Poisoning the Food Supply [Archive] - The Project Avalon Community Forum

onawah

1st April 2022, 02:34

Disgusting Source of the Majority of Urinary Tract Infections
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
March 31, 2022
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/03/31/uti-and-chicken.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&sd=20110604&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art3ReadMore&cid=20220331&mid=DM1143875&rid=1448531422

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
Urinary tract infections (UTIs) affect anywhere from 25% to 60% of women over the course of their lifetime, and hospitalization rates for UTIs in the U.S. rose by 52% between 1998 and 2011 as a result of increasing antimicrobial resistance
Researchers have found the reason UTIs tend to have such a high recurrence rate in postmenopausal women is because the infection can be caused by several different pathogens that are deeply embedded in the tissue, making them more resistant to elimination
In addition to E. coli, bacteria in urine samples included Klebsiella pneumoniae and Enterococcus faecalis, and species in biopsied tissue included E. coli, Staphylococcus hominis and Bacillus firmus
About 80% to 90% of UTIs are caused by E.coli, which is normally found in your intestinal tract.
Problems only arise when this ordinary bacterium is present in high numbers in your urinary system
Recent studies have conclusively demonstrated that a majority of UTIs are caused by exposure to contaminated chicken: American, Canadian and European studies have all confirmed close genetic matches between drug-resistant E. coli collected from human patients and those found on poultry

This article was previously published May 29, 2019, and has been updated with new information.

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) affect anywhere from 25%1 to 60%2,3 of women over the course of their lifetime. According to research published in 2015, UTIs were responsible for 10.5 million doctor visits in the U.S. in 2007.4

A study5 published in the journal Open Forum Infectious Diseases in 2017 noted hospitalization rates for UTIs in the U.S. rose by 52% between 1998 and 2011 — a direct result of increasing antimicrobial resistance.

According to this study, there were 400,000 UTI-related hospitalizations in 2011, with an estimated cost of $2.8 billion. The highest rates of increase were seen in women and older patients.

In the past, recurrent UTIs were thought to be caused by reinfection by the same pathogen,6 but recent research7,8,9 published in the Journal of Molecular Biology suggests this pattern has changed, and the reason why UTIs tend to have such a high recurrence rate in postmenopausal women is because the infection can be caused by several different pathogens.

According to the authors, the data uncovered via urine and bladder biopsies "suggest that diverse bacterial species and the adaptive immune response play important roles" in recurrent UTIs.

Pathogenic Mechanisms of UTIs
Women are more prone to urinary tract infections than men, in part because of their shorter urethras. Adult men have another factor going for them. The male prostate gland actually produces a bacterial growth inhibitor that is secreted directly into their urinary system.10

According to research11 published in 2015, several different pathogens can trigger a UTI; most commonly Escherichia coli (E.coli), Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, Enterococcus faecalis and Staphylococcus saprophyticus. Of these, about 80% to 90% are caused by E.coli,12,13 which is normally found in the intestinal tract.14

Problems only arise when this ordinary bacterium is present in high numbers in places where it shouldn't be, like your urinary system. When E. coli gets into your urinary tract and multiplies, you experience the usual signs and symptoms of a UTI, such as:15

Burning with urination
Frequent urges to urinate
Lower abdominal pain or aching
Blood in your urine (sometimes, but not always)
Cloudy or foul-smelling urine
The reason your body cannot simply expel the E. coli through urination is because the bacteria are covered with tiny fingerlike projections called fimbria, made of an amino acid-sugar complex, a glycoprotein called lectin, which makes them sticky.

This stickiness allows the bacteria to adhere to the inner wall of your bladder and/or work their way upward toward your kidneys, at which point the situation can become quite serious.

Sepsis is another complication of untreated or unsuccessfully treated UTI (which can happen if the infection is caused by drug-resistant bacteria), which can be life-threatening. An infusion of intravenous vitamin C with hydrocortisone and thiamine has been shown to reduce mortality from sepsis nearly fivefold, but many health care professionals are still unaware of this revolutionary treatment.

In addition to the symptoms already mentioned, a UTI in an older individual can also result in sudden behavioral changes such as restlessness, agitation, lethargy or social withdrawal, mental confusion and even hallucinations and delirium.16

According to Dr. Amanda Smith, medical director at the Byrd Alzheimer's Institute at the University of South Florida, symptoms of UTI in the elderly actually tend to be primarily behavioral,17 which can result in delayed diagnosis and treatment. So, doctors of elderly patients exhibiting these kinds of behavioral symptoms, especially when combined with low-grade fever, should have them checked for UTI.18

Recurrent UTIs Linked to Variety of Pathogens in Bladder Wall
What the Journal of Molecular Biology study discovered was that different types of bacteria form colonies deep in the tissue of the bladder wall, past the urothelium layer in many cases, making them very difficult to get rid of. As noted by Science Daily, which reported the Journal of Molecular Biology findings:19

"[F]or some postmenopausal women, UTIs recur so frequently that they become a chronic condition, requiring daily doses of increasingly powerful antibiotics as the infection-causing bacteria gradually become resistant to each new drug.

'For older women, these infections can go on for tens of years,' said Dr. Nicole De Nisco, assistant professor of biological sciences at UT Dallas and lead author of the study. 'Eventually, a patient's last resort might be removing the bladder' …

To investigate the pathogenic mechanisms and immune responses related to recurring UTIs, De Nisco and her colleagues analyzed urine and biopsies from 14 postmenopausal women …

They found that in addition to the expected E. coli, bacteria in urine samples included Klebsiella pneumoniae and Enterococcus faecalis, while species in biopsied tissue included E. coli, Staphylococcus hominis and Bacillus firmus.

'Our findings confirm that bacteria do form communities within the bladder wall of RUTI [recurrent UTI] patients, which was not previously known,' De Nisco said. 'This research is a critical step toward better understanding the mechanisms of recurring urinary tract infection and inflammation in postmenopausal women' …

Future studies will focus on determining effective techniques to remove these bacteria and chronic inflammation from the bladder, finding new strategies to enhance immune system response, and pinpointing the various bacterial pathogens involved in RUTIs."

Factory-farmed Chicken — The Leading Source of UTI Infections
Conventional wisdom has maintained UTIs are primarily caused by a transfer of naturally-occurring E. coli via sexual contact with an infected individual and/or the transfer of fecal bacteria from your anus to your urethra by poor personal hygiene. However, more recent studies have conclusively demonstrated that a majority of UTIs are actually caused by exposure to contaminated chicken.20

Importantly, factory-farmed chickens are the source of most antibiotic-resistant UTIs — a problem that can be traced back to the routine use of antibiotics for growth-promotion purposes, which has allowed resistance to develop. Drug-resistant E. coli strains from supermarket meat were matched to strains found in human E. coli infections as early as 2005.21

Research22,23 published in 2006 confirmed that humans could develop antibiotic resistance by eating poultry treated with antibiotics. Bacteria from conventional chicken, and those who ate such chicken, were found to be more prone to developing resistance against Synercid (generic names: quinupristin and dalfopristin24), a strong antibiotic used to treat vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium.25

In essence, eating antibiotic-treated chicken can cause you to develop resistance to the last lines of defense currently available in the modern medicine cabinet — a steep price for inexpensive meat! As reported by Infectious Control Today:26

"Laboratory tests showed that the bacteria isolated from patients and vegetarians had no pre-existing resistance to Synercid. Resistance was rare among antibiotic-free poultry, but a majority of bacterial isolates from conventional poultry samples were resistant.

After exposure to virginiamycin, E. faecium from conventional poultry and from patients who consumed poultry became resistant to Synercid more often than E. faecium from vegetarians or from antibiotic-free poultry.

Some of the resistance was attributed to a specific gene, and both the gene and resistance were associated with touching raw poultry meat and frequent poultry consumption."

Genetic Matching Links UTIs to Contaminated Chicken
American, Canadian and European studies27,28,29 published in 2012 all confirmed close genetic matches between drug-resistant E. coli collected from human patients and those found on poultry (chicken and turkey).

More recently, a study30 published in the journal mBio in 2018 found 79.8% of chicken, pork and turkey samples purchased from large retail stores in Flagstaff, Arizona, were contaminated with E. coli. The researchers also tested blood and urine samples from people who visited a major medical center in the area, finding E. coli in 72.4% of those diagnosed with a UTI.

In particular, a strain of E. coli known as E. coli ST131 showed up in both the meat samples (particularly poultry) and the human UTI samples. Most of the E. coli in the poultry was a variety known as ST131-H22, which is known to thrive in birds. This specific strain was also found in the human UTI samples.

"Our results suggest that one ST131 sublineage — ST131-H22 — has become established in poultry populations around the world and that meat may serve as a vehicle for human exposure and infection," the researchers noted, adding that this E. coli lineage is just one of many that may be transmitted from poultry and other meat sources to people.

Make Sure Your Chicken and Eggs Are Organic and Free-Range
While findings such as these are a potent reminder to use caution when handling raw chicken and to cook poultry thoroughly, another option — and perhaps the most sensible and rational approach is to avoid factory-farmed chicken altogether.

It's easily among the most contaminated foods in the U.S., as a recent lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture for failing to address high rates of fecal bacteria on chicken can attest to. Factory-farmed chicken also has a weak nutritional profile compared to other protein sources, including pasture-raised chicken (which is also less likely to carry harmful contaminants).

For example, a study31,32,33 by the American Pastured Poultry Producers Association (APPPA), which compared the nutrient value of pastured chickens with the USDA's National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference values for CAFO chicken, found pasture-raised chickens contained:

406.8% more vitamin E (1.86 IUs per 100 grams compared to 0.367 IUs)
About half the fats of CAFO chicken (saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated)
An average omega-3-to-6 ratio of 1-to-5, which is near ideal, compared to the USDA's value of 1-to-1534
Considering the hazards associated with raw chicken, if you're going to eat it, I recommend making sure it's organic and free-range, pasture-raised. Ditto for eggs, as CAFO eggs are also far more prone to pathogenic contamination than organic pastured eggs.

Your best bet is to find a local source of organic, free-range eggs and chicken meat. The Cornucopia Institute's egg report and scorecard ranks 136 egg producers according to 28 organic criteria, is an excellent resource if no local producers are available.

In June 2017, Cornucopia also began working on a chicken report and scorecard. Considering the egg report took six years to produce, it may still be a while before the chicken scorecard is ready. You can contribute to this report by following the simple instructions listed in their June 13 Action Alert.35

How to Treat a UTI at Home
As mentioned earlier, the fimbria (fingerlike projections) of E. coli are made of a sticky glycoprotein called lectin, which is why the bacteria are so hard to flush out. It's not impossible however, even without an antibiotic. While antibiotics are typically the go-to treatment, you may be better off starting out with a D-mannose supplement.36

Mannose is produced by your cells and covers the internal lining of your urinary organs. The lectin on the bacteria's fimbria binds to mannose, which is why the bacteria adhere to the walls of your urinary system.

When you take D-mannose, the E. coli adheres to the mannose present in your urine, which is then flushed out when you urinate. As the bacterial load on epithelial cells lessen, they're more easily overtaken by agents of your immune system.

Infections caused by a bacterium other than E. coli may be eliminated by taking a saturated solution of potassium iodide (SSKI). Both of these treatments are recommended by Dr. Jonathan Wright, medical director of Tahoma Clinic in Tukwila, Washington, and the author of the book, "D-Mannose and Bladder Infection: The Natural Alternative to Antibiotics."

For UTIs caused by bacteria or fungi other than E. coli, Wright suggests taking 15 drops of SSKI in water every three to four hours for two days (three days maximum).37 In order to know which of these treatments would work best, you'd need to perform a culture test to identify the bacteria responsible for your infection.

Alternatively, Wright suggests taking D-mannose first, and if significant improvement doesn't occur, move on to SSKI. A culture test is also advisable to rule out a drug-resistant infection, as this will require close medical supervision to avoid serious complications.

UTI Prevention 101
Prevention is, of course, your best option, and as a woman, there are some specific hygiene steps you can take to maintain a healthy urinary tract:

Drink plenty of pure, filtered water every day

Urinate when you feel the need; don't resist the urge to go

Wipe from front to back to prevent bacteria from entering your urethra

Take showers instead of tub baths; avoid hot tubs/Jacuzzis

Cleanse male and female genital areas prior to sexual intercourse

Avoid using feminine hygiene sprays, which may irritate your urethra

Use a bidet

Fermented foods such as kefir, sauerkraut and other fermented vegetables are great for your overall health, including your urinary system.

The Case Against CAFO Chicken

(There is a youtube video in the article which I could not find on youtube)

Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, consider ditching all factory-farmed chicken from your menu. At this point, there's little doubt that chicken raised in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are a core component of the growing problem that is antibiotic resistance in general, and UTI infections in particular.

Essentially, by using antibiotics, CAFO birds end up driving a cycle of antibiotic use in human medicine as well, as UTIs are typically treated with antibiotics. But aside from being a source of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and a primary route of UTI infections, there are other reasons to avoid CAFO chicken as well.

In my interview with Maryn McKenna, author of "Big Chicken: The Incredible Story of How Antibiotics Created Modern Agriculture and Changed the Way the World Eats" (embedded above for your convenience), she discusses many of the aspects of the chicken industry that many are still unaware of.

As explained by McKenna, chickens were historically rather scrawny little birds that no one thought to consume as a primary meal on a regular basis. The chicken we eat today bear almost no resemblance to the backyard chickens of old, as they've been specifically bred for meat.

A nationwide contest called "The Chicken of Tomorrow Contest," which took place in the 1940s into the early '50s, led to breeders reshaping the scrawny barnyard chicken into the breast-heavy bird we're familiar with today, and a Republican campaign ad for Herbert Hoover, carrying the slogan "A Chicken for Every Pot," eventually turned chicken meat into a household staple.

Today, chicken production in the U.S. has become an industry that places profits over just about everything else, including animal welfare and farmer's rights. Precision breeding turned the boisterous barnyard chicken into an exceptionally docile animal that didn't (indeed couldn't) move much. These new traits allowed farmers to cram the animals together in tight spaces.

Today, commercial chickens are raised in giant warehouses the length of a football field, which can house 25,000 to 35,000 chickens at a time. There, they live in artificial daylight, with an artificially shortened night. Lack of space prevents them from moving about much and, on average, they only live 42 days. So, avoiding CAFO chicken not only protects your own health, it also encourages the humane treatment of animals.

In contrast, organic, free-range chickens are allowed to engage in their natural behavior in a natural environment (outdoors), and can serve an important role in regenerative agriculture and holistic land management. The lack of stress, access to a natural diet, fresh air and sunshine, makes for healthier birds that don't need antibiotics."

- Sources and References
1 Medscape July 19, 2018
2, 6 Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal 2013 Aug; 13(3): 359–367
3 Western Journal of Medicine 2002 Jan; 176(1): 51–55
4, 11 Nat Rev Microbiol. 2015 May; 13(5): 269–284
5 Open Forum Infectious Diseases 2017 Winter; 4(1): ofw281
7 Journal of Molecular Biology April 17, 2019 [Epub ahead of print]
8 News Medical Life Sciences May 12, 2019
9, 19 Science Daily May 13, 2019
10 Illinois Department of Public Health, Facts About UTIs
12 Danish Medical Bulletin 2011 Apr;58(4):B4187
13 UCSF Health, UTIs
14 CDC.gov E. coli Q&A
15, 18 Medical News Today August 14, 2018
16, 17 Aging Care August 7, 2018
20 Wired July 11, 2012
21 The Atlantic July 11, 2012
22 Journal of Infectious Diseases November 1, 2006; 194(9): 1200-1208
23 Science Daily October 17, 2006
24 RXList.com Synercid
25 FDA.gov, Synercid Data Sheet
26 Infectious Control Today October 3, 2006
27 Foodborne Pathogens and Disease July 3, 2012; 9(7): 625-631
28 Clinical Infectious Diseases May 21, 2012; 55(5): 712-719
29 Emerging Infectious Diseases March 2012; 18(3)
30 mBio Aug 2018, 9 (4) e00470-18
31 APPPA April 22, 2015 (PDF)
32 APPA Grit Issue 80
33, 34 APPA.org April 22, 2015 (PDF)
35 Cornucopia Institute June 13, 2017
36 Tahoma Clinic, January 8, 2011
37 StopUTIforever.com Dr. Wright’s UTI Protocol

onawah

1st April 2022, 21:10

United States to Ban Real Meat (in 2024)
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
April 01, 2022
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/04/01/raw-meat-sales.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&sd=20110604&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20220401Z1&mid=DM1137138&rid=1449459778

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
Evidence that The Great Reset is rapidly approaching can be seen in the recent decision by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to ban real meat, and if history is any indication, the same decision may be taken by other countries as well.
The U.S. ban is slated to take effect April 1, 2024
The decision comes on the heels of repeated public appeals to the Western world by Bill Gates to stop eating real meat as a climate control effort
According to the FDA, natural beef production is a primary culprit of climate change. University of California researchers have measured the amount of methane emitted by the average cow, concluding cattle “are the No. 1 agricultural source of greenhouse gases worldwide”
Each year, a single cow produces about 220 pounds of methane, and methane from cattle is 28 times more potent in warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide
Livestock raised in massive industrial farming arrangements, aptly called “confined animal feeding operations” (CAFOs), have also been identified as a source of foodborne illness, and is yet another reason why the FDA has decided to ban real meat in favor of synthetic beef

Evidence that The Great Reset is rapidly approaching can be seen in the recent decision by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to ban real meat, and if history is any indication, the same decision may be taken by other countries as well. The U.S. ban is slated to take effect April 1, 2024.

The decision comes on the heels of repeated public appeals to the Western world by Bill Gates to stop eating real meat and transition to lab-grown synthetic “beef” instead.

Gates Spearheads Fake Beef Climate Solution

(Video in the article of Vandana Shiva & RFKennedy Jr. )

As explained in the Navdanya International report, “Bill Gates & His Fake Solutions to Climate Change,” an excerpt of which was published by The Defender in April 2021:1

“One of Bill Gates’ most recent promotions is his prescriptions of synthetic foods for developed countries as a means to combat climate change. In a recent interview with MIT Technology Review, Gates says he thinks ‘all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef.’

Fake food replaces animal products with highly processed food grown in labs, like fake meat, fake dairy products or fake eggs. It is made possible by technical innovations such as synthetic biology, which involves reconfiguring the DNA of an organism to create something entirely new.

For instance, plant-based meat companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods use a DNA coding sequence from soybeans or peas to create a product that looks and tastes like real meat. Some companies are also investing in cell-based meat, grown from real animal cells, but it has yet to reach the market.

More and more firms are getting involved in this fast-growing market, like Motif Foodworks (plant-based meat and dairy alternatives), Ginkgo Bioworks (custom-built microbes), BioMilq (lab-grown breast milk), Nature’s Fynd (fungi-grown meat and dairy alternatives), Eat Just (egg substitutes made from plant proteins), Perfect Day Food (lab-grown dairy products) or NotCo (plant-based animal products made through AI), to name but a few.”

Beef Production Pegged as ‘Prime Culprit’ of Climate Change
According to Gates and other synthetic beef proponents — and now the FDA — natural beef production is a primary culprit of climate change.

Cattle are the No. 1 agricultural source of greenhouse gases worldwide. ~ UC Davis
A number of institutions have evaluated the environmental impact of cows and other livestock over the years, including University of California, Davis, where researchers like Frank Mitloehner have been busy measuring the amount of methane emitted by the average cow.2 According to UC Davis:3

“Cattle are the No. 1 agricultural source of greenhouse gases worldwide. Each year, a single cow will belch about 220 pounds of methane. Methane from cattle is shorter lived than carbon dioxide but 28 times more potent in warming the atmosphere, said Mitloehner, a professor and air quality specialist in the Department of Animal Science.”

Meat Is Also Implicated in Foodborne Disease
Livestock raised in massive industrial farming arrangements, aptly called “confined animal feeding operations” (CAFOs), have also been identified as a source of foodborne illness. Covered in feces and urine, dehydrated and often sickly, these animals are slaughtered using mechanized tools and procedures that convey these infection-loaded excreta into the final meat product.

The food and food-contaminant combination that causes the most harm to human health is campylobacter, which sickens more than 1.5 million people4 and costs the U.S. an estimated $1.3 billion a year. In second place is toxoplasma, costing society another $8 billion5 annually.

Despite the obvious reality of foodborne illness, very little was actually known about which foods were the riskiest until a report6 from the University of Florida's Emerging Pathogens Institute revealed the pathogen-food combinations most likely to make you sick. The report, issued in 2011, showed that the data overwhelmingly pointed to tainted meats as the prime culprits.

Realizing that pasteurization of animal products such as milk falls way short of protecting human health, the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2014 proposed tackling the No. 1 source of costly foodborne illness — raw meat — by placing restrictions on the sale of raw meat.

The proposal didn’t go anywhere, but the FDA is now pointing to it as yet another reason to ban natural meat sales altogether. Lab-grown synthetic “beef” does not have any of these issues, they claim, due to the fact that all of the ingredients in each batch can be carefully controlled.

Beef Consumption Is ‘Unsustainable’
As reported by UC Davis:7

“With the escalating effects of climate change, that fact has advocates urging the public to eat less beef. They contend it’s an unsustainable diet in a world with a population expected to reach nearly 10 billion by 2050.”

As mentioned, Gates is one such anti-beef advocate. In mid-February 2021, he gave an interview with MIT Technology Review, in which he suggested that that synthetic beef, such as Impossible Foods (which he cofounded with Google and Jeff Bezos), “is a key part of climate action,” as it would eliminate a key source of global greenhouse gas emissions.8

Gates has also suggested that synthetic beef could eliminate the “protein problem,” i.e., the fact that we’re facing a global shortage of protein-rich foods in the wake of the COVID pandemic.9

The strong recommendation to replace beef with fake meat is made in Gates' book "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need," which was released in February 2021. As for the issue of taste, Gates assured MIT Technology Review10 that:

“You can get used to the taste difference, and ... they’re going to make it taste even better over time.”

The irony of Bill Gates — who lives in a 66,000-square-foot mansion and travels in a private jet that uses up 486 gallons of fuel every hour11 — talking about how to save the environment isn't lost on everyone. Two days after his MIT Technology Review interview, The Nation criticized Gates' contradictions, including the fact that his jet-setting lifestyle also makes him a carbon "super emitter":12

"According to a 2019 academic study13 looking at extreme carbon emissions from the jet-setting elite, Bill Gates's extensive travel by private jet likely makes him one of the world's top carbon contributors — a veritable super emitter. In the list of 10 celebrities investigated — including Jennifer Lopez, Paris Hilton, and Oprah Winfrey — Gates was the source of the most emissions."

Impossible Foods Holds 14 Patents, Has 100+ Pending
Impossible Foods' products resemble nothing found in nature. That's why the company holds 14 patents, with at least 100 more pending. "It's not food; it's software, intellectual property" — 14 patents, in fact, in each bite of Impossible Burger with over 100 additional patents pending for animal proxies from chicken to fish.

Natural foods cannot be patented, but Impossible Foods' products certainly can be. Impossible Foods' products are heavily processed and created in production rooms — not grown in or found in nature. Their science project creations are also heavily protected.

And the creator holds all the cards. They own the “food” and are the only ones allowed to make the “food.” All fake meat consumers lacking options for real food will be dependent on the patented ultraprocessed goo.

Circumventing Problematic Labeling Challenge
The idea is that by making the transition from real beef to synthetic “meats” in wealthier nations first, we would have the best chance of positively impacting the environment while simultaneously reducing world hunger.

In the interview, Gates admitted that use of regulation might be required “to totally shift the demand.” With that statement, he’s basically proven his “prophetic powers” yet again. At the time, he confessed that “the politics are challenging,” especially with regard to labeling. He told MIT Technology Review:

“There are all these bills that say it’s got to be called, basically, lab garbage to be sold. They don’t want us to use the beef label.”

The controversy became clear during a July 2018 public meeting convened by the FDA to discuss the naming of lab-grown meat. As reported by The Atlantic,14 various speakers referred to the lab concoctions as “clean meat,” “artificial meat,” “in vitro meat,” “cell culture products,” “cultured meat” or “culture tissue.”

Each term had its advocates and critics and consensus seemed impossible to reach. Now, with the ban on real meat sales in the U.S., the FDA basically resolves this challenge, as no special labels will be required. ALL beef products will be adulterated.

Some will be plant-based, while others will be based on tissue cells grown on a lattice. Mosa Meat, for example, grows their meat after harvesting a small number of cells from livestock “who are then returned, almost unscathed, to their fields.”15 A single tissue sample is said to be able to yield 80,000 quarter-pound hamburgers.

Yesterday’s Science Fiction May Become Tomorrow’s Reality
Food inventors are even working on cultured meat from human cells, bringing to mind the 1973 dystopian science fiction film “Soylent Green.” The movie takes place in New York in 2022. The Earth is severely overpopulated, and for sustenance, people are given rations of water and Soylent Green, which supposedly is a high-protein food made from plankton.

In the end, you discover in this futuristic nightmare fantasy of controlling big corporations, that the high-protein drink is actually made from people. Now, in the year 2022, scientists are working on lab-grown “meat” made from human cells that are harvested from the inside of human cheeks.16 As reported by Tech Times in November 2020:17

“A new ‘DIY meal kit’ that can be used to grow steaks that are made mostly from human cells ... Called ‘Ouroboros Steak,’ this is named right after the circular symbol of a snake known for eating itself tail-first. This hypothetical kit would later on come with everything that one person would need in order to use their own cells to grow miniature human meat steaks …”

These kits are not yet commercially available, but it begs the question of what possesses someone to think that eating a lump of meat made from your own body could be a viable idea? The question must also be raised about whether this is cannibalism.

Those defending the concept claim that since you're eating your own body, it's not cannibalism. However, if it ever becomes commercially available, what's to prevent someone from growing meat from other people's cells — and selling it? And the ick factor aside, how could this impact the spread of disease? For example, tribal cannibalism in Papua, New Guinea,18 led to a prion disease, which nearly wiped out a tribe of people.

In many villages, after an individual died, the villagers would cook and consume the body in an act of grief. Scientists who studied the tribe believe that one person developed a sporadic incident of Crutchfield-Jakob disease, also known as mad cow disease. Eating the neurological tissue then spread the disease throughout the tribe.

How Will FDA’s Decision Impact Public Health?
While much attention is placed on taste — making products that, taste-wise, mimic real beef — few if any are talking about the proverbial elephant in the room, which is the health impacts of fake beef.

Tissue growth inside an animal occurs when the blood supply delivers appropriate nutrients to produce healthy muscle growth. This requires that the animal is fed a whole and balanced diet, from which the body extracts the necessary nutrients in an appropriate amount to feed the cells.

The human body then extracts the nutrients found in regeneratively and biodynamically pastured meat. However, as science has demonstrated in the last two decades, growing cells on sugar causes growth, but will not yield health. The sheer ability to grow lab-cultured meat does not indicate that the end product will have any health benefit to the end consumer.

One primary problem I foresee is the fact that plant-based fake meat contains excess amounts of omega-6 fat in the form of linoleic acid (LA). This, I believe, is one of the most significant contributors to ill health and chronic disease, as excessive LA leads to severe mitochondrial dysfunction, decreased NAD+ levels, obesity, insulin resistance and a radical decrease in the ability to generate energy.

The genetic engineering used to produce the flavor and texture of real meat does not reproduce healthy fatty acid composition because the substrate is canola and sunflower oils as the primary sources of fat. The sunflower oil used in both Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meats is 68% LA,19 which is an extraordinarily high amount.

It is dangerous because LA is susceptible to oxidation and causes oxidation byproducts called OXLAMs (oxidative linoleic acid metabolites). These byproducts devastate your DNA, protein, mitochondria and cellular membranes. This means that fake meat is failing all measures of sustainability and health.

Facing an Uncertain Future
I’ve often stated that if every American decided to purchase humanely raised organic beef, the CAFO system and the ultra-processed and patented fake meat industry would collapse overnight. With the nationwide ban on real meat racing toward us — 2024 is only two short years away — the window of opportunity for change is rapidly closing.

For now, however, sourcing your foods from a local farmer is still one of your best bets to ensure you're getting wholesome food, and I would encourage you to do so while you still can. The following organizations can help you locate farm-fresh foods in your local area:

1.Local Harvest — This website will help you find farmers markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.

2.Farmers Markets — A national listing of farmers markets.

3.Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals — The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.

4.Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) — CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.

NOTICE

This is an April Fool’s article and the FDA ban on real meat is a fictional scenario. A primary reason why we post April Fool’s articles is to act as warnings. We want to wake people up to see what could happen if actions aren’t taken to protect and preserve freedom.

Over the years, many of our April Fool’s “jokes” have come true, including our fictional prediction of adult vaccine mandates and internment camps. This isn’t a coincidence. This is planned, and you can see it happening around you. The future of your personal and medical freedoms has not yet been decided. The ending will depend on you."

- Sources and References
1 The Defender April 20, 2021
2, 3, 7 UC Davis June 27, 2019
4 NY State Department of Health. Campolyobacteriosis. February 2022
5 J Infect Dis. 1997 Dec;176 Suppl 2:S192-7
6 University of Florida's Emerging Pathogens Institute, Ranking the Risks: The 10 Pathogen-Food Combinations with the Greatest Burden on Public Health
8, 10 MIT Technology Review February 14, 2021
9 MSN October 24, 2021
11 Market Watch February 16, 2021
12 The Nation February 16, 2021
13 Annals of Tourism Research November 2019, Volume 79, 102775
14 The Atlantic, July 13, 2018
15 Popular Mechanics, February 19, 2021
16 Mysterious Universe, November 17, 2020
17 Tech Times, November 22, 2020
18 NPR, September 6, 2016
19 EAT Forum, Planetary Health Diet

gini

15th July 2023, 15:03

2EQpYVsmqxM---2 /7/23-WHY SO MANY DOGS AND CATS ARE CURRENTLY DYING IN POLAND?

onawah

2nd August 2023, 19:41

Report Predicts Next Pandemic Will Come From Meat
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
August 02, 2023
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/08/02/report-predicts-next-pandemic-from-meat.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&sd=20110604&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20230802&foDate=true&mid=DM1443942&rid=1872194492

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2023/August/PDF/report-predicts-next-pandemic-from-meat-pdf.pdf

PhAGPQE0H-U

" STORY AT-A-GLANCE
The idea that pathogens will jump species and kill humans is a useful scare tactic, and it’s now being pushed like never before under One Health — a global agenda that will allow unelected bureaucrats at the World Health Organization to centralize power and make decisions relating to diet, agriculture and livestock farming, environmental pollution, movement of populations, health care and much more, for the entire world
A report from Harvard Law School and New York University predicts the next pandemic is likely to emerge from the U.S. meat supply — or the fur trade, or a petting zoo, or from pets.
It reviews all the different areas of life and commerce that involve animal and human contact and the subsequent hypothetical zoonotic transmission chains.
One Health documents are repeatedly referenced in this report
Incontrovertible evidence has emerged showing that the scientists who wrote “Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” intentionally misled the public.
In “Proximal Origin,” the authors insisted natural evolution was the most likely scenario, but in private, they thought a lab leak was the most likely origin
Correspondence shows the conspiracy to misdirect the public was driven by obedience to higher-ups within the U.S. and UK governments, including, potentially, the intelligence community
Based on the evidence now in the public domain showing that the authors of “Proximal Origin” did not believe their published conclusions, Biosafety Now! has launched a petition calling on Nature Medicine to retract the paper

The same people who went out of their way to convince us that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through natural evolution in the wild were privately saying they were convinced it came from a lab.

Now, were SARS-CoV-2 to be publicly acknowledged to be a genetically engineered lab-escape, the obvious conclusion would be that we need to shut down much of the gain-of-function research that led to its creation. Needless to say, that would be a significant setback for the biosecurity agenda, which needs pandemics to justify the centralization of power and decision-making.

Zoonotic Transmission Is Not the Threat It’s Made Out To Be
The fact of the matter is, zoonotic transmission is extremely rare, and most if not all global pandemics with lethal outcomes can be traced back to lab experiments. As just one example, USA Today1 recently reiterated the debunked claim that the 2013 Ebola outbreak in West Africa was caused by infected bush meat. (Another widely circulated hypothesis is that it emerged from infected bats.)

However, as detailed in “Turns Out, Ebola Likely Leaked From a Lab as Well,” there’s compelling evidence linking that outbreak to a U.S.-run research laboratory in Kenema, Sierra Leone. And, curiously, many of the same individuals, companies and organizations involved in the Ebola epidemic have also been linked to the alleged creation of SARS-CoV-2.

The idea that pathogens will jump species and kill humans is a useful scare tactic, however, and it’s now being pushed like never before under One Health — a global agenda that will allow unelected bureaucrats at the World Health Organization to centralize power and make decisions relating to diet, agriculture and livestock farming, environmental pollution, movement of populations, health care and much more, for the entire world.

Report Predicts Next Pandemic May Come From Meat
To that end, a report2 from the Brooks McCormick Jr. Animal Law & Policy Program at Harvard Law School and the Center for Environmental & Animal Protection at New York University now predicts that the next pandemic is likely to emerge from the U.S. meat supply — or the fur trade, or a petting zoo, or from pets.

It basically reviews all the different areas of life and commerce that involve animal and human contact, however brief or rare, and the subsequent hypothetical zoonotic transmission chains. Not surprisingly, One Health documents are repeatedly referenced in this report.

Overall, the One Health agenda calls for minimizing or eliminating certain animal-human contact, sterilizing areas where animals are kept or butchered, and/or increasing the use of antibiotics and vaccines in animals across the board. It also calls for massively increased biosurveillance and testing.

In contrast, the report in question primarily focuses on legislative and regulatory actions to curtail zoonotic disease, including the potential banning of certain animal practices that “present great risk but relatively little value, economic or otherwise.”

Will the warnings in this report be used to justify the transition to fake meat? It certainly wouldn’t surprise me. The fake meat industry wants you to believe that their cell-based lab-concoctions are the answer to today's environmental woes, and that includes the threat of zoonotic disease transmission, as lab-grown meat is grown in highly hygienic and sterile (supposedly) conditions.3

Basically, the One Health narrative is that the natural environment poses countless risks to human health and must therefore be controlled. Meanwhile, it’s mankind’s efforts to control and replace nature in the first place that is causing most of the problems.The ‘Proximal Origin’ Scandal
While the One Health narrative is that pandemics are caused by animals, there’s little doubt that the next pandemic will come from a lab, just like most previous pandemics, including COVID-19. Over the past several months, more and more evidence has emerged showing that the scientists who wrote “Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2”4 intentionally misled the public.

“Proximal Origin,” which became the most-cited paper (a Letter to the Editor mischaracterized everywhere as a serious scientific review), claimed SARS-CoV-2 emerged through natural evolution and spread via a wet market in Wuhan, China, and that there was no evidence to suggest genetic engineering or a lab origin.

Private communications, however, reveal they suspected the virus had leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and had been genetically engineered to infect humans.

Mounting evidence also suggests this act of misdirection (to put it diplomatically) was done at the behest of Dr. Anthony Fauci (then-director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID), Dr. Francis Collins (then-director of the National Institutes of Health, NIH) and Sir. Jeremy Farrar (then-head of the Wellcome Trust).

Correspondence shows the conspiracy to misdirect the public was driven by obedience to higher-ups within the U.S. and UK governments, including, potentially, the intelligence community.
As noted in a July 20, 2023, Public Substack article by independent journalists Alex Gutentag, Leighton Woodhouse and Michael Shellenberger:5

“The documents ... show [Kristian] Andersen and his co-authors, Andrew Rambaut, Edward C. Holmes, and Robert F. Garry, conspiring — by which we mean they made secret plans to engage in deceptive and unethical behavior and — to spread disinformation.

Their conspiracy included coordinating with their ‘higher-ups’ in the U.S. and UK governments to deceive journalists ... We ... today ... release the full cache of Slack messages and emails covering the discussions between Andersen et al. as they wrote their influential ‘Proximal Origin’ paper, which Anthony Fauci and others in the U.S. government used to dismiss the lab leak hypothesis.”

While Fauci’s role in the creation of this paper has garnered the most attention, a more central culprit in this coverup may actually be Farrar — and he’s now the chief scientist for the WHO, a fact that hardly inspires confidence in the WHO’s future adherence to scientific truth and fact. The email exchange below between Andersen and Farrar (with other authors cc’d) suggests Farrar was a key decision-maker.

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2023/August/email-exchange-between-andersen-and-farrar.jpg

Proof of a Conspiracy
A 140-page PDF containing the “Proximal Origin” author’s Slack messages and a 163-page PDF of emails can be downloaded from the Public article,6 in which Gutentag, Woodhouse and Shellenberger go on to highlight some of the takeaways from this correspondence.

For starters, in “Proximal Origin,” the authors insisted natural evolution was the most likely scenario, but in private, they thought a lab leak was the most likely origin.

In “Proximal Origin” they claimed “the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus” and that “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.” Behind the scenes, however, Andersen wrote:

“I think the main thing still in my mind is that the lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.”

Andersen also stated that “The main issue is that accidental escape is in fact highly likely — it's not some fringe theory.” Farrar and the other authors expressed similar views:7

February 2, 2020, Dr. Robert Garry wrote, “I really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario ... I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature ... Of course, in the lab it would be easy ...”
February 2, 2020, Dr. Michael Farzan wrote he was “bothered by the furin site” and had “a hard time explain[ing] that as an event outside the lab ... I am 70:30 or 60:40 [lab].”
February 2, 2020, Dr. Andrew Rambaut wrote, “From a (natural) evolutionary point of view the only thing here that strikes me as unusual is the furin cleavage site.”
February 4, 2020, Dr. Edward Holmes indicated that he was “60-40 lab,” and Farrar wrote, “I am 50-50 [lab].”
Holmes also commented: “No way selection could occur in the market. Too low a density of mammals: just small groups of 3-4 in cases,” and Garry wrote:8

“Transmitting a bat virus-like RatG13 in HeLa cells and then asking your graduate student to insert a furin site ... would get you there. It's not crackpot to suggest this could have happened given the Gain of Function research we know is happening ...

I'm thinking mostly about the PRRA to generate the furin site. Relatively easy to drop 12 bases in. The proline is the hang-up — why add that? Makes me think the cell culture passage scenario is possible/probably assuming this has in fact been observed before by Farzan and Fouchier.”

The following graphic, created by @RAEMKA1 and reposted by KanekoaTheGreat on Twitter summarizes the scientific consensus among the “Proximal Origin” authors:

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2023/August/scientific-consensus-among-the-proximal-origin-authors.jpg

Truth Took Backseat to Self-Preservation
Indeed, Andersen called Fauci February 1, 2020, specifically because he was concerned that the virus showed signs of being engineered. Immediately after that phone call, Fauci contacted Farrar and raised the possibility of taking the concern to the FBI in the U.S. and MI5 in the UK.

Instead, Farrar organized a conference call that led to the creation of “Proximal Origin.”9 From the emails, we know that the genetic engineering aspect of SARS-CoV-2 was discussed. However, concerns about harm to science apparently weighed heavier. After the call, Ron Fouchier wrote:10

“An accusation that nCoV-2019 might have been engineered and released into the environment by humans (accidental or intentional) would need to be supported by strong data, beyond reasonable doubt.

It is good that this possibility was discussed in detail with a team of experts. However, further debate about such accusations would unnecessarily distract top researchers from their active duties and do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular.”

In a February 9, 2020, email, Christian Drosten also confirmed that the group had been “convened to challenge a certain theory,” and if possible, “drop” or eliminate that theory (i.e., the lab leak theory) from the public and scientific conversation. As recently as the day before, February 8, Andersen had made a case for keeping the possibility of a lab leak open, stating:11

“Our main work over the last couple of weeks has been focused on trying to disprove any type of lab theory, but we are at a crossroad where the scientific evidence isn't conclusive enough to say that we have high confidence in any of the three main theories considered.”

Authors Never Believed in the Pangolin Theory
In “Proximal Origin,” the authors went on to blame pangolins as an intermediate host between bats and humans, but in private, they remained unconvinced. The conclusion in “Proximal Origin” reads:12

“The presence in pangolins of an RBD [receptor binding domain] very similar to that of SARS-CoV-2 means that we can infer this was also probably in the virus that jumped to humans.”

However, shortly before the “Proximal Origin” pre-print was published, Andersen wrote: “For all I know, people could have infected the pangolin, not the other way,” and the day after the pre-print, he commented: “Clearly none of these pangolin sequences was the source though.”

Authors Thought Lab Leak Was Likely Months After Publication
The authors also clearly thought a lab leak was possible months after publishing the “Proximal Origin” paper. In mid-April 2020, a month after the paper was officially published and two months after the preprint was posted, Andersen wrote to his coauthors:

“I’m still not fully convinced that no culture was involved ... are we absolutely certain that no culture could have been involved? What concerns me here are some of the comments by Shi in the SciAm article (‘I had to check the lab’ etc) and the fact that the furin site is being messed with in vitro ...

Finally, the paper that was shared with us showing a very similar phenomenon (exactly 12 bp insertion) in other CoV’s has me concerned ... We also can't fully rule out engineering (for basic research).”

In fact, the authors — like so many other independent scientists, researchers and journalists — suspected Shi Zhengli’s work at the WIV could have produced SARS-CoV-2. As reported by Public:13

“Andersen discussed some of her papers in early February and noted his concerns about gain-of-function experiments on MERS and SARS viruses. In mid-April he noted that Shi’s work was ‘the main reason I have been so concerned about the ‘culture’ scenario.’

Cell culturing is a method through which viruses can be passed multiple times through cells in order to render them more infectious and is exactly the kind of ‘laboratory-based scenario’ the authors ruled out in their paper.”

Conspiracy Driven by Obedience to Higher-Ups
Finally, the correspondence shows that the conspiracy to misdirect, if not outright deceive, the public was driven by obedience to higher-ups within the U.S. and UK governments, including Farrar, Fauci and Collins, but also, potentially, other unnamed individuals within various government agencies and/or the intelligence community.

While Andersen has publicly denied that Fauci had any involvement in the publication, in an email to the journal Nature, Andersen specified that the paper had been “prompted” by Fauci, Collins and Farrar.14 If you want to take a deeper dive into how the “Proximal Origin” paper was created, check out U.S. Right to Know’s timeline.15

Scientists Call for Retraction of ‘Proximal Origin’
Based on all the evidence now in the public domain showing that the authors of “Proximal Origin” did not believe their published conclusions, Biosafety Now! has launched a petition16 calling on Nature Medicine to retract the paper. As noted by Biosafety Now!:

“Email messages and direct messages via the messaging program Slack among authors of the paper obtained under FOIA or by the U.S. Congress and publicly released in full in July 2023 ... show, incontrovertibly, that the authors did not believe the conclusions of the paper at the time the paper was written, at the time the paper was submitted for publication, and at the time the paper was published.

They thus show that the paper was, and is, the product of scientific fraud and scientific misconduct. It is imperative that this clearly fraudulent and clearly damaging paper be removed from the scientific literature.” "

Sources and References
1 USA Today July 22, 2023
2 Animal Markets and Zoonotic Disease in the US
3 Food Processing May 26, 2022
4, 12 Nature Medicine 2020; 26: 450-452
5, 6, 13 Public Substack July 20, 2023
7, 9, 10, 11 The Honest Broker Substack July 2, 2023
8 Twitter Kanekoa the Great July 22, 2023
14 USRTK March 5, 2023
15 USRTK April 11, 2023
16 Change.org Retract Fraudulent Paper on the Origin of COVID-19

onawah

3rd August 2023, 05:29

Vandana Shiva: Bill Gates and Silicon Valley Behind Push for ‘Farming Without Farmers, Food Without Farms’
08/02/23
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vandana-shiva-bill-gates-fake-food-farming-rb/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20230802

"On the latest episode of Russell Brand’s “Stay Free,” scholar, environmental activist and food sovereignty advocate Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., discussed food fascism, the power of “philanthropy,” digital enslavement and how people can free themselves from this system.

Human beings cannot have a relationship with nature, land and one another, it seems increasingly, without the intercedence of this corporate power,” comedian and political commentator Russell Brand told scholar and environmental activist Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., on the latest episode of his “Stay Free” podcast.

Brand asked Shiva, a food sovereignty and environmental activist, to explain how this corporate takeover of nature happened.

Shiva said the privatization of land and resources under colonialism was the first step in transforming nature into “either a mine or a dump.”

Today, she said, privatization has become so entrenched that mega-corporation Cargill can own every chicken, chicken production facility, and every input needed to raise chickens, and then dump all of its waste into public rivers.

The situation we face today could not have happened, she said, without the criminalization of farmers — for which she held media organizations like The Guardian responsible because they attack farmers instead of the corporations.

“If the drivers are the corporations,” she said, “you have to have the guts to bite the corporations. You don’t target the victims. The farmers are victims of this system.”

Who are the real ‘food fascists’?

Brand asked Shiva why the global uprising of farmers — from Sri Lanka and India to Germany, England and the Netherlands — against the globalization of agriculture had come to be cast as a right-wing idea by the press.

Shiva said Mussolini himself defined fascism as “the convergence of economic and political power.” “Food fascism,” she said, “is the recent control over our food systems by giant corporations and the billionaires.”

Under colonialism, the British controlled the land, she said, but they didn’t control the food. The advent of agricultural industrialization, the green revolution and globalization made it possible for corporations to take control of food.

The call for “food sovereignty,” she said, “came as the call as opposite to the food dictatorship and food fascism.”

Now, she said, those people want to complete the separation of people from the land that began with colonialism.

Today, they want “farming without farmers.”

Being able to plant a seed, input love, knowledge and sun and produce food, “is the only truly independent production system and it’s that freedom they want to attack,” Shiva said, because they are threatened by it.

So they discredit farmers by calling them “fascists” and “right wing.”

“And anybody who facilitates that is essentially doing the work of these globalists,” she said, “they’re the fascists.”

How ‘philanthropy’ buys control

Today, people who talk about the disproportionate power and influence that billionaires like Bill Gates have over global agriculture and health are regarded as “conspiracy theorists,” Brand said.

He asked Shiva to explain Gates’ rise to power in plain language and with facts.

Shiva said people like Gates became wealthy through neoliberal trade liberalization, where trade in information, in the software and other forms of data Gates produced, went completely untaxed.

Then, she said, they used that money “philanthropically” to gain control of other sectors.

By donating massive sums of money to the global seed bank, to the World Health Organization and to media organizations such as The Guardian and the BBC, Gates and other billionaires took control of those institutions.

It even gives them the power to control governments, she said, who have been made desperate for money through indebtedness.

Gates and Silicon Valley, she said, “are very big players in the fake food future of farming without farmers, food without farms.” And they get journalists such as The Guardian’s George Monbiot to promote it.

Chasing enslavement

Shiva said this vision is built on “an imagined promise of an imagined future that we are never gonna arrive at. Because when you get there, you’ll find it doesn’t belong to you. It belongs to them.”

The systems that support their vision of the future appear to offer us convenience, but in reality, she said, maintaining them takes all of our time.

Many indigenous people, she said, still have a lot of time to enjoy life “because they’re not chasing enslavement through consumption.”

Shiva wondered why people would want a “smart home,” where, for example, “the fridge will tell you your milk is getting old. How dumb are we getting that we can’t open the door of our fridge and know our milk is getting old?”

“All that is surveillance data,” she said.

And processing that data takes big servers. “The tiny bits of enslavement we are getting into is [producing] 4% of greenhouse gases, which is more than the aviation sector,” she said.

She added:

“So, not only is it a very foolish kind of slavery, it’s a huge ecological footprint on the planet. Yes. And we can’t afford it. So we have to learn to walk lightly.”

Data is the new oil

Brand said he was alarmed at the increasing pace of “desacralization” where people prioritize materialism over spirituality and lose control over their lives. He asked Shiva how she thought censorship, the inhibition of free speech and the ability of the media to shut down dialogue, fed into this process.

Shiva said it was part of “a system of total control,” that makes that control highly profitable.

What’s new in this system according to Shoshana Zuboff’s “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism” is that today, human beings themselves have been turned into raw material whose data can be extracted.

“That is the capital of today. Big data is the new oil, and then it’s used to manipulate us,” she said, adding “Any system that allows you the awareness of your real freedom must be censored.”

The strange thing, Brand said, is that this system of technological domination was sold to people as a way of empowering them and giving them their freedom.

Technology should be a tool, she said, but it “has been elevated to a god” and those opposed to that transformation are discounted, through Orwellian doublespeak, as “right wing.”

But, Shiva said, the last few years have shown there are three things people cannot give up:

“First, your ability to know and distinguish between truth and untruth. … And not allow post-truth to be projected as truth and the truth speakers to be projected as conspirators.

“The second is our ability to relate to each other without the intervention of a surveillance state and surveillance corporation.

“And third, because food is what makes us, it becomes our blood, ourselves, our brain.”

In other words, Brand said:

“Speak freely. Tell the truth. Communicate freely. Grow your own food. Don’t eat things grown in labs. Don’t eat bugs. And don’t listen to people who want to promote it.”

Watch here:
v30zsu7/?pub=ijro7

onawah

8th August 2023, 21:49

RFK Jr. Hosts Food and Farming Policy Roundtable, Criticizes ‘Corrupt System of Producing Poison and Pretending It’s Food.’
08/07/23
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/rfk-jr-food-farming-policy-roundtable/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20230807

"In a roundtable discussion, “Revitalizing Our Food, Farms and Soil,” Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Children’s Health Defense chairman on leave, brought together regenerative farmers from across the U.S. to discuss what’s wrong with U.S. farm policy and how to fix it.

Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last week hosted a roundtable discussion on farming and food with regenerative farmers dedicated to building an alternative farm model for the U.S.

More than 6,000 viewers watched live as Ben Dobson, Gail Fuller, Will Harris, Reginaldo Haslett-Marroquin, Kerry Hoffschneider, John Kempf, Bob Quinn, Wayne Swanson and Judith McGeary shared their visions for how to revitalize American farming with Kennedy, founder and chairman on leave from Children’s Health Defense (CHD).

Kennedy kicked off the conversation, describing his experience litigating against Big Ag companies, and in the process, learning how corporations and politicians worked together to consolidate the industry.

By passing legislation that protects factory farms, manipulating subsidy programs and forming key partnerships with industrial farmers, companies like Smithfield came to dominate the pork and chicken industries and turned the remaining family farmers into “indentured servants on their own land,” Kennedy said.

Smithfield’s low prices compelled the entire industry to switch to the same model.

Kennedy said his experience fighting Big Ag led him to seek out “the other end of the spectrum” with people “creating real food and healthy food and wholesome communities that all of us can be proud of.”

Kennedy listened, took notes and asked questions while organic food activist and filmmaker Elizabeth Kucinich moderated the panel. Each farmer shared the challenges, successes and lessons from their work “to rebuild the critical life system of our American landscape and the communities in it.”

‘What do you expect when industry writes the farm bill?’

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador recently banned genetically modified (GMO) corn in Mexican tortillas, an action that could cut GMO corn imports to Mexico from the U.S. and create a demand for non-GMO corn.

But instead of supporting the switch to non-GMO agriculture, the Biden administration’s U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is taking Mexico to trade court, said Ben Dobson of Hudson Carbon in Hudson Valley, New York, putting the brakes on a market that could support U.S. farmers seeking to break dependence on GMO crops.

Different systems of compensation for farmers, Montana organic grain farmer Bob Quinn said, would be key to building a different agricultural system. The current system rewards high yields rather than cultivation of the healthy environments that make farms prosper.

Quinn said U.S. grain production has two goals — higher yield for farmers and higher-yield wheat needed by bakers. So farmers transitioned to shorter, higher-yielding, glyphosate-treated, gluten-heavy wheat — and that combination is hard for the body to process, often resulting in allergies and other diseases.

A transition to organic heritage grains could address those allergies, he said.

“I’ve come to the conclusion that farmers should be paid for nutrients produced per acre rather than pounds per acre,” Quinn said.

Reginaldo Haslett-Marroquin, a Guatemalan agronomist and owner-founder of Minnesota-based Regeneration Farms, said the government institutions and corporations that control the food system are invested in a model that “has resulted in a systemically and verifiable and quantifiable way of killing the planet in the name of food.”

“Food is sacred,” Haslett-Marroquin said. “The act of eating is a spiritual act and food sharing and ensuring everyone has it must be the end result of a successful agriculture system.”

On his farm, he said they found ways to use modern scientific advances in technology “so that we can engage the natural design and the most efficient ways of working with the land.”

Gail Fuller, a Kansas family farmer, provided more specifics about the policies that devastate farmers and the land.

Crop insurance, for example, he said incentivizes bad management. Tillage and pesticides are considered “best management practices,” so farmers using alternative practices are at greater risk.

“But what do you expect,” he asked, “when industry writes the farm bill?”

One in four children in Kansas is food-insecure, he said. The food they do have is actually “low nutrient quality, highly toxic, food-like substances.”

Fuller advocated for ending the monopolies that control agriculture, ending the silencing of scientists, and ending subsidies for destructive farm practices and for conservation programs that go nowhere.

He said policymakers need to grapple with the questions, “Have we improved food? Have we improved health? Have we improved water? … Have we improved farmer welfare and quality of life?”Today’s farmers being ‘farmed by agribusiness’

Fourth-generation farmer Will Harris of White Oak Pastures in Georgia successfully transitioned his farm from an industrial to a regenerative farm that now employs 160 people.

He did this by embracing three principles — “regenerative soil management, compassionate animal welfare and the re-enrichment of their impoverished rural community,” he said, providing a robust model for other farms.

Kerry Hoffschneider, speaking as a Nebraskan farmer and part of the Graze Master Group, said Nebraska lacks farms like Harris’. The region faces the problem of fewer farms and ranches employing fewer people.

Problems of soil depletion and water pollution pose a major financial barrier to the farm growth necessary for the transformation of impoverished rural communities, she said, many of which lost the last of their resources during the 1980s farm crisis.

John Kempf, who comes from an Amish farming tradition, said that after transitioning from farming with pesticides to farming without them, he learned that, like people, plants have an immune system.

“But in order for that immune system to function,” he said, “it needs to be supported with nutritional integrity and microbiome integrity” that allows plants to resist diseases and insects.

Kempf said that the agricultural paradigm today assumes that agriculture is “inherently extractive” — removing nutrients and depleting soils. But, he said, that is only true of the industrial system.

Agriculture can be managed to regenerate soil health and grow plants with robust immune systems that transfer that immunity to the people and animals that consume them, he said. “And all of a sudden we can have a legitimate conversation about growing food as medicine.”

But that is nearly impossible, he said because farmers today are “being farmed by agribusiness.”

“If we really want to regenerate landscapes and regenerate agriculture, the fundamental piece that needs to be regenerated is … the capacity for stewardship,” he said. “We need more people who care deeply for the land on the landscape. We don’t have enough right now.”

‘Food as food’ — not as a commodity

Wayne Swanson, owner of Swanson Family Farm and consultant for small farms, talked about the importance of growing localized farm economies and making small farms economically viable.

He said the key to this project was educating the public to value farming that isn’t necessarily high-yielding or aesthetically beautiful, but rather values relationships and environmental and community health.

Judith McGeary, Texas farmer, attorney, and founder of Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, explained the regulatory framework for farming in the U.S. supports only large-scale extractive agriculture, giving small and regenerative farms very little leeway to build a different system.

(Technical difficulties cut off McGreary’s presentation.)

Dobson said the farmers at the roundtable represented “food as food” and not as a commodity.

He said a conversation about how to move on from agro-industrial techniques, chemical inputs and genetically modified crops to “rebuild the critical life system of our American landscape” must include talking about communities, farms and the ecosystems they sit in — and also international relationships.

Because each farmer had only a few minutes to speak in the hour-long event, Kennedy suggested meeting again in the future, with more time to develop proposals for transitioning U.S. farms to a system that prioritizes wholesome, nutritious foods.

He said:

“The USDA was set up to protect small farmers and to make sure that we have a wholesome food supply, and instead it’s become a sock puppet of the chemical and Big Ag industries and industrial agriculture.

“And it’s doing the exact inverse of what it was designed to do. It’s giving us poison instead of food and we’re the sickest country in the world.

“There’s all these perverse incentives that we need to unravel. …

“The food supply is controlled by these big corporate interests, either outright-controlled through ownership of the property, or effectively controlled through … inputs and the subsidy systems that lock everybody into this corrupt system of producing poison and pretending it’s food.”

v31qrvf/?pub=ijro7

palehorse

11th August 2023, 05:23

Terrifying.
How do we avoid all of this?
Organic labeled food?
The elite and their cronies in the know have to have an alternative.
I remember Kevin Trudeau in his book that he went to prison for said simply this.
The elite have decided to depopulate the masses using poisoned food and the pharma companies and if you wished to avoid their intent you should eat only organic food.

Kind of tough to go to a farmers market for everything.
As such can we trust the FDA organic label?

To answer your questions I will tell something that happen to me but it actually will happen to anyone doing the same thing..
I used to have a food delivery/take away small business many moons ago, at some point I wanted to have frozen food and for that I need a special license, the idea was to sell the frozen with convenience shops in gas stations, mon&pop shops, etc.. My food was of great quality, we use only organic veggies, and the meat was very selective like only fresh and from known source (not from supermarket), we never used artificial colors, artificial seasoning, preservatives, additives or anything actually.. our curries we made ourselves with fresh spices/onions/garlic/turmeric/etc.. Ok.. when it came to pack & freeze for business I was told that I have to add preservatives, additives, INS (many codes), increase sodium and a few other things in order to get certified to be in this market of frozen food... I told them I was working with health food and everything he asked me was a defeat and in that case I would better close my business instead of lying to people that my food was health when in fact it is not! Indeed I closed my business a few months later, the end of story.

How do we avoid all of this?

growing your own food and boycotting the industrialized fake food.

Organic labeled food?

What a joke, there is no such a thing in the industry. period.

As such can we trust the FDA organic label?

they are even worse, my issue with frozen food happened at a provincial level in Portugal, I can't even imagine at a Federal level. There was some big shark in the food industry, someone asked him if he eats regularly the food he sells, he said no, had never eaten anything, wondering why? The wealth knows very well it is poison.

There is no such a thing issued by authorities as safe label, 100% organic, blablabla.. these are ALL marketing words to captivate the attention and deceive the consumer into buying it, that is all it is. Legal information about the ingredients should be all specified in the package, but many are not there and if they are how many people know that a specific INS is to control food acidity, INS 133 for example is a synthetic food color and it is very controversial to use now, E122 causes allergies (it worse asthma condition), it is also a synthetic food additive used in so many things like flavoured yogurts, sauces, jams, jellies, soups (the ones in packages or canned), and so on.

Also be careful with the so fancy and nice KETO, you may be getting heavy metals through the many powders they have. One famous almond power used in Keto food didn't pass the heavy metal tests.

If one want to be 100% safe about food, there is only 1 way, and it is planting your own, doing that way you don't have to trust anyone, also keep your own seed bank :highfive:

DNA

11th August 2023, 05:54

To answer your questions I will tell something that happen to me but it actually will happen to anyone doing the same thing..
I used to have a food delivery/take away small business many moons ago, at some point I wanted to have frozen food and for that I need a special license, the idea was to sell the frozen with convenience shops in gas stations, mon&pop shops, etc.. My food was of great quality, we use only organic veggies, and the meat was very selective like only fresh and from known source (not from supermarket), we never used artificial colors, artificial seasoning, preservatives, additives or anything actually.. our curries we made ourselves with fresh spices/onions/garlic/turmeric/etc.. Ok.. when it came to pack & freeze for business I was told that I have to add preservatives, additives, INS (many codes), increase sodium and a few other things in order to get certified to be in this market of frozen food... I told them I was working with health food and everything he asked me was a defeat and in that case I would better close my business instead of lying to people that my food was health when in fact it is not! Indeed I closed my business a few months later, the end of story.

How do we avoid all of this?

growing your own food and boycotting the industrialized fake food.

Organic labeled food?

What a joke, there is no such a thing in the industry. period.

As such can we trust the FDA organic label?

they are even worse, my issue with frozen food happened at a provincial level in Portugal, I can't even imagine at a Federal level. There was some big shark in the food industry, someone asked him if he eats regularly the food he sells, he said no, had never eaten anything, wondering why? The wealth knows very well it is poison.

There is no such a thing issued by authorities as safe label, 100% organic, blablabla.. these are ALL marketing words to captivate the attention and deceive the consumer into buying it, that is all it is. Legal information about the ingredients should be all specified in the package, but many are not there and if they are how many people know that a specific INS is to control food acidity, INS 133 for example is a synthetic food color and it is very controversial to use now, E122 causes allergies (it worse asthma condition), it is also a synthetic food additive used in so many things like flavoured yogurts, sauces, jams, jellies, soups (the ones in packages or canned), and so on.

Also be careful with the so fancy and nice KETO, you may be getting heavy metals through the many powders they have. One famous almond power used in Keto food didn't pass the heavy metal tests.

If one want to be 100% safe about food, there is only 1 way, and it is planting your own, doing that way you don't have to trust anyone, also keep your own seed bank :highfive:

I know now you speak the truth.
I will add if you can't grow everything yourself go to farmers markets.
Talk to these people.
You will find many people of like mind who genuinely don't vaccinate their animals or use pesticides.
Develop relationships.
I have folks I visit independently at their farm.
Indeed nothing mass produced can be trusted.

palehorse

11th August 2023, 06:14

onawah

9th September 2023, 02:30

Hidden autoimmune chemicals found in food
Jonathan Otto <jonathan@healthsecret.com>
Sep 8, 2023

"A Research Gate study uncovered a mysterious toxin behind autoimmune disease:

A 50-year-old woman had been suffering from pain and fatigue for more than 10 years.

Her debilitating symptoms lead to a fibromyalgia diagnosis.

Strangely enough, during a vacation in a foreign country, her pain and exhaustion suddenly vanished...

However, her symptoms reappeared in the days following her return home…

Which made her believe something she was eating or drinking might have caused her the symptoms.

And she was absolutely right.

As it turns out, when she was home, she used aspartame as a sugar replacement.

After she excluded aspartame from her diet, her autoimmune disease vanished completely.

Aspartame is just one of the many toxins associated with autoimmune disease.

My research team and I have found 23 toxins in our food that are even more dangerous…

Download my eBook, 23 Toxic Threats in Our Food that Trigger Autoimmune Disease & How to Reverse Their Effects now and see if these toxins could be the trigger for your autoimmune symptoms:

⇒ Click here to download your copy at no cost.

In this eBook, you will also find time-tested tools to reverse autoimmune symptoms, even if you think your case is too severe…

But you must hurry, this eBook is only available for a very limited time.

When you download this eBook you'll also get free access to my 10-episode docuseries, Autoimmune Answers that reveals the most effective natural protocols for actually reversing autoimmune disease!

⇒ Click here to download your copy at no cost:
https://theautoimmuneanswers.com/23-toxic-threats/?a=606325e5debaf&b=ad68976f&_kx=dL56czNAsdH3K1M26p_LHi5_hACGi6mdwBtL_Iraa74%3D.RVRkwc

To your health,
Jonathan Otto "

Dennis Leahy

9th September 2023, 19:46

Great thread! Super important.

A few random tidbits:

The blood-brain barrier is nature's design to protect the brain. The blood-brain barrier cannot stop nanoparticles. The individuals that lobbied for and the individuals who codified into law that nanoparticles in food are "GRAS" (generally recognized as safe) should be tried, convicted, and imprisoned for life. Reckless endangerment, attempted murder.

The blood-brain barrier also cannot stop fluoride compounds (which is why fluoride compounds are used in psychotropic compounds -so called "medicines.") Fluoride compounds are neurotoxic, and fluorine isn't a "nutrient", as the body has no need for fluorine/fluoride. https://truthaboutfluoride.com/drugs-that-contain-fluoride/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26669/

George "Dubya" Bush's administration took over (hijacked and commandeered) organic labeling. Before that, there were two very strong standards in the US, "Oregon Tilth" and California CCOF. Since the USDA took over, the standards were relaxed to allow higher traces of inorganic toxins, and allowed more Big Agrobiz chemicals to be used. I look at a "USDA Organic" label on produce or packaged goods and conclude that it might have less toxins than the "conventionally grown" counterpart, but probably not truly organic. It is probably less accumulation of inorganic and toxic chemicals to buy and eat USDA Organic labeled goods, but certainly not a guarantee.

When home gardeners think about growing food organically, they often understand not to use inorganic pesticides or herbicides or fungicides, but think it's probably OK to use inorganic fertilizers, like Miracle Grow. This is a lack of understanding of soil health and the micronutrients in soil being transported into the plants. A good macro-sized example for visualization is seeing a granite boulder's surface crumbling when covered by lichens - the lichens are breaking down the rock. In healthy, living soil, soil microbes and fungus break down the tiny pieces of rock in the soil, creating mineral compounds that are bioavailable to the plants. Organically grown food from healthy soil is more nutrient dense and contains exponentially more micronutrients than factory farmed agro-chemical grown food.

Just because something is organic doesn't mean it's healthy for the human body to eat. I've been writing an article (in my head), with the working title, "Organic Poison Ivy Salad with Thorn Dressing." This issue is about 10,000 years old - civilization and grain. As we now know scientifically, plants evolved defense mechanisms to keep from being eaten by animals big and small (insects.) The sap in poison ivy is one, thorns is another obvious deterrent to being eaten. There is a class of proteins called "lectins", many of which are not just undigestable but also harmful. The most famous lectin protein is gluten. Most people have no idea that gluten is just one of the plant lectins that plants developed over millions of years of evolution. The grains sorghum and millet don't have lectins, but all the other grains do. Quitting wheat and substituting rice and oats, for example, is simply switching to different lectins. The lectin proteins cause inflammation throughout our bodies, just like the spike proteins in the covid-19 injectables cause inflammation throughout our bodies. The vast majority of the people on Earth are eating lectin proteins and our bodies are in a constant state of inflammation. Chronic inflammation is the gateway to the obvious inflammatory conditions such as arthritis, but is at least contributory to most other degenerative "diseases"/conditions.

The US government thugs with briefcases (Congress and the US "health"/food/drug agencies) not only codified that glyphosate (Roundup) and genetically modified organisms were G.R.A.S. safe to ingest, but even passed a law that opponents called the "Monsanto Protection Act" to protect Monsanto from prosecution regarding genetically modified organism "frankenfood" and glyphosate damage. Your skepticism about the USDA and FDA are well justified.

Beware the farmer's market foods that are not even attempting to be be organic. Some of it is drenched in agrobiz toxins. Ask the farmers what they use - if nothing else, it plants a seed in their mind. If they don't really care about the toxins themselves, they may care if they believe they can make more money and sell to more people.

Most (all?) of the municipal water in the US is contaminated. You can quit eating gluten, but you can't quit drinking water. Reverse osmosis systems are available starting around $150 US, which can remove a lot of toxins, including the fluoride that has been added to the water supply. Research your bottled water company and its source, and better yet, find a spring: http://www.FindaSpring.org

onawah

11th September 2023, 02:29

Dennis Leahy

11th September 2023, 19:16

There is some controversy about lectins.
There have been reports from many American individuals who thought they were gluten intolerant, but when the were traveling in Europe and eating the food there, they were having no problems with gluten intolerance.
After returning home and upon further investigation, they discovered that commercial wheat in the US is soaked in Glysophate after harvesting, which of course, is making it highly toxic.
I have not heard similar reports about oats or other grains, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

I think there are several different issues here: the whole class of lectins, inflammation, glyphosate toxicity, and different varieties of wheat. You're right that most US wheat is now sprayed with glyphosate just before harvest, to kill the plants and turn it all golden (no more green color.) People that eat organically grown wheat that has not been sprayed with glyphosate still experience inflammation from the undigestable lectin protein, gluten.

Yes, the more ancient varieties of wheat (note that the USA, Inc. destroyed it in Syria, and replaced it with US hybrids) cause less gastric distress. But, any wheat, or rice or oats, etc. from anywhere in the world causes inflammation to everyone that eats it, proven with inflammatory markers in blood tests. Most people have no idea that the modern human diet is full of plants that cause inflammation, and only notice if they have a large reaction.

My own favorite cuisines were Mexican and Italian, and my organic gardens were mostly filled with plants that are inflammatory when eaten. I went through decades of "IBS" and saw several gastroenterologists, but when my "celiac sprue" tests came back, I was told I do not have celiac disease, and they had no idea at all what the issue was. Decades later, with the revelatory work of Dr. Gundry and others (researchers I can't name offhand, primarily from Australia), I discovered a list of foods that cause considerably less to no inflammation at all, and once I switched to these foods, I had no more IBS symptoms. But, even for those that never really experience symptoms, inflammatory foods are causing inflammation, and chronic inflammation is pretty much the opposite of homeostasis and the inception of many diseases and conditions.

I'll interject here that sugar and all the carbohydrates that break down into sugar are probably responsible for the greatest bodily damage, as excess (unburned) sugar in our blood is about as healthy as battery acid. Adding insult to injury, glucose molecules have an affinity for lectin proteins, and thus carry the lectins to our capillaries, where they do cellular damage. There are some lectins that some scientists say are not harmful, so demonizing the entire class of "lectin proteins" may be too wide a paintbrush, but working backwards from the research on inflammatory markers in blood from specific foods, we can certainly find out which lectin-rich foods should be avoided.

onawah

11th September 2023, 20:43

I haven't investigated deeply enough into this subject to add much more, but I just wanted to point out that wheat in the US is not just being sprayed with Glysophate, but the commercial wheat kernels are also being soaked in it after harvesting.
That would make it much more toxic than if it was only being sprayed.
Also, there is so much drift of Glysophate as it is being sprayed (and sprayed prodigiously), that it is also contaminating organically grown wheat, as well as just about everything else.
I doubt that it is even possible to get valid results in experiments with different foods and how they affect the human body anymore, because the whole environment is being inundated with so many toxic substances, including EMFs.
Furthermore, the effects of how all those substances interact with each other is still mostly unknown, but it can't be good...

There is some controversy about lectins.
There have been reports from many American individuals who thought they were gluten intolerant, but when the were traveling in Europe and eating the food there, they were having no problems with gluten intolerance.
After returning home and upon further investigation, they discovered that commercial wheat in the US is soaked in Glysophate after harvesting, which of course, is making it highly toxic.
I have not heard similar reports about oats or other grains, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

I think there are several different issues here: the whole class of lectins, inflammation, glyphosate toxicity, and different varieties of wheat. You're right that most US wheat is now sprayed with glyphosate just before harvest, to kill the plants and turn it all golden (no more green color.) People that eat organically grown wheat that has not been sprayed with glyphosate still experience inflammation from the undigestable lectin protein, gluten.

Yes, the more ancient varieties of wheat (note that the USA, Inc. destroyed it in Syria, and replaced it with US hybrids) cause less gastric distress. But, any wheat, or rice or oats, etc. from anywhere in the world causes inflammation to everyone that eats it, proven with inflammatory markers in blood tests. Most people have no idea that the modern human diet is full of plants that cause inflammation, and only notice if they have a large reaction.

My own favorite cuisines were Mexican and Italian, and my organic gardens were mostly filled with plants that are inflammatory when eaten. I went through decades of "IBS" and saw several gastroenterologists, but when my "celiac sprue" tests came back, I was told I do not have celiac disease, and they had no idea at all what the issue was. Decades later, with the revelatory work of Dr. Gundry and others (researchers I can't name offhand, primarily from Australia), I discovered a list of foods that cause considerably less to no inflammation at all, and once I switched to these foods, I had no more IBS symptoms. But, even for those that never really experience symptoms, inflammatory foods are causing inflammation, and chronic inflammation is pretty much the opposite of homeostasis and the inception of many diseases and conditions.

I'll interject here that sugar and all the carbohydrates that break down into sugar are probably responsible for the greatest bodily damage, as excess (unburned) sugar in our blood is about as healthy as battery acid. Adding insult to injury, glucose molecules have an affinity for lectin proteins, and thus carry the lectins to our capillaries, where they do cellular damage. There are some lectins that some scientists say are not harmful, so demonizing the entire class of "lectin proteins" may be too wide a paintbrush, but working backwards from the research on inflammatory markers in blood from specific foods, we can certainly find out which lectin-rich foods should be avoided.

Alekahn2

11th September 2023, 21:54

https://amosmillerorganicfarm.com/about-us/?v=1d20b5fflee9

Such a depressing issue/thread, yet of utmost importance to many. Just before the 'pandemic',
I became a member of this *Amish* organic farm in Bird-in-Hand, Pa. It is sadly almost the only source of food that I trust these days ( as I am not in a position to grow my own).

It is so infuriating to read what Dennis has written recently about the "organic" (USDA approved) food movement and practices! Especially regarding wheat and glyphosate !:crazy: And yet I STILL continue to buy organic products :cash: for the most part.

If anyone in the US is interested, Amos Miller Organic Farm ships across the country (to members only) and has an extensive website to peruse.

Deep thanks to all who have contributed to this vital thread :highfive:

onawah

28th September 2023, 04:55

No Farmers No Food: Will You Eat The Bugs? | Documentary
The Epoch Times Documentaries
September-25-2023
https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/nofarmersnofood-5390883?utm_source=etvsidebar&utm_content=nfnf

(Video at the link)

“No Farmers No Food: Will You Eat The Bugs?” is an Epoch Original documentary exposing the hidden agenda behind global “Green Policies,” the untold stories of farmers forced out of business, the disruption this will have on our food supply, and why edible bugs are suddenly being pushed to the fore as a "Global Green Solution."

EpochTV program “Facts Matter” host Roman Balmakov investigates the rapidly changing landscape of our global food source—the farming industry—through interviews with farmers in The Netherlands, Sri Lanka, and the United States. This is the next global crisis that is being ignored by the world’s media.
Official Website: NoFarmersNoFood.com"

( I think the video is behind a paywall, but the EpochTimes is asking for a very modest subscription fee.)

onawah

8th October 2023, 20:12

No Farmers No Food: Will You Eat The Bugs? | Documentary Free Online
It's on Rumble now, and Forbidden Knowledge gives a brief introduction:

"The documentary exposes the hidden agenda behind global “Green Policies,” the untold stories of farmers forced out of business, the disruption this will have on our food supply, and why edible bugs are suddenly being pushed to the fore as a “Global Green Solution.” "
https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/eat-ze-bugs-no-farmers-no-food/

No Farmers No Food: Will You Eat The Bugs? | Documentary
The Epoch Times Documentaries
September-25-2023
https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/nofarmersnofood-5390883?utm_source=etvsidebar&utm_content=nfnf

(Video at the link)

“No Farmers No Food: Will You Eat The Bugs?” is an Epoch Original documentary exposing the hidden agenda behind global “Green Policies,” the untold stories of farmers forced out of business, the disruption this will have on our food supply, and why edible bugs are suddenly being pushed to the fore as a "Global Green Solution."

EpochTV program “Facts Matter” host Roman Balmakov investigates the rapidly changing landscape of our global food source—the farming industry—through interviews with farmers in The Netherlands, Sri Lanka, and the United States. This is the next global crisis that is being ignored by the world’s media.
Official Website: NoFarmersNoFood.com"

( I think the video is behind a paywall, but the EpochTimes is asking for a very modest subscription fee.)

v3ijnns/?pub=ijro7

onawah

14th October 2023, 04:12

Contraceptive Drug Traces Found in Fast Food Lab Results
Facts Matter with Roman Balmakov
1.38M subscribers
10/13/23

Episode Resources:

🔵 SEKUR:

https://ept.ms/3yW0Wul

🔵 mRNA Livestock:

https://ept.ms/3FhpvXK

🔵 Fast Food Lab Results:

https://ept.ms/46siAqp

🔵 Nicarbazin Study:

https://ept.ms/3rWsilV

🔵 Monensin Study:

https://ept.ms/46wLFBe

ESPM5yaUSrA

onawah

27th February 2024, 05:22

AMISH FARMER RAIDED (again) 2024 | Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture v Amos Miller Organic Farm
the Shepherdess
111K subscribers
Feb 22, 2024

(Lots going on with this important and tragic landmark case, with too many links on the youtube page to embed them all, but it's vital in understanding what is happening and what it portends regarding the ongoing safety of food in the US.)

@thelancasterpatriot1662 @vivafreiclips @maxkane
PREVIOUS VIDEOS ON AMOS MILLER FEDERAL CASE:

• AMISH FARMER GOES TO COURT. ((UPDATE!...

• ((2023 UPDATE)) AMISH FARMER COURT VE...

CONTACT THE SHEPHERDESS: shepherdess(at)shepherdess.com

Videos Cited:

• Pennsylvania's OUTRAGEOUS Persecution...

• Inside Amos Miller's Cooler - TENS OF...

• EXCLUSIVE: State agents leaving Amos ...

• Footage of search warrant being execu...

Articles Cited:
https://www.thelancasterpatriot.com/p...
https://www.thelancasterpatriot.com/s...
https://www.thelancasterpatriot.com/s...

Assist with Amos Miller's Legal Fees:
https://www.givesendgo.com/supportamo...

**Twice I cited freezer unit, but as the Max Kane Video shows, it was a cooler unit that was detained and not a deep-freeze.

Timestamps:
0:00: Recap of Miller Organic Farm Federal Lawsuit
2:55: 2024 State Raids and Sues Miller Organic Farm in 2024

In this Video:FarmingAmish
Amos Miller Organic Farm

C_zy3x1j1t0

https://amosmillerorganicfarm.com/about-us/?v=1d20b5fflee9

Such a depressing issue/thread, yet of utmost importance to many. Just before the 'pandemic',
I became a member of this *Amish* organic farm in Bird-in-Hand, Pa. It is sadly almost the only source of food that I trust these days ( as I am not in a position to grow my own).

It is so infuriating to read what Dennis has written recently about the "organic" (USDA approved) food movement and practices! Especially regarding wheat and glyphosate !:crazy: And yet I STILL continue to buy organic products :cash: for the most part.

If anyone in the US is interested, Amos Miller Organic Farm ships across the country (to members only) and has an extensive website to peruse.

Deep thanks to all who have contributed to this vital thread :highfive:

palehorse

28th February 2024, 04:20

...I discovered a list of foods that cause considerably less to no inflammation at all, and once I switched to these foods, I had no more IBS symptoms...

Hi Dennis, could you please share your list with us?

Alekahn2

28th February 2024, 19:21

Thanks onawah for the above post about Amos Miller's legal woes :highfive:.
There is a court hearing tomorrow (Feb 29) around his civil lawsuit, so more
should be released by his lawyer Robert Barnes in the coming weeks.
Here are a couple more sources about what is happening with this Amish 'hero'
in the making:

https://www.newsweek.com/amish-farmer-turned-republican-hero-becomes-flash-point-culture-war-1872374

1760742927855132880

https://www.givesendgo.com/supportamosmiller
(almost $250,000 has been raised thus far...)

Alekahn2

29th February 2024, 14:42

In this recent video put out by Chris Hume (the Lancaster Patriot), a brief, full statement by Amos Miller is read regarding the civil injunction against his farm (and the entire Amish community...).
Also in this podcast, Hume plays an interesting segment of Robert Barnes (Amos Miller's lawyer) breaking down what is at play ('outrageous persecution') in this most important case. There are just so many implications within what is taking place between the Pa. Dept. of Agriculture and Miller's Organic Farm in Lancaster, Pa.

There is a link below to watch the full clip (24 min) of Robert Barnes for anyone interested.

nRS7eXQcTxw

At first I thought this was primarily around RAW dairy products, but this is going much further in scope and potential consequences go well beyond Amos Miller and the Amish communities.

42H21whWZU0

An interesting article:

"The legal battle surrounding Amos Miller and the state of Pennsylvania"
https://www.tftc.io/amos-miller-pennsylvania/

The court hearing is this afternoon. MANY concerned people are watching, from many disparate corners of the state (Pa) and broader country (US). Activists are gathering in Lancaster, to be sure. There will be thousands of people in prayer, sending love throughout the day undoubtedly. :muscle: :heart:
Blessings to Amos Miller (and his family).

Alekahn2

17th March 2024, 12:09

Civil rights attorney Robert Barnes makes his first appearance on the Dr. Jane Ruby show to
warn Americans about the government's over reach, raiding Amish farmer Amos Miller's farm
in Pa, to stop him from selling raw dairy products without getting a permit from the state to do so...

Government Now Destroying Healthy Food (43:33):
https://rumble.com/v4hjhgn-govt-now-destroying-amish-farm-healthy-food.html
(apologies, I cannot embed Rumble video)

https://twitter.com/MelKShow/status/1765165412042563836

(discussion of Amos Miller case begins at 21:05min into video)

Alekahn2

17th March 2024, 23:22

This is the Rumble video from above post...(got it!)
I highly recommend those with any interest in this topic to give this a listen.
Robert Barnes presents a good overview of the (historical) situation that is
unfolding with Amos Miller Organic Farm and Dr. Jane Ruby does a good job
letting Mr. Barnes speak.

In short, the Federal gov has backed off their persecution (somewhat) and into the
picture comes the Pa Dept of Agriculture in a big, heavy-handed, controlling way.
The injunction apparently stands that he (Amos Miller) may not SELL any raw
dairy products, even to those of us who belong to the PMA. This affects many
other surrounding Amish farmers who depended on AMOF to distribute their
raw milk products (milk, butter, cheese...). It is despicable.

The implications are still not clear, but it feels like they are serious and worthy of
watchful observation.

v4ey8ce

onawah

5th April 2024, 03:22

Worse Than Microwave/Don't Be Fooled by New Food Tech
4/4/24
Dr. Mercola
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/04/04/high-pressure-food-processing.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&sd=20110604&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20240404_HL2&foDate=true&mid=DM1552565&rid=2087043155

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2024/April/PDF/high-pressure-food-processing-pdf.pdf

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
High Pressure Processing (HPP) is a non-thermal food preservation method that uses hydrostatic pressure, equivalent to the pressure found in marine trenches, to process foods like juices, meats, and ready-to-eat meals without heating
HPP technology, while extending shelf life and claiming to maintain the "freshness" of foods, does not eliminate all microbial pathogens, with spores showing particular resistance to this process
There is a lack of long-term studies on the health effects of consuming HPP-treated foods, leaving consumers and experts uncertain about the potential impacts on human and animal health
The dairy industry is exploring HPP as a method to produce "safe raw milk" with a longer shelf life, although this process alters the milk's texture and color, potentially affecting its nutritional qualities
Personal accounts and limited research suggest that HPP-treated foods and beverages may not offer the same health benefits as their truly raw counterparts, with some individuals experiencing adverse reactions
Modern technocrats have found lots of ways to ruin our food — like rapid heating of milk up to 240 degrees, zapping with microwaves, irradiating with radioactive materials, spray drying at high temperatures, extruding at high temperatures and pressures and embalming with sugar. Now a new technology has come on the scene: ultra-high pressure applied to a variety of foods for humans, pets and babies.

HPP — High Pressure Processing
High Pressure Processing (HPP) is defined as "a non-thermal food and beverage processing technique based on the application of high levels of hydrostatic pressure transmitted by water, with multiple advantages for food and beverage companies." That pressure is one thousand times the pressure of air at sea level — the equivalent of water pressure in a marine trench.

You can read all about it at hiperbaric.com and see how it works for juice, for shelf stable meals ready to eat, and for "raw" pet food. HPP will open oysters without difficult shucking — after the processing, just open with your hand and the oysters — somewhat discolored — slither out! The process makes crab and lobster easier to remove from their shells.

Examples of high-pressure processed products commercially available in the U.S. today include fruit smoothies, guacamole, ready-to-eat meals with meat and vegetables, oysters, salad dressing, hummus, ham, chicken strips, fruit juice, salsa and fruit purees for babies. You won’t find any particular symbol displayed (as for irradiation) to indicate whether a product has undergone HP processing, but you might see the words "cold pasteurized."

The food industry claims that "HPP has the potential to produce high-quality foods that display characteristics of fresh products, are microbiologically safe and have an extended shelf life." The claim that HPP foods are "microbiologically safe" is not exactly correct.

What Are the Long-Term Health Effects of Eating HPP Food?
A 2008 review1 entitled "High-pressure processing — effects on microbial food safety and food quality," looked at the effects of high pressure processing on various pathogenic organisms and found that it did not eliminate all of them; the researchers found that spores were especially resistant to high pressure — just as they are resistant to heat.

But what we really want to know about are the health effects — long-term health effects — of eating HPP foods. As the industry plunges headlong into high pressure processing, no one really knows.

No studies on long-term the feeding of HPP foods to mice or rats — or even dogs getting HPP "raw" pet food — appear in the literature. I did find one study, published in the Journal of Dairy Science, 20192 which explored the feeding of HPP colostrum to calves. Said the researchers:

"The results of this study suggest that high pressure processing of bovine colostrum maintains an acceptable IgG level while decreasing bacterial and viral counts," but also observed:

"Calves fed pressure-processed colostrum had similar serum IgG but lower efficiency of absorption than calves fed heat-treated colostrum [emphasis added]. Changes in viscosity sometimes made calf feeding more difficult, but still feasible. Additional research to optimize this technology for on-farm use is necessary."

The food industry is salivating over the idea of applying HPP to milk. The first to do this was the Mexican company Villa de Patos, which claimed that it was "fresh" (that is "raw") and had an increased shelf life when refrigerated.

HPP Dairy Experience
A few years later, the New South Wales Food Authority approved the commercialization of HPP milk in the Australian state. The company, Made By Cow, developed a process for the "safe production of never heated and non-homogenized milk," which they could sell as "safe raw milk." Indeed, the processing made the milk slightly thicker and yellowish, which could mimic the viscosity and color of Jersey milk even if it came from Holstein cows!

With raw milk sales booming, and pasteurized milk sales declining, we can expect to see the dairy industry launch "cold-processed" pressure-treated milk in the U.S. Will this milk have the same benefits as real raw milk? A letter published in the Summer 2021 issue of Wise Traditions3 indicates that the answer is no!

"For many years I have been consuming raw milk from a pastured dairy in France called Gaborit," wrote our correspondent. "However, because of COVID and closed borders, I was unable to obtain this milk for eleven months and was forced to drink a substitute milk from Switzerland.

When I began to have trouble with my teeth, I began to suspect the possibility that the local 'raw' milk (Rohmilch in German) might be thermized (heated) although not to the temperature of pasteurization (or perhaps microfiltered or whatever).

What most aroused my suspicions was the experience of a friend, supposedly milk intolerant (and who hasn’t drunk animal milk for a good twenty years), who sneezed (red eyes as a bonus) a few minutes after having taken a sip of this 'local' Rohmilch.

She made it clear to me how irritated she was by this experience, and she fervently blamed herself for giving in to my suggestion. However, I must admit that I was the first to be surprised by the reaction she developed so quickly after drinking just one sip. I had concluded that she was perhaps one of the very few people who were truly intolerant to animal milk, even if it were raw.

Nevertheless, a few weeks later, she agreed to test the Gaborit milk (from Jersey cows), which I again had access to. She not only had no reaction to it, but she even felt so good that she drank a whole glass half an hour later.

During the eleven months without the Gaborit milk, I developed five small cavities, as verified by my dentist. I had an appointment to have them filled, and while waiting, was able to get the French milk again. I went to the dentist today and she couldn’t believe her eyes.

In the space of less than a month during which I was once again able to obtain the real certified raw milk from France, all the previously damaged teeth had calcified and hardened as a kind of self-healing, to the point that she told me that there was nothing more that needed to be done.

The milk produced by the Swiss dairy is biodynamic and has the Demeter label. The cows are brown Swiss. I therefore assume that the cows are fed according to anthroposophical guidelines. However, this dairy also produces pasteurized milk, so I wondered whether their Rohmilch is really 100% raw and, above all, non-thermized.

When I contacted them, they assured me that the milk was not heat-treated in any way, only that they passed it through a cellulose membrane aimed to remove any impurities or dirt from the milk — but I think this is done with all milk and is not a damaging process unless done under high pressure."

We do not know whether this milk was passed under pressure through a membrane or subjected to the same high pressure processing techniques now used for juice, smoothies and so many other "cold processed" foods, but it is clear that pressure reduces the healing properties of Nature’s perfect food.

Since we have no idea what HPP does to the nutritional qualities of the food we eat, it’s best to exercise caution: make your own salad dressing, salsa and guacamole, cook from scratch, only buy oysters that have been shucked before you, and above all, stick to real, raw milk purchased directly from a farmer you know.

About the Author
Sally Fallon Morell is author of the best-selling cookbook Nourishing Traditions and many other books on diet and health. She is the founding president of the Weston A. Price Foundation (westonaprice.org) and a founder of A Campaign for Real Milk (realmilk.com). Visit her blog at nourishingtraditions.com."

Sources and References
1 FEMS Microbiology Letters, Volume 281, Issue 1, April 2008, Pages 1-9
2 Journal of Dairy Science. Volume 102, Issue 12, P11016-11025, December 2019
3 Weston A Price, Letters Summer 2021

onawah

6th June 2024, 21:18

Take Action/ Rise of Synthetic Food
Organic Consumers Association <campaigns@organicconsumers.org>
5/6/24
‌Organic Bytes
Newsletter #853: The Rise of Synthetic Food

https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/meips/ADKq_NYeOB5jjpDWPzvKWwK5bKb6N86IHyZA0V32HYgTF8DYK-SvByKxL-IsV7hxq6p_2JUm8bmRzti50ewW8D8doz7YwWajQZHq8o5MSk_GvHnphZTaIBsO3YCWhmyBVr3w8xxYiDMWJ-Hgqg5kkGIdlyG1h91ZdfFnr_MiEYW_TpFE7cxS3q6JoaQ=s0-d-e1-ft#https://acb0a5d73b67fccd4bbe-c2d8138f0ea10a18dd4c43ec3aa4240a.ssl.cf5.rackcdn.com/10031/TROSF2.png?v=1717620679000

"Scientia Liberia, Twisting Strands:

The April 1, 2024 session of the IPAK-EDU Director’s Science Webinar featured the research of Alexis Baden-Mayer. The research she presented weaves a timeline of people and organizations, from the end of the 19th century to the present, and raises serious questions about the future of food and the intentions of the actors and organizations involved.

“The Nixon era Rockefeller plan of 1969 to shift consumption toward synthetic meats and ‘food from factories’ was paralleled in popular culture as well.

Just a few years prior, Star Trek had presented a fantastic vision of food in the future. The notion of food synthesized by a machine, the Replicator, was planted in the popular imagination. No animals, no crops, no farms, no farmers, no cooking, no people. Food available on demand, without cost. It simply magically appears in a mechanized box with blinking lights.

Swanson and Son’s frozen heat-and-eat TV dinners were first launched in 1953 with initial sales of 5000 units. In 1950, just 9% of US households owned a television; by 1955, that would balloon to some 64%.1 In 1955, more than 13 million Swanson TV dinners were being consumed annually.

The selling points were ‘less effort’, ‘family’ and ‘fun’, while paying homage to notions of ‘tradition’ and ‘wholesomeness’. The ads conjured an image of the future wrapped in nostalgia.

It’s worth noting that no nutritional claims were ever made in these vintage advertisements. The primary message was simple: ‘Relax’ and ‘Trust’.

By the time synthetic biology came to public consciousness in the 1980’s, the advertised promises for the future of food were well-ingrained.

Where will this all lead?

There are powerful interests shaping the future of food, and the future of farmers, their farms, the soil, and the health of all, is inextricably intertwined.

Alexis Baden-Mayer advocates for a deep consideration of how consumers make choices in this context and how those choices affect the fates of farmers and the future of food.’

Watch the full talk and discussion: https://entwine.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-synthetic-food

TAKE ACTION: Ban New GMO Frankenfoods Made with Synthetic Biology:
https://advocacy.organicconsumers.org/page/59366/action/1?utm_medium=email&utm_source=engagingnetworks&utm_campaign=OB+853&utm_content=OB+853&ea.url.id=2601292&forwarded=true
Ban New GMO Frankenfoods Made with Synthetic Biology (a.k.a “Precision Fermentation”)
Italy is set to be the first country to ban synthetic food!

It’s about time someone stood up to Monsanto (now Bayer’s) plot to replace real farms with genetically engineered synthetic Frankenfoods!"

TAKE ACTION: Tell your lawmakers to ban genetically engineered Frankenfoods made with synthetic biology (so-called “precision fermentation”)!
https://advocacy.organicconsumers.org/page/59366/action/1?utm_medium=email&utm_source=engagingnetworks&utm_campaign=OB+853&utm_content=OB+853&ea.url.id=2601292&forwarded=true

Jaak

6th June 2024, 22:14

Synthetic foods came from nazi Germany.Post above mentions a bit of the history of synthetic foods but i doubt most have heard this part. Copy-paste from one Estonian researcher .

February 1942. Evening in German occupied/liberatedTallinn,Estonia. The family and their guests have taken their seats around the table covered with white linen. Only on more festive occasions does the mother of the family stuff the venerable "Imperatorsk factory" lunch set, brought from St. Petersburg years ago, from the lower shelves of the large dresser in the living room to the table. After all, today is just such a suitable case. On the right hand of the father of the family, two tall, slightly red-faced officers in well-fitting uniforms, with the SD badge on their sleeves, are sitting behind the table. The first few welcome drinks with ideologically correct toasts have already been made... boiled peas and vegetables are steaming on the table and one or two other things that the mother of the family's skills have been able to "invent" for the occasion. The state eagle on OstMarga flaps its wings over war-torn Estonia. However, there is not much to do with these same faded bills...everything necessary for life is on the distribution cards. A common procedure established throughout the world in a state of war to provide the population with the most basic necessities. Strictly regulated, with its own norms and laws. You can't say that there is hunger, but you can't even dream of ice cream or cocoa, for example. And now the father of the family has started working on the gift brought by the guests. It is a rather large and probably voluminous oval can weighing one and a half kilos... The tin lid of the box rolls up and detaches easily with the included key... and everyone sitting around the table begins to sniff at these... the aroma that emerges from the box brings back memories of the "good old days"... The box contains real ham. A powerful piece of cooked ham, surrounded by a clear yellow casing in which a few peppercorns can be seen. The ham is honest - a large, clear, pink, lean hunk of meat, with a thin lard border and a line of bacon framing the edge. What a surprise! Such a delicacy is a rarity and it is clear that everyone present involuntarily swallows... The officers are smiling - exchanging glances, then the gentleman with pin-point glasses coughs and excitedly explains while flashing his glasses.... "Kochschinke-ersatz.... einhundert Prozent Sojabohne!" * * *
It was artificial boiled ham, so-called. with ersatz. The handiwork of German chemists and agricultural geneticists. As I heard from direct sources when I was a child, no one present would have even suspected that it was not real cooked ham... We remind you: At the beginning of the topic of the Third Reich, we explored a little the huge research and scientific apparatus of the SS, which was directly subordinated to the SS engineer-general Hans Kammler. The entire scientific potential of the SS was roughly divided into two parts. The major dominant part was not at all technology, the military industrial complex, but rather plant genetics. SS started genetic studies of plants and different cultures already in the thirties(with the help of Rockefeller). Everything necessary was also created for this. Test bases, industries. Even the electron microscope created on behalf of SS can be mentioned . Strange isn't it? The war is on and more than half of the "steam" goes to plant research. Soybean was considered the most important crop. It was even called "National Socialist Fruit". (Americans called it"Nazi-bean"). Mass experiments were carried out with artificially modified lines of this fruit. The goal was to breed varieties that could be grown in extreme conditions and that would be a sufficient source of protein for humans.
In the mid-1980s, when I was involved in a project at IKI (Space Research Institute, located at the USSR TA) in Russia, I came across materials concerning the physiology of Russian cosmonauts, nutrition in orbit, food rations, etc. My colleague, the older "nautcnő zatrudnik", laughed: "It was easy for us. We continued where the Germans left off"... So it was. High value foods developed by SS, artificial meat made from soy (different variations, from beef to turkey), artificial honey, coffee, chocolate, various fats. The Russians sneered: “Several technologies were recovered in their entirety, complete with production base, equipment and documentation. However, these production bases were, surprise-surprise, concentration camps.
For example, the Dachau camp produced 400 tons of vitaminized artificial honey every month. Oswiecem in hundreds of tons of various soy products, artificial meat, sausages, etc. Stutthof and Maidanek coffee, artificial fats, margarine... And it was not just a matter of production, but also of cultivation. Various genetically modified crops were bred/raised in artificial conditions, dome greenhouses, galleries, underground facilities. Various hymenoptera, flies, bees, etc., were genetically modified in the necessary direction to pollinate plants. Their settlements were right there under the domes, in the passages, in the galleries. Why did SS feverishly edit their plant genetics institutes? Why were such huge resources directed there, many times greater than for military research? That food, natural honey, meat etc were tight? During the war, it is still tight with some articles. For example, with bean coffee. But this is not a convincing explanation for such national efforts. There wasnt a shortage of farmland in the Third Reich. Moreover, the state guaranteed the necessary workforce in agriculture and farms.
After all, a large green belt with organic agriculture had already been planned on the territory of conquered Belarus, and its establishment was started despite the whirlwind of war. It was a clear plan to develop technologies to feed large numbers of people in extreme isolated conditions. And what was the first country where specialists of the III Reich started large-scale cultivation of genetically modified soybeans in 1936? That country was Argentina. And to this day is the largest producer of genetically modified soybeans in the world. I wonder why Argentina? Maybe its close proximty to Antarctica has something to do with that ...

Huckleberry

16th June 2024, 14:11

Beyond Bad: Fake Meat And Other 'Ultra Processed' Vegan Food Linked To Heart Disease, Early Death

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/beyond-bad-fake-meat-and-other-ultra-processed-vegan-food-linked-heart-disease-early-death

New research suggests that ultra-processed vegan food can increase the risk of heart disease and early death, the NY Post reports, citing a new study published in The Lancet from the University of São Paulo and Imperial College London. Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) include packaged goods, drinks, cereals and ready-to-eat products that contain colors, emulsifiers, flavors and other additives - and are notoriously high in sugar, saturated fat, salt, while often being devoid of vitamins.

The researchers studied the diets of more than 118,000 Brits aged 40-69 years old found that while a plant-based diet promotes overall heart health, that only applies to fresh plant-based foods such as fruits and vegetables, as well as grains and legumes.

Researchers found that for every 10% increase in plant-based foods, the risk of death from heart disease fell by 20%. -NY Post

However when the source of plant-based food comes from UPFs, there's a 12% spike in heart-disease related deaths.

According to the study's lead author, Fernanda Rauber, both the composition and processing methods for UPFs can result in higher blood pressure and cholesterol.

"Food additives and industrial contaminants present in these foods might cause oxidative stress and inflammation, further aggravating the risks," she said, adding "Those shifting towards plant-based foods should also think about the degree of processing involved before making their choices."

Co-author Eszter Vamos said that UPFs have deceptive marketing to portray their plant-based products as healthy.

"While ultra-processed foods are often marketed as healthy foods, this large study suggests that plant-based ultra-processed foods do not seem to have protective health effects and are linked to poor health outcomes," she said.

The study found that replacing plant-based UPFs with whole foods, known to have important health and environmental benefits, decreased deaths from heart disease by 15% and reduced the likelihood of developing cardiovascular disease by 7%.

Researchers claim that this study, published Monday in Lancet Regional Health, is the first to show that plant-based UPFs increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Based on their findings, the authors are urging nutritional guidelines that promote plant-based diets to include a warning to avoid UPFs. -NY Post

While the study highlights meat alternatives, British dietitian Duane Mellor pointed out that "Many foods that do not contain animal products, which includes biscuits, crisps, confectionery and soft drinks, are technically plant-based but would not be considered essential as part of a healthy diet by the majority of people."

[My comment: One thing I see with these kinds of studies is that they don't differentiate between organically-grown food and food grown with cancer-causing herbicides, pesticides, etc. Also, in this study they looked at cholesterol as a bad thing and I would seriously doubt that they took into account people who were also on Big Pharma drugs which actually cause "heart disease", cancer, etc. I understand that it can be quite challenging and perhaps impossible to weed out other causes for adverse symptoms in any study. Did they screen out people who had been "vaxxed"? I doubt it. Also, I would think people like Dr. Mercola would disagree that a purely plant-based diet is the best choice and that organically-grown animal products are a healthy choice if you can find them. After all, the people of this planet have been eating organic animal products as well as plants since time immemorial but that ended with the industrial age and packaged foods.]

onawah

7th August 2024, 08:14

All Things Bugs: Bill Gates, U.S. Military Among Investors in GMO Insect Protein for Humans
by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
August 2, 2024
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/all-things-bugs-bill-gates-military-investors-gmo-insect-protein-humans/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20240802
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/bugs-insect-protein-bill-gates-feature-800x417.jpg

(Many hyperlinks in the article, but not embedded here)

"The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in 2012 funded All Things Bugs, a project to “develop a novel food product made from insects to treat malnutrition in children from famine stricken areas of the world.” The company has since expanded into developing genetically modified insects, with help from the U.S. Department of Defense.
While regulators in non-U.S. countries, including Singapore, have issued approvals for specific insect-based foods, in the U.S., the regulatory landscape is murkier — there is no legal approval process or clear-cut prohibition of insects for human consumption.

As a result, insect-containing foods have reached U.S. consumers, even though one of the few existing U.S. laws that address insects in the food supply refers to them as “filth” and a form of “adulteration.”

Crickets and grasshoppers reach U.S. consumers in a variety of forms, from protein bars to protein shakes. They’re also found on restaurant menus and are promoted as pet food and animal feed ingredients.

With few U.S. regulatory barriers to contend with, investors like Bill Gates and Big Food giants such as Tyson Foods have also begun investing in “alternative protein” startups — despite mainstream media “fact-checks” claiming Gates doesn’t support the consumption of insects.

Internist Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, told The Defender lax U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations — under which many insect-containing foods can be classified as “Generally Regarded as Safe” (GRAS) — “means they don’t require testing” and enable the FDA to “look the other way.”

“How long will it take before we learn whether these foods are safe? It could take generations,” Nass said.Gates, U.S. military among backers of ‘alternative protein’ startups

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Grand Challenges Explorations program in 2012 funded All Things Bugs, a project to “develop a novel food product made from insects to treat malnutrition in children from famine stricken areas of the world,” according to Eurasia Review.

All Things Bugs has since expanded into the development of genetically modified insects. With funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), “we are using CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing and other methodologies to develop base technologies for creating insects as a new bioresource,” the company states.

DARPA is a research and development agency that operates under the U.S. Department of Defense.

All Things Bugs said that while insects are “a very sustainable source of protein,” it “is innovating to make them a feasible commodity for the food industry.”

Claire Robinson, managing editor of GMWatch, told The Defender, “With all GMOs [genetically modified organisms], including insects, it’s vital that they are subjected to a pre-marketing risk assessment for health and the environment.”

Robinson said, “This includes testing them for the presence of pathogens, possible allergens and substances that may be toxic to humans. Then they must be clearly labeled for the consumer.”

Gates’ investments in insect-based foods appear to be part of a broader strategy to invest in alternatives to animal-based foods for consumers.

In a February blog post, Gates said he invested in Savor, a startup producing butter made from air (carbon dioxide) and water (hydrogen). And in 2022, the Gates Foundation awarded a $4.76 million grant to Nature’s Fynd, a startup producing foods containing fungi-based protein. In 2020, Breakthrough Energy Ventures, founded by Gates, invested in Nature’s Fynd.

The U.S. government’s National Science Foundation (NSF) also is involved in the insects-as-food space, through its funding of the Center for Environmental Sustainability through Insect Farming (CEIF). Established in 2021, CEIF seeks “to develop novel methods for using insects as feed for livestock, poultry, and aquaculture.”

Institutions participating in CEIF include Texas A&M University, Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis and Mississippi State University — along with Tyson Foods, Protix and Innovafeed, backed by food processing giant ADM, formerly the Archer-Daniels-Midland Company.

Insect protein start-ups raised ‘over $1 billion in venture capital since 2020’

The production of insects for human food is expanding in the U.S. and globally, with support from the United Nations and the World Economic Forum (WEF).

In 2013, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations released a seminal report, “Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security,” which promotes the environmental and nutritional benefits of insect consumption.”

A 2022 WEF paper, “5 reasons why eating insects can reduce climate change,” suggests people are “conditioned to think of animals and plants as our primary sources of proteins … but there’s an unsung category of sustainable and nutritious protein that has yet to widely catch on: insects.”

According to a November 2023 Washington Post report, “Insect start-ups have raised over $1 billion in venture capital since 2020.”

A 2021 report by Netherlands-based Rabobank claimed the demand for insect protein, “mainly as an animal feed and pet food ingredient, could reach half a million metric tons by 2030, up from today’s market of approximately 10,000 metric tons.”

A report by Grand View Research forecasted the global insect protein market will expand by an annual compound growth rate of 16.9% by 2030, while European projections estimate “the number of Europeans consuming insect-based food will [reach] a total of 390 million by 2030,” according to EuroNews.

Ynsect, for instance, has built factories in France and the Netherlands, and is erecting factories in the U.S. and Mexico, according to Feed Navigator. The company claims its insect-producing farms are “climate positive,” “benefit biodiversity” and are aligned with the Paris Agreement and the European Union’s “Fit for 55” goal.

In March 2022, Ynsect acquired Nebraska-based Jord Producers — a mealworm farm. And in December 2022, Ynsect signed an agreement with U.S. flour milling company Ardent Mills to build a factory in the Midwestern U.S. Ardent Mills is a joint venture between ConAgra Foods, Cargill and CHS, a global agribusiness cooperative.

Investors in Ynsect include actor Robert Downey Jr.’s FootPrint Coalition and France’s Crédit Agricole bank — along with support from the FAO and the European Commission. The company has raised over $600 million.

Celebrity chefs also are embracing insect food. In November 2023, the Financial Times featured Joseph Yoon, founder of Brooklyn Bugs, whose “goal is to popularise edible insects and build up this food source to help support global food security.”Your dog can eat insects, too

In addition to a lack of FDA regulations governing the use of insects in foods for humans, the FDA also does not regulate the use of insects for pet food ingredients.

According to Animal Frontiers, “pet food is under the nongovernment Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO)” in the U.S. In January, French firm Ynsect became the first company to receive AAFCO authorization for commercial production of mealworm protein for dog food in the U.S.

In October 2023, Big Food giant Tyson Foods announced the acquisition of an ownership stake in the Dutch insect ingredient producer Protix. Tyson said the new joint venture would construct “the first at-scale facility of its kind to upcycle food manufacturing byproducts into high-quality insect proteins and lipids which will primarily be used in the pet food, aquaculture, and livestock industries.”

Although the announcement did not definitively exclude the production of insect-containing foods for humans, a Reuters “fact check” published in May stated, “Tyson Foods does not put insects into products for human consumption.”

Tyson has invested in Upside Foods, which in June 2023 won approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to produce lab-grown chicken. Upside garnered more than $600 million in research and development investments, including from Gates, Richard Branson, Elon Musk’s brother Kimbal Musk and Cargill.

Vanguard and BlackRock, the world’s two largest institutional investment firms, are also the two top institutional holders of Tyson Foods shares. BlackRock, and its CEO, Larry Fink, have promoted “sustainable” corporate practices."

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV's "Good Morning CHD."[/TELEGRAM]

onawah

2nd September 2024, 20:10

Free event: Attack on Food & Farmers
Childrens Health Defense
https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/attack-on-food-and-farmers-and-how-to-fight-back/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=marketing&utm_id=20240831

https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/meips/ADKq_NZAAYZXLqJpcgghPoPJ_XTtrQayCK5cYb7FJngt1qPbQkaMmAZU4xEFdynPfmzPuv9hcGOvrjAX3yRVEhhtuIVbff1l7tUp SuEEXeTw-8hOD_1_H5broXD-QWUr6o6pJ9AyBs9pBeFoqUUfT3tYR3iGgpWtygZt_p-sNgCAA_UQNmnfw8Bx54Mq=s0-d-e1-ft#https://support.childrenshealthdefense.org/images/content/pagebuilder/FoodSymposium_FeatureImage_8.30b_1000x521.jpg

"Join us for a FREE, two-day event next Friday and Saturday! ”The Attack on Food and Farmers, and How to Fight Back” premieres on CHD TV September 6 and September 7, 2024. The event runs 11 a.m. – 7 p.m. ET (8 a.m. – 4 p.m. PT) each day.

This two-day online event brings together thought-leaders from different backgrounds to discuss how the U.S. food supply is being quietly transformed, and how you can preserve your ability to obtain foods of your choice for your family.

Featured Speakers include:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
James Corbett
Catherine Austin Fitts
Stephanie Seneff
Patrick Wood
Joel Salatin
Rob Verkerk
Sherri Tenpenny, D.O.
Hosted by Meryl Nass, M.D.
View the entire schedule of speakers

Whether we like it or not, powerful forces are threatening our diet in new ways … ways that most of us never dreamed of. This event explains what changes are already here, what is coming, how it is being done, and what we can do to preserve our food choices and our independent farmers.

Farmers are being squeezed from many directions:

U.S. chicken farmers were forced to cull 100 million birds since 2022 to prevent bird flu. It didn't work.
Dairy farmers are being pressured to implement expensive "biosecurity" measures in dairies. Yet no one has caught bird flu from food or milk.
Cows belch methane, a greenhouse gas — so their number must be reduced, it is said.
A diminishing number of USDA-approved slaughterhouses means ranchers are unable to expand their herds to meet demand.
The combined political pressures of pandemic preparedness and climate have coerced a reduction in sources of animal protein for human consumption.
Lab-grown meats, insect proteins, and a panoply of genetically engineered foodstuffs are rushing to fill the void.
Owners of land under conservation easements may soon see restrictions on land use.
Hundreds of insect farms are already churning out products we and our animals will be expected to eat.
Understand what is happening. We can turn this onslaught around and preserve our right to choose our own food! That is why we are bringing you this program.

The symposium producers, Children's Health Defense and Door to Freedom, are committed to healthier, educated families, and together produced this critically important program.

We hope you join us for this informative 2-day event on CHD TV!

Sign up for breaking news alerts at chd.tv so we can alert you when this event is live.
https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=marketing&utm_id=20240831

In unity for change,

The Children’s Health Defense Team"

RMF808

4th September 2024, 10:04

Abondance

4th September 2024, 18:22

Cancer via pthalates in Mac N’ F-ing Cheese? Has this been covered anywhere here? Apologies if it has. Below is an article talking about Annie’s brand as well as Taco Bell removing them from their food.

We are so F’d!!!

Sure, we can share information and GMO (Grow My Own) but with all of seed patents and seed royalties, I look forward to being done with this incarnation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/19/business/annies-mac-cheese-plastic-phthalates.html

https://m1.quebecormedia.com/emp/jdx-prod-images/bca027c1-0d49-4238-ac49-ea83f4cdbf53_ORIGINAL.jpg?impolicy=resize&quality=80&width=960

Once upon a time, a poor little plant that grew in concrete... :muscle:

Bill Ryan

10th October 2024, 18:08

An excellent 17-minute presentation by Chris Martenson about how VERY VERY damaging ultraprocessed American food is for health. It promotes an upcoming webinar, but that's only a couple of minutes of the video and the core data he presents is both sound and important.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljMovuyL4Ac

Bill Ryan

13th October 2024, 10:27

A new article from Dr. Mercola, featuring his own interview with Calley Means:

When Food Turned Toxic - How Big Tobacco Stole Your Grocery Cart

https://brighteon.com/fe105a81-1573-4675-bff9-b78139d47666

fe105a81-1573-4675-bff9-b78139d47666

Story at-a-glance

In my interview with Calley Means, co-author of the book "Good Energy," we discuss how tobacco companies bought major food companies in the 1980s, applying addictive strategies to food production and influencing nutritional guidelines, leading to a surge in chronic diseases.

The 1910 Flexner Report, funded by Rockefeller, reshaped medical education, emphasizing pharmaceutical interventions and marginalizing holistic approaches, setting the stage for modern health care's limitations.

Corruption in health institutions, including conflicts of interest in research funding and guideline committees, perpetuates misguided health advice and hinders effective chronic disease management.

Reforming the health system requires removing conflicts of interest from advisory committees, restructuring financial incentives and empowering patients through grassroots advocacy and education.

A multi-pronged approach to health care transformation is necessary, including individual empowerment, new wellness-focused business models and policy changes to address the chronic disease epidemic.

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2024/October/PDF/big-tobacco-food-system-pdf.pdf

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2024/October/PDF/big-tobacco-food-system-pdf.pdf

Bill Ryan

25th October 2024, 19:30

Copying this new post by Houman on his thread:

(https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?40941-Horus-Ra-as-the-Archontic-Alien-Parasite-A-follow-up-interview-with-Maarit&p=1639376&viewfull=1#post1639376)~~~

The Brain Doctor: #1 Cause Of Parkinson’s & Alzheimer’s (AVOID THIS) The shocking root cause of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease and how to prevent it, with Dr Ray Dorsey. Head to https://boncharge.com/5minutebody for a 25% discount with code 5MB25.

In this episode, my guest speaker, Dr Ray Dorsey, a Professor Of Neurology and Director of the Center for Human Experimental Therapeutics at the University of Rochester Medical Center, will share the shocking root cause of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s Disease.

Access the full show notes, including referenced articles, books, and additional resources: https://www.5minutebody.com/lab/dr-ra...

Dr. Dorsey explains how environmental toxins in our food, water, and air are at the root cause of brain diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. He and his team of 14 neurologists have published evidence proving that a chemical found in drinking water, and food and common cleaning products is causing the alarming rise of Parkinson’s disease, and specifically, air pollution is highly linked to Alzheimer’s Disease.

In this episode, Dr Dorsey details the 3 common toxic chemicals in our environment and simple protocols to implement relating to the food we eat, what we drink, and the air we breathe.

This episode is important for every person who wants to prevent brain diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer's, and particularly for people who have an existing diagnosed brain disease.

b18A4eMg94E

onawah

3rd November 2024, 17:15

Industry Scandal: The Loss of Nutrients
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
November 02, 2024
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/11/02/food-nutrient-loss.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&sd=20110604&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20241102&foDate=true&mid=DM1653010&rid=154123558

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2024/November/PDF/food-nutrient-loss-pdf.pdf

Ax0SIbxgqDw

"Story at-a-glance
Modern farming practices and seed hybridization have significantly reduced the nutritional content of fruits and vegetables over the past 60 years, with average declines of 16% for calcium, 27% for vitamin C and 50% for iron
The focus on higher yields, longer shelf life and visual appeal in crop development has led to a trade-off in nutrient density, particularly evident in hybrid tomatoes compared to heirloom varieties
Four multinational corporations control two-thirds of the global seed market, leading to loss of biodiversity, farmer dependence on hybrid seeds and exploitative labor practices in seed production
The nutrient decline in produce contributes to increased risk of deficiencies, reduced antioxidant intake and rising chronic diseases, leading to greater reliance on dietary supplements
Solutions include supporting seed banks, practicing regenerative agriculture, increasing consumer awareness and implementing policies that prioritize soil health, protect farmers' rights and enforce fair labor practices in seed production

The documentary "Industry Scandal: The Loss of Nutrients" exposes how modern farming practices and seed hybridization have dramatically reduced the nutritional content of our fruits and vegetables over the past 60 years.

The evidence is clear: the food on our plates today is a shadow of what our grandparents ate. Not only has flavor been sacrificed on the altar of productivity and shelf-life, but critical vitamins and minerals have plummeted as well. This nutrient collapse has profound implications for public health that we're only beginning to understand.

The Ghost of Vegetables Past
The filmmakers begin their investigation at an unlikely location — the French Academy of Agriculture. Hidden away in this venerable institution, they discover a food composition table from 60 years ago detailing the exact nutrient content of fruits and vegetables at that time. Armed with this historical data, they set out to compare it to modern nutrient levels. The results are striking:1

"We discovered a little-known fact: fruit and vegetables have lost some of their vitamins and minerals. Take green beans for example: in 1960 they contained 65 milligrams (mg) of calcium for every 100 grams. In 2017 they contain no more than 48.5 milligrams. That's a quarter less calcium. The same thing for vitamin C — 19 mg at the time versus 13.6 mg."

This wasn't an isolated case. Examining data for the 70 most consumed fruits and vegetables revealed an alarming trend. According to the film, which is also known as "Seeds of Profit":2

"The results show a dramatic deterioration in the space of 60 years. All 70 fruit and vegetables have lost an average of 16% of their calcium, 27% of their vitamin C, and almost less than half of their iron levels."

These findings align with research conducted in the U.S. and U.K. American biochemist Donald Davis analyzed nutrient changes in 43 vegetables between 1950 and 1999, reaching similar conclusions.3 Davis’ study found statistically significant declines in six nutrients: protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin and vitamin C.

The median declines ranged from 6% for protein to 38% for riboflavin (vitamin B2), and the researchers suggest that these declines are most likely explained by changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999. Specifically, they said there may be "trade-offs between crop yield and nutrient content" in the newer varieties.

The Culprit: Agricultural ‘Progress’
What's behind this nutrient collapse? The documentary points to several factors, all stemming from the industrialization of agriculture:

•Hybridization for higher yields — Over the past 50 years, seed companies have focused on developing hybrid varieties that maximize yield and visual appeal. As Davis explains, "I think that most of these declines are caused by increases in yield. When yields go up, there's less nutrients per weight of the food. A lot of agricultural scientists may not know about how big these effects are. This is kind of embarrassing. They're always wanting to increase yield."4

This focus on quantity over quality has come at a steep nutritional cost. The tomato, for instance, has seen some of the largest nutrient declines — losing a quarter of its calcium and more than half of its vitamins.

•The quest for eternal shelf life — Perhaps the most egregious example of sacrificing nutrition for commercial gain is the development of the "long shelf life" tomato. In the 1970s and 1980s, Israeli researchers created a hybrid tomato that decays much more slowly after being picked.

While this innovation reduced waste and revolutionized the global tomato market, it came with serious downsides. As Haim Rabinowitch, professor emeritus at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, one of the developers, admits:5

"The genes for ripening inhibition carry with them some negative traits. For instance, flavor deteriorates and we [have] less nutrients. But I didn't know because we never measured it. Only later in the '90s and the early 2000s, we started looking into the quality traits. I offered a project like that to many seed companies. I even gave it a name. I called it ‘ACE’ tomato.

Why ACE? Vitamins A, C and E, and I said it will be much healthier tomato. We don't have it in supermarkets, this variety. The industries, they don't care."The Nutrient Gap: Heirloom vs Hybrid
In a revealing experiment, the filmmakers compared a modern hybrid tomato to an heirloom variety. The results were stark:

After one week, the heirloom tomato showed signs of decay and was no longer fit for sale. The hybrid looked unchanged.
After two weeks, the heirloom was moldy. The hybrid still appeared fresh.
It took 25 days for the hybrid to become unsellable — extending shelf life from three days to over three weeks.
But this longevity comes at a steep price. When tasted, the hybrid was described as "tasteless" compared to the flavorful heirloom. To quantify the nutrient differences, the documentary team had both tomatoes analyzed in an accredited laboratory. The results were eye-opening:6

"The hybrid tomato contains a significantly lower level of the five nutrients analyzed. It contains 63% less calcium, 29% less magnesium, and 72% less vitamin C. The levels of lycopene and polyphenols, two antioxidants that help fight cardiovascular diseases, are two times lower in the hybrid than in the farmer's variety tomato."

This data provides clear evidence that the push for longer shelf life and higher yields has dramatically reduced the nutritional value of our produce.

The Global Seed Oligopoly
As the documentary reveals, the push for hybrid seeds is being driven by a handful of multinational corporations that dominate the global seed market. Just four companies — Bayer (formerly Monsanto), Corteva (formerly DuPont), Syngenta and Limagrain — control two-thirds of all seeds sold worldwide.7,8 This concentration of power has serious implications:

1.Loss of biodiversity — As uniform hybrid varieties replace traditional seeds, we're losing genetic diversity at an alarming rate. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations reports that 75% of global agrobiodiversity has been lost due to the adoption of "improved" varieties.9

2.Farmer dependence — Hybrid seeds don't reproduce true-to-type, forcing farmers to buy new seeds each year. This creates a cycle of dependence on seed companies.

3.Skyrocketing seed prices — The documentary reveals that some tomato seed varieties now sell for up to $450,000 per kilogram — more than double the price of gold.10

4.Exploitative labor practices — To keep costs down, seed production is often outsourced to developing countries where child labor and below-minimum wage payments are common.

The Dark Side of Seed Production
The widespread use of child labor in hybrid seed production is featured in the documentary. In India's Karnataka state, a major hub for vegetable seed production, researchers found that 10% of workers in seed fields are children under 14 — despite laws prohibiting child labor.11 Why are children employed? As Davuluri Venkateswarlu, author of "Soiled Seeds," a report on the issue, explains:12

"The hybridization activity is very, very delicate. It requires a lot of skills. The children are preferred because they can do these repetitive activities very faster than adults, and also they are more obedient. Two children can do the work of three adults. That is the kind of calculation farmers have."

Even adult workers face exploitation. Women working in tomato seed fields earn just $2.80 per day — 40% below India's legal minimum wage. Yet these seeds will sell for tens of thousands of dollars per kilogram in Europe and North America.

This exploitation persists because multinational seed companies turn a blind eye to the practices of their local subcontractors. When confronted, they hide behind vague statements about "promoting decent working conditions" without taking concrete action.

The Health Implications
The health implications of this nutrient collapse in our food supply are immense. While the full impact is still being studied, we can draw some alarming conclusions:

1.Increased risk of nutrient deficiencies — As fruits and vegetables contain fewer vitamins and minerals, it becomes harder to meet your nutritional needs through diet alone. This may contribute to the rise in deficiencies we're seeing, particularly in minerals like magnesium and trace elements.

2.Reduced antioxidant intake — The dramatic drop in vitamin C, lycopene and polyphenols means we're getting far fewer protective antioxidants from our produce. This could increase vulnerability to oxidative stress and related chronic diseases.

3.Link to rising chronic disease — While many factors contribute to the increase in chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes, the depletion of protective nutrients in our food supply plays a role.

4.Hidden hunger — Even people eating what appears to be a healthy diet rich in fruits and vegetables are getting far fewer nutrients than they realize. This "hidden hunger" has wide-ranging health effects.

5.Increased reliance on supplements — As food becomes less nutritious, more people will turn to dietary supplements to meet their nutritional needs. While supplements have their place, they're not a perfect replacement for nutrients obtained from whole foods.

The Path Forward: Reclaiming Our Food
The situation seems dire, but there are rays of hope. Around the world, farmers, researchers and citizens are working to preserve agricultural biodiversity and promote more nutritious food production. Here are some key initiatives:

•Seed banks and exchanges — Organizations like Kokopelli in France are working to preserve heirloom and traditional seed varieties. Their "Seeds Without Borders" program distributes these seeds to farmers and gardeners worldwide, helping to maintain genetic diversity.

As noted in the documentary, "By conserving these endangered seeds, we are taking back the choice to plant or eat non-standardized fruit and vegetables which are the best produce for both our planet and our health."13 Supporting these seed preservation efforts is crucial for maintaining biodiversity and giving farmers alternatives to hybrid seeds.

•Regenerative agriculture — Farming practices that focus on building healthy soils increase the nutrient content of crops. By moving away from chemical-intensive methods and embracing techniques like cover cropping, composting and diverse crop rotations, we can produce more nutritious food while improving environmental health.

•Consumer awareness and demand — As consumers become more aware of the nutrient issue, they can drive change through their purchasing decisions. Choosing heirloom varieties, supporting local farmers using diverse seed stocks and demanding more transparent labeling all make a difference.

•Policy changes — At a broader level, we need policies that incentivize farming practices that enhance soil health and nutrient uptake, protect farmers' rights to save and exchange seeds, and enforce fair labor practices in seed production globally.

How to Protect Your Nutrient Intake and Support a More Nutritious Food System
The loss of nutrients in our food supply is a silent crisis that demands urgent attention. By understanding the problem and taking action — both in our personal choices and by advocating for systemic change — we can work toward a future where our food nourishes us as nature intended.

The path to truly healthy food isn't through further industrialization or genetic modification. Instead, we must look to the wisdom of traditional farming methods, embrace biodiversity and prioritize nutrient density. Our health, and the health of future generations, depends on it. To protect your health and support a more nutritious food system, consider:

Choosing heirloom and open-pollinated varieties when possible — These often have higher nutrient levels and better flavor than hybrid varieties.

Supporting local farmers and farmers markets — Small-scale producers are more likely to grow diverse, nutrient-dense crops.

Grow your own — Even a small garden or a few containers provide incredibly nutritious produce.

Opt for organic — While not a guarantee of higher nutrients, organic produce is less likely to contain harmful pesticide residues.

Eat a diverse diet — Don't rely on just a few fruits and vegetables — incorporate a wide variety to ensure you're getting a broad spectrum of nutrients.

Consider targeted supplementation — While whole foods should be the foundation of your diet, high-quality supplements can help fill nutrient gaps.

Support organizations working to preserve seed diversity and promote sustainable agriculture.

Stay informed and spread awareness — Share this information with friends and family to help drive change."

Sources and References
1 YouTube, Moconomy, Industry Scandal: The Loss of Nutrients July 20, 2024, 1:12
2, 4 YouTube, Moconomy, Industry Scandal: The Loss of Nutrients July 20, 2024, 1:53
3 J Am Coll Nutr. 2004 Dec;23(6):669-82. doi: 10.1080/07315724.2004.10719409
5 YouTube, Moconomy, Industry Scandal: The Loss of Nutrients July 20, 2024, 13:10
6 YouTube, Moconomy, Industry Scandal: The Loss of Nutrients July 20, 2024, 20:57
7 Equal Exchange Center, From Alternative Trade to Corporate Consolidation
8 YouTube, Moconomy, Industry Scandal: The Loss of Nutrients July 20, 2024, 43:08
9 FAO.org, What Is Happening to Agrobiodiversity?
10 YouTube, Moconomy, Industry Scandal: The Loss of Nutrients July 20, 2024, 26:47
11 YouTube, Moconomy, Industry Scandal: The Loss of Nutrients July 20, 2024, 27:59
12 YouTube, Moconomy, Industry Scandal: The Loss of Nutrients July 20, 2024, 33:04
13 YouTube, Moconomy, Industry Scandal: The Loss of Nutrients July 20, 2024, 49:06

Hermoor

4th November 2024, 05:12

This thread is close to my heart for reasons that will become apparent. I'd like to contribute a personal experience that had an enormous influence on my life.

As a first year undergraduate food chemistry was one of the subjects I studied. A chemical dictionary was not a mandatory purchase for the subject, or even a recommended one. I decided to get one anyway. I was a talented athlete and starting to take nutrition seriously. Also I was enjoying the course and wanted to better understand the nature and properties of the chemicals involved. So many of them were new to me and I needed to get my bearings with them.

I believed that we are what we eat. I wanted to know exactly what I was eating. It seemed perfectly logical for me to go to my local supermarket with my chemical dictionary and take notes about all the chemicals listed on the food and drink ingredients labels.

It would take me more than two hours to shop around for what would usually take 20 minutes. Most people thought I was quirky or eccentric, whilst a few others thought I was nuts. "Why does it take him so long to do his shopping? Why does he insist on pushing his trolley around with one hand whilst reading a book in the other? What is that book he's reading and why is he taking notes too?"

I wanted to know what I was consuming in my food and drink of course. It seemed like the most obvious, natural and necessary thing in the world to me. Why was I the only one doing it? Why wasn't everyone doing it? Why did so many apparently simple foods and drinks have so many ingredients listed on the labels? What were these ingredients and why were they in our food and drink?

The first visit to the supermarket really rattled me. According to my chemical dictionary I was in the middle of a horror show. The same terms in my chemical dictionary kept popping up again and again. "By-product of industrial waste." "Known toxin." "Poisonous to humans." "Known carcinogen." "Hazardous to human health."

After a couple more visits to the supermarket and further study I was in no doubt about what was going on and decided on a course of action. First thing on Monday morning I burst into the office of the Dean of the faculty of science. "Sir! Our food and drink is being poisoned. We have to do something about it. We have to tell the newspapers and the BBC and get them to talk about it. The government needs to know. We're all being poisoned! It has to stop."

I thought I could save the world. :ROFL: I thought everyone needed to know what I knew. The Dean wasn't too impressed and just wanted me to go away. My friends generally just shrugged their shoulders and said "If we were being poisoned, then the government scientists and our lecturers would know already. They'd be doing something about it if it was bad. It's just a minor thing. They'll sort it out. Don't worry about it." My family just shrugged their shoulders too and said much the same.

University life was never the same for me after that. Third year genetics killed off the last few ounces of enthusiasm I had for a scientific career. "Design a bacterial or viral bioweapon to kill as many of an enemy population as quickly as possible. Explain why you prefer a bacterial bioweapon over a viral one, or vice versa. Furthermore, describe the delivery mechanism by which you would introduce your bioweapon into the enemy population as efficiently as possible."

I thought these people were cracked and didn't want to have anything more to do with them.

Incidentally, most of us opted for a viral design with a delivery mechanism of putting it into the enemy water supply. Everyone has to drink and wash, right?

Thankfully none of us were anything like evil minded enough to think of the perfect delivery mechanism. The most efficient delivery mechanism never even crossed my mind until the covaids pantomime kicked off. "Oh no. They are going to put it in the vaccines. Everyone is going to take it voluntarily without suspecting a thing."

Well, much the same can be said for the toxic sh*te that all of our supermarket food and drink is full of.

The biggest point I'd like to make is this.

Get yourselves at least one chemical dictionary and make it count. A good chemical dictionary is worth its weight in gold.

Just remember that these filthy parasitic bar stewards mess with chemical dictionaries as much as they mess with history and everything else.

Some, much or all of what they don't want you to read and learn now will be edited out of current chemical dictionaries. Similarly they change our history (and the rest) by a gradual editing and censorship process over years, decades and centuries. What was true for grandma and grandpa becomes lost to the grandkids.

In an ideal world I'd own good chemical dictionaries from at least the 1940s, 1980s and 2020s. You need to compare chemical meanings over time to figure out what's been edited and censored and why.

Good luck to all deserving of it.

onawah

20th November 2024, 00:27

The True Impact of Grass Fed Beef: Why Your Meat's Origin Matters More Than You Think
Analysis by Ashley Armstrong
November 19, 2024
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/11/19/grass-fed-beef-impact.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&sd=20110604&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20241119_HL2&foDate=true&mid=DM1661448&rid=166201339
https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2024/November/PDF/grass-fed-beef-impact-pdf.pdf

"Story at-a-glance
Grass fed and grain-fed cattle follow dramatically different paths after their first 7 to 9 months. Grass fed cattle continue grazing naturally until 20 to 28 months, while grain-fed are moved to feedlots and fattened rapidly with corn and soy-based diets until 15 to 18 months
Conventional feedlot operations expose cattle to numerous chemicals including antibiotics, growth hormones, pesticides in feed, and routine vaccinations — with pesticide residues in animal feed allowed to be up to 100 times higher than what's permitted in human-consumed grains
Grain-fed beef can contain higher levels of phytoestrogens and other endocrine-disrupting compounds due to soy and grain-based feeds, while grass fed beef naturally contains lower levels of these potentially harmful substances
Grass fed beef offers superior nutrition with up to twice the riboflavin, three times the thiamine, four times the vitamin E, and 1.5 to 3 times more conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) compared to grain-fed beef
Contrary to common belief, regenerative grazing practices can increase livestock carrying capacity by 50% to 70% compared to continuous grazing, while also improving soil health, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration

In an era where food choices can significantly impact both personal and environmental health, the distinction between grass fed and grain-fed beef has never been more relevant. While all beef provides essential nutrients, the way cattle are raised creates meaningful differences in the final product's nutritional profile and environmental impact.

As consumers become more conscious about their food choices, understanding these differences becomes crucial for making informed decisions about the meat we put on our plates.

The Tale of Two Systems: Understanding Modern Cattle Raising
The journey of beef from farm to plate follows two distinctly different paths in modern agriculture. Both grass fed and grain-fed cattle begin life similarly — nursing from their mothers and grazing freely for their first 7 to 9 months. However, their paths diverge dramatically after this initial phase, leading to significant differences in the final product.

Conventional cattle are transferred to feedlots, often confined to small stalls where they receive a high energy, corn and soy-based diet (with other components that have the potential to alter the fatty acid profile of beef — not what we want! More about that later in the article).

These animals are rapidly fattened and typically sent to slaughter at 15 to 18 months, weighing 1,200 to 1,500 pounds. Imagine spending your days on the couch with little movement, eating processed foods your body wasn't really designed to consume — of course you would gain weight rapidly!

In contrast, grass fed cattle continue their natural grazing lifestyle with regular movement, reaching slaughter weight more slowly — usually between 20 to 28 months at 1,000 to 1,300 pounds, depending on pasture quality and grazing management.

This difference represents more than just timing — it reflects two fundamentally different agricultural philosophies: regenerative versus conventional farming. The term 'conventional agriculture' is somewhat misleading, as this industrial approach, characterized by mass production methods and heavy use of synthetic chemicals, only became widespread in the mid-20th century (only about ~70 years ago!).

Perhaps more accurate terms would be 'industrial agriculture' or 'degenerative agriculture,' standing in stark contrast to regenerative systems that work in harmony with natural processes.

On the one hand, we have naturally raised animals who rarely get sick. This is because they eat a natural diet, have plenty of exercise and space, are moved to fresh patches of grass with fresh air, aren’t confined, and aren’t exposed to manure and parasites due to regular rotations of the livestock with moveable fencing. Animals raised this way do not need routine vaccinations or pharmaceuticals.

On the other hand, there are conventionally raised animals who are likely to get sick without pharmaceutical interventions. This is because they eat an unnatural diet when in the feedlot, live in crowded living spaces, are not able to exercise or breathe fresh air. Animals raised this way would not produce food or survive without routine vaccinations and antibiotics.

The Hidden Toxin Story
One of the most compelling reasons to choose grass fed beef lies in what you won't find in it. Feedlot operations, or CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations), rely heavily on chemical interventions to maintain animal health and manage pests in crowded conditions.

"Feed yards house thousands of cattle in relatively small areas, approximately 20 sq. meters per head. To maintain cattle health and maximize growth among high densities of animals, many countries (USA, Australia, South Africa, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, and Chile) rely heavily on veterinary pharmaceuticals.

In these countries, more than 90% of all feed yards treat cattle with antibiotics, 85% use β−agonists, and over 80% use synthetic anabolic steroids. Antibiotics, β−agonists, and melengestrol acetate (progesterone-like steroid) are administered to cattle via feed, whereas the primary route of administration for other growth-promoting steroids is slow release implant."1

The chemical exposure doesn't stop there. The Environmental Working Group estimates that a staggering 167 million pounds of pesticides are used annually just to grow animal feed (GMO and non-GMO) in the United States. Even more concerning, the allowed glyphosate residues in animal feed can be more than 100 times higher than what's permitted in human-consumed grains, with red meat allowed to contain 20 times more than most plant crops.2

These chemicals don't simply disappear. Pesticides can accumulate in animals' fatty tissues over time,3 creating a concentrated source of exposure for consumers. Additionally, the prevalence of GMO crops in livestock feed introduces another layer of potential concern as trace amounts of these substances could potentially be present in the final beef product.

Currently, there are no requirements to label beef products as containing GMOs based on the animal's feed.4 The CAFO environment itself necessitates numerous chemical interventions:

Insecticides for fly control
Dewormers for parasite management
Vaccines and antibiotics for disease prevention (a long list of ‘routine vaccinations’ are very common in conventional beef systems)
Rodenticides and other pest control agents
This chemical-dependent approach starkly contrasts with regenerative farming practices that focus on preventing health issues through natural management methods.

The Endocrine Disruption Connection
Perhaps most concerning is the potential endocrine-disrupting effects of conventionally raised beef.

Certain pesticides used in feed production are known endocrine disruptors, which are chemicals that interfere with the endocrine system, which regulates hormones in the body. These chemicals can mimic, block, or alter natural hormones, potentially causing developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune issues.

In addition to pesticides, phytoestrogen levels in feedlot and grain-finished beef can be higher — causing further disruption to endocrine systems. Phytoestrogens are plant-derived compounds that can mimic or influence estrogen activity in the body (and we often do not need more estrogen in modern times). Phytoestrogens in high doses may cause hormonal abnormalities in both men and women as well as children.5

The data promoting the use of phytoestrogen consumption (like flax) is from epidemiological studies and have not been replicated in a clinical setting. And there is data in the thermography world demonstrating that a high phytoestrogen diet causes more complications for cancer.6

Grain-based feeds, particularly those containing legumes like soybeans, or supplemental flax seeds, can be high in phytoestrogens. Cattle in feedlots are often fed diets that include higher levels of phytoestrogens, leading to higher phytoestrogen exposure compared to grass fed cattle.7

Phytoestrogens consumed by livestock can accumulate in their tissues, including meat and fat. The concentration of these compounds in animal products depends on the amount and duration of exposure through feed.8

Grain-fed cattle may also be exposed to other estrogenic compounds beyond phytoestrogens. For example, zearalenone, a mold toxin that can act as a mycoestrogen, may be present in moldy grains fed to feedlot cattle.

While estrogen-mimicking compounds are generally low in beef products compared to some other food sources, grain-fed beef may have higher levels of estrogenic compounds due to the feed composition. So if you are struggling with estrogen dominance symptoms, being mindful of beef sourcing can help with hormonal rebalance.

Grass fed beef is generally expected to have lower levels of phytoestrogens and other estrogenic compounds due to the animals' diet being primarily composed of grasses rather than grains and legumes.

While there aren’t many studies investigating the quantitative comparison of phytoestrogen levels in feedlot versus grass fed beef, some data suggest that grain-finished beef from feedlots is more likely to contain higher levels of phytoestrogens and other estrogenic compounds in their meat and fat compared to grass fed beef. This is primarily due to the differences in feed composition and potential exposure to various estrogenic substances in the feedlot environment.

The Nutritional Advantage
Grass fed beef doesn't just have fewer undesirable compounds — it offers superior nutrition. Studies have found nearly twice the riboflavin and three times the thiamine concentrations in grass-finished beef compared to grain-finished.9 Moreover, grass fed beef can contain up to four times more vitamin E than beef from feedlot cattle.10

Further, the conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) content is particularly impressive, with levels 1.5 to 3 times higher in pasture-raised meat and dairy products.11 CLA has anticarcinogenic and anti-adipogenic properties. The benefits extend to consumers, as research shows that eating pasture-raised animal products elevates serum CLA concentrations in humans.12

The Remarkable World of Phytonutrients
One of the most fascinating aspects of grass fed beef is its phytonutrient content. While we typically associate phytochemicals with plant foods, meat from pastured animals contains significant levels of these beneficial compounds.13

Phytochemicals are secondary compounds found in fruits and vegetables that are well documented to have a number of health benefits. For example, terpenoids are a class of phytochemicals that have anti-inflammatory, antiviral, and anticarcinogenic properties.14 Polyphenols are well documented to exert strong in vivo anti-inflammatory effects in both animals and humans.

Other therapeutic benefits of phenols include protection again various cancers, hepatic disorders, cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative diseases, Type 2 diabetes, obesity, improved immune function, and gut microbial composition.15

Importantly, the phytonutrient content varies significantly based on grazing practices. Animals grazing on diverse pastures accumulate both higher amounts and a wider variety of phytochemicals in their meat compared to those on monoculture pastures or grain-based diets.16 This highlights the importance of not just grass-feeding, but ensuring cattle have access to diverse, nutrient-rich pastures.

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2024/November/grass-fed-grain-fed-cattle.jpg

"Animals grazing more botanically diverse pastures accumulate both higher amounts and a wider variety … phytochemicals in their meat and milk compared to animals grazing non-diverse (i.e., monoculture) pastures, while concentrations of phytochemicals are further reduced — and often remain undetected — in the meat and milk of animals fed grain-based diets in feedlots."17

While total phytonutrient concentration is higher in plant foods, the contribution of phytochemicals from pasture-raised meat and milk to overall dietary intake should not be underestimated. Consuming plant foods is of course important, but consuming phytochemically-rich meat will provide us with a spectrum of phytonutrients from classes of plants otherwise not readily consumed by humans.

The Revolutionary Impact of Regenerative Grazing
Regenerative grazing practices represent a fundamental shift in livestock management. This approach, also known as Adaptive Multi-Paddock (AMP) grazing, involves rotating animals through multiple smaller paddocks within a pasture. This method mimics natural grazing patterns of wild herbivores and offers numerous environmental benefits:

Enhanced soil health and fertility

Increased biodiversity

Improved carbon sequestration

Better water retention

Reduced parasite exposure for livestock

Enhanced nutrient density in the final product

These practices create a virtuous cycle where healthier soil leads to more nutritious forage, which in turn produces healthier animals and more nutritious meat.

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2024/November/its-not-the-cow-its-the-how.jpg

The Fat Factor
The fat composition of beef tells another important story. Before we dive into types of fats, let’s first address the overall fat content. Feedlots have significantly increased the fat composition of ruminant animals like cows, resulting in meat that’s much fattier than what was historically consumed. Wild animals, by contrast, are naturally lean.

Modern feedlots rely on energy-dense feeds and restrict livestock movement, promoting rapid weight gain and increased fat deposits. This raises the question: Are today’s super-fatty ribeye steaks from CAFO beef truly "ancestral"?

Now, when it comes to the type of fat in beef, this is where beef differ from chickens and pigs (who have a single stomach). The fat of all ruminant animals have relatively low levels of linoleic acid (LA), even if they are eating some higher omega-6 PUFA sources. This is because their stomach has a ‘biohydrogenation chamber’ that contains bacteria that can convert the high LA fat they eat from grains and seeds into saturated and monounsaturated fats.

While all ruminant animals naturally convert some dietary fats through biohydrogenation, the final fatty acid profile still differs between grass fed and grain-fed beef. Research by the Weston A. Price Foundation found that grass fed tallow contains 45% less total polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), 66% less omega-6 linoleic acid, and 36% more saturated fat stearic acid.18

This fat composition difference becomes particularly relevant in the context of modern diets, which already often contain excessive amounts of omega-6 fatty acids. What’s more — there is ongoing research on how the PUFA content of cows can be increased even more! Based on the false premise that saturated fats are bad for us, and PUFAs are good for us.

This research of dairy fatty acid manipulation started in the 1980s — "Interest in manipulating the fat content of milk was in full force entering the 1980s. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans published in 1980 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) emphasized reductions in total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol."19

Rumen bypass or "rumen escape" technology is used to protect proteins and lipids from degradation in the rumen, allowing them to be digested more efficiently in the small intestine and altering the fatty acid composition.20 Attempting to bypass the natural biohydrogenation process in the rumen!

A few methods that can lead to PUFAs bypassing the rumen include high levels of distillers grains in the diet,21 calcium soaps of fatty acids to protect PUFAs from the ruminal biohydrogenation,22 and the inclusion of various other whole, treated or protected oilseeds like whole cottonseed, roasted soybeans, canola seed, sunflower seeds, flaxseeds.23

Calcium soaps have been used with soybean oil (rich in linoleic acid) to maximize the delivery of omega-6 fatty acids to the duodenum for absorption.24 The use of rumen bypass techniques allow for more of the dietary linoleic acid to be absorbed intact and incorporated into the beef25 — not what we want!

Some studies do not measure the linoleic acid change in the meat, but it is likely that feeding rumen-protected oilseeds would increase the linoleic acid content beyond normal confinement beef levels.

There is also research into using transgenic techniques to modify fat content in animal products, including beef,26 which involves genetically modifying the animals themselves. Why can’t we just leave Mother Nature alone? We will never out smart her!

The Metabolic Health Connection
The health of the animal directly impacts the quality of its meat. Research shows that pen-finished animals display elevated glucose metabolites, triglycerides, markers of oxidative stress, and proteolysis compared to pasture-finished animals.27,28 Extended grain feeding can lead to insulin resistance in ruminants,29 and studies have documented different energetic levels between grass fed and grain-fed animals.30

meat science
While the full implications for human health are still being studied, some research suggests that consuming products from pasture-fed cattle may have different metabolic effects compared to those from grain-fed cattle.31 This raises important questions about how the metabolic health of livestock might influence the metabolic health of consumers.

When an animal has poor metabolic health, detoxification systems are downregulated. Add on top of that, higher bacterial and toxin load when in confinement, and that is a recipe to get sick! So of course a long list of ‘routine vaccinations’ and regular antibiotic use are required to maintain health!

The Antibiotic Challenge
The confined conditions of feedlots often necessitate routine use of antibiotics, with water bowls being a common administration route. An estimated 50% to 60% of feedlot cattle receive low-level antibiotics during feeding,32 used both for growth promotion and disease prevention in crowded conditions.33 This routine antibiotic use contributes to growing concerns about antibiotic resistance in both animal and human populations. Common antibiotics used in cattle feedlots include:34

Tetracyclines (e.g. oxytetracycline)
Macrolides (e.g. tylosin, erythromycin)
Florfenicol (Florkem)
Tulathromycin (Draxxin)
Ceftiofur (Excede)
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been found in feedlot water bowls, even before cattle arrive, indicating environmental reservoirs.35 Moreover, the water bowls can become hotspots for the spread of antibiotic resistance genes between different bacterial species.36,37 Resistant bacteria in water bowls may then transfer resistance genes to pathogens that cause bovine respiratory disease.38

It's important to note that practices may vary between different countries and regions, and efforts are being made in some areas to reduce antibiotic use in livestock production.

It is also important to note that there is a huge difference in using pharmaceutical interventions to keep an animal alive or on an as-needed basis, versus a large list of ‘routine vaccinations’ or ‘regular antibiotics’ to prevent future health problems due to infrastructure set up. However, there are consequences to constantly trying to fight Mother Nature!

But Grass Fed Requires More Space!
This oversimplified view misses crucial nuances in grass fed farming — management practices make all the difference!

As highlighted in van Vliet et al. (2021): "Management practices that use ecological principles can increase the carrying capacity of livestock by 50% to 70% compared to continuous (largely unmanaged) grazing ... There is also potential for increased carrying capacity from multi-species grazing with little dietary overlap.

For instance, integrating cattle with sheep, goats, and pigs and/or potentially other feed-conversion-efficient herbivores such as ducks, geese, and rabbits can improve animal productivity compared to grazing single species ... This synergy is achieved because different species exploit different ecological niches and one species can increase resource availability for another species ...

Greater diversification of livestock can allow for more efficient use of the resources provided by a particular ecosystem. For example, goats and sheep readily eat species of forbs, shrubs and trees that large herbivores like cattle and bison often avoid, while larger herbivores can better utilize lower quality forage compared to small herbivores such as sheep and goats."39

The untapped potential is enormous. Most pastures are underutilized, and we're overlooking a major opportunity: millions of acres of row crop fields sit idle for 4 to 8 months each year. By introducing cover crops and grazing cattle between harvests, we could dramatically increase available pastureland while enhancing soil health and agricultural sustainability.

Rather than cramming more animals into industrial facilities, let's embrace holistic management practices. By enhancing pasture productivity and creating integrated farming enterprises, we can boost both environmental sustainability and farmer profitability — a win-win solution that benefits animals, land, and agricultural communities.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), current agricultural output is sufficient to meet the caloric needs of approximately 12 billion people, while the global population is around 8 billion, indicating a surplus of food production.40,41

Meaning, already produce enough food to feed 1.5 times the world population — we don’t need to focus on maximizing quantity at the expense of quality! Focus instead needs to be improving infrastructure and distribution.

Making an Informed Choice
The price difference between conventional and grass fed beef often raises eyebrows, but understanding the "why" behind this cost difference reveals the true value proposition. Grass fed cattle take longer to reach market weight (20 to 28 months versus 15 to 18 months for grain-fed), requiring more time, land, and careful management.

This extended timeline, combined with the intensive pasture management needed for regenerative grazing (daily moves, if not 2 to 3 times a day!), contributes to the higher price point.

However, when we consider the broader picture — lower toxin exposure, enhanced nutrient density, superior fat composition, and healthier animals — the premium price of grass fed beef becomes an investment in both personal and environmental health rather than merely an expense.

While all beef provides essential nutrients like zinc, B vitamins, and creatine, grass fed beef from regenerative farming systems offers these nutrients in a package with fewer concerning compounds and additional beneficial substances like phytonutrients.

For those working within budget constraints, it's reassuring to know that conventional beef still provides valuable nutrition. The choice doesn't have to be all-or-nothing — incorporating grass fed beef when possible while choosing conventional beef at other times can be a practical approach to balancing nutrition, sustainability, and budget considerations.

The key is making informed decisions based on your personal circumstances while understanding the real differences between these two products.

The higher cost of grass fed beef reflects not just the extended raising time, but also the investment in regenerative farming practices that benefit soil health, animal welfare, and ultimately, human health. When viewed through this lens, the price premium becomes more understandable — it's the true cost of producing beef in harmony with natural systems rather than forcing nature to conform to industrial efficiency.

How to Get Started
Ready to support regenerative ranching? Start by connecting with local farmers through trusted directories like Eat Wild, Local Harvest, or the Regenerative Farmers of America farm map.

Can't find a farm nearby? Premium producers like White Oak Pastures, Alderspring Ranch, and Nourish Food Club deliver 100% grass fed, regeneratively raised beef directly to your home, making sustainable choices convenient no matter where you live.

Plus, you can save money while maximizing nutrition by choosing budget-friendly cuts of beef. Ground beef offers versatility, while "tough cuts" like shanks, roasts, and cheeks transform into incredibly tender meat when braised low and slow. These affordable options are particularly rich in gelatin, providing a well-rounded amino acid profile that many premium cuts lack.

About the Author
Ashley Armstrong is the co-founder of Angel Acres Food Club, which specializes in low-PUFA (polyunsaturated fat) eggs that are shipped to all 50 states, and Nourish Food Club, which ships 100% grass fed, vaccine-free, regeneratively raised beef and lamb, plus low-PUFA pork and chicken, A2 dairy and cheese, and traditional sourdough to all 50 states. Waitlists will reopen shortly."

+ Sources and References
1 Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 13008−13015
2 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Chapter I, Subchapter E, Part 180, Subpart C, § 180.364, October 31, 2024
3 Biochem J (2020) 477 (14): 2639–2653
4 Center for Food Safety, June 20, 2019
5 Front Neuroendocrinol. 2010 Mar 27;31(4):400–419
6 Amazon, Breast Cancer Boot Camp: Dr. Hobbins's Breast Thermography Revolution
7 J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 21, 10099–10104
8 Metabolites. 2021 Aug 20;11(8):550
9 J Anim Sci. 2009 Sep;87(9):2961-70
10, 31 Understanding AG
11 Food Sci Nutr. 2018 Feb 28;6(3):681-700
12 Nutr Res. 2011 Jan;31(1):33-41
13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 39 Front. Sustain. Food Syst., February 1, 2021, Sec. Agroecology and Ecosystem Services, Volume 4 - 2020
18 The Weston A. Price Foundation, January 21, 2014
19 J Dairy Sci. 2006 Apr;89(4):1302-10
20 Ag Proud, February 1, 2016
21, 25 Meat and Muscle Biology 5(1), 34, 1–16
22, 24 Animals (Basel). 2021 Jun 12;11(6):1764
23 Front Vet Sci. 2022 Jul 21;9:923937
26 The Role of Biotechnology in Improvement of Livestock. 2015 Apr 8:55–89
27 J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2023 Apr 1;14:49
28 J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2023 Apr 1;14(1):49
29 J Anim Sci. 2022 Jul 1;100(7):skac182
30 Meat Sci. 2020 Mar:161:107996
32 Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008 May 23;74(14):4405–4416
33 Microbiome, Volume 7, Article number: 86 (2019)
34, 35, 37, 38 Beef Cattle Research Council, December 19, 2023
36 Sentient Science, March 13, 2023
40 Nature Food, Volume 2, Pages 494–501 (2021)
41 United Nations, June 11, 2012

onawah

20th November 2024, 04:18

As if that ^ weren't enough...Bezos/Gates Bankroll Cattle Methane Vaccine
by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
November 19, 2024
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/jeff-bezos-bill-gates-funding-methane-vaccine-cattle/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20241119
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/bankrolling-methane-vaccines-cattle-feature-800x417.jpg

(Let's hope RFK Jr. will put a stop to this asap --he certainly has his work cut out for him. But it will soon become so obvious that the climate is actually cooling, that the whole climate warming hoax will be thoroughly exposed. )

"Bill Gates and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos are funding the development of a vaccine designed to reduce the methane produced by cattle. Regenerative farmer Will Harris called the project “unnecessary” because when properly grazed on well-managed rangeland, rather than in confinement, “cattle are like carbon converting machines.”Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is investing $9.4 million to develop a vaccine designed to reduce the number of methane-producing microbes in a cow’s stomach, Agriland reported.

The funding comes from his Bezos Earth Fund, a philanthropy he established with $10 billion in 2020. The fund intends to distribute all of its money by 2030, by funding projects to “fight climate change and protect nature.”

Researchers at the United Kingdom’s Pirbright Institute and Royal Veterinary College, and New Zealand’s AgResearch are among the groups receiving funding to research how a vaccine could reduce the methane emitted by cows as they digest and expel food through manure, flatulence and burping.

“Vaccines have proven to be an incredibly cost-effective way to deliver global health solutions,” said Bezos Earth Fund President and CEOAndrew Steer in a press release. “If we can apply this approach to vaccinate cattle and reduce emissions, the scalability and impact could be phenomenal.”

Although scientists have sporadically researched methane vaccines for over four decades, no vaccine yet exists. The project’s first goal is to show that such a vaccine is possible.

“This grant is a moonshot for proof-of-concept — risky bets like this are essential to tackling the climate crisis,” Steer said, according to Agriland.

The researchers will study how methanogens, or methane-producing microbes, colonize the digestive tract of calves and how their immune system responds to those methanogens.

Researchers will then determine which antibodies would effectively target the methanogens, as the first step in developing the criteria for their methane vaccine.

Professor John Hammond, Immunogenetics Group leader at the Pirbright Institute, said that before they could develop a methane vaccine, they had to first define “what a successful vaccine needs to achieve. By understanding the precise antibody responses required, we can provide a clear path forward for vaccine development.”

“This approach reduces the trial-and-error aspect and focuses on targeted, high-resolution immunology,” Hammond added. Researchers can use that knowledge to trigger an immune response in cattle that will inhibit methane production, he said.

Crop scientist and regenerative farmer Howard Vlieger told The Defender such a vaccine could be damaging to cows because it is being designed to target the organisms living in cows’ digestive system — organisms the animals need to digest fiber.

Vlieger cited research on glyphosate showing that when necessary microorganisms in a cow’s rumen are eliminated, even in small amounts, it seriously affects the animal’s health.

However, Hammond said dramatic interventions are necessary to cut global methane emissions.

“Vaccination is a widely accepted farming practice that is auditable and can be used in combination with other strategies, such as chemical inhibition, selection for low-methane genetics or early-life interventions to permanently alter microbiome composition in livestock,” he said, according to Agriland.

But Vliegar said that regenerative farmers take a different approach, which is to be attentive to cattle nutrition and to keep their cattle in balance with the environment.

Bill Gates also funding methane vaccine

Shortly after the Bezos Earth Fund announced in August that it was funding the methane vaccine, ag-biotech startup ArkeaBio announced it also had raised $38.5 million to develop a methane vaccine.

Investors include the Bill Gates-backed Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Rabo Ventures, the Grantham Foundation and others. The Series A funding ArkeaBio announced was from its second round of funding.

Breakthrough Energy had fully funded its previous seed funding round with $12 million, Axios reported.

Gates founded Breakthrough Energy in 2015 to fund start-ups focused on innovating to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Bezos and other well-known billionaires, including Richard Branson and Jack Ma, are also investors.

That means Bezos is funding the methane vaccine through his for-profit investment group and his philanthropic organization.

So is Gates. The Pirbright Institute, which receives Bezos grant funding for the methane vaccine, will use technologies developed in its Pirbright Livestock Antibody Hub, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Both the Bezos Earth Fund and the ArkeaBio initiatives were launched following a meeting in Dubai in 2023, during which the Gates Foundation brought together approximately 40 interested parties to discuss expanding a global effort to develop a methane-reducing vaccine, Beef Central reported.

The meeting included the few researchers working on methane vaccines and potential investors, vaccine producers and regulators who will need to sign off on a vaccine once it is developed. Researchers predict that will happen within five years.

Paul Wood of the Global Methane Hub organized the meeting. Promotional materials and media reports about the vaccine cite the hub’s claim that reducing methane emissions by 45% by 2030 could cool the earth by 0.3 degrees Celsius as justification for why the vaccine is needed.

The Global Methane Hub is also funded by the Gates Foundation and the Bezos Earth Fund. Google, which produces tens of millions of metric tons of carbon per year, also is a funder.

Gates said it is imperative to address the issue of cows when it comes to global emissions.

As Microsoft founder Gates, Amazon and Google pour money into changing the biology of cows to reduce methane, their own carbon footprints are soaring due to the increased energy needed to power their artificial intelligence.

Wood said the Global Methane Hub is also pushing for countries to sign the Global Methane Pledge, which aims to reduce methane from fossil fuels and livestock by 30% between 2020 and 2030.

He said the methane pledge stimulated investments of up to $200 million into the Global Methane Hub research program.

‘A little dystopian’

“The whole thing feels a little dystopian,” according to Axios, “but agribusiness sailed over the dystopian hurdle long ago.”

ArkeaBio CEO Colin South said other strategies — including breeding, feed additives and gene editing microbiomes in the rumen — all could address the methane issue. But a vaccine would be a “holy grail in methane mitigation,” because it could scale easily.

Although their focus is cattle, he said, he thought the vaccine could also be used for other species.

The company says it doesn’t yet have a viable product but aims to have something soon that will reduce methane by 15-20% for three to six months and be administered to cattle twice a year.

South said the idea for the vaccine has been around for a long time, “but there has never been the confluence of money, markets, and technology to make it happen until pretty recently.”

Will Harris: ‘Cattle are like carbon converting machines’

Regenerative cattle farmer Will Harris said the whole project is unnecessary because cattle are actually good for greenhouse gas emissions.

When properly grazed on well-managed rangeland, rather than in confinement, “cattle are like carbon converting machines,” a reality that Harris has demonstrated on his Georgia farm.

Excess greenhouse gases are a problem, he said, but technological fixes like this one are not the right solution. He said such interventions generate unanticipated problems that require more technological fixes — a never-ending cycle he said began with the post-WWII shift to industrial agriculture.

“Since then it has become a real game,” Harris said. “And big tech companies solve problems that create another problem requiring another solution. It’s never-ending and a lot of money is being made on it, and it’s not being made by the farmer and it’s not being made by the consumer.”

Harris said he believes people have broken the carbon cycle, but they’ve also broken the water cycle, the mineral cycle and the microbial cycle.

“There is more discussion of the carbon cycle,” he said, “because it is easily monetized — there is a lot of money to be made in technological climate fixes. There are also a lot of people out to vilify cattle,” he said, “and it is unjust.”

Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master's from the University of Texas at Austin."

Bill Ryan

27th December 2024, 20:23

I've not listened to this yet, but it's a 40 minute Redacted feature and so I'm confident it may be useful on this thread. :muscle:

"Processed food is DESTROYING America's health" & we have to stop it" — Vani Hari

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URy9_BuBK6Q

onawah

8th January 2025, 06:35

The True Cost of Cheap Feed — How High-PUFA Diets Impact Livestock Health
Analysis by Ashley Armstrong
January 07, 2025
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2025/01/07/high-pufa-feed-livestock.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&sd=20110604&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20250107&foDate=true&mid=DM1684593&rid=200554548

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2025/January/PDF/high-pufa-feed-livestock-pdf.pdf

"Story at-a-glance
Modern livestock feed has shifted dramatically since WWII. It’s now dominated by high-PUFA ingredients like corn, soybeans, and distillers grains (DDGS), which has fundamentally altered the nutritional composition of meat and dairy products
DDGS, a byproduct of ethanol production, contains concentrated levels of both PUFAs and pesticide residues, with major producers like Tyson Foods incorporating hundreds of thousands of metric tons annually into their feed formulations
The fat composition of pigs and chickens directly reflects their diet, with modern pork and chicken products containing significantly higher levels of PUFAs than their historical counterparts
High-PUFA feeds cause documented gut health disruption in livestock, including dysbiosis, reduced nutrient absorption, and increased intestinal tissue damage. Animals fed high-PUFA diets show increased markers of systemic oxidative stress, with elevated levels of toxic byproducts like malondialdehyde (MDA) found in their plasma, liver, and brain tissue
Research shows maternal diets high in oxidized linoleic acid can cause accelerated neurological damage in chicken offspring, including ataxia and encephalomalacia

Despite substantial evidence to the contrary, some still claim that polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) are beneficial and pose no long-term health risks with increased consumption.

In today’s article, we’ll explore the effects of higher PUFA diets on livestock health, offering a unique perspective. Understanding these impacts may lead you to question the potential consequences of our own rising PUFA intake on human health.

vj0_rCFd6Yk

What Do Livestock Eat?
Over the past 70 years, we've seen significant changes not only in our diets — such as swapping butter for margarine — but also in the diets of the livestock we consume. And remember: you are what your food eats.

The diets of animals directly impact the nutritional quality of meat, dairy, and eggs, which in turn affects human health. So, what are livestock eating?

Primarily, high omega-6 PUFA diets derived from soybeans, corn, vegetable oil, and biofuel byproducts. Surprisingly, the majority of U.S. corn and soy production isn’t consumed directly by humans.

After World War II, corn and soybeans became dominant row crops in the U.S., prized for their versatility in food, feed, and industrial uses. Acreage dedicated to these crops skyrocketed, replacing diversified cropping systems and displacing small grains and forages. Advances in hybrid seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, and irrigation boosted yields dramatically — corn, for instance, jumped from 30 bushels per acre in the 1940s to over 170 bushels per acre today.

However, this industrialized system has led to simplified monoculture rotations, often limited to corn and soybeans, reducing farm biodiversity and increasing reliance on chemical inputs to manage pests and maintain soil fertility. Federal subsidies and crop insurance programs further incentivize this model, favoring economic profitability for large agribusinesses over diversity and sustainability.

While this system produces cheap, PUFA-rich food in abundance, it comes at a cost: diminished food quality, declining environmental health, and negative impacts on livestock and human health. As one study notes:

"The benefits of using oxidized oils from rendering and recycling as an economic source of lipids and energy in animal feed always coexist with the concerns that diverse degradation products in these oxidized oils can negatively affect animal health and performance."1

The question remains — what price are we really paying for cheap food?

Are Distiller Grains Good?
A new player has entered the livestock feed game, and it’s far from ideal — Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles (DDGS).

The rise of the ethanol-as-fuel industry in the early 2000s introduced DDGS as a cheap and widely available feed ingredient, particularly high in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). Produced as a byproduct of ethanol production, DDGS is a cost-effective option that has found its way into many livestock diets.

For every gallon of ethanol produced, approximately 2.6 kg of distillers grains are created.2 In 2011 alone, the U.S. ethanol industry produced 35.7 million metric tons of distillers grains for livestock and poultry feed. This number has likely grown significantly since.

So how is DDGS made? Corn, the primary feedstock for ethanol production, undergoes fermentation to convert its starch into ethanol and carbon dioxide. The remaining components — protein, fiber, fat, and minerals — are concentrated, dried, and sold as DDGS.

Since the starch is removed during ethanol production, the nonfermentable components like protein and fat are left in higher concentrations. This means DDGS contains significantly more fat and PUFAs than raw corn. However, these PUFAs are highly prone to lipid peroxidation, and research confirms that DDGS contains elevated levels of lipid oxidation products (LOPs) due to the heating process used for drying.3

Beyond lipid oxidation, DDGS often contains high levels of toxic agrochemicals. Most GMO corn used for ethanol is heavily treated with herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides such as glyphosate and atrazine. During ethanol production, these toxic residues become concentrated in the DDGS, as the starch is removed while other components, including pesticides, remain.

Studies show pesticide levels in DDGS can be significantly higher than in the original grain, posing risks to both livestock and environmental health. While exact feed formulations are proprietary information, DDGS is widely used in hog feed, meat chicken feed, egg layer feed and even to feed beef cattle.4

DDGS is a cheap feed ingredient, often priced below $0.10 per pound. It provides protein and fiber, making it attractive for livestock feed formulations. As a result, it is widely used in feeds for hogs, meat chickens, egg-laying hens, and even beef cattle.

For example, Tyson Foods — the largest chicken producer in the U.S. — began incorporating DDGS into its poultry feed formulations in April 2004. By 2010, the company was using approximately 700,000 metric tons of DDGS annually across its feed mills. Imagine what that number looks like today in 2024!

While DDGS may be cost-effective, it comes with hidden costs. It delivers high levels of PUFAs and pesticides to livestock diets, which can impact animal health, meat quality, and the broader food system.

DDGS is a stark reminder that cheap inputs in industrial agriculture often carry long-term consequences for health and sustainability.

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2024/December/common-feeds.png

PUFA increase in Fat Tissues
As I’ve detailed in previous articles, pigs and chickens are quite literally a reflection of what they eat. Neither animals nor humans can produce polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) on their own, so the fat composition in their bodies reflects the fats they consume. This means the PUFA levels in pork and chicken are entirely determined by the diets provided to them.

Modern pork and chicken products now contain significantly higher levels of PUFAs compared to those from past generations. A key contributor to this shift is the inclusion of DDGS in livestock feed. DDGS, being high in PUFAs, directly impacts the fat composition of the animals. As DDGS levels in feed increase, the linoleic acid content in pork fat rises while the saturated fat content declines.5

The result? The nutritional profile of pork and chicken is now largely shaped by feed formulations — a critical point to consider when evaluating the health implications of consuming these products.

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2024/December/feeding-ddgs.png

What Are the Livestock Health Consequences of a Diet Higher in PUFAs?
Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) are unstable molecules prone to oxidation when exposed to heat, light, reactive oxygen species (ROS), or heavy metals. This process, known as lipid peroxidation, induces metabolic oxidative stress and produces toxic byproducts such as malondialdehyde (MDA), thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS), and 4-hydroxynonenal (4-HNE), which serve as biomarkers for lipid peroxidation.

Lipid peroxidation can occur both during feed processing — resulting in livestock consuming oxidized fats — and within the animal's body during digestion. These oxidation byproducts have significant negative effects on health. So what do the studies say about higher PUFA diets for livestock?

1.Gut health disruption — In chickens, diets containing soy have been shown to cause dysbiosis and an overgrowth of pathogenic bacteria such as Campylobacter and Acinetobacter. Conversely, soy-free diets promote greater microbiome diversity.6 Oxidized soybean oil consumption has also led to tissue damage in the small intestine for meat birds.7

In hogs, the consumption of heat-treated soybean oil impaired small intestine growth, reduced nutrient absorption, and increased oxidative stress markers (e.g., MDA) while reducing total antioxidant capacity (T-AOC).8,9

The gut disruption in hogs has been shown to disrupt gut health and reduce nutrient absorption in hogs:

"Previous studies found that feeding oxidized lipids may negatively affect nutrient digestibility and utilization in animals due to localized oxidative damage to the intestinal epithelial cells.

Ringseis et al. (2007) reported that feeding pigs oxidized sunflower oil, which contains high levels of linoleic acid similar to corn oil, increased TBARS in intestinal epithelial cells, which indicates an increased localized oxidative stress within the intestine.

Additionally, Dibner et al. (1996) observed increased intestinal epithelial cell turnover and decreased lymphocyte proliferation in follicles of the lamina propia in broilers fed oxidized poultry fat, indicating that nutrient absorption and digestion may be compromised due to the impairment of intestinal cells."10

2.Metabolic dysfunction — High-PUFA feeds lead to more efficient fat gain in livestock with fewer calories due to the metabolic and hormonal effects of PUFAs. Here is a quote from Dr. Ray Peat:

"Linoleic and linolenic acids, the 'essential fatty acids,' and other polyunsaturated fatty acids, which are now fed to pigs to fatten them, in the form of corn and soy beans, cause the animals' fat to be chemically equivalent to vegetable oil. In the late 1940s, chemical toxins were used to suppress the thyroid function of pigs, to make them get fatter while consuming less food.

When that was found to be carcinogenic, it was then found that corn and soy beans had the same antithyroid effect, causing the animals to be fattened at low cost. The animals' fat becomes chemically similar to the fats in their food, causing it to be equally toxic, and equally fattening."

Increased oxidation can interfere with important metabolic functions in livestock.11

3.Endogenous antioxidant system impairment — The body’s natural antioxidant systems, such as glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) and superoxide dismutase (SOD), play crucial roles in detoxifying ROS.

With a high PUFA intake and higher levels of PUFA oxidation, higher levels of toxic byproducts such as malondialdehyde (MDA) and 4-hydroxynonenal (4-HNE) can be produced. These compounds place a heavy burden on the body’s endogenous antioxidant system, which is responsible for neutralizing ROS and protecting cells from oxidative damage.

"The enzyme activity (of the natural antioxidant system) was influenced by the degree of unsaturation of the diet."12

In one study, the chicken’s natural antioxidant system was downregulated as DDGS was added to the diet, indicated by lower levels of T-SOD, T-AOC, and GSH-Px in tissues.

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2024/December/ddgs-study.png

4.Brain damage — High-PUFA diets, especially linoleic acid, more than double the omega-6 fatty acid content in the chicken brain. These unstable fats oxidize, increasing levels of aldehydes like MDA in the plasma, liver, and brain.13

Maternal diets high in oxidized linoleic acid (and low in vitamin E) caused accelerated neurological damage (e.g., ataxia, encephalomalacia) in chick offspring.14 Lowering maternal dietary linoleic acid or supplementing it with vitamin E was protective. Studies found these effects were due to oxidized linoleic acid metabolites (OXLAMs), which can disrupt brain microvasculature and blood coagulation.

"These studies provide direct evidence that OXLAMs induce ataxia and mortality due to encephalomalacia in chickens ... the neurotoxic effects of OXLAMs may be caused by blood coagulation and disturbances in the brain’s microvasculature."

5.Systemic oxidative damage — Oxidized fats in the diet increase oxidative stress markers throughout the body:

•Chickens fed sunflower oil had elevated plasma and liver MDA levels.15

•Laying hens consuming oxidized vegetable oil experienced increased MDA in plasma and liver,16 increased rates of liver DNA damage,17 and follicle apoptosis.18

•Chickens fed oxidized vegetable oils increased TBARS in the plasma while reducing antioxidant levels, including vitamin E, across various tissues.19

"The previous results could indicate that inclusion of thermally oxidized lipids, independently of the origin, in swine diets has a detrimental effect on the metabolic oxidative status of the animals measured by oxidative damage and specific endogenous antioxidants.

In addition, vitamin E concentration in plasma or serum seems to decrease consistently in animals fed peroxidized lipids and could be considered a good indicator of metabolic oxidative status in pigs."

High levels of antioxidants like vitamin E are added to livestock feed to reduce PUFA oxidation, but these antioxidants can be depleted during digestion, allowing further oxidation along the digestive tract.

Raw soy beans contain antinutrients that can interfere with digestion, nutrient absorption and metabolism — like trypsin inhibitors, lectins, phytic acid, saponins, and goitrogens. It is well known in the industry to not feed raw soy beans as this can lead to problems. So, soy beans are commonly roasted to lower these antinutrients. But the heat treatment used to neutralize the antinutrients in raw soybeans can also oxidize the unstable PUFAs they contain.

This oxidation process can produce harmful byproducts like toxic aldehydes such as MDA and 4-HNE, which negatively impact the health of chickens and reduce the nutritional quality of the feed.

PUFA oxidation in feed is why high levels of antioxidants like vitamin E are included in feed in relatively high amounts, to minimize the oxidation. But those PUFAs can get further oxidized when digested along the chicken digestive tract after vitamin E stores are used up.

The metabolic stress caused by high-PUFA diets has undeniable negative effects on livestock health,20 raising concerns about the broader implications for human health. If these issues are well-documented in livestock, it’s worth questioning the impact of similar dietary patterns on humans. Are we overlooking the real cost of high-PUFA diets for both animals and people?

Conclusion
There is substantial evidence pointing to the health consequences of a system built around livestock feed ingredients that are high in PUFAs. This article only scratches the surface of the research available. Yet, the conventional system persists because it is profitable. Agribusinesses control the seeds used to produce these feed ingredients and the toxic chemicals required to grow the crops, creating a self-sustaining and lucrative cycle.

The takeaway? A food industry centered on PUFAs has significant repercussions for both human and livestock health. It’s time to question the cost of prioritizing profitability over quality and long-term health.

Corn and soy will undoubtedly remain part of livestock feed, and to some extent, that’s acceptable. However, the key lies in being mindful of total PUFA intake — it’s not a case of "the more, the merrier." The heavy reliance on vitamin E supplementation in livestock feed highlights how these high-PUFA diets require added antioxidants to mitigate the oxidative stress they create.

By using cheap byproducts from other industries and subsidized crops like corn and soy, the price of conventional food remains low — but at the expense of quality.

If low-PUFA chicken or pork is not accessible, prioritize meat from ruminant animals, such as beef or lamb. These animals naturally have lower PUFA levels in their fat, making them a better choice for minimizing PUFA intake and promoting better health.

About the Author
Ashley Armstrong is passionate about helping others restore metabolic health and in creating an alternative food system low in PUFAs. Armstrong is the co-founder of Angel Acres Egg Club, which specializes in low-PUFA (polyunsaturated fat) eggs that are shipped to all 50 states, and Nourish Cooperative, which ships low-PUFA chicken, low-PUFA pork, beef, cheese, A2 dairy and traditional sourdough to all 50 states.

Dr. Mercola and Ashley discussed the importance of low-PUFA eggs in a previous interview, embedded below for your convenience.

5D5JAHxrRd0

- Sources and References
1 J Animal Sci Biotechnol 11, 49 (2020)
2 Renewable Fuels Association, 2012 Ethanol Industry Outlook (Archived)
3, 10 Lipid Peroxidation in Corn Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles (DDGS) and Effects of Feeding a Highly Oxidized DDGS Source to Swine, January 2013
4 Pashudhanpraharee, August 26, 2023
5 J Anim Sci. 2016 Mar;94(3):1041-52
6 Front. Sustain. Food Syst., May 24, 2019, Sec. Agro-Food Safety, Volume 3 - 2019
7 Rev. Bras. Cienc. Avic. 20 (02), Apr-Jun 2018
8 British Journal of Nutrition. 2015;114(12):1985-1992
9 J Animal Sci Biotechnol 11, 22 (2020)
11 J Dairy Sci. 1993 Sep;76(9):2812-23
12 J. Agric. Food Chem. 1999, 47, 3, 867–872
13 Nutrition Research, Volume 17, Issue 2, February 1997, Pages 363-378
14 NPJ Science of Food; London Vol. 4, Iss. 1, (2020)
15, 16 Animal, Volume 10, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 1129-1136
17 Poult Sci. 2022 Dec 20;102(3):102437
18 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, Volume 2020, August 3, 2020
19 Poultry Science, Volume 75, Issue 8, August 1, 1996, Pages 1003-1011
20 Antioxidants 2021, 10(4), 525

onawah

29th January 2025, 02:44

Understanding Glyphosate's Growing Presence in Agriculture and Its Effects on Human Health
Analysis by Ashley Armstrong
January 28, 2025
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2025/01/28/glyphosate-agriculture-human-health.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&sd=20110604&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20250128&foDate=true&mid=DM1695055&rid=215114129

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2025/January/PDF/glyphosate-agriculture-human-health-pdf.pdf

(Bold letters my emphasis)

"Story at-a-glance
Glyphosate has become the most widely used herbicide in history, with usage increasing 100 to 300-fold since the late 1970s, resulting in its presence in 60% to 80% of the general population through food, water, and air exposure
Research has shown glyphosate can accumulate in the kidney, liver, colon, and brain, cross the blood-brain barrier, and has been found in human breast milk, indicating it doesn't simply get excreted as claimed
A two-year study found that exposure to Roundup (a glyphosate-based herbicide) at doses far below permissible levels caused organ damage and increased tumor incidence, particularly mammary tumors in female test subjects
Glyphosate has been identified as an endocrine disruptor, showing eight out of 10 key characteristics associated with endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and can affect future generations through epigenetic changes
Studies show switching to an organic diet can reduce urinary glyphosate levels by about 71% within six days, with the highest sources of exposure being conventional grains, processed foods, and the "Dirty Dozen" produce items

A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances designed to kill, repel, or control pests. Let’s break it down into the two components: The term "pest" refers to any organism (insects, weeds, rodents, fungi, bacteria, etc.) that is considered harmful or undesirable, particularly in agricultural settings. And then "-cide" is a suffix derived from the Latin word "caedere," meaning "to kill."

It is commonly used in words to indicate something that kills or destroys, such as herbicide (kills plants), insecticide (kills insects), and fungicide (kills fungi).

Pesticides serve as an umbrella term for substances targeting pests, with subcategories defined by the type of pest being addressed, such as herbicides for weeds, insecticides for insects, fungicides for fungi, and rodenticides for rodents.

There are natural options that can be highly effective in controlling pests, including neem oil, pyrethrins extracted from specific flowers, rotenone derived from plant roots, diatomaceous earth, Bacillus thuringiensis (a bacteria-based solution), sulfur, garlic and pepper extracts, and copper-based compounds. Many of these options are used in organic agriculture.

And then there are chemical agents. The types of synthetic pesticides commonly used in conventional agriculture include:

Pesticide category Main target Examples
Insecticides Insects Cypermethrin, chlorpyrifos, malathion, imidacloprid, and the now banned DDT
Herbicides Weeds Glyphosate, 2,4-D, atrazine, dicamba, paraquat, glufosinate
Fungicides Fungi, molds and mildew Mancozeb, chlorothalonil, azoxystrobin, propiconazole
Rodenticides Rodents like rats and mice Warfarin
Nematicides Parasitic nematodes (roundworms) Fenamiphos, oxamyl, 1,3-dichloropropene
Bactericides Bacteria Kasugamycin, streptomycin, oxytetracycline
Miticides/acaricides Mites and ticks Abamectin, bifenazate, fenpyroximate

Waging chemical warfare against natural biological systems inevitably has consequences — Mother Nature will always prevail! While the widespread use of synthetic pesticides in global agriculture is driven by their ability to boost crop yields and produce cheap, abundant food.

This chemical-dependent farming system is deeply rooted in government policies and the profit-driven business models of Big Ag corporations.

Government subsidies, shaped by powerful agricultural lobbying, prioritize high-yield, chemical-intensive methods, which inadvertently fosters conditions that favor pesticide use, and favor chemical solutions over natural alternatives.

This system is further entrenched by the business model of major chemical corporations. These companies develop and patent pesticides, securing exclusive rights to their products for years. This monopolistic control allows them to command premium prices and substantial profits.

Their market power is further amplified by offering comprehensive agricultural packages that bundle pesticides with seeds and fertilizers, creating a cycle of dependency that reinforces their industry dominance.

It is important to keep this in mind when assessing mainstream messaging about the "safety" of glyphosate and other pesticide usage — of course they don’t want you to think these are bad since that is a threat to their business model!

Occasional pesticide use may not be that big of a deal, but our current agricultural system's heavy dependence on these chemicals has severe implications for both environmental and human health.

In this article, let’s focus on glyphosate and why we should be concerned that it dominates our agriculture system. (There are of course problems with other pesticides, too!). The evidence as a whole suggests we need to be cautious of our long-term exposure!

yMG2HvYaZls

So What Is Glyphosate?
Glyphosate is a synthetic, non-specific, systemic herbicide that kills many types of weeds and other vegetation by disrupting with the "shikimate pathway," a biochemical pathway that essential for plant survival. Since this pathway is absent in human cells, international "authorities" consider glyphosate to have no toxicity in humans. However, increasing evidence suggests otherwise.1

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in many herbicide products, including the popular "Roundup" product. These are referred to as glyphosate-based formulations (GBFs). GBFs unfortunately contain a range of other problematic chemicals in addition to glyphosate.2 GBFs are used in agriculture, commercial, industrial, and residential settings due to its broad-spectrum herbicidal properties.

The second most common use of glyphosate, after agriculture, is in landscape and turf management which include gardens, lawns, public spaces, parks, alongside roads and on golf courses.

In the grand scheme of things, glyphosate is still relatively "new." And it is a common trend in industry that many things aren’t officially labeled as a "health hazard" *until* they start causing major health problems, since there’s way too much money to be made by big businesses in the meantime! (Two examples include DDT and agent orange — which weren’t banned until they were proven to cause serious health problems). Science often lags industry!

So let’s recap briefly — In 1964, the patent was issued for use of glyphosate as a metal chelating and descaling agent to clean out mineral deposits in pipes and boilers. Then in 1971, glyphosate was patented as an herbicide after the discovery of its herbicidal properties.

In 1974, glyphosate was first sold to farmers by Monsanto, the company that was recently acquired by Bayer. Since the late 1970s, the use of glyphosate-based herbicides has increased between 100 to 300-fold!3

Glyphosate has become the most widely used chemical herbicide in history (for agriculture, commercial, industrial and residential settings) due to its broad-spectrum herbicidal properties. Tragically, this compound, which has been classified as a "probable carcinogen" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer,4 is now pervasive in our food, water, and air.

The surge in global pesticide use can be traced to a fundamental shift in agricultural practices — the transition to industrial farming, particularly through the advent of genetically engineered crops in the mid-1990s. These GMO crops were engineered with a specific purpose: to either produce their own insecticides or withstand powerful herbicides, or both.

Today, this technology dominates major crops, with approximately 94% of soybean production now using genetically engineered seeds designed to resist Monsanto-Bayer's glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide.

Before "Roundup Ready" crops, farmers had to carefully limit herbicide application to avoid damaging their crops. But with plants engineered to withstand glyphosate, farmers could spray more frequently and intensively. Between 1990 and 2014, glyphosate use exploded from 7.7 million pounds to 250 million pounds — a staggering 1,347% increase.

However, glyphosate's reach extends beyond just GMO agriculture through an unexpected practice: pre-harvest desiccation. So, Glyphosate isn’t just used to kill weeds — farmers have discovered they can use glyphosate as a drying agent on non-GMO crops, particularly in regions with short growing seasons and wet harvests. This "desiccation" practice involves spraying crops with glyphosate shortly before harvest to force uniform drying and enable earlier harvesting.

Originally developed in 1980s Scotland to address unreliable grain drying conditions, the technique has spread globally, leading to a 400% increase in glyphosate use on non-GMO wheat alone over the past two decades.5

"The herbicide, glyphosate, is applied to wheat crops before harvest to encourage ripening resulting in higher glyphosate residues in commercial wheat products within North America."6

Desiccation has now expanded to numerous crops including barley, oats, corn, lentils, beans, chickpeas, potatoes, millet, sugar beets and others. This widespread adoption of glyphosate, both in GMO cultivation and as a pre-harvest desiccant in non-GMO crops, helps explain why the global glyphosate market is projected to grow from $10.92 billion in 2024 to $11.89 billion in 2025, representing an 8.9% annual growth rate.

A common misconception is that "non-GMO" labeling equates to chemical-free farming. However, the "non-GMO" label only signifies that the crops have not been genetically modified; it does not address whether pesticides or herbicides were used during cultivation. In fact, pesticides are commonly applied to non-GMO crops.

It also unfortunately means we are being exposed to much higher levels than ever before, in the food we eat and in the feed consumed by livestock.

When animals consume grains and other feed crops treated with glyphosate, traces of the chemical can accumulate in their systems, ultimately resulting in higher levels of glyphosate residues in meat and dairy products, raising concerns about the potential health implications of chronic low-level glyphosate exposure throughout the food chain.

Health Consequences of Glyphosate
Now that we understand a little more of the backstory of glyphosate infiltration into the food system — what’s the big deal? Why should we care?

Monsanto originally claimed Roundup was safe based on a 90-day trial in rats. Well, one research group wanted to put this to the test and extend this 90-day trial to two years.7 The results are very concerning!

"Our study design was based on that of the Monsanto investigation in order to make the two experiments comparable, but we extended the period of observation from Monsanto's 90 days to 2 years. We also used three doses of GMOs (instead of Monsanto's two) and Roundup to determine treatment dose response, including any possible non-linear as well as linear effects.

This allowed us to follow in detail the potential health effects and their possible origins due to the direct or indirect consequences of the genetic modification itself in the NK603 GM maize, or due to the R herbicide formulation used on the GM maize (and not G alone), or both ...

We then also tested for the first time three doses (rather than the two usually employed in 90-day protocols) of the R-tolerant NK603 GM maize alone, the GM maize treated with R, and R alone at very low environmentally relevant doses, starting below the range of levels permitted by regulatory authorities in drinking water and in GM feed ...

Our findings show that the differences in multiple organ functional parameters seen from the consumption of NK603 GM maize for 90 days escalated over 2 years into severe organ damage in all types of test diets. This included the lowest dose of R administered (0.1 ppb, 50 ng/L G equivalent) of R formulation administered, which is well below permitted MRLs in both the USA (0.7 mg/L) and European Union (100 ng/L).

Surprisingly, there was also a clear trend in increased tumor incidence, especially mammary tumors in female animals, in a number of the treatment groups. Our data highlight the inadequacy of 90-day feeding studies and the need to conduct long-term (2 years) investigations to evaluate the life-long impact of GM food consumption and exposure to complete pesticide formulations."

There was organ damage when the study was extended to two years at a Roundup dose far below permissible levels in the U.S. and the E.U. Additionally, tumor incidence, particularly mammary tumors in females, increased in several treatment groups.

The results emphasize the inadequacy of short-term (90-day) studies and the importance of long-term research to fully assess the health risks of GM food and pesticide formulations. Unfortunately, there is currently no long-term data on the effects of glyphosate exposure in humans (this is pretty hard to accomplish in a well-controlled environment).

But does this mean we shouldn’t be concerned of the alarming data in animals? NO! Just because something doesn’t immediately kill you does not make it safe. Long term chronic exposure is a huge health threat.

And since glyphosate is present in 60% to 80% of the general population,8 we actually may be part of an ongoing, real-time experiment on its long-term health effects as we speak. Let’s dive in a little more to see what recent research says about the potential health concerns of glyphosate exposure. (There is plenty of evidence showing us it is not safe!)

Stored in the Body/Bioaccumulates
While many point to the fact that glyphosate is water soluble, so it is "easily excreted" by the body — they forget about these glyphosate-based-formulations where other ingredients are mixed in, such as surfactants.

Studies show accumulation in the kidney, liver and colon9,10,11 and in human biological fluids, representing a severe human health risk.

Studies also demonstrate that glyphosate can cross the blood-brain barrier and accumulate in the brain in a dose-dependent manner, increasing the risk of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s.12

The presence of glyphosate in human breast milk13 is concerning for many health experts since it suggests that this chemical, despite being ‘water soluble, is accumulating in tissues and passing through biological barriers in ways that are not well understood!

Inflammation and DNA Damage
There are several studies documenting that it can induce inflammation and oxidative stress in various types of cells.14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24 As a result, glyphosate can increase DNA damage, significantly increasing cancer risks25,26,27,28,29 and kidney and liver dysfunction.30,31,32,33

Endocrine Disruption
Glyphosate has been shown to disrupt endocrine function34,35,36 and can lead to hormonal imbalances by influencing key hormonal pathways in the body.37,38

A 2020 review paper concluded that glyphosate exhibits eight out of 10 key characteristics associated with "endocrine disrupting chemicals," suggesting that glyphosate-based herbicides alter the biosynthesis of sex hormones.39

Roundup concentrations in the range of 10^3 times below the "MRL" can induce endocrine disturbances in human cells.40

Other alarming findings include that glyphosate can reduce sperm motility41,42 can interfere with protein synthesis, which can suppress spermatogenesis and cell growth,43 and decrease serum testosterone in young male rats.44

Impacts Next Generation Through Epigenetics
There is also data demonstrating that glyphosate not only impacts an individual’s health but also impacts the health of their descendants through epigenetic changes by interfering with normal methylation processes and gene expression.45,46

Perinatal exposure to low doses of glyphosate formulations impaired female reproductive performance and induced fetal growth retardation and structural congenital anomalies in mammal F2 offspring.47

Exposure to glyphosate at doses deemed "safe" for human health during gestation significantly increased anogenital distance (AGD) in both male and female rat pups. AGD is the measurement between the anus and the genitalia and is often used as a biological marker in toxicology and reproductive studies to assess the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

Changes in AGD, particularly during development, can indicate hormonal imbalances or disruptions caused by environmental exposures, such as pesticides or other chemicals. Additionally, treatment with Roundup delayed the onset of first estrus and was associated with elevated serum testosterone levels in adult rats.48

Disrupts Gut Health
Regulatory agencies claim glyphosate is harmless to humans because we don’t have the shikimate pathway that glyphosate targets. Well, the microbes in our gut contain this pathway! Oops! Humans are made up of approximately 30 trillion human cells and about 39 trillion microbial cells, meaning the microbes in our gut slightly outnumber our human cells.

Glyphosate targets the shikimate pathway by inhibiting the activity of a key enzyme in this pathway, 3-phosphoshikimate 1-carboxyvinyltransferase (EPSPS), which is present in many of the microbes in our gut, disrupting gut health and throwing off our natural gut balance.

Glyphosate-sensitive Class I EPSPS enzymes are found in all bacteria, but its impact varies significantly among species. The Human Microbiome Project found that 732 out of 941 bacteria species in our gut have at least one copy of the gene that glyphosate targets. This means that 55% of our gut bacteria are sensitive to glyphosate, 38% are resistant, and 7% are unclassified.49

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2025/January/human-microbiome.jpg

"Commensal bacteria (the ‘good guys’) appear to be more susceptible to glyphosate, as they are more likely to possess glyphosate-sensitive Class I EPSPS enzymes than potentially pathogenic bacteria, thereby promoting dysbiosis."

Beneficial bacteria are more likely to possess Class I EPSPS enzymes which makes them susceptible to dying off, and opportunistic pathogens in the gut are more likely to possess glyphosate-resistant Class II EPSPS enzymes, allowing them to thrive under glyphosate exposure.

In other words — glyphosate hinders the growth of beneficial gut bacteria while promoting the growth of pathogenic bacteria, leading to dysbiosis.

"Glyphosate residues on food could cause dysbiosis, given that opportunistic pathogens are more resistant to glyphosate compared to commensal bacteria.50

Here, we evaluate the literature surrounding glyphosate’s effects on the gut microbiome and conclude that glyphosate residues on food could cause dysbiosis, given that opportunistic pathogens are more resistant to glyphosate compared to commensal bacteria."51

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2025/January/dysbiosis.jpg

Glyphosate is designed to kill weeds and microorganisms in the soil, but our digestive systems contain trillions of microorganisms. So yes, glyphosate and glyphosate-based-herbicides negatively impact gut health52,53,54 by inducing inflammation55 and causing dysbiosis.

This has negative systemic implications since gut health impacts the whole body including mood, brain function, and immunity. And unfortunately, this gut impact wasn’t really considered when the "safe" human intake standards were created.

Scientists frequently discuss how the negative gut impacts are not considered when "regulatory agencies" set the "acceptable daily intake" (ADI), which is determined by dividing the no-observed-effect-level (NOEL) by a safety factor.

"However, only direct glyphosate toxicity was considered when determining the NOEL. Alarmingly, glyphosate’s influence over health through secondary means, such as the gut microbiome, was never considered. Given that the gut microbiome is critical for our overall health and disease susceptibility, glyphosate residues on wheat may contribute to dysbiosis, thereby affecting our overall health."56

Compounding Impacts
Research suggests that the health risks associated with glyphosate exposure are even more pronounced when it comes to glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs), or "Glyphosate-Based-Formulations (GBFs)," rather than pure glyphosate,57,58,59 likely due to the cumulative toxic effects of the additional chemicals involved.

While pure glyphosate is used in some cases, it is typically found as part of a GBH/GBF, where it is combined with other ingredients to enhance its ability to penetrate plant tissues more effectively.

For example — it has been shown that Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate alone.60 Roundup includes the co-formulant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) which has been demonstrated to have toxic effects.61,62

The issue is further complicated by the proprietary nature of most of these GBHs/GBFs, where the ingredients and their relative proportions remain undisclosed. This lack of transparency poses a significant challenge for researchers, who are left in the dark about the specific components, their quantities, and the potential synergistic effects when these chemicals interact.

Adding to the concern, crops are often treated with a "cocktail" of agrochemicals in industrial ag, including other herbicides alongside GBHs. For example, research has shown that glyphosate’s cytotoxic effects can intensify when combined with other herbicides, such as Paraquat.63 This synergistic interaction suggests that even low levels of glyphosate residues in our food supply could have serious health consequences when combined with other widely used agrochemicals.

Alarmingly, this synergistic phenomenon has never been thoroughly studied, leaving a critical gap in our understanding of the full risks posed by these chemical concoctions.

Highest Sources
Glyphosate enters the human body through inhalation, ingestion, or contaminated food.64 And as a systemic herbicide, it is deeply absorbed by plants and moves throughout, including the roots, stems, and fruits. This means glyphosate cannot be washed off produce and isn’t broken down by cooking or heating.65,66

So, the best strategy is to reduce exposure through mindful food sourcing when you can. Processed foods are the most likely source of glyphosate contamination, making it another compelling reason to reduce or eliminate their consumption!

Studies consistently show that switching to an organic diet (since glyphosate is not allowed in organic agriculture) or choosing foods that are tested to be low in glyphosate, dramatically reduce glyphosate levels in the body.67,68 In one study, an organic diet intervention reduced urinary glyphosate levels by 70.93% and its main metabolite AMPA by 76.71% within six days.69 A diet higher in organic food is also associated with a reduced risk of cancer.70

When it comes to grains, choosing organic (or knowing a chemical free, regeneratively grown source) is essential. Grains, including wheat, corn, soy, rice, oats, and beans, often contain the highest concentrations of pesticides since many are genetically modified (and thus sprayed throughout the season), and non-GMO grains are frequently desiccated with glyphosate-based-herbicides before harvest, which increases pesticide residue.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) routinely tests food for pesticides, and one of the highest sources tested are a common breakfast staple in many homes: Quaker Oatmeal Squares (since the oats are likely desiccated right before harvest).71 A light glyphosate bath on your breakfast cereal — yum!

For produce, aim to buy organic whenever possible, but try to prioritize sourcing organic for the "Dirty Dozen" to reduce your pesticide exposure — the 12 fruits and vegetables with the highest pesticide residues, according to the EWG’s 2024 report,72 include strawberries, spinach, kale, collard greens, mustard greens, grapes, peaches, pears, nectarines, apples, peppers, cherries, blueberries, and lettuce.

When it comes to meat, eggs, and dairy, if you are buying these at the grocery store — organic is the best choice. Glyphosate accumulates in eggs73,74,75,76 and glyphosate is present in the meat of cattle and in the urine of cows that consume contaminated food.77

But better yet is getting to know your local farmer. Not all farmers can afford the organic certification process, but many are committed to sustainable, chemical-free practices. And "organic" is not required for something to be chemical free. Instead, know your farmer and ask about their farming practices!

Supporting these farmers and farm cooperatives is a great way to make a positive impact on your health, the agricultural system as a whole, and the environment.

Conclusion
Regulatory agencies establish "tolerable limits" for glyphosate, but these limits overlook potential long-term and cumulative effects, fueling concerns about its safety in animal feed and the broader food chain. While some food samples may fall below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) "allowable daily intake" (ADI) of 1.75 mg per kg of body weight, critics argue that this threshold is fundamentally flawed.

Plus, why is the U.S. limit nearly six times higher than the European Union’s ADI of 0.3 mg per kg? Why does such a significant disparity exist?

The ADI fails to account for recent evidence linking glyphosate to probable carcinogenicity, its pervasive presence in food and water, the evidence of severe gut disruption, and its potential role as an endocrine disruptor, which could affect hormone levels differently across various stages of human development.

Additionally, safety tests were based only on isolated glyphosate, ignoring the compounded toxicity of commercial formulations containing other harmful chemicals. Compounding the risk, glyphosate residues from multiple food sources accumulate, amplifying exposure day to day.

In conclusion, the widespread presence of glyphosate in our bodies, combined with regulatory gaps and the herbicide’s persistent nature in food, calls for urgent action. By being more mindful of our food choices, we can take meaningful steps to reduce exposure and protect our health from the potential long-term effects of this pervasive chemical.

Supporting food systems that do not rely on toxic pesticides is a crucial step toward shifting agriculture from the bottom up. You can make a difference by supporting organic and regenerative farmers.

Think of it as voting with your fork (or spoon) — you're essentially voting against the chemical-based conventional farming system!

Real, lasting change will likely not come from the top down, as Big Ag continues to profit from harmful practices. By empowering and supporting sustainable, pesticide-free farming, we can create a healthier future for future generations to come."

About the Author
Ashley Armstrong is passionate about helping others restore metabolic health and in creating an alternative food system low in PUFAs and low in toxic agrochemicals like glyphosate.

Armstrong is the co-founder of Angel Acres Egg Club, which specializes in low-PUFA (polyunsaturated fat) eggs that are shipped to all 50 states. Recent laboratory testing has confirmed that Angel Acres eggs are completely free of glyphosate!

This achievement reflects a commitment to quality and a unique partnership with row crop farmers who practice regenerative agriculture practices to produce the low-PUFA chicken feed ingredients and do not use agrochemicals.

Armstrong also co-founded Nourish Food Club, which ships low-PUFA chicken, low-PUFA pork, beef, cheese, A2 dairy and traditional sourdough to all 50 states. While the egg club has memberships open, Nourish Food Club has a temporary waiting list.

- Sources and References
1, 11, 24, 57 Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Nov 22;22(22):12606
2 Mass.gov, Glyphosate Scientific Review Revised Draft Phase 2 Report
3 North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science, March 2018, Pre-harvest Glyphosate Timing in Oats and Final Oat Quality
4 WHO, International Agency for Research on Cancer, March 20, 2015
5 The Healthy Home Economist, The Real Reason Wheat Is Toxic (it’s not the gluten)
6, 50, 51, 56 Front Microbiol. 2020 Sep 25;11:556729
7, 40 Environ Sci Eur. 2014 Jun 24;26(1):14
8 J. Verbr. Lebensm. 10, 3–12 (2015)
9 Front. Toxicol., September 18, 2024, Sec. Regulatory Toxicology, Volume 6
10 Journal of Immunotoxicology, 17(1), 163–174
12 J Neuroinflammation 19, 193 (2022), Abstract
13 Moms Across America, April 7, 2014
14 Environ Mol Mutagen. 1998;32(1):39-46
15 Mutat Res. 1998 Jul 17;403(1-2):13-20
16 Toxicology. 2017 Jul 15:387:67-80
17 Environ Int. 2020 Feb:135:105414
18, 30 Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2009 Nov;28(3):379-85
19, 31 Environ Health. 2015 Aug 25:14:70
20, 32 Dose Response. 2019 May 23;17(2):1559325819843380
21, 33 Front Immunol. 2014 Oct 7:5:491
22 Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Oct 26;107(43):18581-6
23 Toxicology. 2014 Nov 5:325:42-51
25 International Agency for Research on Cancer, Some Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides
26 J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016 Aug;70(8):741-5
27 Leuk Lymphoma. 2002 May;43(5):1043-9
28 Food Chem Toxicol. 2018 Oct:120:510-522
29 Exp Mol Med. 2015 Aug 28;47(8):e179
34 3 Biotech. 2018 Oct;8(10):438
35 Food Chem Toxicol. 2013 Sep:59:129-36
36 Vet Anim Sci. 2020 Jun 24:10:100126
37, 59 Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021 Mar 15;12:627210
38 Beyond Pesticides, November 25, 2022
39 U.S. Right to Know, November 13, 2020
41 Toxics. 2017 Dec 21;6(1):2
42 Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 May 30;15(6):1117
43 ACS Omega. 2021 Jun 2;6(23):14848–14857
44 CDC, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Glyphosate
45 Toxicol In Vitro. 2020 Mar:63:104736
46 Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021 May 21:12:671991
47 Arch Toxicol. 2018 Aug;92(8):2629-2643
48 Environ Health. 2019 Mar 12;18(1):15
49 J Hazard Mater. 2021 Apr 15:408:124556
52, 54 Life (Basel). 2022 May 9;12(5):707
53 Interdiscip Toxicol. 2013 Dec;6(4):159–184
55 Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2020 Jan 15:187:109846
58 Toxicology. 2009 Aug 21;262(3):184-91
60 Biomed Res Int. 2014:2014:179691
61 Chem Res Toxicol. 2009 Jan;22(1):97-105
62 Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2017 Jan:49:156-162
63 Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Jul 31;16(15):2734
64, 66 Sustainability 2018, 10(4), 950
65 Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2012 Nov;215(6):570-6
67 EWG, August 11, 2020
68 Environmental Health News, August 11, 2020
69 Environ Res. 2020 Oct:189:109898
70 JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(12):1597-1606
71 EWG, October 24, 2018
72 EWG, The Dirty Dozen™
73 The Alliance for Natural Health USA, April 19, 2016
74 Sci Rep. 2020 Apr 14;10(1):6349
75 Sci Rep. 2021 Sep 29;11:19290
76 SciELO, Food Sci. Technol 37 (3), July-Sept 2017
77 J Environ Anal Toxicol 2014, 4:2

"https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2025/01/28/glyphosate-agriculture-human-health.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&sd=20110604&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20250128&foDate=true&mid=DM1695055&rid=215114129

Also see: Dr. Stephanie Seneff – HOW GLYPHOSATE DESTROYS YOUR GUT
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91081-The-poisoning-of-America-Glyphosate-Statins-and-Vaccines&p=1330468&viewfull=1#post1330468

Ravenlocke

25th February 2025, 22:08

https://x.com/GMWatch/status/1892616182097731660

1892616182097731660

https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/02/exposure-to-glyphosate-herbicide-adversely-affects-neonatal-health-study-finds/

Exposure to Glyphosate Herbicide Adversely Affects Perinatal Health, Study Finds
Beyond Pesticides

(Beyond Pesticides, February 20, 2024) Researchers at the University of Oregon found that the rollout of genetically engineered corn in the early 2000s, followed by exponential increases in glyphosate-based herbicides, “caused previously undocumented and unequal health costs for rural U.S. communities over the last 20 years.” Their results “suggest the introduction of GM [genetically modified] seeds and glyphosate significantly reduced average birthweight and gestational length.”

The conclusions of this study emerge as fossil fuel advocates, including President Donald Trump, are mobilizing to pioneer “energy dominance” despite the market movement toward renewable energy. Just as chemical-intensive farmers and land managers continue to spray synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, a successful rollout of alternatives must rely on feeding the soil rather than the plant.

Advocates continue to demand that elected officials and regulators embody the precautionary principle and scientific integrity in decision-making. Given the hostile federal climate on anything relating to holistic solutions, communities are coming together to move beyond input-dependent land management systems and adopt organic criteria of allowed and prohibited substances, mandatory public comment process, independent third-party certification, and a federal advisory board (National Organic Standards Board) consisting of farmers, environmentalists, consumers, scientists, economists, researchers, and other stakeholders, with binding recommendations to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary.

Background and Methodology

The authors of this study, Edwin Rubin, PhD, and Emmett Reynier, are researchers at the University of Oregon Department of Economics. Mr. Reynier is a current PhD candidate in environmental economics and a Fellow at the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Research. Dr. Rubin is an assistant professor with degrees in agricultural and resource economics, statistics, agricultural economics, and mathematics.

“Our primary analyses focus on the over 10 million births that occurred between 1990 and 2013 in rural U.S. counties or involved mothers residing in rural counties—as defined by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA),” says Dr. Rubin and Mr. Reynier. “We focus on this subset as it represents the births most likely to be impacted by the increase in glyphosate intensity and exposure induced by the release of GM seeds.”

The birth data consists of over 10 million infants from the National Vital Statistics System, an intergovernmental database sponsored by the National Center for Health Statistics under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The glyphosate use data originated from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Pesticide Synthesis Project, which tracked glyphosate intensity at the county level between 1992 and 2017. The suitability of genetically engineered crops (the quantity of yield) for corn, wheat, and soybeans was measured based on the Global Agro-Ecological Zones modeling framework (GAEZ) developed by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN-FAO).

The researchers use two empirical approaches: The reduced form difference-in-differences (DID) approach and the two-stage approach. The DID approach identifies the policy impact, and the two-stage approach captures the direct impact of glyphosate, given the number of variables in play. Both approaches attempt to identify differences in external factors (“exogenous variation”) that may be contributing to differences in perinatal (the weeks preceding and proceeding birth) health outcomes at the county-to-county level. For more information on the methodology and empirical approaches, see here.

Results

The first method (DID approach) compared counties with higher and lower suitability ratings for growing GE crops. Before 1996, both types of counties had similar quantities of glyphosate residues and similar baby weights. After 1996, counties with higher crop suitability had significantly higher glyphosate use, and the babies in these areas weighed less on average.

The second method (two-stage approach) looked at the actual impact of glyphosate use. At the average amount used in 2012, the study found that glyphosate exposure reduced baby birthweights by about 29–30 grams and shortened pregnancies by about 1 to 1.5 days. There were also more cases of babies being born with very low weights and prematurely.

The study also found that not all babies were affected in the same way. When the researchers grouped babies by normal birth weight, they saw that the most vulnerable babies (first decile) lost up to 75 grams relative to the 6 grams lost for the least vulnerable babies. In addition, babies born to Black mothers, female babies, and those born to unmarried parents were at higher risk of adverse developmental effects.

Overall, the study strongly suggests that the rollout of glyphosate-tolerant seeds contributed to the exponential increase in glyphosate use, which in turn led to poorer health outcomes for infants in rural areas. This finding builds on decades of serious concerns raised by independent scientists, public health professionals, farmers, farmworkers, and concerned parents on the trajectory of the U.S. public health and food systems.

Existing Literature

There are decades of peer-reviewed studies and scientific literature pointing to linkages between severe health impacts and exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides.

A study published in the Journal of Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety in 2024 documented, for the first time, the presence of the herbicide glyphosate in human sperm. The study looked at 128 French men with an average age of 36 years who tested positive for glyphosate in their blood. Seventy-three out of the 128 men were found also to have glyphosate in their seminal plasma. Not only that, the amount of glyphosate in seminal plasma was nearly four times higher than what was detected in the blood. Glyphosate has also been linked to toxicity to pollinators and birds, as well as links to cancer (Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma), endocrine disruption, reproductive harms, kidney and liver damage, neurotoxicity, birth and developmental effects, among other adverse health effects. See the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management entry for glyphosate to learn more.

See glyphosate and genetic engineering sections in the Daily News for further analysis. For more resources on genetic engineering and risks to public health, see here.

Call to Action

There is a bipartisan push this year in state legislatures across the nation looking to prohibit glyphosate use or restrict its use to some degree, including bills in California, Connecticut, Hawai’i, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Rhode Island, and Texas. Advocates welcome the introduction of legislation as communities have urged for decades and continue to demand action to address issues around glyphosate, given the known risks. However, they also acknowledge past battles on individual active ingredients (e.g., chlorpyrifos, dicamba, paraquat) or groups of active ingredients (e.g., organophosphates, neonicotinoids) have not necessarily succeeded in eliminating toxic chemical use.

On the brink of the second Trump administration, a legal victory in early December overturned a rule issued under the first Trump administration to “practically eliminate oversight of novel GE technology and instead let industry self-regulate,” as characterized by the Center for Food Safety (CFS). (See Daily News here.)

You can act now by calling on Congress to ensure the integrity of federal agencies through the appointment of independent Inspectors General. (See the Action of the Week here.)

Ravenlocke

25th February 2025, 22:11

https://x.com/GMWatch/status/1894061035088183440

1894061035088183440

https://x.com/GMWatch/status/1894071539194089798

1894071539194089798

https://watershedsentinel.ca/article/gm-salmon/

The End of GM Salmon?
February 18, 2025

Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) is calling on the Auditors General of Canada and Prince Edward Island to investigate why the government funnelled hundreds of thousands of dollars to a genetically-modified salmon company just before it shut down.

Troubled biotech company AquaBounty has stopped production of all genetically-modified (GM) salmon and closed its last working facility at Bay Fortune on Prince Edward Island. Earlier, the company laid off two dozen employees and shut down its Rollo Bay, PEI facility. The two plants were put up for sale in an effort to generate cash.

The closure announcement came just weeks after the federal and PEI governments announced $231,095 in funding for the company. CBAN has registered a complaint with the Auditors General and the federal and provincial ministers of fisheries, and it is calling for a review of the decision to send more funds to AquaBounty when the company already owed PEI $1.5 million from a $2.7 million loan in 2018.

According to a government statement, AquaBounty was one of 39 companies funded to help improve “sustainability in the provincial fish and seafood sector.”

“This struggling company has survived largely due to investor hype along with decades of government funding and the support of the federal policy to deny consumers mandatory labelling of GM food, said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, which monitors genetic modification (genetic engineering) in food and farming. “Genetic modification is clearly not a sound investment. The use of this technology for food production is risky and extremely controversial.”

“We’re glad to see the back of this company after over twenty years of our protests against genetically modified food,” added Sharon Labchuk of the local coalition GMO Free PEI.

In 2024, Aquabounty shut down a half-built facility in Ohio after cancelling construction the previous year and attempting to use the site as collateral for a high-interest loan. Filters, tanks, equipment, and a 200,000-square-foot prefab building were auctioned off in February 2025, according to Seafood Source.

“And so ends a science experiment which never should have started because of the risk to wild Atlantic salmon.” said Mark Butler, Senior Advisor at Nature Canada. “As they shut their operations in PEI, we encourage the company to ensure that all genetically modified fish and eggs are safely culled to ensure there is no risk of escape in the closing days.”

AquaBounty will likely lose its NASDAQ stock market listing after its share price dropped well below the $1 USD minimum. Dave Melbourne, the company’s CEO, resigned in December 2024.

The print version of this story incorrectly reported that AquaBounty was still operating in PEI. The story has been updated to clarify that AquaBounty has closed down all its genetically-modified salmon operations in North America.

Ravenlocke

25th February 2025, 22:14

https://x.com/GMWatch/status/1893692483294437695

1893692483294437695

Ravenlocke

25th February 2025, 22:17

https://x.com/GMWatch/status/1891956021502820397

1891956021502820397

Ravenlocke

25th February 2025, 22:19

https://x.com/GMWatch/status/1891956021502820397

1891956021502820397

https://www.propublica.org/article/aquabounty-pioneer-ohio-gmo-salmon-fish

The One That Got Away: This Small Town Is Left in Limbo After Betting Big on GMO Salmon

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

It wasn’t about playing God. Rather, it was a better way to feed the world.

That’s how a biotech company called AquaBounty described its AquAdvantage salmon, the first genetically modified animal approved by the federal government for human consumption. By adding a gene from Chinook salmon to Atlantic salmon and using DNA sequences from eel-like ocean pout as a “growth promoter,” the company said its salmon could grow twice as fast.

The silvery superfish is indistinguishable from other Atlantic salmon, the company said, but, with freshwater tanks and less feed, it can reach market size sooner than its conventional cousins. No ocean required.

But it was all easier said than done. After decades of backlash, boycotts and persistent financial losses, on top of the regulatory slog, AquaBounty hooked its hopes for the future on a village in Ohio with an enterprising name — Pioneer — and an accommodating mayor, Ed Kidston.

Eventually, it fell apart. And the village that hoped for a transformative industry is carrying the cost.

Pioneer, population 1,410, is just south of the Michigan border, in a county where fields of corn are cut by spear-straight country roads. AquaBounty promised 112 jobs, plus resources for schools and infrastructure.

And it promised something different from the metal stamping plant or Menards distribution center that opened in the area in past years. Researchers and advocates have long suggested that the Rust Belt use its water wealth to build a “blue economy.” AquaBounty seemed like a forward-looking prospect.

Although the company never made a profit in its 30-some years of existence, public officials rolled out the red carpet.

AquaBounty got a state permit to withdraw up to 5.25 million gallons of groundwater per day to operate the fish farm. JobsOhio, the state’s private economic development arm, executed an agreement to grant it $1 million. The Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority authorized up to $425 million in revenue bonds.

An enterprise zone relieved AquaBounty of 15 years of property taxes. With the help of state dollars, Pioneer extended a road, a project estimated at $1.7 million.

Pioneer, which operates its own electric system, borrowed $3.95 million on the municipal debt market — later upped to $5 million — for a new substation project. The substation would provide a boost to AquaBounty’s energy needs.

And before AquaBounty’s plans were public knowledge, a company owned by Kidston purchased land for $600,000. He later flipped it to AquaBounty for nearly $2.1 million.

The mayor did well. Pioneer and the state did not.

Nearly three years after AquaBounty broke ground, there are no fancy fish tanks. No designer fish. No new jobs. Even with so much public assistance, it’s not clear if AquaBounty will ever finish building the farm. This month, it auctioned off “new” and “unused” equipment from the site.

Neither Kidston, who has said that he was merely trying to help the town, nor AquaBounty responded to questions for this story.

Locals are left to grapple with a partially developed site, a short-circuited growth strategy and questions about whether the project was ever viable.

The saga “could potentially send a message that it’s difficult to develop in Williams County,” said Ashley Epling, who took the helm of the county’s economic development organization after AquaBounty arrived in town.

Todd Roth, who oversees the Williams County engineering department, said the promise of development can require tradeoffs that compel public officials to make difficult decisions.

“How far do we go on hope?” he asked.

Panama to Ohio

In the highlands of Panama, tucked behind padlocked gates and barbed wire, AquaBounty wanted to prove what was possible. There, in 2008, it opened a demonstration facility — a venture that “no one would ever think that anyone in their right mind would do,” said Ron Stotish, former president and chief executive officer.

“We built a small farm basically by hand, with local labor and this local trout farmer,” Stotish said. A visiting reporter told television viewers that it had “shades of Jurassic Park.”

Without precedent for AquAdvantage salmon, the Food and Drug Administration reviewed it as a new animal drug. Inspectors visited AquaBounty’s Panama facility and its hatchery on Canada’s Prince Edward Island. They assessed environmental risks, like transgenic fish escaping and interfering with salmon in the wild. The company said it designed AquAdvantage salmon as sterile females so they won’t reproduce.

Journalists and activists scrutinized AquaBounty too, reporting on a mishap in Panama that cost the company its first batch of commercial-sized fish and supermarkets pledging that they wouldn’t sell bioengineered salmon.

With the fish not even for sale yet, AquaBounty patched together financing to stay afloat, including from a former Soviet oligarch.

Federal approval came in 2015 — for the Panamanian and Canadian sites only. New facilities needed individual approval. Meanwhile, a coalition of environmental and industry groups, including the Center for Food Safety, filed a lawsuit challenging the FDA’s review. In a case that would take years to resolve, they argued that the agency failed to fully assess the risk of AquAdvantage salmon escaping into the wild.

And genetically modified salmon had an influential foe: U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Following FDA approval, she inserted language into a spending bill that stymied the introduction or distribution of genetically modified fish until labeling guidelines were in place. In comparison to what she dubbed “frankenfish,” she noted that Alaskan fisheries “are world-renowned for their high-quality, productivity, and sustainability.”

Momentum shifted after Canada approved AquAdvantage salmon and the U.S. developed a labeling policy. By 2019, reporters and at least one politician were touring AquaBounty’s small salmon farm in Indiana.

The future seemed bright when Stotish left the company at the end of the year. “I’m the guy that won the Super Bowl and then walked out the door,” he said.

AquaBounty’s search for a place to build its first large-scale production facility brought it to the northwest corner of Ohio, where, according to an account written by Kidston, it considered property he owned. He didn’t name the prospective developer in his letter to a state commission, but details correspond almost exactly to AquaBounty.

The company decided to pursue its project elsewhere, Kidston wrote — paralleling AquaBounty’s announcement about a site in Kentucky — but it retained his business, Artesian of Pioneer, to evaluate the water supply at the site it was considering in another state. The company found the water characteristics unsuitable for its purpose, he wrote.

AquaBounty eventually decided to build on property that it bought from Kidston’s company. At the 2022 groundbreaking, Aquabounty President and CEO Sylvia Wulf was enthusiastic about the company’s future in Ohio. “We thought that Pioneer’s the kind of community that would be receptive,” she said in a newscast.

Pioneer would set a template, the company later proclaimed. AquaBounty would build new farms every two years or so. It eyed global markets: Brazil, Argentina, Israel, China.

Ohio was just the beginning.

The Mayor’s Land, a Town’s Hopes

On a cold night in January 2021, the Madison Township trustees gathered in a truck bay. Kidston, mayor of the village encircled by the township, had requested a special meeting.

First elected in 1995, he’s believed to be Pioneer’s longest-serving mayor, exceeding another Mayor Kidston — his father, Bruce. He has trim white hair, a ruddy complexion and a prominent presence. At last year’s Christmas tree lighting, he dressed as an ornamented evergreen, wearing a crown of lights.

His presence stretches into property and business holdings, including Artesian of Pioneer, founded by his parents, and now specializing in water supply and wastewater treatment. It dips below ground, too. He sparked protests in 2018 and 2019 when he tried to extract and sell up to 14 million gallons a day of groundwater to the Toledo suburbs, which many feared would deplete the local aquifer. Kidston defended the effort, but ultimately the suburbs went with another water plan.

In the truck bay, the topic was a proposal to allow Pioneer to annex about 160 acres from Madison Township so that the village could spur development at its expanded industrial park. Minutes summarizing the meeting indicate that while two Pioneer council members and the Pioneer administrator were present, only Kidston spoke about the proposal with the township trustees that evening.

Kidston signed in as the mayor of Pioneer, according to the minutes and the trustee who said he recorded them. Thanks to a recent purchase, his company Kidston Consultants was one of two landowners of the site. Kidston described his interest in the annexation, what he’d like to accomplish and how development would benefit schools, according to the minutes.

When trustees worried about traffic costs, Kidston offered $5,000 for road maintenance — an annual contribution for 10 years, he indicated.

There was no vote that night. Within days, Kidston wrote an email to several officials who attended the meeting, saying that he was present that night merely as a landowner and representative of the other landowner, not as mayor.

His goal, he added in the email, has always been to ensure that everyone wins. The financial offer was to compensate the township “in exchange for a non-adversarial ‘quick’ agreement,” he wrote.

Kidston then contacted the Ohio Ethics Commission, describing his intersecting interests in a prospective development. His water business had provided services for a company that was interested in a site he’d like to have annexed by Pioneer. The company might also be interested in an ongoing business relationship. He wouldn’t participate in village decision-making about annexation or efforts to secure a tax abatement, Kidston wrote.

An attorney’s response noted that Kidston may retain the same access to governmental entities as any other citizen. But, it said, he cannot use his position as village mayor, “formally or informally,” in any matters involving the proposed annexation of the property, or to secure the annexation of the property. It also said that Kidston cannot take action as a village official “to benefit your personal financial interests or the financial interests of a company with which you have an ongoing business relationship.”

Kidston didn’t attend another special meeting about annexation, held 12 days after the first. But, according to the minutes, Kidston’s company would pay the township $50,000 if the trustees signed an annexation agreement that day. A local development official spoke on behalf of the proposal, telling trustees that she couldn’t guarantee payment from Kidston beyond that day.

The township board unanimously rejected the $50,000 offer. Two of three trustees told ProPublica they felt pressured and had concerns about the ethics of what they considered such an unusual offer, echoing remarks in the local news at the time. (The third trustee didn’t respond to inquiries from ProPublica.)

Two days later, the trustees approved a deal where Pioneer would pay the township $390.54 annually, the approximate sum the township would forgo in taxes.

Kidston Consultants purchased more than 80 acres on Jan. 22, 2021, three days before the truck bay meeting. The communities approved annexation on Feb. 8. On July 23, Kidston’s company nailed down an agreement to sell the land to AquaBounty. The profit: about $1.5 million.

News of AquaBounty’s arrival spread locally when The Bryan Times published a story a week later: “Salmon farm planned for Pioneer.” It was believed to be the largest investment ever in Williams County.

Suddenly, an Upstream Battle

As AquaBounty made its move into Ohio, everybody seemed to get on board.

There were the JobsOhio grant and the port authority’s bond authorization. There was a 15-year property tax exemption. With assistance from state agencies, the village committed millions to developing roadway and power infrastructure that would support AquaBounty.

Some incentives were contingent. In exchange for the abatement, for example, AquaBounty agreed to maintain a certain number of jobs and donate a percentage of its savings to a county infrastructure fund and area schools.

North Central Local schools could get $750,000 a year for 15 years, Kidston estimated in news reports. Maybe even a million.

The coming jobs would have higher wages than usual for the area, a local economic development official told the county commission. They were new types of jobs, too, suitable for people with biology and chemistry degrees or research expertise.

“We both have personal experiences with people who have left our region or not worked in their field because they don’t have those types of jobs here,” she said.

Now, maybe, that’d change.

Besides financial and infrastructure support, AquaBounty got an unusual state permit to withdraw up to 5.25 million gallons of groundwater a day. The company planned to treat and discharge most of it into the St. Joseph River, where it would eventually flow into Lake Erie instead of replenishing the aquifer.

That instigated a backlash from people who said the plan would draw down the aquifer, thinning lakes and threatening drinking water even beyond Ohio’s borders. The Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians asked why AquaBounty couldn’t reuse or recirculate more of what it took, and why there wasn’t a review of the impact on wetlands. With the impact from the proposed withdrawal swelling across its border, Michigan’s environmental agency also weighed in with concerns. Sherry Fleming of Williams County Alliance, a grassroots environmental group, said that Ohio “continues to treat water as nothing more than a commodity.”

Some skeptics questioned AquaBounty’s ties to the mayor. “Mr. Kidston swears up and down that the aquifer has enough, and will always have enough water, to withstand 5.2 million gallons of withdrawal a day,” wrote a retiree with a farm to an official with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. The mayor sold AquaBounty property and services, he said. “This man has always had a dog in this fight!”

Despite the opposition, the state granted the water permits, explaining that all requirements were met and certain safeguards were in place. But AquaBounty still had a problem: It didn’t have a way of moving water between its farm and the site about a mile east where it planned to withdraw and discharge it — on land owned by Kidston’s company.

Pioneer applied three times for a right-of-way permit so that AquaBounty could build pipelines across private property. The county rejected each request.

Pioneer and AquaBounty sued, arguing that the pipelines are a utility, serving the broader public good. The commission responded that pipelines between two private property owners are not a public utility, and even if they were, nothing compels commissioners to grant the right of way.

Roth, the county engineer, expressed concern at how much government support AquaBounty got before its plans were clearly viable.

They still didn’t have a way to get the water to their farm, Roth said to ProPublica, “and yet, they were starting to get money.”

Problems mounted. The Indiana farm was fined over permit violations for excess pollutants in its discharged water. Due to a ruling in the FDA lawsuit, the agency was further reviewing the salmon’s escape risk.

And expected costs in Pioneer more than doubled from initial estimates, flirting with $500 million. The bonds authorized by the port authority were never issued. (Contacted by ProPublica, an authority official wouldn’t say why.)

In June 2023, about 13 months after breaking ground, AquaBounty announced a pause on construction in Pioneer, citing “a substantial increase in its estimated cost.”

With its stock price deflated, the company was at risk of slipping off the trading market, so it performed a reverse stock split. It sold the Indiana farm for less than it paid, with certain equipment purchased for Pioneer included. It twice replaced the CEO, put one Canadian facility up for sale and announced it was winding down another — its only remaining active farm.

Along a smooth new road, the Pioneer site now sits frozen, roughly 30% complete, according to a company estimate.

Pioneer officials said in a statement to ProPublica that the village has not been advised that AquaBounty has terminated its project. They emphasized that the court dispute over the pipeline was still not settled and that an initial ruling was in the village’s favor. On Friday, a judge ruled against the county’s appeal.

AquaBounty’s interim CEO said in December that the company would “assess alternatives for our Ohio farm project.” To investors, it mentioned higher costs due to inflation.

The outlook is bleak. While AquaBounty once estimated that it would be operational by now, with salmon ready for market in 2025, there was instead an online auction for its “new unused” assets earlier this month: tanks, filters, pumps, even a 200,000-square-foot pre-engineered metal building.

An Uncertain Future

In Pioneer and beyond, there has yet to be a full public accounting of what went wrong.

Not every development can be expected to make it, even with incentives, said Greg LeRoy, executive director of the nonprofit Good Jobs First, which scrutinizes public subsidies in economic development. But, he said, it’s important to vet companies with unproven business plans before spending public resources on their behalf — and to have a transparent process before deals are approved.

“If you’re taking on debt or giving them equity, or you’re laying out cash for utilities,” LeRoy said, “those are risky things.”

JobsOhio’s million-dollar grant depended on the creation of 112 jobs, $222 million in capital investment and a payroll of more than $5.4 million by the end of 2026, according to a spokesperson.

When a company fails to meet grant commitments, he said, “we will claw back our dollars so they can be used for future economic development projects to benefit Ohioans.”

As a private entity with a funding mechanism set up by the state, JobsOhio reveals few details about how it spends its money — a lack of transparency that has long been criticized. The spokesperson didn’t respond to a question about whether AquaBounty received some or all of its grant money.

AquaBounty was expected to pay Pioneer millions of dollars a year for the electricity it used and reimburse it for certain costs associated with building the substation. The $5 million note matures in November. In response to ProPublica’s inquiries about the substation, the village said it will pay any debt that it owes, “even if AquaBounty should cease to exist.” According to the state treasurer’s office, the village, which has about 800 electricity customers, is expected to use its electric revenue to pay the debt.

Local schools also face uncertainty. The district has long struggled with finances, and AquaBounty’s contributions were presented as a salve. But that funding hasn’t materialized. Last year, the district twice turned to taxpayers for help, seeking support for basic needs such as utilities, transportation, staffing and custodial supplies.

At both the March and November ballots, voters rejected it.

The district hasn’t responded to ProPublica’s questions. School board President Kati Burt, Kidston’s daughter, declined to comment.

Mark Schmucker, a Madison Township trustee and former board president, marvels at how officials championed AquaBounty as “the biggest infrastructure project in Northwest Ohio,” despite its shaky history.

“They were going to donate a million to the school every year,” he said. “How can they donate a million to the school when they never made a million in a year? Or showed a profit in 30 years?”

Epling, who has led the county’s economic development agency since 2023, said that the government incentives for the company “were publicly documented and structured with clear performance-based contingencies.”

She added, “Moving forward, my goal is to ensure that economic development efforts are well vetted, clearly communicated and beneficial to the community.”

Late last year, an unexpected provision showed up in a massive bill introduced in the Ohio Legislature. It exempted village mayors and other executive officers from key ethical requirements when they do business with the communities they represent. One of the bill’s sponsors said that other ethics laws would still apply.

Kidston’s company, Artesian of Pioneer, employed the lobbyist behind the provision, according to the bill sponsor and disclosure records.

The Legislature passed the bill. But Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed it, citing opposition from the ethics commission.

The change, according to the commission, would “invite misuse of taxpayer money.”

Ravenlocke

25th February 2025, 22:23

https://x.com/GMWatch/status/1893284974435893647

1893284974435893647

Eva2

24th March 2025, 16:32

KFC joins McDonalds as fast food to avoid:

https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/news-are-telling-us-human-meat-chicken-internet-disbelief-latest-kfc-ad-sparks-cannibalism-theories

'"Are they telling us there's human meat in the chicken?" — Internet in disbelief as latest KFC ad sparks cannibalism theories
By
Bias Sinha
Modified Mar 23, 2025 16:37 GMT

https://staticg.sportskeeda.com/editor/2025/03/df7d5-17427391310795-1920.jpg

KFC'S new commercial promotes cannibalism. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING!

https://x.com/_TruthZone_/status/1903178766379258434
1903178766379258434
Easier to read the entire article from the first link

onawah

24th March 2025, 23:18

What on Earth is KFC thinking of????? :facepalm:
I would never eat the horrible junk they sell anyway, but I can't imagine this ad is going to increase sales among their regular customers, much less draw in any news ones--quite the opposite!

Eva2

3rd April 2025, 20:09

'Scientists have discovered that cockroach milk from Diploptera punctata is three times more nutritious than cow milk. Rich in proteins, fats, and sugars, it offers an exciting potential superfood for the future. Research continues to explore its benefits and sustainable production methods for human consumption.
#CockroachMilk #Superfood #Nutrition #Innovation #Sustainability'

https://scontent.fcxh3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/487174226_973721144873564_6346862452343280859_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=127cfc&_nc_ohc=3bPHUCll_dwQ7kNvwGfkdGX&_nc_oc=Adk6uvJaIG_ckUOp7JLpJ1k6L_4ujaYbHGE6Cpp8lf-VPeabbqx3HmkHmI9cwlKl_eDtgoNcsz0yWn1t4J1Jw22O&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent.fcxh3-1.fna&_nc_gid=l9AgFCwBdIL5zWHYZMcgVw&oh=00_AYF-Nt097BTUYf0x6du8RZHirgKvYzIg8iRkCvdn6wuNfA&oe=67F4A840

Ravenlocke

15th April 2025, 17:08

https://x.com/toobaffled/status/1911336733884690472

1911336733884690472

https://x.com/QBCCIntegrity/status/1862811238268637209

1862811238268637209

https://x.com/EHallandvik/status/1908771175292862647

1908771175292862647

Text:

The Bovaer “safety” was only done over 𝟗𝟎 𝐃𝐀𝐘𝐒!! No long term studies… in 1 study 2 of the cows were euthanised early. (Didn’t say why) in second study They decided𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐄𝐃 𝐎𝐕𝐀𝐑𝐘 𝐒𝐈𝐙𝐄 wasn’t adverse!!! In rats the findings were far worse!!

https://food.gov.uk/research/outcome-of-assessment-of-3-nitrooxypropanol-3-nop-assessment

https://x.com/LeilaniDowding/status/1862773841635705137

1862773841635705137

https://x.com/exthepose/status/1912048131589492784

1912048131589492784

TrumanCash

12th June 2025, 14:22

Roundup Weedkillers Caused Multiple Cancers in Rats, Large International Study Finds

There’s now more evidence that glyphosate exposure at levels deemed safe by regulatory authorities can cause multiple kinds of cancer, thanks to a new peer-reviewed study published Tuesday in Environmental Health.

The study authors, including researchers from the Ramazzini Institute in Italy and Boston College, examined the impact of glyphosate and two common glyphosate-based weedkiller formulations — Roundup Bioflow, which is used in Europe, and Ranger Pro, a generic version of Roundup used in the U.S.

Both formulations are sold by Bayer, which acquired the Roundup brand and related weedkillers in 2018 when it bought Monsanto.

Researchers gave the weedkillers to groups of rats over two years and compared the results to unexposed groups of rats.

“Our study showed carcinogenic effects in rats at doses that are currently considered safe,” the study’s corresponding author Daniele Mandrioli, M.D., Ph.D., told The Defender.

Mandrioli directs the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center at the Ramazzini Institute.

According to the report, Mandrioli and his colleagues found that rats exposed to glyphosate and both glyphosate-based products developed tumors in multiple places, including the blood (as in, leukemia), skin, liver, thyroid, nervous system, ovary, mammary gland, adrenal glands, kidney, urinary bladder, bone, endocrine pancreas, uterus and spleen.

Prenatal exposure to the weedkiller was “particularly detrimental,” Mandrioli said, noting that 40% of the deaths from leukemia occurred in exposed rats who were less than a year old.

The authors also saw an increase in early deaths for other types of tumors, he added.

Study comes as Bayer seeks immunity from costly lawsuits

Read complete article at https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/roundup-weedkillers-caused-multiple-cancers-rats-large-international-study-finds/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20250611

onawah

4th August 2025, 02:40

Why Can't We Stop Eating Certain Foods?
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
August 02, 2025
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2025/08/02/why-cant-we-stop-eating-certain-foods.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&sd=20110604&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20250802Z1&foDate=true&mid=DM1784532&rid=353905107

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2025/August/PDF/why-cant-we-stop-eating-certain-foods-pdf.pdf

J_03EXyhYS8

"Story at-a-glance
Ultraprocessed foods are designed to melt in your mouth and bypass the need for chewing, which blocks your brain’s ability to register fullness and drives you to overeat
Food companies use sound, smell, appearance, and packaging to stimulate your senses and condition your brain to crave their products through a marketing tactic called sonic branding
Snack products are marketed to dominate your day — from breakfast shakes to bedtime treats — fueling constant grazing that rewires your brain and leads to compulsive eating
Seemingly “healthy” snack foods like veggie straws and protein bars are loaded with empty calories that trick you into thinking you're making better choices, when in fact they disrupt hunger and satisfaction cues
These foods trigger the same dopamine-driven reward pathways in the brain as addictive substances like alcohol and nicotine, which explains why it's so hard to stop eating them — even when you know they’re harming your health

Have you ever noticed how, when you open a bag of chips and start eating it, you somewhat can't help but finish it, down to the last crumb? Even if your mind is telling you to stop, your hands keep reaching down as you anticipate every crunch. It's like an addiction — and you're not to blame.

A BBC documentary investigates the strategic engineering of ultraprocessed food, and how they're designed to trap you by cleverly stimulating your senses — putting you in an endless cycle of cravings and overeating that ultimately leads to chronic diseases.1

U4f0UwcI9i8

Obesity Is Not a 'Failure of Willpower' — It's the Result of a Shift in Our Food System
Dr. Chris van Tulleken, a doctor and scientist with the National Health Service (NHS) in the U.K., explores just how the global food system is drastically affecting people's health. Through interviews with different experts in the field of food manufacturing, he gives an eye-opening look at how food corporations manufacture and market products in ways that deliberately short-circuit your body's natural appetite controls.

•Obesity rates in all age groups started rising at the same time — Van Tulleken starts by disputing the belief that obesity is caused by a failure of willpower, providing data showing how obesity rates in different age groups rose simultaneously in the mid-1970s.

"etween 1960 and 1975, there's a fairly steady percentage of obesity in the population. But in the mid-1970s, obesity starts going up in all of the groups simultaneously," he explained.

"Now, if you're saying willpower is responsible, what you're proposing is that all of these groups of people simultaneously lost moral responsibility. And that's not plausible. Something else happened to our food in the mid-1970s to make it irresistible to people."

•So what changed during this time? A separate BBC article describes how a "fork in the road" occurred in 1971. The 1970s were a period of terrible inflation — the cost of living rose, along with a demand for cheap food. Food historian Polly Russell explains:

"On the one hand there's an increase in processed food, in supermarkets, in centralised food systems, in industrialised food, and all that goes with it. And on the other hand, there's also a growth in an interest in cooking as a leisure activity, in the origins of food, in food and seasonality, in a much more engaged relationship with food."2

•Another significant change happened — the fast food industry grew — Restaurant chains like McDonald's were expanding; in fact, the quarter pounder was released in 1971. American portion sizes started increasing as well. On the other side of the world, instant ramen in a cup was born in Japan. It eventually reached U.S. shores and became known as Cup O' Noodles.3

But the biggest change that occurred after the 1970s — and continues to this day — is that ultraprocessed food manufacturing has gone beyond producing cost-efficient food — it has become a complex process that creates products designed to overload your senses so that you have no choice but to keep eating.

How Texture Tricks Your Brain Into Overeating
One particular trick that manufacturers use is playing around with textures — not just flavor or ingredients — to increase consumption and drive profits. This deeper manipulation works at the level of chewing, sensation, and brain signaling.

•Snacks are intentionally designed to be crunchy and squishy — John Ruff, a former executive from Kraft General Foods who spent four decades in the global food industry, explains that everything from a product's crunch to its squish is tested by trained sensory panels before it hits store shelves. Every bite is fine-tuned for maximum appeal — not through nutrition, but through feel, mouth sensation, and how fast you eat it.

"Companies spend a lot of time optimizing all aspects of their product — the flavor, the taste, the texture. People want their product to be as good, if not better than the competitor, so it will sell more," Ruff said.

•Eating snacks with soft textures disrupts a key biological safeguard — Some snacks are designed to be crunchy on the outside, while the inside is soft enough to melt in your mouth. This is intentional; since you're not chewing soft food as much, it short-circuits the normal satiety mechanisms you'll have if you were chewing food properly.

As a result, your body is bypassing a mechanism that signals fullness — it triggers you to keep eating. According to Professor Francis McGlone, a former lead neuroscientist at Unilever:

"Once we worked out that playing around with the texture of food — making it softer — tricks that normal satiety of fullness mechanism, clearly there's an opportunity there for some kind of scurrilous behavior in making food softer so that people will eat more and therefore you sell more of your product."

•What's more, ultraprocessed foods are engineered to be consumed quickly — This means your body has even less time to register satiety before you've eaten hundreds of calories.

•The industry term for this is "vanishing caloric density" — This refers to how certain puffy, light foods dissolve so quickly in your mouth that your brain doesn't even process them as calories. You don't feel full, so you eat more. Van Tulleken demonstrates this by biting into a common puffy snack that he says his kids love.

"You don't typically think of this as being a soft food because it's a bit crunchy. But actually after that initial crunch, you can just crush it with your tongue, right? It's got no resistance at all. But in terms of the calories per gram, it's got way more calories than even a very fatty burger."

And because these foods are usually packed with highly digestible carbohydrates and oils, they hit your bloodstream fast, spiking blood sugar and encouraging fat storage.

These textures aren't about convenience — they're a marketing weapon. The melt-in-your-mouth sensation is part of a deliberate effort to make foods that are hard to stop eating. That's how a handful of snacks turns into a finished bag before you even realize what happened.

Eating Is a Multisensory Experience, and Food Manufacturers Are Taking Advantage of It
Van Tulleken emphasizes that the real manipulation extends beyond taste and texture — it's about logos, colors, sounds, and even the tactile experience of handling the product.

•Every bite is a multisensory event — Prof. Barry Smith, a sensory consultant who's worked with major food companies, says that eating is never just about flavor. What your food looks like, how it smells, and how it feels in your hand matters.

•Even the sound food makes when you bite into it is crucial — "When you open a fizzy soda, you've got two noises. You've got the click and the tear. Sound engineers and manufacturers work really hard to get that sound just right. And that's sonic branding," Smith says.

•Defining sonic branding — To put it simply, sonic branding is a marketing strategy where sound — jingles, chimes, or music — is used to build emotional connection and memory with consumers. It creates brand identity. To illustrate, Smith recalls a conversation he had while working for Kellogg:

"[T]hey said, 'Ooh, what's sonic branding?' And I said, 'You invented this.' Most people will remember as children the experience of lifting a bowl to their ear. And what are they listening for? Snap, crackle, and pop. That's sonic branding at its best, and that's the original."

These strategies are beyond clever — they're deeply psychological. The more senses a product stimulates, the more likely you are to develop an emotional connection with it. That connection drives repeat purchases and builds brand loyalty, often without you consciously realizing it. These signals bypass your logical thinking and aim straight at the parts of your brain that drive habit and craving.

Snack Foods Are Designed to Hijack Your Day — and Keep You Addicted
Have you ever noticed how certain processed foods are marketed to be consumed at a specific part of your day? For example, granola or oatmeal bars are marketed for on-the-go folks who want a quick breakfast before they start their day.

High-protein bars are designed to be eaten as a pick-me-up after a rigorous workout session. And if you're craving a snack in the middle of the day, "healthy" products like veggie straws are recommended — while they seem convenient, they're not healthy at all.

•Ultraprocessed snacks compete for your "stomach share" — Dr. Yanaina Chavez Ugalde from the University of Cambridge explains how modern food companies have shifted their strategy from mealtime nutrition to all-day consumption. Rather than just competing for your breakfast, lunch, or dinner, they aim to dominate your stomach share — the cumulative space in your day where food can be inserted. And their most profitable weapon in this battle? Snacking.

•These snacks are filled with empty calories — This means that while you get the energy, you don't get the fiber, protein, or micronutrients that keep your body functioning well. "Whereas before we would have had food, actual food, now we are marketed into believing that this is actually a healthy replacement."

•Snacks are labeled "share-size," but the marketing knows full well you'll likely eat them alone — The packaging says "family size," but the design cues, flavors, and textures are engineered to keep your hand in the bag until it's empty.

This constant grazing doesn't just affect your waistline — it changes your brain. The more you snack on these engineered products, the more your brain rewires itself to expect that stimulation. The result is a cycle of craving and consumption that's extremely hard to break.

•Ultraprocessed foods are just as addictive as alcohol or cigarettes — University of Michigan psychology professor Dr. Ashley Gearhardt, who specializes in the science of addiction, compares ultraprocessed foods to addictive substances like alcohol, nicotine, and cocaine.

"When we look at the sorts of foods that trigger those key diagnostic indicators of addiction, it's really clear what it's not. It's not minimally processed foods like fruit or vegetables or beans or lean meats like chicken breast. It's really processed foods. It's chocolate. It's ice cream. It's pizza. It's foods that don't exist in nature," she said.

When you consume junk foods, your brain lights up with dopamine — a chemical that plays a central role in craving and reinforcement. In normal eating patterns, dopamine helps you feel satisfied. But with ultraprocessed foods, the hit is so intense and so immediate that it overrides normal controls. This is why you keep eating even when you're full, even when you feel sick, and even when you've promised yourself to stop.

Read more about the addictive nature of ultraprocessed foods in "What Foods Trigger the Greatest Cravings, Leading to Overeating?"

How to Break Free from Ultraprocessed Food Addiction
The documentary closes with a statement from the Food and Drink Federation, the membership body for food and drink manufacturers in the U.K., saying that the government's Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition found "insufficient scientific evidence on the concept of 'ultraprocessed foods' for it to be used for dietary guidance or policy making, and that further research is needed."

They said they will only change their ingredients or processes once there's research showing that processing is a cause for concern. Clearly, they're turning a blind eye to the growing research that shows ultraprocessed foods are not only addictive, but also put you at higher risk of chronic diseases like obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.4

If you're caught in a cycle of eating unhealthy ultraprocessed foods but still can't seem to stop, you're not alone. Ultraprocessed foods are engineered to hijack your brain and trick your body, overriding your natural cues so you'll keep reaching for more. However, the solution isn't to shame yourself — it's to understand what's really going on so you will be able to reclaim control of your body. Here are strategies I recommend to help you reclaim control and heal from ultraprocessed food addiction:

1.Start by removing the foods that bypass your fullness signals — I suggest you identify the worst offenders in your daily routine and replace them with real food that requires chewing. A crisp apple, carrots with grass fed cream cheese, or crunchy cucumber slices will give your brain time to register satisfaction.

2.Eat real meals instead of grazing all day — Structure your day around three healthy meals with enough protein, healthy carbs, and saturated fat to sustain you. This grounds your energy, helps stabilize your blood sugar, and makes snacking less necessary.

3.Interrupt the marketing cycle with awareness and environment control — You are being manipulated through sound, packaging, and brand familiarity. Keep processed foods out of your home. Even covering labels with plain paper or storing snack items in opaque containers can help break the visual feedback loop that makes you crave them. Many ultraprocessed foods are also highly marketed to children, so if you have kids, show them how food ads work so they grow up with awareness.

4.Track your progress — I've found that the more you notice patterns, the easier it is to break them. Keep a simple journal for 10 days. Write down when you eat ultraprocessed food, what was happening around you, and how you felt afterward.

You'll start seeing patterns — maybe stress after work is your trigger, or late-night boredom. That kind of clarity builds self-efficacy — the belief that you can make changes because now you understand the why. This alone will lower the shame and increase your momentum toward real change.

Awareness is the first step toward regaining that control. When you understand the tools being used against you, you can take the first real step toward full autonomy over your food choices and overall health.

"If someone is watching this and they are struggling with their weight, with diet-related disease, I just want to reach out and grab them and go, 'This is not your fault. It is not you. It is the food,'" van Tulleken concludes.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Ultraprocessed Foods
Q: Why do I feel like I can't stop eating certain snack foods, even when I'm full?

A: Ultraprocessed foods are engineered to bypass your natural satiety mechanisms. Their soft, melt-in-your-mouth textures eliminate the need for chewing, which interrupts your body's ability to signal fullness. This design keeps you eating long after your body has had enough.

Q: What is "vanishing caloric density" and why does it matter?

A: Vanishing caloric density refers to foods that dissolve quickly in your mouth, like puffed snacks or crisps. Because they vanish on contact, your brain doesn't fully register the calories you've consumed. This makes you eat more without feeling satisfied, contributing to overeating and fat storage.

Q: How are my senses manipulated to make me crave these foods?

A: Food companies use multi-sensory marketing — including sounds, textures, smells, packaging, and even the "tear" of a wrapper — to stimulate your brain's reward system. Techniques like sonic branding create emotional memories around products, encouraging cravings before you even take a bite.

Q: Are "healthy" snacks like protein bars or veggie straws actually good for me?

A: Not really. Many of these products are marketed as healthy but are actually nutrient-poor and energy-dense. They often lack fiber and protein and are filled with processed oils and additives, which disrupt your body's hunger signals and promote chronic snacking.

Q: What's the best way to break free from my cravings for ultraprocessed foods?

A: Start by removing foods that bypass fullness cues, eat real meals instead of grazing, become aware of marketing manipulation, replace reward triggers with new habits, and track your eating patterns to identify and interrupt craving cycles. These steps rebuild your body's natural signals and help restore real control.

[B] Sources and References
1 YouTube, BBC, Why can't we stop eating certain foods?, December 5, 2024
2, 3 BBC, 1971: The year that changed food forever?
4 Laborers’ Health and Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA), April 1, 2019"

norman

17th November 2025, 08:09

BOVAER COWS ARE DYING! | Is the dairy industry lying to us?
Dr Renee - Nov 13, 2025

Something strange is happening on dairy farms across Europe and we need to start talking about it!

In this video, I investigate reports from Danish farmers linking the methane-reducing feed additive Bovaer to cow illness, reduced milk yield, and even deaths. Remember Bovaer? It is a food additive that was quietly introduced to some UK farms without ANY labelling on the milk or dairy products we consume every day.

So what’s really going on behind the scenes of the dairy industry? Are we being misled in the name of “climate goals”? And what does this mean for the milk sitting in your fridge right now?

I explain the science behind 3-NOP (Bovaer), the new Danish investigations ,what this could mean for UK consumers, and finally what you can do to protect you and your family from this additive.

QHaTnk04z_o

Cow Farts Safer than Bovaer? :cow:
Bovaer Backlash Update: Danish Farmers Get Green Light to Opt Out as UK Arla Trial Abruptly Ends!
Sonia Elijah
Nov 09, 2025
https://substack.com/@soniaelijah/note/c-175329820
https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1715104278809-4edddeb42189?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=M3wzMDAzMzh8MHwxfHNlYXJjaHw3fHxkYWlyeSUyMGNvdyUyMGFuZCUyMGRhbmlzaCUyMGZsYWd8ZW58MHx8fHwxNzYyNzA 2MTQ2fDA&ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=80&w=1080

"In a pivotal shift, Denmark’s Veterinary and Food Administration has issued new guidance: Farmers can immediately suspend Bovaer administration if they “suspect” it poses risks to herd health. On the heels of the Danish announcement—the major UK trial of Bovaer on 30 Arla Foods farms has abruptly ended amid health fears.

The Mandate Cracks: Farmers Given the Green Light to Opt Out
On November 5, 2025, Denmark’s Fødevarestyrelsen (Danish Veterinary and Food Administration) issued a press release and accompanying guidance clarified that farmers (specifically the herd manager, or besætningsansvarlige) could immediately exempt individual cows or entire herds from the mandatory Bovaer use if they suspected it was causing or exacerbating health issues, prioritizing animal welfare under existing regulations.

This was in response to surging reports of cow illnesses since October 1, where farms with over 50 cows have been mandated to use the synthetic additive, Bovaer (containing 3-nitrooxypropanol), developed by DSM-Firmenich. If the farms do not comply, they face heavy fines.

Bovaer Backlash: Danish Cows Collapsing Under Mandatory Methane-Reducing Additive
Sonia Elijah 11/3/25
Read Full Story:
https://www.soniaelijah.com/p/bovaer-backlash-danish-cows-collapsing

The guidance emphasized that exemptions apply to cases of feed-related metabolic disorders (e.g., fatty liver, milk fever, or rumen issues) and require documentation via a “tro- og loveerklæring” (declaration of good faith) on LandbrugsInfo, with veterinary consultation recommended for severe cases. No fines would apply for such welfare-based pauses, though farmers must still meet methane reduction goals via alternatives like increased feed fat. This effectively gave the “green light” for opting out on welfare grounds.

Reports surged of Danish dairy farmers unilaterally halting Bovaer administration, accusing the government of “poisoning” livestock to meet climate targets.

A November 3, 2025, article in LandbrugsAvisen (Denmark’s leading agricultural newspaper), quoted veterinarian Torben Bennedsgaard from BoviCura (a specialized cattle health advisory service closely tied to Danish dairy producers). He stated: “Every other farmer has problems with Bovaer.”

“Bovaer is a proven, effective and safe solution”
A spokesperson for DSM-Firmenich, the company that developed Bovaer, told Agriland, that “animal welfare is our highest priority”. They went on to state: “We are actively engaging with the relevant organisations to ensure that all these concerns are fully investigated and properly addressed..In previously reported cases, Bovaer was not identified as a contributing factor to the health concerns raised…Bovaer is a proven, effective and safe solution that has been successfully used for over three years by thousands of farmers in over 25 countries.”

UK Ripple Effects: Arla Trial Abruptly Halted
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!Ivj8!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ffaaad7d9-616a-4115-93fb-63bc2c44aaff_1250x1186.png

On 7 November, the BBC reported that the major UK trial of Bovaer on 30 Arla Foods farms concluded earlier than planned amid “farmer health concerns” for cows, echoing Danish reports. It stated: ‘Bovaer is now the focus of an investigation in Denmark after farmers raised fresh concerns but manufacturer DSM-Firmenich said the additive was “proven, effective and safe.”’

Arla, which supplies major retailers like Tesco and Aldi, is now reviewing data before deciding on wider rollout. The trial aimed to cut methane by 30% but faced criticism for lacking transparency on animal impact.

Jannik Elmegaard, of the Danish Food and Veterinary Administration, told the BBC: “They were very aware that some herd owners have reported animals showing signs of illness after being fed with Bovaer” but it was “unclear how many cows were affected”.

Last year, I reported on the UK’s Arla trial—whilst digging through various safety assessment reports on Bovaer, I came across several troubling findings and anomalies.

BREAKING: Methane-Reducing Feed Additive Trialled in Arla Dairy Farms
Sonia Elijah
November 28, 2024
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!gq_B!,w_1300,h_650,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F7615d3aa-9e9c-4176-b0c8-ec8c61d49079_1174x1068.png

On November 26th, Arla Foods Ltd. announced via social media their collaboration with major UK supermarkets like Tesco, Aldi, and Morrisons to trial Bovaer, a feed additive, aiming to reduce methane …

Read full story:
https://www.soniaelijah.com/p/breaking-methane-reducing-feed-additive

In a public rebuttal, Frank Mitloehner, Professor of Animal Science at UC Davis and Director of the Clarify Center for Enteric Fermentation Research, posted on X ”Hogwash!”—dismissing viral claims of Bovaer-related cow health issues in Denmark by highlighting his lab’s ongoing research and widespread U.S. usage data.

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!ssKY!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F91f6c4ad-3142-4611-b63c-739bc802fa1f_1202x1200.png

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!e2M5!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F52344c76-22a3-46db-ab0c-51217b6197fe_1208x506.png

The green light in Denmark is not a mere victory—it’s a damning admission that the emperor’s new feed has holes big enough for a whole herd to escape through.

As Arla licks its wounds and DSM-Firmenich doubles down on “proven safe,” the real trial begins: can climate crusaders stomach the science when it bites back? "

https://x.com/toobaffled/status/1911336733884690472

1911336733884690472

https://x.com/QBCCIntegrity/status/1862811238268637209

1862811238268637209

https://x.com/EHallandvik/status/1908771175292862647

1908771175292862647

Text:

The Bovaer “safety” was only done over 𝟗𝟎 𝐃𝐀𝐘𝐒!! No long term studies… in 1 study 2 of the cows were euthanised early. (Didn’t say why) in second study They decided𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐄𝐃 𝐎𝐕𝐀𝐑𝐘 𝐒𝐈𝐙𝐄 wasn’t adverse!!! In rats the findings were far worse!!

https://food.gov.uk/research/outcome-of-assessment-of-3-nitrooxypropanol-3-nop-assessment

https://x.com/LeilaniDowding/status/1862773841635705137

1862773841635705137

https://x.com/exthepose/status/1912048131589492784

1912048131589492784

norman

29th December 2025, 12:37

UK MILK Brands
Protect Our Plates - Dec 24, 2025

Milk shelves in the UK look the same — but many shoppers are now asking questions about changes happening behind the scenes. This video breaks down the recent Bovaer discussion and, more importantly, highlights milk brands that have publicly stated they are not involved, alongside options that follow organic standards.

This isn’t medical or nutritional advice. It’s a practical, transparency-focused guide for British shoppers who want to understand their choices and decide for themselves.

Sources are based on public brand statements, organic certification rules, and retailer availability at the time of publishing. Brand practices can change, so viewers are encouraged to check directly with manufacturers.

ilNjIE5QubY

Jaak

25th January 2026, 01:47

2015143566750757316

onawah

28th January 2026, 08:18

How Factory Farms Dodge Pollution Rules — and Move Millions of Gallons of Toxic Waste Into U.S. Waterways
by Sentient Media
January 27, 2026
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/factory-farms-dodge-pollution-rules-millions-gallons-toxic-waste-u-s-waterways/?utm_source=cc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20260127

(Podcast at the link. Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here.)

( I am always appalled when I read about how the Chinese Communist Party permits environmental conditions in China to be so unregulated and without oversight that the people are literally living in, drinking, eating and breathing filth, and how those terrible living conditions are affecting the rest of the world now too. I was shocked to see this article about how the US government is allowing so much filth into our own waterways. It looks like yet another job for RFKennedy Jr. )

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/factory-farms-pollution-dodge-rules-waterway-800x417.jpg

"U.S. factory farms generate staggering amounts of manure. Some use a legal paperwork trick called “manifesting” to shift that waste onto smaller farms with little to no oversight. The maneuver allows big agribusinesses to sidestep pollution rules while manure seeps into waterways, releasing toxins that threaten public health.

Factory farms produce staggering amounts of manure and, in theory, there are strict regulations in place to keep it from contaminating nearby waterways.

But in practice, many of these companies have found a hidden way to make millions of gallons of waste effectively disappear — at least, in the eyes of the law — with no oversight or accountability as to where it ends up or what pollution it causes.

Welcome to the world of manifesting.

Also known as “distribution and utilization,” manifesting is a process whereby large factory farms transfer their manure to smaller farms that aren’t subject to manure disposal regulations.

These secondary farms are often shrouded beneath complex layers of Limited Liability Companies (LLCs), making their ultimate ownership difficult or impossible to determine. Some of them are owned by the factory farms themselves.

In effect, manifesting is a regulatory shell game that allows large factory farms — also known as concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs — to sidestep environmental regulations and avoid legal responsibility for their manure polluting the water, all while staying within the bounds of the law.

CAFO waste at a glance

Livestock in the U.S. produce an estimated 885 billion pounds of manure every year. This manure is typically dealt with in one of two ways: it’s either stored in some type of container or applied to cropland as fertilizer.

Both methods can result in manure leaking into nearby waterways. Storage containers can leak. Manure spread on fields can be carried into lakes, streams and rivers by rain and other weather conditions, a phenomenon called runoff. The form of pollution is a major problem, and it’s the one that the process of manifesting enables.

Manure contains high concentrations of nutrients that can break down into greenhouse gases and other toxins that can pollute water, degrade soil and imperil public health if it’s not managed properly. Agriculture is the leading source of water pollution in the U.S., according to the National Resources Defense Council.

CAFO regulations, on paper

There are a number of regulations at the federal, state and local levels aimed at preventing and limiting this type of pollution from CAFOs. The primary one is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, often referred to colloquially as the Clean Water Act.

Very broadly speaking, the Clean Water Act requires people and operations that pollute certain waters of the United States to obtain permits from either the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or, more commonly, state-level EPA equivalents.

These permits place rules and limits on how operations are allowed to manage and dispose of their pollution, in this case, manure.

The nature of these restrictions differs from farm to farm and state to state. In theory, discharge permits only allow farms to apply as much manure to fields as the crops and soil are able to absorb.

Permits might prohibit CAFOs from using manure as fertilizer during the winter months, as manure is more liable to leak into waterways in cold temperatures, or require them to have a buffer zone between their manure-treated fields and any nearby body of water.

In addition to these practical restrictions, discharge permits also require covered farms to create and present a Nutrient Management Plan — a system of practices to ensure their compliance with the permit’s requirements.

The plan typically includes protocols for manure disposal and storage, as well as testing the soil before manure application to determine what is a safe amount to apply.

CAFO regulations, in reality

On paper, these may sound like good measures to prevent pollution from CAFOs. But there are a number of small loopholes that add up to the enormous loophole known as manifesting.

First, CAFOs aren’t automatically considered polluters, and thus aren’t automatically required to obtain discharge permits under the Clean Water Act.

They’re only considered polluters if, according to their own attestations, they discharge their manure and other waste into certain types of waterways — the ones that count as “Waters of the United States.”

Secondly, not all animal farms qualify as CAFOs in the first place. Federal CAFO designation depends on how many animals a farm has, what purpose those animals serve, and what type of waste disposal system the facility uses.

Finally, crop farms and farms that are not CAFOs are not automatically required to obtain discharge permits. Federal pollution discharge regulations only apply to what are called point-source polluters.

The EPA defines a point source as “any single identifiable source of pollution from which pollutants are discharged, such as a pipe, ditch, ship or factory smokestack.”

CAFOs are also automatically considered point-source polluters if they discharge into “Waters of the United States.”

But many small, non-animal farms are not point-source polluters. Indeed, the Clean Water Act states that agricultural stormwater discharge and surface runoff from irrigation do not count as point sources.

The upshot here is that many U.S. farms that create or apply manure aren’t legally required to obtain discharge permits. They don’t have to follow the standard EPA restrictions on manure management or develop and implement Nutrient Management Plans. It’s an enormous loophole, and one that manifesting takes advantage of.

Manifesting manure: a corporate shell game

Manifesting can take several different forms, but the core idea is simple. CAFOs will transfer some portion of their manure to a second farm that doesn’t raise animals, isn’t considered a point source or otherwise isn’t subjected to permitting restrictions. The operators of this second field will use the manure as fertilizer, freely and without restriction.

“CAFOs can just give away their waste to somebody else, and then the way that waste is disposed of is out of their hands and out of their responsibility,” Katie Garvey, senior attorney at the Environmental Law and Policy Center, tells Sentient. “When they do that, they are no longer responsible for how that waste gets applied.”

Because that second field isn’t required to abide by any permitting regulations, it’s legally free to, say, apply much more manure than a field’s crops can handle, or apply it on fields right next to waterways.

If a CAFO transfers a portion of its manure to unpermitted farms, it’s still responsible for the manure that it retains on-site, and is thus still required to obtain a discharge permit. Only the portion of the manure that’s manifested is able to escape regulation.

But sometimes a CAFO will transfer all of its manure to a non-permitted farm. When this happens, the CAFO can plausibly claim that it’s not discharging any pollution into covered waterways, and it won’t need to obtain a permit at all.

This is one reason, though not the only reason, why an estimated 70% of all CAFOs in the U.S. don’t have discharge permits.

“The [CAFO says], ‘Well, I don’t discharge, but I’m a point source,” Tyler Lobdell, senior staff attorney at Food and Water Watch, tells Sentient. “The second person says, ‘Well, I discharge, but I’m not a point source.’ So it fits together, and nobody’s accountable.”

The next level: self-manifestation

Transporting manure to a second farm takes time, money and gas. To save themselves the effort, some CAFOs will create separate legal entities that they control, but which don’t require discharge permits, and “transfer” their manure there — that is, to themselves.

“[CAFOs] will make several limited liability company names, and then they will hire a contractor,” Lynn Henning, program director at the Socially Responsible Agriculture Project, tells Sentient.

The contractor “will take that waste, and he will apply it on fields which they actually own, and manifest it back to themselves, basically, to skirt the regulation.”

This practice came to light recently in Michigan after the state’s environmental agency proposed more stringent regulations on CAFO waste management.

The proposed regulations were mired in a years-long legal battle before finally being implemented in October 2025, and they included new limits on how manure can be manifested.

During this protracted legal dispute, employees at the state’s environmental protection agency testified that some CAFO operators have created separate businesses, on paper, so they could manifest their farms’ waste back to themselves.

“We have seen farms create legal entities to receive manifested waste, which allows the legal entity that operates the CAFO to avoid the responsibility of controlling the waste by manifesting it to a different corporate entity even if it is run by the same people who run the CAFO,” environmental quality specialist Bruce Washburn testified.

“Although of course CAFO owners, like other businesses, can create related corporate entities for a variety of legitimate purposes, it is frustrating to the Department when the people who run a CAFO do not have to follow permit requirements if they manifest waste from one company they own to another company that they also own.”

Whatever the arrangement, the consequence is the same: CAFOs are creating massive amounts of manure without being held accountable for what happens to it, where it goes or any pollution that it creates.

Lots of transferring, no transparency

But how common is manifesting in the animal agriculture industry? Unfortunately, this is an extremely difficult question to answer, as there’s an extraordinary lack of transparency with regard to CAFO manifesting.

There is some very limited information available. According to calculations performed by Sentient on publicly available data from Michigan’s state-level EPA equivalent, 41% of manure generated by Michigan CAFOs in 2024 was transported to other farms.

A peer-reviewed analysis of nutrient management plans in Ohio revealed that in 2015, 79% of the phosphorus in manure from the state’s CAFOs was scheduled to be transferred to other farms.

This “critical knowledge gap,” the authors write, renders the management of the majority of CAFO-produced manure in the state “unavailable for analysis and largely unknown.”

But although some states release data on CAFO manifesting, many don’t. And in some places — including Iowa, the state with the most CAFOs in the country — laws prohibit the public release of this information.

Idaho does the same. “In Idaho, where I live, nutrient management plans are considered confidential business information, and are not disclosable,” Lobdell said.

The lack of transparency can make it impossible to know how much manure is being manifested, or where that manure is going.

This “enables the open dumping of this waste onto communities,” Lobdell said, “in a way that the permitting structure should be not allowing.”

No accountability

Manifesting, and the absence of public information about it, can make it incredibly difficult for communities affected by CAFO pollution to hold the parent companies responsible for that waste accountable, Loka Ashwood tells Sentient.

Ashwood is an author and professor of community and environmental sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

“Corporate law protects explicitly, in this country, the parent company from the subsidiaries when it comes to damages,” says Ashwood, who has co-authored books and articles about the use of layered LLCs in the factory farm industry.

If a field to which manure has been manifested ends up polluting the water, a community might sue for damages, and might even win. But if that field is nested under layers of LLCs, there’s no assurance they’ll actually receive that money from whichever larger corporate entity that controls it.

“You can’t work your way up to the parent company to get those damages awarded,” says Ashwood.

“Almost always, even if the jury’s saying, ‘I want to award you a certain amount of damages,’ the plaintiffs actually getting that amount of damages is very difficult because of the way that corporate law works.”

Manifesting: one piece of a larger puzzle

Ultimately, manifesting is just one of many ways that factory farms are able to evade scrutiny, regulation and accountability for their manure management. As mentioned earlier, the majority of CAFOs do not have discharge permits, and in some states, like Indiana and Arkansas, none of them do.

Statewide enforcement of discharge permits and nutrient management plans is often lax.

In 2012, the EPA carried out an investigation into CAFO regulation in Iowa, where only 4% of CAFOs have discharge permits, and determined that the state “does not have an adequate program to assess” whether CAFOs without discharge permits need them.

It also found that, when the Clean Water Act had been violated, Iowa’s EPA equivalent “failed to take timely and adequate enforcement actions, and assess adequate penalties.”

More broadly, many environmentalists argue that even when CAFOs do receive permits, the regulations contained in the permit aren’t all that stringent in the first place.

Permitted farms are not prohibited from polluting the water, these critics say; they’re simply limited in how much polluting they’re allowed to do.

“The requirements themselves are very, very, very minimal,” Elisabeth Holmes, attorney at the Socially Responsible Agriculture Project, tells Sentient. “The decision about whether to establish any requirements or enforce them is discretionary and minimal.

And even where we have situations where there are requirements, there’s minimal accountability, there’s minimal transparency, and state agencies generally don’t take a lot of enforcement action against CAFOs anyway.”

Manifesting is a stark example of agribusinesses dodging regulatory requirements through entirely legal means.

Manure regulations are frequently unenforced or underenforced. But as the process of manifesting makes clear, even if these regulations were fully enforced, factory farms would still have plenty of wiggle room — and through that wiggle room, manure flows.

Seth Millstein is a writer and musician living in the Bay Area.
Originally published by Sentient Media.
Nonprofit news outlet investigating factory farms and their effect on climate, animals, health, politics and more. "

Mike Gorman

28th January 2026, 08:42

The actual source of our living, as human animals we cannot escape needing to eat: my policy is to only eat the most natural of foods, nothing ultra processed or manufactured, butcher meat, plain simple vegetables (grow some tomatoes/potatoes, very easy) pasta, rice, seasonings. I eat one main meal per day in the evening, lots of water. Keeping it simple works best, I also supplement my vitamin d3 - the bastards know that people seek comfort from their food, this is very worrying but you can do very well by keeping it old fashioned simple.

onawah

7th February 2026, 23:26

Microplastic Detox: How to Reduce Exposure and Support Natural Detox Pathways
Dr. Laurel Matthews ND
2/7/26

https://drlaurell.com/2026/02/07/microplastic-detox-how-to-reduce-exposure-and-support-natural-detox-pathways/

Microplastics are tiny plastic particles found in food, water, air, and everyday products. They have been detected in human blood, stool, and organs such as the heart and lungs.
Helpful supports for microplastic detox may include:
Reducing exposure is the first step in microplastic detox. Avoid heating food in plastic, limit bottled water, choose natural fibers, and reduce packaged foods.
Gut health is essential, as most ingested microplastics are eliminated through the digestive tract.
Leaky gut and food sensitivities may increase the likelihood that microplastics linger in the body. Supporting gut lining integrity is an important part of detox.

L-glutamine for leaky gut support
Milk thistle for liver detox support
N-acetylcysteine (NAC) to support antioxidant and detox pathways
Calcium D-glucarate, which helps prevent the recirculation of plastic-related toxins
Chorella binds toxins in the gut, including possibly microplastics.

Microplastic detox works best when exposure reduction, gut health, and detox support are addressed together.

Microplastics are tiny plastic particles that have become an unavoidable part of modern life. They are found in food, drinking water, air, and many everyday household products. Because of their small size, microplastics can be inhaled or swallowed and may accumulate in the body over time.

Researchers have now detected microplastics in human stool, blood, and organs such as the heart and lungs, raising important concerns about how long-term exposure may affect human health.

While research is still evolving, microplastic accumulation has been associated with inflammation, oxidative stress, hormone disruption, and immune system strain. These effects may contribute to common symptoms such as digestive discomfort, fatigue, brain fog, increased sensitivities, and possibly metabolic challenges, including obesity.

https://drlaurell.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/thlt-lcx-he17vnkq6pm-unsplash.jpg?w=1024
A microplastic detox of your kitchen can be just as important as a microplastic detox of your body

There is increasing media attention and concern about microplastics, yet relatively little guidance on what individuals can realistically do to address this issue. Using current research and an understanding of how plastic-related chemicals are processed through detoxification pathways, I have developed a multi-pronged approach to support microplastic detox. This approach begins with reducing exposure and strengthening the body’s natural elimination systems.

Reducing Microplastic Exposure in Daily Life

One of the most effective ways to support microplastic detox is to limit ongoing exposure whenever possible.

In the kitchen, avoid heating food in plastic containers and choose glass or stainless steel for food storage. Reducing bottled water and minimizing highly packaged or ultra-processed foods can significantly lower plastic intake.

Plastic cookware, cutting boards, and food utensils can also shed microplastics over time. Choosing alternatives such as wood, bamboo, stainless steel, or cast iron can further reduce exposure.

Synthetic clothing made from polyester or nylon sheds microplastics during wear and washing. When possible, opt for natural fibers like cotton, linen, or wool, and wash synthetic garments less frequently.

For a deeper dive into practical, research-based ways to reduce exposure, you can read this consumer guide from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) on microplastics and everyday exposure reduction.

On a personal note, I have also switched my dental floss to one made from silk to avoid the plastic found in most flosses. Make changes where you can, but don’t stress about changing everything at once—even small steps can make a meaningful difference over time.

Gut Health: A Critical Foundation for Microplastic Detox

Gut health plays a central role in preventing microplastic accumulation.

Most ingested microplastics are eliminated through the digestive tract. When digestion is functioning well, these particles pass through the body efficiently. However, poor gut motility, inflammation, or damage to the intestinal lining may increase the likelihood that microplastics enter the bloodstream rather than being eliminated.

Supporting digestion and elimination is therefore one of the most important steps in any microplastic detox strategy.

Preventing Constipation and Supporting Elimination

Regular bowel movements help carry waste, toxins, and environmental contaminants out of the body.

Adequate hydration, fiber-rich whole foods, regular physical activity, and responding promptly to the urge to have a bowel movement all support healthy elimination. Ideally, bowel movements should be comfortable and occur at least once daily.

When elimination slows, toxins may be reabsorbed rather than removed, placing additional stress on the body’s detoxification systems.

Leaky Gut, Food Sensitivities, and Microplastic Detox

A healthy intestinal lining acts as a barrier, allowing nutrients to enter the body while keeping unwanted substances out. When this barrier is compromised—commonly referred to as leaky gut—larger particles and inflammatory compounds may pass into circulation instead of being eliminated.

Food sensitivity reactions can play a major role in the development and persistence of leaky gut. Identifying and avoiding foods that trigger immune reactions can significantly reduce intestinal inflammation and support gut repair.

One commonly used supplement for leaky gut support is L-glutamine, an amino acid that serves as fuel for intestinal cells and helps maintain the integrity of the gut lining.

If you’d like a deeper look at how food sensitivities affect gut health and how to support healing, you can read my earlier blog post here:

Steps to Heal the Gut From Food Sensitivities (https://drlaurell.com/2015/04/29/steps-to-heal-the-gut-from-food-sensitivities/)

Herbs and Supplements That Support Microplastic Detox

In addition to reducing exposure and strengthening gut health, certain herbs and supplements may support the body’s natural detoxification pathways.

Microplastic particles can release chemicals into the body, including bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates. By supporting liver detoxification pathways, we can help the body neutralize and eliminate some of these compounds.

Milk thistle is one of the most well-known herbs for liver support. It has a long history of use in helping the liver process toxins, including pathways involved in the elimination of BPA, phthalates, dioxins, and other environmental chemicals.

Another supportive nutrient is N-acetylcysteine (NAC). NAC helps the body produce glutathione, a powerful antioxidant that the liver uses to neutralize many toxins, including BPA.

Calcium D-glucarate supports detoxification through a liver pathway known as glucuronidation, which plays a role in eliminating phthalates and other plastic-related chemicals. It also helps prevent certain gut bacteria from reversing this process, reducing the likelihood that toxins are reabsorbed and recirculated.

Chlorella has been shown to remove microplastics from bodies of water so this popular toxin binder might be able to bind microplastics in the gut to prevent their absorption.

These natural supports are most effective when combined with regular elimination, a healthy gut lining, and reduced exposure to environmental plastics.

A Practical, Sustainable Approach to Microplastic Detox

Microplastic exposure is a modern reality, but detoxification does not require extreme measures. By reducing exposure, supporting digestion, addressing leaky gut and food sensitivities, and using targeted herbal and nutritional support, the body is better equipped to eliminate what it does not need.

A steady, foundation approach to microplastic detox supports resilience and long-term health without fear or overwhelm.

Written by Dr. Laurell Matthews, N

Bill Ryan

15th February 2026, 17:51

Why Can't We Stop Eating Certain Foods?
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
August 02, 2025
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2025/08/02/why-cant-we-stop-eating-certain-foods.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&sd=20110604&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20250802Z1&foDate=true&mid=DM1784532&rid=353905107

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2025/August/PDF/why-cant-we-stop-eating-certain-foods-pdf.pdf

J_03EXyhYS8

"Story at-a-glance

Ultraprocessed foods are designed to melt in your mouth and bypass the need for chewing, which blocks your brain’s ability to register fullness and drives you to overeat
Food companies use sound, smell, appearance, and packaging to stimulate your senses and condition your brain to crave their products through a marketing tactic called sonic branding
Snack products are marketed to dominate your day — from breakfast shakes to bedtime treats — fueling constant grazing that rewires your brain and leads to compulsive eating
Seemingly “healthy” snack foods like veggie straws and protein bars are loaded with empty calories that trick you into thinking you're making better choices, when in fact they disrupt hunger and satisfaction cues
These foods trigger the same dopamine-driven reward pathways in the brain as addictive substances like alcohol and nicotine, which explains why it's so hard to stop eating them — even when you know they’re harming your health

Have you ever noticed how, when you open a bag of chips and start eating it, you somewhat can't help but finish it, down to the last crumb? Even if your mind is telling you to stop, your hands keep reaching down as you anticipate every crunch. It's like an addiction — and you're not to blame.

A BBC documentary investigates the strategic engineering of ultraprocessed food, and how they're designed to trap you by cleverly stimulating your senses — putting you in an endless cycle of cravings and overeating that ultimately leads to chronic diseases.1

U4f0UwcI9i8

Obesity Is Not a 'Failure of Willpower' — It's the Result of a Shift in Our Food System
Dr. Chris van Tulleken, a doctor and scientist with the National Health Service (NHS) in the U.K., explores just how the global food system is drastically affecting people's health. Through interviews with different experts in the field of food manufacturing, he gives an eye-opening look at how food corporations manufacture and market products in ways that deliberately short-circuit your body's natural appetite controls.

•Obesity rates in all age groups started rising at the same time — Van Tulleken starts by disputing the belief that obesity is caused by a failure of willpower, providing data showing how obesity rates in different age groups rose simultaneously in the mid-1970s.

"etween 1960 and 1975, there's a fairly steady percentage of obesity in the population. But in the mid-1970s, obesity starts going up in all of the groups simultaneously," he explained.

"Now, if you're saying willpower is responsible, what you're proposing is that all of these groups of people simultaneously lost moral responsibility. And that's not plausible. Something else happened to our food in the mid-1970s to make it irresistible to people."

•So what changed during this time? A separate BBC article describes how a "fork in the road" occurred in 1971. The 1970s were a period of terrible inflation — the cost of living rose, along with a demand for cheap food. Food historian Polly Russell explains:

"On the one hand there's an increase in processed food, in supermarkets, in centralised food systems, in industrialised food, and all that goes with it. And on the other hand, there's also a growth in an interest in cooking as a leisure activity, in the origins of food, in food and seasonality, in a much more engaged relationship with food."2

•Another significant change happened — the fast food industry grew — Restaurant chains like McDonald's were expanding; in fact, the quarter pounder was released in 1971. American portion sizes started increasing as well. On the other side of the world, instant ramen in a cup was born in Japan. It eventually reached U.S. shores and became known as Cup O' Noodles.3

But the biggest change that occurred after the 1970s — and continues to this day — is that ultraprocessed food manufacturing has gone beyond producing cost-efficient food — it has become a complex process that creates products designed to overload your senses so that you have no choice but to keep eating.

How Texture Tricks Your Brain Into Overeating
One particular trick that manufacturers use is playing around with textures — not just flavor or ingredients — to increase consumption and drive profits. This deeper manipulation works at the level of chewing, sensation, and brain signaling.

•Snacks are intentionally designed to be crunchy and squishy — John Ruff, a former executive from Kraft General Foods who spent four decades in the global food industry, explains that everything from a product's crunch to its squish is tested by trained sensory panels before it hits store shelves. Every bite is fine-tuned for maximum appeal — not through nutrition, but through feel, mouth sensation, and how fast you eat it.

"Companies spend a lot of time optimizing all aspects of their product — the flavor, the taste, the texture. People want their product to be as good, if not better than the competitor, so it will sell more," Ruff said.

•Eating snacks with soft textures disrupts a key biological safeguard — Some snacks are designed to be crunchy on the outside, while the inside is soft enough to melt in your mouth. This is intentional; since you're not chewing soft food as much, it short-circuits the normal satiety mechanisms you'll have if you were chewing food properly.

As a result, your body is bypassing a mechanism that signals fullness — it triggers you to keep eating. According to Professor Francis McGlone, a former lead neuroscientist at Unilever:

"Once we worked out that playing around with the texture of food — making it softer — tricks that normal satiety of fullness mechanism, clearly there's an opportunity there for some kind of scurrilous behavior in making food softer so that people will eat more and therefore you sell more of your product."

•What's more, ultraprocessed foods are engineered to be consumed quickly — This means your body has even less time to register satiety before you've eaten hundreds of calories.

•The industry term for this is "vanishing caloric density" — This refers to how certain puffy, light foods dissolve so quickly in your mouth that your brain doesn't even process them as calories. You don't feel full, so you eat more. Van Tulleken demonstrates this by biting into a common puffy snack that he says his kids love.

"You don't typically think of this as being a soft food because it's a bit crunchy. But actually after that initial crunch, you can just crush it with your tongue, right? It's got no resistance at all. But in terms of the calories per gram, it's got way more calories than even a very fatty burger."

And because these foods are usually packed with highly digestible carbohydrates and oils, they hit your bloodstream fast, spiking blood sugar and encouraging fat storage.

These textures aren't about convenience — they're a marketing weapon. The melt-in-your-mouth sensation is part of a deliberate effort to make foods that are hard to stop eating. That's how a handful of snacks turns into a finished bag before you even realize what happened.

Eating Is a Multisensory Experience, and Food Manufacturers Are Taking Advantage of It

Van Tulleken emphasizes that the real manipulation extends beyond taste and texture — it's about logos, colors, sounds, and even the tactile experience of handling the product.

•Every bite is a multisensory event — Prof. Barry Smith, a sensory consultant who's worked with major food companies, says that eating is never just about flavor. What your food looks like, how it smells, and how it feels in your hand matters.

•Even the sound food makes when you bite into it is crucial — "When you open a fizzy soda, you've got two noises. You've got the click and the tear. Sound engineers and manufacturers work really hard to get that sound just right. And that's sonic branding," Smith says.

•Defining sonic branding — To put it simply, sonic branding is a marketing strategy where sound — jingles, chimes, or music — is used to build emotional connection and memory with consumers. It creates brand identity. To illustrate, Smith recalls a conversation he had while working for Kellogg:

"[T]hey said, 'Ooh, what's sonic branding?' And I said, 'You invented this.' Most people will remember as children the experience of lifting a bowl to their ear. And what are they listening for? Snap, crackle, and pop. That's sonic branding at its best, and that's the original."

These strategies are beyond clever — they're deeply psychological. The more senses a product stimulates, the more likely you are to develop an emotional connection with it. That connection drives repeat purchases and builds brand loyalty, often without you consciously realizing it. These signals bypass your logical thinking and aim straight at the parts of your brain that drive habit and craving.

Snack Foods Are Designed to Hijack Your Day — and Keep You Addicted

Have you ever noticed how certain processed foods are marketed to be consumed at a specific part of your day? For example, granola or oatmeal bars are marketed for on-the-go folks who want a quick breakfast before they start their day.

High-protein bars are designed to be eaten as a pick-me-up after a rigorous workout session. And if you're craving a snack in the middle of the day, "healthy" products like veggie straws are recommended — while they seem convenient, they're not healthy at all.

•Ultraprocessed snacks compete for your "stomach share" — Dr. Yanaina Chavez Ugalde from the University of Cambridge explains how modern food companies have shifted their strategy from mealtime nutrition to all-day consumption. Rather than just competing for your breakfast, lunch, or dinner, they aim to dominate your stomach share — the cumulative space in your day where food can be inserted. And their most profitable weapon in this battle? Snacking.

•These snacks are filled with empty calories — This means that while you get the energy, you don't get the fiber, protein, or micronutrients that keep your body functioning well. "Whereas before we would have had food, actual food, now we are marketed into believing that this is actually a healthy replacement."

•Snacks are labeled "share-size," but the marketing knows full well you'll likely eat them alone — The packaging says "family size," but the design cues, flavors, and textures are engineered to keep your hand in the bag until it's empty.

This constant grazing doesn't just affect your waistline — it changes your brain. The more you snack on these engineered products, the more your brain rewires itself to expect that stimulation. The result is a cycle of craving and consumption that's extremely hard to break.

•Ultraprocessed foods are just as addictive as alcohol or cigarettes — University of Michigan psychology professor Dr. Ashley Gearhardt, who specializes in the science of addiction, compares ultraprocessed foods to addictive substances like alcohol, nicotine, and cocaine.

"When we look at the sorts of foods that trigger those key diagnostic indicators of addiction, it's really clear what it's not. It's not minimally processed foods like fruit or vegetables or beans or lean meats like chicken breast. It's really processed foods. It's chocolate. It's ice cream. It's pizza. It's foods that don't exist in nature," she said.

When you consume junk foods, your brain lights up with dopamine — a chemical that plays a central role in craving and reinforcement. In normal eating patterns, dopamine helps you feel satisfied. But with ultraprocessed foods, the hit is so intense and so immediate that it overrides normal controls. This is why you keep eating even when you're full, even when you feel sick, and even when you've promised yourself to stop.

Read more about the addictive nature of ultraprocessed foods in "What Foods Trigger the Greatest Cravings, Leading to Overeating?"

How to Break Free from Ultraprocessed Food Addiction

The documentary closes with a statement from the Food and Drink Federation, the membership body for food and drink manufacturers in the U.K., saying that the government's Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition found "insufficient scientific evidence on the concept of 'ultraprocessed foods' for it to be used for dietary guidance or policy making, and that further research is needed."

They said they will only change their ingredients or processes once there's research showing that processing is a cause for concern. Clearly, they're turning a blind eye to the growing research that shows ultraprocessed foods are not only addictive, but also put you at higher risk of chronic diseases like obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.4

If you're caught in a cycle of eating unhealthy ultraprocessed foods but still can't seem to stop, you're not alone. Ultraprocessed foods are engineered to hijack your brain and trick your body, overriding your natural cues so you'll keep reaching for more. However, the solution isn't to shame yourself — it's to understand what's really going on so you will be able to reclaim control of your body. Here are strategies I recommend to help you reclaim control and heal from ultraprocessed food addiction:

1.Start by removing the foods that bypass your fullness signals — I suggest you identify the worst offenders in your daily routine and replace them with real food that requires chewing. A crisp apple, carrots with grass fed cream cheese, or crunchy cucumber slices will give your brain time to register satisfaction.

2.Eat real meals instead of grazing all day — Structure your day around three healthy meals with enough protein, healthy carbs, and saturated fat to sustain you. This grounds your energy, helps stabilize your blood sugar, and makes snacking less necessary.

3.Interrupt the marketing cycle with awareness and environment control — You are being manipulated through sound, packaging, and brand familiarity. Keep processed foods out of your home. Even covering labels with plain paper or storing snack items in opaque containers can help break the visual feedback loop that makes you crave them. Many ultraprocessed foods are also highly marketed to children, so if you have kids, show them how food ads work so they grow up with awareness.

4.Track your progress — I've found that the more you notice patterns, the easier it is to break them. Keep a simple journal for 10 days. Write down when you eat ultraprocessed food, what was happening around you, and how you felt afterward.

You'll start seeing patterns — maybe stress after work is your trigger, or late-night boredom. That kind of clarity builds self-efficacy — the belief that you can make changes because now you understand the why. This alone will lower the shame and increase your momentum toward real change.

Awareness is the first step toward regaining that control. When you understand the tools being used against you, you can take the first real step toward full autonomy over your food choices and overall health.

"If someone is watching this and they are struggling with their weight, with diet-related disease, I just want to reach out and grab them and go, 'This is not your fault. It is not you. It is the food,'" van Tulleken concludes.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Ultraprocessed Foods

Q: Why do I feel like I can't stop eating certain snack foods, even when I'm full?

A: Ultraprocessed foods are engineered to bypass your natural satiety mechanisms. Their soft, melt-in-your-mouth textures eliminate the need for chewing, which interrupts your body's ability to signal fullness. This design keeps you eating long after your body has had enough.

Q: What is "vanishing caloric density" and why does it matter?

A: Vanishing caloric density refers to foods that dissolve quickly in your mouth, like puffed snacks or crisps. Because they vanish on contact, your brain doesn't fully register the calories you've consumed. This makes you eat more without feeling satisfied, contributing to overeating and fat storage.

Q: How are my senses manipulated to make me crave these foods?

A: Food companies use multi-sensory marketing — including sounds, textures, smells, packaging, and even the "tear" of a wrapper — to stimulate your brain's reward system. Techniques like sonic branding create emotional memories around products, encouraging cravings before you even take a bite.

Q: Are "healthy" snacks like protein bars or veggie straws actually good for me?

A: Not really. Many of these products are marketed as healthy but are actually nutrient-poor and energy-dense. They often lack fiber and protein and are filled with processed oils and additives, which disrupt your body's hunger signals and promote chronic snacking.

Q: What's the best way to break free from my cravings for ultraprocessed foods?

A: Start by removing foods that bypass fullness cues, eat real meals instead of grazing, become aware of marketing manipulation, replace reward triggers with new habits, and track your eating patterns to identify and interrupt craving cycles. These steps rebuild your body's natural signals and help restore real control.

[B] Sources and References
1 YouTube, BBC, Why can't we stop eating certain foods?, December 5, 2024
2, 3 BBC, 1971: The year that changed food forever?
4 Laborers’ Health and Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA), April 1, 2019"~~~

More about Ultraprocessed foods, this time published on Infowars:

https://www.infowars.com/posts/childhood-consumption-of-ultraprocessed-foods-linked-to-lower-iq
(https://www.infowars.com/posts/childhood-consumption-of-ultraprocessed-foods-linked-to-lower-iq)
Childhood Consumption of Ultraprocessed Foods Linked to Lower IQ

Toddlers who consume large quantities of ultraprocessed food are more likely to have lower IQs when they reach school age, according to a new study.

Researchers found a clear association between consumption of ultraprocessed foods at age two and lower IQ at age seven: a drop of 2 points. The negative effects were even more pronounced for children who already faced developmental difficulties.

https://images.citizenmedia.network/4632bbb0-d77f-445b-b22a-148e3e52f26c/iw/2026/02/INFOWARS-IMAGES-2026-02-15T133046.373.jpg

Toddlers who consume large quantities of ultraprocessed food are more likely to have lower IQs when they reach school age, according to a new study (https://doi.org/10.1017/S000711452610628X).

Researchers from a Brazilian and an American university wanted to investigate (https://www.psypost.org/ultra-processed-foods-in-early-childhood-linked-to-lower-iq-scores/) if eating habits at age two could predict cognitive abilities later in childhood.

The researchers used data from the 2015 Pelotas Birth Cohort, a large-scale, long-term project that tracks the health of children born in the city of Pelotas in Brazil.

The team analyzed information for more than 3,400 children. When the children were two years old, their parents answered questions about the toddlers’ diet. Then, when the children were seven years old, their intelligence and cognitive function were assessed by psychologists, using a test called the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children.

https://x.com/Babygravy9/status/1935617901534265835
1935617901534265835
Researchers found a clear association between consumption of ultraprocessed foods at age two and lower IQ at age seven: a drop of 2 points.

The link persisted even when other factors that influence intelligence were accounted for, such as the mother’s education, family income, and how much mental stimulation the child received at home.

The negative effects were even more pronounced for children who already faced developmental difficulties, defined as low weight, height and head circumference for their age. For these children, a diet high in ultraprocessed foods was linked to a reduction of 5 IQ points.

https://x.com/Babygravy9/status/1925651780379042128
1925651780379042128
Researchers believe the drop in IQ could be caused by negative changes to the gut microbiome—the community of billions of microorganisms that inhabit our gut—and increases in levels of oxidative stress. Because ultraprocessed foods lack the protective antioxidant compounds found in fresh and minimally processed foods, the developing brain is more susceptible to damage from various stressors.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made ultraprocessed foods one of the central targets of his Make America Healthy Again campaign. If you want to know more about them, why they’re bad and how you can ensure you and your family eat proper nutritious food instead, read our detailed primer here (https://www.infowars.com/posts/rfk-special-what-are-ultra-processed-foods-and-why-are-they-so-bad-for-us).