>> the government is prepared to carry out mass array... >> if you want free press in the new democracy, let the journalists live. the supreme court hands down a divisive ruling on freedom of religion and obamacare. i'm moantonio mora, welcome to "consider this", that story and more starting now. >> a major ruling involving the hobby lobby case. >> countries may refuse to pay for certain types of contraception if it conflicts beliefs. >> five male justices ruled discrimination specifically against women is not discrimination in their book.

>> journalist yester-honic has you thinking about beauty. this unretouched photo was send to graphic artists in 25 beautiful." >> there's no universal standards. joo in a hotly debated ruling, the supreme court ruled that some companies could opt out of some co essential coverage. the 5-4 decision is a significant victory and marks the first time the highest court allowed for-profit companies an ability to chair a dissenting belief. others believe it opens the door. the white house responded, calling on congress to make of. >> today's decision jeopardizes the health of women employed by the companies. we'll work with congress this

make sure any women will have the same coverage of vital health services. >> we are joined by legal counsel for the becket found, representing hobby lobby in the security case. good to have you with us. you must be pleased with the ruling. what do you say as you heard at the white house, and others that disagreed. the obama administration says it promotes public health, women have equal access to health care services and doctors, not employers, should decide what form of contraception is best. >> absolutely. we at the beck the fund agree that doctors and patients should make their open decisions. it's the government, not the greens that are dragging them into the doctor's office. the greens are a family who established hobby lobby as a business in their garage in 172. they are unusual, as far as american corporations go was

dazed and barbara green and their daughter and two sons own all of hobby lobby, and they still make the day to day business decisions. they are the ones sitting around the table and deciding what will go into the health plan. they have a great health plan, a gold standard. they know that, that's part of their faith that they have to take care of their employees. they do that in all kind of way, paying them twice the minimum wage, they close on sundays, losing about a million a year to do that. they excluded abortions and abortion-causing drugs from the health care plant. there's a new class of contra-septemberives, the emergency contra-septemberives that the f.d.a. admits can destroy a newly developing human life. many groups object, southern baptists, southern bishops object to it belief.

>> you are fighting for dropping morning after pill and iuds, but not other birth control, including the birth control pill, because the issue for the groons are methods they see as tantamount to apportion. >> the groons cover the pill and other contraceptions required under the mandate, not the emergency contraceptive. the greens face an issue of moral complexity. we all face questions of moral complicity. and our faith informs how we despite the issues. the obama administration adopted the mandate knowing it would violate the bloofs of millions of americans. the catholic bishops told them that, and they removed 400,000 public comment when they floated the rule. that's the most public comments submitted on any federal regulation in american history.

they knew they were doing it, but did it nonetheless. >> what do you say about unintended consequences. requiring the coverage would reduce unintended pregnancies, reducing abortions. if people don't have access to birth control they want, you may have more. >> that's one way to draw the moral line or weigh the moral concerns. many americans draw the line that way. the greens and the hahns, didn't draw the line that way, the catholic bishops haven't and others haven't. the first amendment says, and what the supreme court said was you are still protected by the first amendment. you still have the fundamental right of religious freedom, even if you happen to incorporate your family business. i think the court got it right..

>> it's limited to corporations that are closely held by a family like the groons. what do you say to justice ginsberg and the dissenters who lambasted the opinion. she said that this could lead to a parade of hor ibles, including that a whole slew ofkm could come -- of companies could come forth saying any law they don't like is a burden on their religious freedom, and brought up skypetologists who don't believe in psychiatric medications and jehovah witnesses, that it could open consequences. >> the religious freedom information act has been on the books for 20 years, and courts balanced claims against the government's interest. in a cas of blood transfusions - i have been practicing in the area for a while. i never heard of a jw trying to limit someone else's blood transfusions as opened to their own.

these cases have never come up. skypetologist, gentlemen heava's witnesses - they were free to bring the claims, they didn't do it. let's talk about what is going on. the government is trying to impose a mandate on the little sisters of the poor and mother angelica. he was facing millions in i.r.s. fines and refused to back down. only because the 11th circuit court of appeals blocked the i.r.s. what we need to focus on is the government's effort to coerce ordinary americans with deep-seated objections to the contraceptive mandate, from serving them. the government has a lot of willing partners. why not partner with the people who agree with the government's policies, if the duration are important to get out.

why coerce the little sisters of the poor and the groons and the huns. the court-protected hobby lobby. i hope the government gets the message and acts to protect the little sisters of the poor. >> many issues by this important decision. pleasure to have you with us. >> thank you. >> for more on what the ruling means we are joined by al flied. >> kaiser family found 85% of american organizations offered contra-septemberives as part of health insurance. hobby lobby offers a few, there's a few they are concerned are tantamount to abortion. is it a mind field or are we talking about a narrow opinion that doesn't affect maniful. >> it remains to be seen. it could affect a lot of companies. they tried to narrow the majority opinion. the four

justices - five in the majority, but the four signing on to the main part of the majoritywrote the concurrent. they tried to limit it and narrow it as much as they could. we are talking about this set of fact, and these closely held companies, family businesses. antonio, nine out of 10 companies are closely held. closely held doesn't mean small, it doesn't mean family, but companies like mars candy and dell computer and toys r us and hooens, the big catch-up people. big companies, multibillion and sometimes with tens of thousands of employees. it could be very narrow, or as justice good afternoons berg warns, it could turn out to be lots and lots and lots of companies, depending on who wants to avail themselves of the opinion and how the court will apply the rule.

justice kennedy really tried to narrow it. >> the concern is they'll use it as a press department and broaden it in the future. let's look at the issue of corporate personhood and something written - the major city, wrote "the corporation is a form of organization used by human being to achieve desired epd", you heard what the hobby lobby judge told me that, this never happened, that a corporation has taken this exceptional. >> that was a terrific interview, and she's a great spokesperson, but the 20 years she's talking about were pre affordable care act, and now we are talking about lots of companies coming up to the court about specifically the affordable care act, which is new legislation. >> which they have to follow. >> which they have to follow,

and as justice ginsberg points out, this is established law. you point out that the majority. the four justices that were represented by justice alito - they get dangerously close to the citizens united case which found corporation are people for the purposes of the first amendment. case. >> this focuses on the freedom restoration act, signed into law, passed by both houses of congress. the question that raises is if you force this family to provide... >> the >> >>..against religious principles, wouldn't you vial out the law. >> that's why they don't go so far to find a corporation is a person. it's a narrow decision. they are saying "we can't force the greens. it's too much of a burden on

their religious rights as religious people to put the mandate of obamacare or the affordable care act on the greens or any other family. it's about the greens, not the company. justice ginsberg says "i'm not buying it, it's close to calling them, the company, a person for the purposes of not the first amendment, but the religious freedom restoration act. >> gallop finds 27% of people approve of the supreme court. congress would wish to have 30% approval. it's bad for the supreme court. >> here are a couple of tweets i got. chris in washington, about the justices - they are an atrocious hoard of misfits hell bent on idea logical ridiculous nous. pat says - it looks like my record of agree with scoelya is coming to a halt. that love af is obvious.

>> and you and i know the courts have gone through ups and downs. we are lawyers. we know that. all the branches of government go through popularity, and justice roberts knows it and is trying to build the institution, trying with his yunanality. a majority are yunnan mouse. >> a majority 5-4. >> she's working on it. >> jamie floyd, good to have you with us. we turn to struggle for freedom of the press at home. protests continue around the world against the prison sentences of three al jazeera journalists in cairo. pressure is building on congress to back a law protecting reporters from having to reveal confidential sources one was aproofed by a senate committee, but is yet to reach the floor. a different version passed in

may, on an amendment offered by a democratic congressman, who is a passionate lilerral. i'm joined by the congressman. good to have you with us. your language would block prosecutors forcing journalists to give up confidential sources to the government. you got about a quart are of republicans to vote with you, and you may have had more if it was not an amendment to a bill. >> it's the strangest vote count you find for the 113th congress. fewer than 2% of republicans support a democratic promsed amendment. we had a quarter of them. many republicans are constitutionalists. looking at this through a constitutiona constitutional lens. we are bridging freedom of the press in a fundamental way,

making adjourn u a criminal act. >> the text of your amendment is straight forward: some. people that opposed your approach say it's too broad. who would qualify as a journalist or reporter? . >> that's for the courts to decide eventually, it's commonsense. as i issued in the legislative history, people whose employment is journalism, people who work for a living as journalists are journalist. same for reporters. i don't think we should spend too much time or worry too much about the nuance to the definition when nobody has application whatsoever. >> some argue would it be too broad because it include people that don't do it for pay. let's talk about the senate version. that is narrower, it's not a privilege for journalist to protect their sources and calls on judges to balance the interest of maintaining that

first amendment free flow of information before forcing a journalist to reveal a source. do you think your version would fly in the senate or the senate would fly in the house. >> we are looking for a senator to pick up and run with our version. a reason we had this problem for 42 years, one of the reasons why the problem conditions is the fact ta people make it sound so complicated, there's so many nuances. if you delve in to the bill passed once or twice in the 42 years, you find people overthinking the problem. let's respect the constitution and give the words in the constitution the peeping that they have and deserve. let's forget the reporters and them society. >> what do you think of anything happening. the isn't at approved this, it nef made it to the floor?

>> i came up with a novel way to make it to the next-door. one of the hard things in the house and senate is to take a bill and get it to a vote. i wedged this into an aappropriations bill because we have to vote on them. the senate has his aappropriations bill. i hope someone realises this is action. >> we this new york reporter james ricen, he could face gaol for refusing to reveal a source and in this to say about the obama justice department. >> the justice department is being used by the obama administration much like president nixon used an enemies headlines list, tps an officially sanctioned version of an enemy's list. your rehabilitation to that? >> the president, my president - it's word noting that the obama

administration has prosecuted eight individuals in eight different cases for weeks, when the first 43 american presidents combined prosecuted three. that's telling. >> james ricen had this to say about the impact the government's journalism is having overseas. >> they are sending a message to the rest of the world which is dangerous. the home of the first amendment is cracking down on journal. >>, so everywhere else you can do the same thing. >> that's the message you are trying to send too. >> listen, journalists are the bear areas, sometimes -- bearers, sometimes, of bad news, but it's news you need to hear. and you know the old saying, don't kill the es enger -- messenger. we tell other countries what

they should do and they look at how we treat our reporters and say heal thigh self. would you be open to national security exceptions that might be involved? >> listen, we are in a simple situation. there's no application at all at a federal level. iranicly 45 states -- ironically 49 states have shield laws, wyoming doesn't. in the federal realm we have nothing. specific details are not important. what is important is to get this done. >> i am sure journalists are done. real reporting that brings you the world. >> this is a pretty dangerous trip. >> security in beirut is tight. >> more reporters. >> they don't have the resources to take the fight to al shabaab. >> more bureaus, more stories.

>> this is where the typhoon came ashore. giving you a real global perspective like no other can. >> al jazeera, nairobi. >> on the turkey-syria border. >> venezuela. >> beijing. >> kabul. >> hong kong. >> ukraine. >> the artic. real reporting from around the world. this is what we do. al jazeera america. >> i'm ali velshi, the news has become this thing where you talk to experts about people, and al jazeera has really tried to talk to people, about their stories. we are not meant to be your first choice for entertainment. we are ment to be your first choice for the news.

back. in a major change with implications for the u.s., japan's military will not be restricted to just self-defence. shinzo abe's cabinet adopted a resolution allowing japanese forces to take part in collective self-defence and help friendly countries under attack, including the u.s. it was attacked by china and thousands of japanese who called abe a war monninger.

china has other problems. half a million marched in hong kong calling for greater democracy, one of the largest marches in china's history. i'm joined by gordon, good to have you was. do it happen again? japan's military will operate under stringent rules. it can only be deployed if: as i said, it would allow japan's military to come in and fight with the americans if an american ship was under fire, and could take other action different to what it could in the past. >> yes, and could work with the philippines and vietnam. all three are endangered by china. the countries have territorial disputes because they claim everything in the region, and that means japan could be a

cornerstone of everyone's defense plans in asia. >> the philippines are happy this. >> they are ecstatic, and have been wanting to work with anyone, because japan and the philippines are not far apart. have you a knitting toot in the region of what taro oso called the arc of freedom. in 2006 the idea didn't go anywhere because everyone wanted to work with china. now everyone is afraid of china, together. >> is this all about china, the countries, including japan, are they concerned about china's expansionism in the south china sea, taking control of areas it shouldn't. >> this is all about china. if it occurred four or five years ago and the japanese wanted to reinterpreted the constitution, everyone would have been up in arms. now, essentially, you have a lot

of countries quietly applauding the japanese for doing this. the chinese and south koreans are upset. everyone else, including us are happy. some who are not happy are japanese themselves. the country, despite its mill taristic traditions, it is completely changed and has been a pacifist country. there has been protests against the decision. there's thousands that have been camping outside shinzo abe's house. will the laws that need to be passed to make sure this goes through, will they go through, because the party has control of both houses of the legislature. >> this is a political done deal. abe has done all the work in tokyo. it will take a bit of time, probably october, for the legislation to be enacted. every time the chinese do something, there'll be a number

of instance, it means the chances of this being derailed are less and less. >> i know the u.s. is happy about it too. but is there the danger that this could trigger an arms race in the far east. japan, again, has the history with china, south korea, where the japanese are not well liked past. >> you can't trigger an arms race in asia, it's racing towards arms build up. we see this not only in japan, but, of course, in vietnam, the philippines, india, all around the south and east. these countries are threatened. there has been a build up. this is something that is worrying. this has been going on for half a decade and will continue as china asserts more and more territory as its own. >> it's been happening everywhere in the east, not just the far east. final question about the protests in hong kong.

massive protest calling for democracy. any chance of that? >> yes, there is. you had half a million in the streets, according to one count. if you go back to the beginning of june, the issue was flagging, then the white paper and everyone is energized. what you seeing is large protests and we'll see more between now and the end of the year and this co change. >> and the rest of china, could china? >> you never know. the chinese are concerned about the democracy movement. once they get into the mainland, they can spread anywhere. people are selected by social media, they are having national conversations. anything could happen when you have an unhappy party and a declining economy. put them together and you could have an explosion. >> so much going on throughout the world. gordon chang, great to have you

to talk about the far east. ukraine's gradual ceasefire with pro-russian forces is over. president petro porashenko says his troops will go on the defensive against the sprattist ending a 10 day attempt to end the violence, his office issued a statement saying "we will attack and free our country." separatists did not give up their weapons and rejected calls to allow international monitoring of the ceasefire. john nan is a photo journalist joining us after two stints covering the crisis in ukraine. great to see you. you have been in and out of ukraine and you witnessed a lot of the fighting. you think we are not getting the on. >> i agree, especially because, for example, social media has been taking over, and a lot of information that people have been getting - quitter - it's proppa -- twitter - it's proper

gander from those that dispense information on the internet and more often than not the main stream media takes the information for granted and spreads it out. >> you think that this has been a lot of misinforms out there because of the new technologies allowing so much to get out. >> exactly. >> the first picture is april 15th. things are getting ugly. russian forces. it's a well-publicised incident. they ceased vehicles, stripped ukranian forces of their weapons. these are pro-russian separatists, faces covered, well armed with weapons stolen from the ukrainians. >> they captured the guys and set them free after a couple of hours and took the tanks. and entire aircraft weapons, machine-guns, everything they could get their hands on. >> do you think they were

getting weapons from russia? >> i wouldn't be surprised if smuggling was going back and forth. >> this is the following day, one of the hot spots in don everybody. there was a huge rally in favour of the ukranian government. this picture is really powerful. there were thousands of people supporting the ukranian government and needed the mrs. to correct them. this is a kid's sand box. >> i think there's about 4,000 people gathered together, protect by the men in the photograph, in the hundreds. that were resume or that pro-russian groups would come in. when that happens, the pro-russians win. >> the police, at times, can't protect themselves. you were in the middle of one of the most frightening moments in all this, which was in luhansk also, when a group of pro-russian separatists tried to take offer and did take over the state prosecutors office and

there were dozens of police officers there, and they were completely overwhelmed as we see in this picture, and you have pro-russian separatists throwing whatever they could get their hand on at the plus. >> there were about 100 riot police in the area protecting the building and they were disappeared quickly and wept into the building to seek application and tried to net with the other side to stop the fighting. at times they had to put the shields on top of themselves. we can see that in the next picture. you can see them in the background hunkered down behind the shield. there was one brave ukranian plif who decided to stand up to the protesters. some of the police were beaten. this guy was brave to talk to him. what happened there. >> he tried to calm the situation so he came out in front of his me and calm

everyone down. it didn't really work so much considering that what happened, as you see in the footage, all of the police officers were call put together and they lost the equipment, their shields and guns, taken from them. there was all kind of equipment used for data purposes. >> you were witness to another fight between the ukranian forces and pro-russians, and in this case the ukranian forces won. what we are seeing is a tack tuck by the pro-russian forces to problematic themselves. >> usually the checkpoints in the technical areas are manned by an unarmed older man, young pro-russians and, you know, the ukrainian army comes and and starts to shoot. the way to recover the retreat is to burn or hours. >> it's really amazing pictures

the i know you have witnessed a lot. it's a shame we are seeing all this continuing there. now that the ceasefire is over. great to have you with us as well. come back soon. >> thank you. >> we'll be back with more of primetime news. >> welcome to al jazeera america. >> stories that impact the world, affect the nation and touch your life. >> i'm back. i'm not going anywhere this time. >> only on al jazeera america.

o you may be surprised to learn that your personal medical information is a tempting target for criminals, and that it's a lot less secure than you might think. in fact, experts who monitor crime in cyber space say the health world is learning with disaster because hackers are likely to succeed in gaping

access to medical and financial records of thousands of americans. it's not just record and insurance information, but social security, birth date, bank account numbers. the list goes on and on. what can you do about it? apparently not a lot. joining us from washington dv is dr robert vau, serving as the president of the american association, and global chief medical officer, an information, technology service asks solutions company. you are quoted as saying this is an arms race between criminals and those trying to protect health data and an issue going across the health care world, there's vul ner ability with the obamacare programme, state governments. montana health officials admitted that a security breach compromised health records of 1.3 million people. how serious a problem is this? >> i think it's a serious problem. as a physician i'm concerned

about the health of my patients. i'm concerned about the viber health of my patients. there's a lot of vul ner abilities in the health system where records are being accessed by criminals. they highly valuer health information. the street value of a credit card is also than the value of a record. a health record is more valuable to a criminal than a credit card. they'll go after the valuable health records. that's why i believe there's an arms race between the criminal elements and those trying to protect the records. >> will you explain why is it that that health information is so valuable. >> what my colleagues tell me is that the criminal elements value the health record because there's so much information, it's to rich that they can create a strong identity, false yited, which they can use

fraudulently to obtain loans, to purchase things, to do fraudulent medical procedures using that very strong identity. a credit card can be turned off with a call to 1800 i lost my credit card you cannot turn off record. >> they could get prescriptions for narcotics and sell those, and all this being done in your name, and the person whose name they stole. now, it also is - seems that the amount of attacks is tremendous. there's 17,000 aattempts every our by hackers on the state system. it's six million aments a year. i assume if it happens in montana, it happens elsewhere. >> i tell people that it's time health care used industrial

strength cyber security to protect the records that it was entrusted with. we have seen the industrial strength cyber security in other industries like financial services and the government. a lecture i have at csc is i work with people, and i believe it is time to use the experience and expertise in the health care. the criminal elements targetting other secrets are targetting our health records. area. >> seems there's a disproportionate number of breaches within the health care industry. i imagine doctors want to spend money and time in hospitals on taking care of patients. they may not have focussed on this, but what can individuals do. do. >> like we protect financial information, we need to be careful who we give it to to

make sure we are holding it securely. we need to ask the same kind of questions of financial institutions, and other people that we give personal information to. awareness, what you do will be helpful to get the word out that there is a vulnerability and patients and people need to pay for attention to this aspect of information lives. >> it's a brave new technological world. thank you for calling attention to this problem. >> pleasure. the use of trained elephants in circuses has a long history dating back to roman times, it's likely that abuse of the great animals goes back that far as well. a bill recently introduced in congress hopes to end the trad scpigs abuse. bone -- tradition and abuse. known as the travelling exotic protection act it outlaws the use of animals of any kind in u.s. circuses.

according to my nest guess it can not come fast enough. joining he ms kramer, an organization that cam pains against animal use in entertain: jan, it's a pleasure to have you on the show. let's begin with a video. some of it is disturbing. it shows elquantities being a -- elephants being abused. it shows elephants used for children's ride controlled with bull hooks, metal bars, stun guns, and at one point the elephants begin to get out of control and the trainers react by fitting and prodding them. how did you get the video, what this? >> this is the kind of thing we monitor all of the time. you know, the problem that the authorities have, like the occupational health and safety administration, the u.s. da, the problem they have with

enforcement and protection of the animals and people is that the circuses are contantly travelling. by the time an official gathered together evidence and is putting a case toot the circus -- together, the circus has mooed on. the fact is that the animals are crust rated. they are abused. in distress and at some point they are going to explode. there's no way to keep the animals in these travelling circuses and ensure public safety and the animals themselves and the workers. >> the elephants are used, they are the same ones used in rides with small childrenful. >> you see in the video they give rides to children and some of the elephants here having the

fight escaped in missouri. march they escaped and wept on the rampage. the point that we are making to congress is this has to stop. 27 countries around the world have ended the use of wild animals or all animals in travelling circuses because they locked at the evidence and with the best will in the world, the travelling circuses can't keep the the animals in conditions that can keep them healthy and happy. the only way... >> that's your point. if they were treated well, the conditions are such that inherently it means they are not treated well, because they have no space to roam, they are forced to do things unnatural to them. you are planning to send some of this material elsewhere. do you thing they'll take action. i know there's a number of jurisdictions in the united states, not just countries

around the world that banned circuses with these animals. >> 44 jurisdiction in the u.s. banned animals and travelling circuses. we are hoping to see more. all the time now we have various towns, cities coming to us for the information. people can see the problems with the animals and members of the public. this is something that we know more. we should change the waya use at least animals or treat them and our view of them. >> we contacted the company that you say involves the cap calls, carson and barps, and they responded with the following:

. >> what do you say to them? >> well, they are using stun guns. the way those electric stun guns are used is abuse, and i think anyone looking at the video can see the animals - i mean one animal, elephant screams and cries out. you hear her crying, you know that she is suffering there. and what we are saying is it that in those circumstances, in a travelling circus, those workers are going to abuse the animals. it's inevitable, because they control. >> the circuses say the care and treatment of the animals is of utmost importance to their company, rinkly brothers, barnum and bailey in 2011 was forced to

pay $270,000, a record for violating the animal welfare act. is there enough monitoring. do you think the new law will pass. will things change is this. >> i think the new law will pass. i think that people have a greater understanding of the needs of other species and the animals, they can see that they are suffering. most decent people do not want to see animals abused for entertainment. that is what will push the law through. >> you have another video that was very powerful, entitled no fun for elephants. what did you find there? >> again repeated use of stun guns, electric shock devices, beating of elephants with bull hooks and pretty of anything that comes to hand. behind the scenes, in a travelling circus the animals

are treated in a way that most de-kent people -- decent people would find offensive and believe abusive. the fact ta people don't find anything wrong with it says more about those people. >> it's sad to see the great animals treated that way. a pleasure to have you back. thank you for call attention to all this. appreciate your time. >> start with one issue education... gun control... the gap between rich and poor... job creation... climate change... tax policy... the economy... iran... healthcare... ad guests on all sides of the debate. >> this is a right we should all have... >> it's just the way it is... >> there's something seriously wrong... >> there's been acrimony... >> the conservative ideal... >> it's an urgent need... and a host willing to ask the tough questions >> how do you explain it to yourself? and you'll get... the inside story ray suarez hosts inside story weekdays at 5 eastern

only on al jazeera america >> al jazeera america presents a self portrait of generation now... >> so many of my friends is pregnant... >> i feel so utterly alone... >> you need to get your life together >> i'm gonna do whatever needs to be done... >> ya boy is lookin' out to becoming a millionaire... >> an intimate look at what our kids are facing in school and beyond 15 stories, 1 incredible journey >> in this envelope is my life right now... >> edge of eighteen coming september

only on al jazeera america

today's data dive grabs a snack. we americans have become snack obsessed. snacks have become a 35 billion industry, and that is not counting cookies, crackers and gran owla bars. no wonder the number of americans that say they snack three times a day shot up from 10 frz in the late "70s to 56% in 201. the "wall street journal" found while sales of nuts, snack bars and chips sky rocketed, purchases of food for meals have not kept pace. amazing when you consider

snacking became a habit a century ago. nutritionists say snacks have gone from an kagsal indulgence to an al-tern tough to meals, because people can't control themselves. snacking spoils your appetite. a study found half of us skip meals. they have been blamed as a reason more than 31% of americans and mexicans are obese. it got so bad in mexico the government introduced a junk food tack. they have been a god send for several companies. health concerns stopped the growth in sales, they have picked up the slack with its snack foods. snacks and breakfast food paying up 62% of pepsi's business. similarly general mills meals subdivision shrunk by

4%, the snack division grew 6%. the company makes granola bars, checks mix, fruit roll-ups and a variety of chips. hate to say it - i will grab a snack after the show. we'll be back with more of r>>.

>> only on al jazeera america. >> oh my! beauty lies in the eyes of the holder, attributed to plato 2,000 years ago, remain true today. never more so than for my next guest who wanted to explore beauty on a global scale and decided to test the old adage by asking people to digitally enhance a picture of herself with a direction to make her look beautiful. the results will surprise you. joining us from kansas city is a blogger and journalist.

her latest ploegement is called before -- project is called before and after. good it have you with us. how did this start? you learnt about an international free lapsing site called fibre and you used it to contact people who could photo shop. you hired them, sent them a picture of yourself and asked them to do to the picture what they wanted to do and make you look beautiful. what did you expect? >> i expected to be able to identify patterns, if i sent an image to several workers, i'd gret results that looked similar, or maybe i'd see commonly assumeded stereo times that became apparent. i didn't see any of that. what i saw was striking and every image i got, even though it was from an individual, each was distinct.

>> let's get to some images. what surprised you the moment. >> the one i received from morocco. an individual, when i prompted him with a request to make me beautiful, dressed me in a hig ab and brought in elements to a conversation of beauty standard i never assume. it opened my eyes to a different element. it was insightful. >> what entri surprised me is you had the hijab and then he put make up on you, a contrast between the conservative and not so conservative. the u.s. ones were the ones that struck me. i was disappointing. >> they were some of the shocking images. those are some of the images that gave me a shriek or a shock to look at them. >> we are looking at one with the long hair on one side. we have another that will pop

up. you also as you talked about how each country - how you didn't find a pattern. nowhere was more striking than the philippines, in one picture you looked do youedy and in the other a glamor pus. >> absolutely. that is one of the images that the individual opted to put me in what looks like a 1980s business suit. i'm not sure the variations - they are drastic. i really feel like we are, again, something important to remember about the project is yes, we are looking at cultural concept of beauty, but the individual's personal aesthetics. what that individual saw compared to what the other individual saw. >> one of the things that struck me was how so many lightened your eyes. >> absolutely. some lightened my eyes, others the skin tone. i think that says something

about the euro sentic beauty values that we see in many parts of the world, speaking to the concept of globalisation and how it affected what people perceive as beautiful. >> i was surprised some made your knows smaller or changed your jaw. personally, i have to tell you i thought the best one was the unretouched picture and it's proof you don't need to gild the lily. a fascinating project. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> the conversation continues on the website

>> welcome to al jazeera ameri america. here are the stories we're following for you. >> the cycle of violence continues to ple to play out between the israelis and the palestinians. world cup fans are snapping up souvenirs. but some of the retailers are not getting the boost they expected.