Ayra Wang BioLogiQ, a technological company, has developed a method to convert potato starch into a plant-based material. This innovative material can be manufactured into reusable cups and cutlery, significantly contributing to the reduction of carbon emissions in urban areas. The company's breakthrough technology was recognized with a gold award at the 4th Asia Exhibition of Innovations and Inventions, held at the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre on December 5 and 6. Ken Kramer, BioLogiQ's president and chief technology officer, called the award an affirmation of the hard work by the company's research and development team. He expressed hope that their invention would help mitigate human-caused pollution and promote sustainable development for future generations. "I've been involved in the plastic manufacturing industry for over 30 years, and I understand the environmental harm caused by fossil fuels and plastics," Kramer said in an exclusive interview with Sing Tao Daily, a sister publication to The Standard. Founded in 2011, the US-based company expanded into Asia in 2019, establishing its regional office in Hong Kong and a factory across the border in Shaoguan. Kramer said that the plant-based material is derived from crops such as potatoes and corn and can reduce carbon emissions by up to 46 percent compared to conventional plastics. "Fossil fuels are not renewable and contribute to pollution, whereas plants can be regrown and absorb carbon dioxide during their growth," he said. Plant-based materials, he added, are often stronger than those made from fossil fuels. Kramer highlighted the fact that plant-based materials are more cost-effective than wood, bamboo and paper, especially now that the SAR government is promoting a citywide plastic-free lifestyle. "Cutting down trees or bamboo is detrimental to the environment, as it takes years for trees to grow back," he said. "In contrast, crops like potatoes and corn can be harvested two to three times a year, allowing factories to utilize existing machinery for plant-based material production," he said. While the company's products can contain up to 50 percent plant-based materials, they typically mix in 10 to 25 percent traditional plastics to keep costs manageable for consumers. Kramer's aim is for some products to achieve 100 percent plant-based content for agricultural use next year, with plans to develop entirely plant-based products within five years. Linda Lee Wai-ling, the company's managing director, said the plant-based material is converted from the starch of potatoes or corn. BioLogiQ also plans to recycle wastewater containing starch from fry production facilities as a raw material. Lee reassured people that using crops for plastic does not impact the food supply, as the plant-based materials industry currently uses only 0.02 percent of agricultural land, and that is projected to rise to just 0.073 percent by 2028. "It's not a waste of food; starch is already used in paper production, though many people may not realize it," Lee said. The company aims to integrate environmental protection into everyday life by producing household items like reusable tableware, cups and food bags made from plant-based materials. "We want consumers to engage in environmental protection easily and affordably," Lee said. Plant-based materials, she added, can help reduce microplastic contamination in the food chain, protecting human health. "Currently, over 90 percent of plastic waste ends up in landfills or nature, breaking down into microplastics that pollute oceans and soil. These microplastics can eventually enter the food chain," she said. The company is in discussions with local juice producer Bless to create containers, packages and plastic bags made from plant-based materials, with anticipated discounts for consumers next year. Lee said plant-based materials are 100 percent compostable, non-toxic and environmentally friendly, making them ideal for non-reusable items aimed at reducing pollution. BioLogiQ plans to expand the use of plant-based non-woven materials into various applications, including disposable masks, hospital protective clothing and diapers, which cannot be reused due to hygiene concerns.GNX has taken over the rap world this afternoon thanks to one of the most out of nowhere releases in recent memory. Kendrick Lamar is sitting on the throne once again in 2024, even though he never really left it to begin with. It boasts 12 all-new tracks, unless you don't count "squabble up" as one of those. So far, his fans are not surprisingly anointing it as the best record of the year. It is really early, but on our first few listens, it sounds like there will be a lot to uncover. There are tracks that are already hitting for us and for others, which is a great sign. But you know a new album is great when even an artist's staunchest haters are appreciating it. DJ Akademiks is one of those people, and his review was a shocking one. He was defending it against some of his livestream viewers that were tearing it down. You could maybe throw in Ralfy the Plug too, who's past thoughts would suggest just that. In an interview right after the Pop Out , Ralfy alluded that Kendrick Lamar may not have a lot of respect for the former's late brother, Drakeo the Ruler. "There was probably a lot of people on that stage that probably don't like Drakeo," he said. Overall, the latter has been widely credited as one of the most influential voices and trendsetters in the West Coast. Read More: Kendrick Lamar "GNX" Full Credits: SZA, Mustard, Roddy Ricch & More But still, despite the late and very great Nipsey Hussle was deservedly given a tribute at Kendrick's unifying show, he felt Drakeo should have as well. On top of this, Ralfy the Plug also believed that Lamar bit off of his sibling's flows for "Not Like Us," which also stirred up some controversy. However, he seems to have moved past any potential issues because he's also giving high marks for Lamar's record. He tweeted out, "I ain't gone lie this new tape is kdot not Kendrick or Kenny he came kdot on that tape🔥and he got some 🏆s on there🫡" He may be coming around to the fact that Lamar does in fact have a lot of respect for Drakeo because many fans on Twitter are seeing the shout outs. "Every beat.. every beat bruh a knocker.. rip drakeo the ruler man. Stamp he would’ve f***ed round been one these jaunts," one user writes. "Kendrick been showing Drakeo a lot of love man. I love that s***. I know there’s a lot of LA politics involved with Drakeo and his death, but Kenny been helping to Keep The Truth Alive. Long Live Drakeo the Ruler," another adds. Overall, it's good to see MCs from the same region showing love to their contemporary, and everyone seems to be all smiles with the release of GNX today. Read More: Diddy Blows Kisses To His Family At Bail Hearing Amid Prosecution & Defense's Allegations

Social media users are misrepresenting a Vermont Supreme Court ruling , claiming that it gives schools permission to vaccinate children even if their parents do not consent. The ruling addressed a lawsuit filed by Dario and Shujen Politella against Windham Southeast School District and state officials over the mistaken vaccination of their child against COVID-19 in 2021, when he was 6 years old. A lower court had dismissed the original complaint, as well as an amended version. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on Nov. 19. But the ruling by Vermont’s high court is not as far-reaching as some online have claimed. In reality, it concluded that anyone protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP, Act is immune to state lawsuits. Here’s a closer look at the facts. CLAIM: The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that schools can vaccinate children against their parents’ wishes. THE FACTS: The claim stems from a July 26 ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court, which found that anyone protected by the PREP Act is immune to state lawsuits, including the officials named in the Politella’s suit. The ruling does not authorize schools to vaccinate children at their discretion. According to the lawsuit, the Politella’s son — referred to as L.P. — was given one dose of the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at a vaccination clinic held at Academy School in Brattleboro even though his father, Dario, told the school’s assistant principal a few days before that his son was not to receive a vaccination. In what officials described as a mistake, L.P. was removed from class and had a “handwritten label” put on his shirt with the name and date of birth of another student, L.K., who had already been vaccinated that day. L.P. was then vaccinated. Ultimately, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that officials involved in the case could not be sued. “We conclude that the PREP Act immunizes every defendant in this case and this fact alone is enough to dismiss the case,” the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling reads. “We conclude that when the federal PREP Act immunizes a defendant, the PREP Act bars all state-law claims against that defendant as a matter of law.” The PREP Act , enacted by Congress in 2005, authorizes the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a declaration in the event of a public health emergency providing immunity from liability for activities related to medical countermeasures, such as the administration of a vaccine, except in cases of “willful misconduct” that result in “death or serious physical injury.” A declaration against COVID-19 was issued on March 17, 2020. It is set to expire on Dec. 31. Federals suits claiming willful misconduct are filed in Washington. Social media users described the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling as having consequences beyond what it actually says. “The Vermont Supreme Court has ruled that schools can force-vaccinate children for Covid against the wishes of their parents,” reads one X post that had been liked and shared approximately 16,600 times as of Tuesday. “The high court ruled on a case involving a 6-year-old boy who was forced to take a Covid mRNA injection by his school. However, his family had explicitly stated that they didn’t want their child to receive the ‘vaccines.’” Other users alleged that the ruling gives schools permission to give students any vaccine without parental consent, not just ones for COVID-19. Rod Smolla, president of the Vermont Law and Graduate School and an expert on constitutional law, told The Associated Press that the ruling “merely holds that the federal statute at issue, the PREP Act, preempts state lawsuits in cases in which officials mistakenly administer a vaccination without consent.” “Nothing in the Vermont Supreme Court opinion states that school officials can vaccinate a child against the instructions of the parent,” he wrote in an email. Asked whether the claims spreading online have any merit, Ronald Ferrara, an attorney representing the Politellas, told the AP that although the ruling doesn’t say schools can vaccinate students regardless of parental consent, officials could interpret it to mean that they could get away with doing so under the PREP Act, at least when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines. He explained that the U.S. Supreme Court appeal seeks to clarify whether the Vermont Supreme Court interpreted the PREP Act beyond what Congress intended. “The Politella’s fundamental liberty interest to decide whether their son should receive elective medical treatment was denied by agents of the State and School,” he wrote in an email to the AP. “The Vermont Court misconstrues the scope of PREP Act immunity (which is conditioned upon informed consent for medical treatments unapproved by FDA), to cover this denial of rights and its underlying battery.” Ferrara added that he was not aware of the claims spreading online, but that he “can understand how lay people may conflate the court’s mistaken grant of immunity for misconduct as tantamount to blessing such misconduct.” John Klar, who also represents the Politellas, went a step further, telling the AP that the Vermont Supreme Court ruling means that “as a matter of law” schools can get away with vaccinating students without parental consent and that parents can only sue on the federal level if death or serious bodily injury results.(Reuters) - Honeywell on Monday cut its profit and sales forecasts for the fourth quarter and the full year to take into account investments associated with an agreement to provide aviation-related technology for Bombardier's aircraft. Honeywell's shares fell about 2% to $226 after the bell. The agreement will provide Honeywell's avionics, propulsion and satellite communication technologies for Bombardier's aircraft. Honeywell said it expects the agreement to have a near-term impact on its financials, given the investments for research and development. The company added that it estimates revenue potential of up to $17 billion over the duration of the agreement. Honeywell lowered its fourth-quarter sales forecast to between $9.8 billion and $10.0 billion, from its prior forecast range of $10.2 billion to $10.4 billion. It also cut its adjusted earnings per share outlook to between $2.26 and $2.36, compare with its previous forecast range of $2.73 to $2.83. Honeywell and Bombardier also said that all pending litigation between the companies has been resolved. Bombardier had previously alleged Honeywell of selling propulsion systems to its rivals on more favorable terms, despite guarantees that the Canadian planemaker would get the best price. (Reporting by Abhinav Parmar in Bengaluru; Editing by Shounak Dasgupta)