on TV, commodities that will make people fritter away their money, however, what it obscures is suppressed conditioning of the mind.


It was an exceptional idea, that Mr Corbyn gave people a voice, because with that voice, it as well gave the person on the other end, the ability to voice their thoughts and concerns, and the idea was actually a well spun publicity stunt, that should be brought into parliament more frequently.

MPs routinely question Mr Cameron on behalf of their constituents, without making such a song and dance about it, and it was thoroughly cunning of Mr Corbyn to think of the idea, and an extremely clever idea it was as well.

It made sure that Mr Cameron couldn’t ridicule Mr Corbyn, or the voter who contributed the question. Mr Cameron had to be on his best behaviour, plus he had to answer without any reprisal.

Maybe this is a sign of things to come, and it shouldn’t be condemned, or thought of as rubbish.  The government is already a fiasco of negligence by their own omission.

Their principles are all about money, and perhaps now they should savour their own medicine, which should be given out on prescription on a daily basis. It might not make our government better, however, it definitely couldn’t make it any worse.

Insufferable Strategies


Thousands of young people could be blocked from claiming tax credits and housing benefit so the Tories don’t have to pay them to EU immigrants. The Government wants to put an end to people coming to the United Kingdom claiming welfare until they’ve lived in the country for four years.

However, EU regulations stop governments from discriminating against immigrants, so ministers are considering expanding the restrictions to British workers between 18 and 22.

It’s thought as many as 50,000 British workers will be affected, many of them young parents.

Labour forewarned the majority of people would find the restrictions unacceptable.


Shadow work and pensions minister Stephen Timms stated the Government should think about adopting the Opposition’s plan to limit access to benefits for new immigrants for two years rather than four years.

He said this would have an effect on fewer people if a lack of treaty alters throughout the renegotiation of the United Kingdom’s EU membership meant the restrictions also had to apply to Britons.

Without a treaty change, which British officials have formerly established may not be in place by the time of the in/out referendum, which they have pledged will be by the end of 2017. The Government has had to think about idea’s which would increase the embargo to Britons to stop direct discrimination.

The residency test plan would apply from the age of 18, and will not take into consideration if somebody has lived in the United Kingdom all their life.

It sounds like the discussions are not going well, and ministers are stirring from their sleep, and realising that they won’t be able to bring about the renegotiation vowed they would do.

The view has been that there is a good case for limiting benefits to new immigrants from somewhere else in the European Union. The policy statement insisted on a two year limitation, but the government has been proposing a four year constraint.

The larger part of people would take the view that it would not be reasonable for ordinary UK residents to be badly hit because the Government’s renegotiation attempts have not attained a favourable outcome.

Nevertheless, the outcome of such will clearly have such an unacceptable outcome for the people of the United Kingdom. We already have a social division that has dominated over our society, however, by clamping down on migrant benefits, it will also have an effect on most of the UK’s claimants, the government will then have full autonomy for everyone.

Our society has no independence, and it’s really sad that this is the way it has to be, or does it?

The problem is everyone appears to be perplexed by everything that’s going on, however, if there’s uncertainty in a person’s mind about what’s going on with the government, then clearly something is wrong, however, the response should be, what are we going to do about it?

It’s not about migrants being here, or the fact that our society is prejudice against them because they’re from another country, or a contrasting colour, or religion, it’s simply because we don’t have the headroom for them in the United Kingdom.


David Cameron is right, we shouldn’t take anymore refugees from war torn Middle East, we just don’t have the room, and it’s not because we’re uncaring racists.

It’s dreadful that this kind of thing is occurring, however, there is only so much that we can do, and as stated by our government we don’t have enough finances to keep our heads above water.

The government keeps bleating on about how much debt we’re in, and that the taxpayer has to put his hand in his pocket to lend a helping hand with the deficit, does that mean by bringing migrants to our country we have to put our hands in our pockets even more to help them as well?

We’re not accountable for everyone else, we’re a really small country that has hardly enough to sustain itself, let alone enough headroom to put these people, and there are numerous other larger nations that could take them in, but in all probability wouldn’t because they’re too occupied taking care of their own populace.

There’s nothing that can be achieved by taking more and more displaced people, and it’s tragic what’s happening, however, if we join the European wide settlement programme for refugees, then the United Kingdom would become involved in a larger scale scheme, acting as an attraction for other migrants, and it would be impossible to differentiate economic migrants from refugees.

Iain Duncan Smith Should Stand Down


Iain Duncan Smith should stand down following disclosures that his department produced a leaflet about sanctions comprising made up quotes ascribed to non existent benefit claimants.

There was an investigation into the use of sanctions by the work and pensions committee, which announced in March this year, and after being caught out so publicly it should be out of the question for Iain Duncan Smith to carry on as work and pensions secretary, and he should do the moral thing and stand down.

This is now another example of not only his ineptitude, but what can only be chronicled as very shady and unprincipled conduct not in keeping with a Member of Parliament let alone a Secretary of State leading a Government Department.

Once again, Duncan Smith has been caught trying to paint a specific portrait of social security claimants. He is a disgrace and should do the ethical thing and stand down. When his own department has to resort to this sort of strategy, in a hopeless endeavour, making it appear as though the system is working, no one can be left confident that his harsh social security sanctions control is fit for purpose.

Only Mr Duncan Smith appears to believe that unjust and unsuitable use of sanctions on helpless social security claimants is satisfactory. And now he’s shown that he believes it’s reasonable for his department to manufacture literature that is fake in a hopeless endeavour to make people believe his sanctions regime is working without bias.


It beggars belief that David Cameron can, in the light of this humiliating fiasco, proceeds to back Mr Duncan Smith as a credible work and pensions secretary when he has presided over such an inventory of mistakes.

In the last few weeks alone, the independent Social Security Advisory Committee has put together a report which states that the Government’s sanctions regime should be given an urgent and robust review.

Furthermore, following the Government’s request opposing the Information Commissioner’s decision compelling the Government to publish figures on the number of people on Incapacity Benefit and Employment and Support Allowance who have died between November 2011 and May 2014, comprising those found fit for work, a Tribunal is now set for November 10th to hear why Iain Duncan Smith has declined to publish these facts.

Not only did Iain Duncan Smith go against the Information Commissioner’s decision to supply these facts on deaths of people on social security, but that he stated in Parliament, it did not exist. But then, just two days later, the Prime Minister said again in Parliament, the data would be published, only for the DWP’s appeal documents to go against him as well, stating publication was not in the public interest.

The select committee investigation reported in March, and the amount of proof that was put before the select committee by religious organisations, academics and nonprofit organisations, not to mention those actually affected by unsuitable sanctions themselves, pointed overwhelmingly to a system that is inhumane and intentionally fashioned to distort unemployment numbers.

The sad truth is that Iain Duncan Smith is doing everything he can to hide the chaos he has generated. Plus, this is a disorder that is ruining innocent people’s lives and, as the evidence suggests, even killing some.

The only plausible reason he’s going to such lengths to hang on to his job is because he knows he has so much to conceal, but it’s all just a smoke screen, and presently he needs to avow his immoral acts, and to articulate that what he’s done is completely wrong.

His conduct has been inappropriate, and he’s a corrupt little man, and he has no moral code at all. His aftermath has sourced a lot of suffering to a lot of people, let alone caused death to many more.

He started off as a very tiny underling, he was just the valet, and now he’s located himself so high up, he believes in that tiny little mind of his that he’s more important than the Queen herself – You’re wrong, Mr Duncan Smith, you’re still that minion, and you’ll never do anything more than shine other peoples shoes because once they’re finished with your services your power will be gone.

Iain Duncan Smith is not governed by greed, but entirely by control.  He believes he has the means to surpass others, however, it’s a large ocean out there with lots of bigger fish to fry, what he fails to remember is that he is a little fish in a huge sea of bigger fish, waiting to guzzle him up.

No one is that irreplaceable, and he is plainly not that astute, or else he would be clever enough to know that he should familiarise himself with the opposition.  It’s not the unemployed that are his opponents, but the people that he works alongside.

More often than not, karma comes to bite us in the butt, and politics might be an aggressive sport that he plays, but if you show off enough, it exposes you to all sorts of surprises, and he shouldn’t fail to remember that.

Law On Assisted Dying Must Change

PANews BT_P-8d9a6181-93dc-4c20-b8b1-5dd0743481e5_I1

The statute must be altered so that people can be assisted to take their own lives without having to schlep off to Switzerland. Sir Keir Starmer who was in charge of drawing up directions that spelt out how people who took steps of empathy might stay away from prosecution for aiding someone who wanted to take their own life.

He’s now set his mind that it’s time for a new statute to rescue dozens of Britons every year from making their way to Zurich clinics of Dignitas to end their lives.

The statute has to be altered, and the important thing is to have precautions. The present recommendations have inbuilt restrictions, which mean that there can be unfairness in a number of instances.

One of the fundamental troubles was that doctors weren’t permitted to assist, which meant that chronically ill people might have to depend on friends or relatives to help them pass away.


It’s hard when a loved one is terminally ill to know what to do, or even do the right thing, and there are a large amount of people who are terminally ill who want to pass away with dignity, however, they are governed by rules and regulations.

Everyone should be allowed to pass away with dignity.  We come into this world with dignity, and then we are looked after by the hospital to make certain that everything is done right. So why shouldn’t we be permitted to go out the same way? – Well, I shall tell you the reason why.

When a child is brought into this world, it has possibility, and is viewed as a resource.  That child will in due course go to school where it will be conditioned by the authorities, then go out to work, where it will slave its little ass off making the government filthy rich.

Once you arrive at a certain age, and you’ve had your children, you’re of no use to the government because you can’t work any longer.  The only way I can describe it, is like this.  If you were a greyhound, that animal labours hard to win its owner money, then when they get too old they are thrown to one side, and not wanted any longer, this is how the government works.


The only distinction in the space separating the greyhound and a human being, is that greyhounds are pursuing a rabbit, and they have no idea why – they have no idea it’s for financial gain.  Nevertheless, we human beings know that what we’re doing is profit-making for the government, however, we need to work to obtain a living to support ourselves, and our families, so we are driven by fear.

Once we get older, the government has no use for us, so they have no motivation to support, or give us anything, especially if it’s going to cost them money, and they’re not getting anything in return.

At the end of the day, we come into this world with nothing, and we all go out with nothing, but most of us have worked our butts off – okay some might not have, but we should still go out with a little bit of dignity, and not only that, it shouldn’t cost us a penny, the government should foot the bill for that.


The only good thing about dying is that VAT is not invoiced for funerals.


Straight forward no frills direct cremation is £895, which includes the coffin.  It doesn’t seem a lot, but when the family doesn’t earn a lot of money, and the departed hasn’t left any money to deal with funeral costs, it’s an enormous amount of money to find, especially when you’re mourning a loved one.

There should definitely be something put in place by the government, so that when a loved one dies they can be buried with peace of mind, and not have to worry about cost, and when a loved one is terminally ill, they should have the decision on how they would like to die.

After all, we think nothing of having a pet put to sleep, it’s the norm these days.  If a pet is suffering, the vet will automatically put the animal to sleep so that it does not suffer.

We’re pretty eager when it comes to animals, however, when it comes to human beings that are suffering, we’re less likely to help them out of pain, and we’re pretty inflexible to that idea.

People appear to be against to certain concepts, if they think it’s injurious because they have been conditioned to that lie, then they will be against the concept, because we have been powerfully conditioned on the foundation that it’s quite normal to euthanise an animal when it’s suffering, however, when a person who is suffering such pain that they just want to stop the agony that they’re in, then we would sooner allow them to be in pain because we have been conditioned that it’s okay because they’re human, and not an animal.

Humanity constructs these building blocks to devise notions in our minds, so much so, that we give way to those ideas because we in truth believe that they’re true. Of course, there are those few of us that wrestle against those ideas because we know that it’s a lot of nonsense.

We are individuals, and as people we should be permitted to do what is most important to our well being, however, it seems that we’re not allowed to do this one thing. The notion that death is a bad thing is not invariably so, particularly when one is suffering from a terminal disease.

Society can attempt to fashion us as to what they want, but there will still be some of us that will be opposed to this, and everything that we now believe is reversible, like cultures and trends, they can alter at any moment because most people have the creative power to do so, we cannot be conditioned forever.

There are contrasting euthanasia laws in each country. The British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics interprets mercy killings as an intentional intervention undertaken with the express intentionality of ending a life, to alleviate uncontrollable suffering. In the Netherlands and Flanders, euthanasia is accepted as ending of a life by a doctor at the plea of a patient.

A mercy killing is classified in different ways, which comprise elective, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Elective euthanasia has been legalised in some countries, such as the United States, and Canadian Provinces. Non-voluntary euthanasia is unauthorised in all countries. Involuntary euthanasia is normally reviewed as murder. As of 2006, euthanasia is the most active area of investigation in contemporary bioethics.

In some countries, there is an alienating national disagreement over the ethical, moral, and legal matters of euthanasia. Those who are opposed to mercy killings may argue for the sanctity of life, while advocates of euthanasia rights stress about reducing the patient’s pain, and preserving the physical integrity, self-determination, and individual freedom to do as one wishes. Control where euthanasia or aided suicide is legal comprise the Netherlands, Colombia, Switzerland, Japan, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Estonia, Albania, the United states of Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Vermont and, starting in 2015, the Canadian Province of Quebec.


Individuals who are terminally ill do not make a decision on euthanasia for pleasure.  It’s a really grave commitment that someone who is terminally ill decides upon.  They have given considerable thought to what they want to occur, and they more often than not, have talked about this at great length with their loved ones.

Euthanasia is the ending of a very sick person’s life in order to alleviate them of their pain. And in nearly all instances euthanasia is carried out because the person who passes away asks for it, however, there are cases called euthanasia where a person can’t make such an appeal.

People have a specific right to die. And a separate right to die is not necessary, because our other human rights suggest the right to die. Death is a personal matter, and if there is no impairment to others, the state, and other people should not get to impede that decision.

We could ask the question, is death a bad thing? And that if death is not a bad thing, then many of the grievances of euthanasia disappear.

Is it because human life is intrinsically precious, or is it because our existence and demise are God’s business with which we shouldn’t impede upon, or because most people don’t want to die, or because most people believe that it breaches our freedom in an extreme way?

Everyone has a route that they want to go down, or a pathway that they want to stroll along. It’s not about the order of life, it’s about the direction that we want to go, and we can be directed on a specific path, however, at the end of the day we all make our own choices.

We are all in charge of our own existence, we are the building block of our own future, and no one can contest that, because we all dance to our own tune. Our aim is to exist in life, how we see suitable, full of aspirations, hopes, and determination.

What we do at the end of our life is very much the same. We are single people, and individually we can determine about how we exit this mortal coil, we don’t need anyone’s consent.

Anne Robinson Absconds with Food


Anne Robinson may be worth an estimated £50 million, but that doesn’t stop her from foraging for food in a bin. The Weakest Link presenter gets into the Freegan spirit by helping to hunt for out of date food that has been thrown away by fancy supermarkets.


In the BBC documentary Britain’s Spending Secrets, Anne is spotted calling on eco-warrior Jedi and his girlfriend who live free of charge in the woods.

They don’t pay out money on food. Instead, they skip food from bins and prepare healthy meals. Jedi explains that every single thing they consume essentially comes from a bin, however, Anne is not ado and happily tucks in to her meal.

The 70 year old contentedly joins in with her recently developed friends as they head out in the dark for a splash of shopping at Waitrose, as she helps them find such opulent treats like salmon, feta and carrot homous prior to being chased away by a security guard.

It appears Anne’s standing helps the three get away with roughly £50 worth of skipped food, however, Anne admits she hasn’t been changed, and still requires her luxury comforts.

Anne as well spends time with wealthy people to differentiate the dissimilarity between spending habits between the rich and the poor.

He may be one of the most wealthy men in the United Kingdom, who made his millions from building trailer parks, but Alfie Best is still frugal by nature and refuses to send his son to a private school.

The reason that he hasn’t sent his son to a private school is because he’s desperate to install the will to achieve success, and no one can do that better than Alfie Best.

It’s understandable that Anne is a wee surprised that with all Alfie’s millions he doesn’t want to send his child off to somewhere he could get a higher quality education, but following the meeting with the self-made millionaire, Anne said that what she loves about Alfie is he is refreshingly blunt about his financial affairs.

His bank balance may have altered, but Alfie has the selfsame values that he grew up with as a child in a roadside caravan.

Anne also talks with single mum Charlotte, who has racked up £5,000 worth of arrears while she aspires to live the life of a footballer’s wife.

Mum of two talked honestly about her incomings and outgoings after greeting the presenter, and welcoming her into her home, but Charlotte, who lives on £213 a week, refuses to let that limit her from getting what she wants.

Anne Robinson is worth at least £50 million.

The television hostess, who gathered her enormous fortune throughout her lengthy profession as a presenter as well as overwhelming America with The Weakest Link, maintains she doesn’t know precisely how much she is worth, however, said she would like to think it’s more than £50 million.

The 70 year old Watchdog presenter, stated a lot of her money is in property, comprising a living quarters on Fifth Avenue in New York, a portion of a house in the Hampton’s, and a place in Gloucestershire.

If you question Anne on how much she’s worth, she doesn’t exactly know, but she’s got sufficient funds to have everything she desires.

Money is something we’re all captivated and controlled by. Yet it’s very British not to actually talk about it.

People will discuss their sex life, their mother’s dementia, their operations, and whatever else at a dinner party, however, people won’t chat about money.

Nearly all people that are wealthy have no difficulty frittering it away, and they definitely don’t appear to care what they lavish it on.  So, Anne can present her most recent show called “British Spending Secrets”, and she appears to be enjoying herself presenting the show, and then gives over the impression that being poverty-stricken is a walk in the park, but of course she can go back to her affluent way of life, and forget about the people that’s she’s been dealing with.

She, without question consistently gives a superior show, however, what people fail to remember is that these people are not putting on a show, this is actual life, and these are actual people.

Many of these people once worked for a living, however, through no failing of their own were either made unemployed, either because of redundancy or ill health, and it’s not a joke, and a subject that should be taken very seriously, and the show makes a mockery out of people that are genuinely trying to make ends meet.

Your Fresh Fish Evening Meal Now Comes with a Measure of Prescription Medication

Researchers have widely known for more than a decade that the pharmaceuticals we consume are inclined to turn up second hand in wildlife. Occasionally this can have dreadful results.

Chemical hormones in birth control pills, for example, pass into the urine and are set free through municipal sewage plants into the environment, where they can become powerful endocrine disruptors. These drugs change the reproductive physiology and behaviour of fish downstream, with effects comprising feminised or intersex males.

But so far, society’s response has mostly been a common disregard, because these are fish, not people. Why should we care? Attempts to perimeter drug contamination have mainly gone nowhere.

Fish counters in community supermarkets where 14 different types of fillets were bought.  They were then tested for the presence of various human pharmaceuticals, comprising the antihistamine found in drugs like Benadryl, and the anti-anxiety amalgam found in medications like Valium.

Eleven of 14 fish portions comprised raised levels of the two drugs.

Furthermore, the fish weren’t just freshwater varieties, such as catfish, or its Asian cousin swai, which might predictably pick up wastewater treatment byproducts in river environments. Saltwater fish, including mullet, cod, red snapper, ocean perch, bay scallops, mahimahi, Atlantic salmon, sole, and Spanish mackerel have been just as likely to be polluted.

So while eating fresh fish may well spur your levels of thriving omega-3 fatty acids, it also advises that it could as well mean unwittingly absorbing a cocktail of unintended drugs, not to mention mercury, PCBs, and other pollutants.

One baffling feature was that a great deal of fish examples came from Thailand, Vietnam, and China, countries that are well known for unlawful fishing, but not usually related to hefty pharmaceutical use.

However, prescription medication usage is quickly growing as those countries adopt the Western way of life. Numerous Asian countries have as well become general drug manufacturers, however, have hardly any, or no rules on what pharmaceutical manufacturers dump into the habitat.

The level of drugs established was comparatively tiny in human terms, because you are not going to handle your anxiety, or your runny nose by consuming fish. Even the biggest absorption recognised would still produce less than a thousandth of the normal therapeutic measure for either drug.

Unintentionally consuming many drugs with the same result could still present a health risk, and some medicines are dangerous if taken with each other. The anti-anxiety medication diazepam, for example, shouldn’t be incorporated with a lengthy catalogue of other prescription medication because it changes their potency.


The significant concern is for fish eating wildlife, because animals like cormorants and leopard seals. Their whole diet consists of fish.

The absorption of pharmaceuticals in any one meal is really small. However, as these animals dine on the same predator fish, and feed on them day after day, the contaminants accumulate in their bodies, and they weren’t designed to be eating any of these drugs.

A drug that is favourable in one species can have astounding and unforeseeable consequences in another. In India in the 1990s, for example, farmers began administering the drug diclofenac to alleviate arthritis symptoms in cattle. However, that drug causes fatal kidney failure in vultures, and because vultures forage on dead cattle, one of the biggest vulture populations in the world plunged 99 percent in just five years. Today, three vulture species are still flirting with extinction.

The effects of a single species can as well cascade through whole ecosystems. A short time ago, a human contraceptive by-product was added at typical levels in a tiny, remote lake. Because of the disruption to their procreative lives, fathead minnows, a common prey fish, disappeared inside of two years. After four years, slimy Sculpin, a further prey species, were down to 1 percent of their previous numbers.

Lake Trout. Salvelinus namaycush.

Lake Trout. Salvelinus namaycush.

The devastation worked its way up the food chain to lake trout, the crown predator, which decreased as much as 42 percent over a seven year study.

Removing drug residues from wastewater treatment plant waste is very costly, particularly for expanding countries that haven’t yet constructed even the most basic sewage treatment. However, in nearly every ecosystem, humans are at the summit of the food chain. What takes place in the plant and wildlife close by will eventually happen to us.


Consider that, and let your lawmakers know what you think the next time you step up to the seafood counter, or reach for a prescription medication.

Pharmaceutical companies have developed the vast number of medicines known to humankind, however, they have financially gained handsomely from doing so, and not at all times by legal methods.

The United States pay a good way more than anyone, anywhere else in the world for brand name prescription medications, and pharmaceutical companies spend a lot more money on experimentation, however, they pay out almost twice as much on marketing as they spend on research. They as well make more in financial gain, on average, as they spend on experimentation.

Making medication by pharmaceutical companies is not done with any empathy at all. There is a specific structured preparation when making drugs for ailing people. It’s an administration of parasites that don’t care how they make money, or what is seeping back into the environment, and it’s horrifying. Not only is it unpleasant, but people are unwilling to do anything about it.

It’s clear that medication is imperative, we would be stupid to believe otherwise, however, every new medication that comes out is costing billions of pounds to manufacture, however, they make more than that in revenue.

The conclusion, is that making medication is profit making, however, it still overflows back into the environment, there are no two ways about it, and they know that people that are sick require pharmaceutical companies.

Circumstances make the demand, and it has an effect on all of us at some time or another. We are the architect of our own design, and we are the motivating force that drives them along to make another medication for its profit making scheme.

We supply them with enough ammunition that sustains them, and we cultivate a thriving business – we make it possible.