Fake Food

[onawah]

The Fake 'Food as Medicine' Agenda
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
March 25, 2023
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...bid=1754704647

STORY AT-A-GLANCE
The Attack on Food Symposium brought together experts, including me, to discuss the pressing topic of food security and provide solutions at the individual and societal levels
My presentation focused on the fake food agenda and synthetic foods, which are threatening human health and the environment
Fake food is predicted to become a $3 trillion market; consulting firm McKinsey & Company predicted that 60% of all materials in the economy could be produced this way, including fake meat, fake milk and fake fat
Be on the lookout for industry buzzwords like precision fermentation, a term the biotech industry is using to piggyback off the popularity of truly health-promoting natural fermentation
Fake, ultraprocessed foods give the globalists unprecedented power and control over human health; the symposium goes into detail on how farmers, individuals and society can fight back

The food supply is under attack. Whether it be from technocrats waging a war against real food, regulations that threaten food sovereignty or the use of toxic chemicals, humans' right to access unadulterated, healthy food is slipping away.

The Attack on Food Symposium, hosted by Dr. Meryl Nass and presented by Children's Health Defense TV, brought together experts, including me, from a variety of disciplines to discuss the pressing topic of food security and provide solutions at the individual and societal levels. You can view the seven-hour event in its entirety above and my individual presentation below.

The Fake 'Food as Medicine' Agenda
[BITCHUTE]The food supply is under attack. Whether it be from technocrats waging a war against real food, regulations that threaten food sovereignty or the use of toxic chemicals, humans' right to access unadulterated, healthy food is slipping away.

The Attack on Food Symposium, hosted by Dr. Meryl Nass and presented by Children's Health Defense TV, brought together experts, including me, from a variety of disciplines to discuss the pressing topic of food security and provide solutions at the individual and societal levels. You can view the seven-hour event in its entirety above and my individual presentation below.

The Fake 'Food as Medicine' Agenda

Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/UBSLU1o5lgvI/


Beginning at 3:30 in the video above, my presentation — "The Fake 'Food as Medicine' Agenda & Synthetic Foods" — focused on attacks on food and agriculture. There’s an impending crisis coming with The Great Reset, and food is going to be a real issue — even more so than it is now.

The globalists behind The Great Reset have long had a monopoly on food with their patented genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The primary purpose of GMOs was to facilitate the use of the toxic herbicide glyphosate,1 which Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), presents in the next section of the symposium video. But to understand what's coming, it's important to understand the past.

The biotech industry used lobbying to ensure GMOs would be treated as substantially equivalent to real food, essentially bypassing the requirement to do safety testing before releasing them on the market. Their playbook is reminiscent of Big Tobacco's tactics for a product that doesn't harm you immediately but is detrimental gradually over time. An equally serious threat as GMOs has now emerged, however — synthetic food.

Fake food is predicted to become a $3 trillion market.2 Sometimes referred to in industry jargon as "the bio revolution" or synbio (short for synthetic biology), consulting firm McKinsey & Company predicted that 60% of all materials in the economy could be produced this way, including fake meat, fake milk and fake fat. Their report noted:3

"As much as 60 percent of the physical inputs to the global economy could, in principle, be produced biologically — about one-third of these inputs are biological materials (wood or animals bred for food) and the remaining two-thirds are nonbiological (plastics or fuels) but could potentially be produced or substituted using biology."

Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat are the major players in the fake meat marketplace. The first fake fat, Cultured Oil, has also been released. In June 2020, Bill Gates also announced startup company BIOMILQ, which is using biotechnology to create synthetic lab-made human milk for babies. Using mammary epithelial cells placed in flasks with cell culture media, the cells grow and are placed in a bioreactor that the company says "recreates conditions similar to in the breast."4

Watch Out for 'Precision Fermentation'
Fake food companies want you to believe their products are natural because they're made with components of plants, even though nothing like them exists in nature. Be on the lookout for their industry buzzwords like precision fermentation, a term the biotech industry is using to piggyback off the popularity of truly health-promoting natural fermentation.

Precision fermentation, however, is nothing like its natural counterpart. It's a form of synthetic biology that's been around for at least 20 years. It uses genetically engineered microorganisms, such as yeast and bacteria, that are fermented in brewery-style tanks under high-tech, pharmaceutical grade sterile conditions. This is because these cultures are highly susceptible to contamination which would ruin the entire batch.

And, contamination can happen easily, so billions of dollars have been poured into this technology, which is using biological pathways that have never existed in nature before.

They've obliterated the precautionary principle, as the long-term outcomes are completely unknown, to produce fake meats, fake fats and fake milk. But it's all serving the underlying agenda, which is total control and world domination. There's no easier way to achieve this than by taking control of the food supply.

These fake, ultraprocessed foods give the globalists unprecedented power and control over human health, and they're using stealthy marketing techniques. I was approached by Zero Acre Farms about their Cultured Oil, which they're promoting to restaurants as an inexpensive alternative to seed oils.

Fake 'Cultured Oil' Isn't Natural
Many know I'm passionate about raising awareness of seed oils' devastating health effects, as they contain about 75% linoleic acid and are contributing to rising rates of chronic disease. This new Cultured Oil contains less than 1% linoleic acid, so it sounds great — except it's made using precision fermentation.

The term has even fooled many experts in the health industry, who believe it's safe and natural. Instead, it's another form of deception, changing the meaning of some of the most basic words in our vocabulary, like fermentation.

The industry wants people to believe that products produced with precision fermentation are no different than other fermented foods, like kimchi and yogurt. But what they fail to disclose is that the most often used organism in precision fermentation is the common bacteria E. coli. The E. coli is likely creating any number of non-targeted metabolites that have completely unknown environmental consequences.

The waste products created by natural fermentation are nonhazardous and actually edible and beneficial in many cases. It also is compostable and not a biohazard. In contrast, the biowaste from GE synthetic biology fermentation products can't go into a landfill.5

Because this has been going on for decades, the laws are already in place to allow these products to bypass any safety testing, as they've been labeled as biologically equivalent to real food. I recommend staying as far away from fake food as you can and focusing on foundational human nutrition. This is what will get us through The Great Reset.

The Global War on Food
Other speakers in the symposium included Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director for the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), who summed up the evidence that food from real farms is being replaced with fake food. From Haiti and Sri Lanka to Indonesia, Holland and Canada, "the story is the same."6

Corporate interests with global trade prerogatives collaborate with government, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or World Bank, which offered debt relief in the form of grants or low-interest loans to countries collapsing economically during the pandemic, but with strings attached.

"They drive the family farmers off of their land and into the city," Baden-Mayer said.7 Benjamin Dobson, who spoke about the history of incursions on small farms, noted that independent farmers and people who grow herbal medicines are a threat to a centralized economic system.8

Seneff shared how the use of chemicals like glyphosate is also threatening the future of food.9 The amount of glyphosate used annually in the U.S. is equivalent to 1 pound for every man, woman and child, she said. It's the most used herbicide on the planet.

While it's common on GMOs, she pointed out that the highest residues are showing up in non-GMO foods such as wheat, oats, barley and rye, because it's used as a desiccant, or drying agent, on these crops right before harvest. Glyphosate inhibits the shikimate pathway, which is involved in the synthesis of the essential aromatic amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan.10

Seneff used Florida manatees as an example of glyphosate's toxicity. The chemical is ubiquitous in the state's waterways, particularly during the sugar cane harvest. Manatees have increased body burdens of glyphosate and have become sick, plus they're starving because seagrass is dying off in the waterways' disturbed ecosystems.11

Solutions for Farmers
Session 2, which begins around 2:40 in the full-length video, offers solutions for farmers. Ronnie Cummins, OCA cofounder and director, noted that among the world's small farmers, fewer than 1% are certified organic. However, there are 60 million small and medium farms that could become certified organic if it weren't for all the regulatory hurdles in place.12

"If you look at the amount of farmland and the amount of food that these people are producing, it's substantial. The global food market is about $10 trillion, but it's estimated that a good $1.5 trillion of that is being produced in an organic or nearly organic manner," he says.13 Since many organic farmers are able to find and flourish with local markets, this is one strategy to keep afloat.

Meanwhile, food sovereignty naturally leads to complete ecosystems that support human and planetary health, according to Mark Fulford, an independent farmer and farm consultant.14 He advocates for independent food hubs, which cut out the middle man, and using strategies like reading the landscape, using fungal or bacterial composts and embracing bees and other pollinators.

Gardening — A Solution for Individuals
You can take action on an individual level by building your own food security safety net. Starting a garden and learning some basic food production skills is essential and discussed in Session 3, at 4:10 in the full-length video.

Dr. John Day shares how to prepare a kitchen garden that's as close to your kitchen as possible. He recommends choosing a spot that's at least 400 square feet and 20 feet away from trees, because their roots will take the water from your garden. Southern exposure is ideal to get adequate light for your plants. "During hard times, and for food security, having your own vegetable garden and already knowing how to work it is really helpful."15

Beverly Johannson, another gardener, advocates for no-dig gardening, another strategy you can use to grow vegetables. When you till the land, it stimulates the earth to initiate repairs, which it does by increasing weed growth. Tilling also destroys vital microbes and fungal mycelium, which helps to mobilize nutrients in the soil. With a no-dig garden, you'll experience fewer weeds, higher yields and healthier plants, with less watering.16

She points out that storage is a key element of gardening, as you'll want produce not only during the growing season but during the winter as well. Johannson has a root cellar where potatoes and other root vegetables are stored and another area for winter squash and onions, so she has access to fresh food year-round.

Protecting Food as a Society
The final session deals with societal solutions to fight back against the war on food. U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie highlighted the vulnerabilities in the U.S. food supply, which fell apart during the pandemic when farmers had to euthanize animals because they couldn't get them processed.17

Four meatpackers control 85% of the meat that's processed in the U.S. One of them is owned by China, one by Brazil and the other two are multinational corporations. Food prices are going up while farmers are going broke. Massie introduced the Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption (PRIME) Act, which would allow farmers to sell meat processed at smaller slaughtering facilities and allow states to set their own meat processing standards.

Because small slaughterhouses do not have an inspector on staff — a requirement that only large facilities can easily fulfill — they're banned from selling their meat. The PRIME Act would lift this regulation without sacrificing safety, as random USDA inspections could still occur.18

"If a farmer wants to sell pork, beef or lamb to a consumer, as long as that consumer and that farmer and that processor are all in the same state, they're not crossing state lines, they keep the federal government out of that transaction," he says.19 He's also introduced legislation to protect access to raw milk, which he calls fresh milk.

Ultimately, the answer to food safety and security lies in a decentralized food system that connects communities with farmers growing real food sustainably and distributing it locally."

Sources and References
1 The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 2:03
2 The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 2:04
3 McKinsey & Company, The Bio Revolution May 13, 2020
4 BIOMILQ, Our Science
5 The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 2:11
6, 7, 8 The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 2:16
9 The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 2:22
10 Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry January 2015, 15(3):121-159
11 The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 2:36
12, 13 The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 2:55
14 The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 3:44
15 The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 4:44
16 The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 5:00
17 The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 6:14
18 Human Events May 6, 2020
19 The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 6:17



Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v2947vm/?pub=ijro7

[onawah]

Major Chain Grocery Meat Full of Structures Like Vaxx
Interview with Maria Zeee--Ana Maria Mihalcea, MD, PhD
4/8/23
https://anamihalceamdphd.substack.co...m_medium=email

First, I would like to express my tremendous appreciation for Maria Zeee for having my on her show as a recurrent guest and allowing to share our research findings. Her open-mindedness and relentless commitment to bringing forward truth has been invaluable to introducing the work of our entire team to the worlds attention. Thank you Maria, you are an Angel.

I also greatly appreciate her style allowing in depth discussion and showing my own slides, this way images do not get mixed up in the video production process.

In this interview, I share new images and side by side human live blood analysis and grocery meat analysis as well as some microcopy images by my colleague Dr. David Nixon who is working in Australia investigating this same topic. He has corroborated my findings and is making great progress in his own research observations. Thank you kindly to Dr Nixon for allowing me to share his material. You can find more about his work on Dr. David Nixon Website.https://drdavidnixon.com/?utm_source...m_medium=email

Dr. Ana’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. "
******************
See more here (Many videos of darkfield microscopic work here, demonstrating what's really in those vaxxes and what they are doing to human blood, etc.):
https://drdavidnixon.com/?utm_source...m_medium=email

"Email: david@drdavidnixon.com

I graduated MB, ChB from the University of Otago in New Zealand in 1992.

The purpose of this website is to share my observations and opinions with respect to the Covid-19 injectables.

With respect to Colloidal Gold – trials haven’t been conducted yet on people. The recent discussions are based on initial findings on a slide

Hi, I have been a General Practitioner (family medicine doctor) for over 25 years.

Clearly there has been a lot of things about the Covid-19 pandemic that hasn’t made sense unless the events of the last three years are seen in a broader context and we consider other global agendas.

For 30 years I have tried not to have my ‘thalidomide moment’ where I have inadvertently given a medication or not warned about something that might cause a foetal abnormality.
“don’t smoke, don’t drink” “Let us change your medication to something that we have more confidence is safe”
It was never possible that we know that the Covid-19 injectables are safe in pregnancy, let alone effective and I am pleased to say that I actively always discouraged my pregnant patients not to have this medication.
Clearly the official narrative was that these injectables were safe in pregnancy. As a medical professional I was constantly bombarded with this message from every official organisation.
And besides Covid-19 was such a threat during pregnancy that “you must have the vaccination” – really???

I became increasingly aware of the resounding unison of “there is nothing to see here” despite the number of groups and individuals who were posting concerning images online.
So in mid 2022 I purchased a darkfield microscope and started looking at my own blood and that of patients. I also started looking at what we were injecting into people and I started voicing my concerns about what I was seeing.

I would encourage anybody to consider purchasing a dark field microscope and start looking and please email me with any questions with regard to this

I do a weekly newsletter and if you would like to subscribe to these please see the newsletter section.

I am grateful to my family, friends and colleagues that have supported me with this work."

[onawah]

AMERICAN FARMERS TO BEGIN INJECTING LIVESTOCK WITH MRNA SHOTS THIS MONTH
April 5, 2023
https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/ame...ts-this-month/

The latest video by Greg Reese.
TRANSCRIPT

"The genetic editing of plants to contain vaccines is well underway. Work is being done with bananas, potatoes, lettuce, rice, wheat, soybeans and corn. Companies like Medicago are using gene editing to turn plants into mini bioreactors.

Gene editing is now officially in our meat industry. Lobbyists for the cattlemen and pork associations in several states have confirmed that they will be using mRNA COVID vaxxines on their livestock.

Attorney Tom Renz has been warning that there’s no law requiring anyone to give informed consent for vaxxine food. There are no laws requiring anyone to tell you the food you are buying has been vaxxed with the spike protein #clotshot.

The UK recently passed into law the Genetic Technology Precision Breeding Bill. The Bill amends the Environmental Protection Act of 1990 to exclude references to “precision-bred organisms” so far as they relate to marketing. “Precision-bred organism” is another term for “gene-edited”.

So now, in the UK, food that’s been gene-edited can be legally marketed as “non-GMO” and if this UK gene-edited meat makes its way to America, it can be labeled “non-GMO” here, as well. And so long as it is butchered in America, it can be labeled “Product of USA”.

The fake alternative meat being pushed by Bill Gates and others is made of immortal cell lines – in other words, cancerous tumor cells.

Real meat is being blamed for Climate Change and a recent independent study suggests that most of our meat is already contaminated. Using infrared spectroscopy and electron microscopy, Dr Ana Maria Mihalcea has been studying the blood of the vaxxed and the unvaxxed for over a year now and at first, she was finding the same contamination in only the blood of the vaxxed – a contamination she describes as “ribbon-like structures” – much like the mysterious blood clots being found by coroners. But lately, she’s been finding these ribbon-like structures in the blood of the unvaxxed, as well.

By measuring the frequency of one of these mysterious blood clots, Dr David Jernigan has developed a way to detect the same frequency in the vaxxed. Recently, he’s found this unique frequency in the meat being sold in his local grocery store and asked Dr Mihalcea to confirm his findings.

Her microscopy showed that the samples taken from products in the grocery story were all contaminated with a similar ribbon-like structures found in the blood of the vaxxed.

Most of the meat in the grocery store is from overseas and if we want to eat uncontaminated meat, we’ll have to start buying direct from farms in America that still produce all natural, organic protein and take back control of our democidal government."


Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v2e94pk/?pub=ijro7

[Harmony]

Adding the Bitchute video from Onawah's post #2 above:



Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/imOkqsnieCci

[onawah]

Biowarfare Through the Food Supply
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
May 17, 2023
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...bid=1802717166

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
Dr. Peter Lurie, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), and Beth Ellikidis, vice president of agriculture and environment at the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), argue for the genetic engineering of food.
Both are connected to Bill Gates and other Great Resetters that are pushing to replace all natural foods with patentable, genetically modified foods
BIO, the world’s largest GMO trade organization, represents more than 1,000 pesticide, pharmaceutical and biotech companies in more than 30 countries.
BIO claims genetic engineering is the solution to heal, fuel and feed the world, and to that end, it lobbies 15 different policy areas, including food, agriculture, and health care policy
In 2004, BIO launched BIO Ventures for Global Health (BVGH), a nonprofit organization that “develops and manages programs across the for-profit and non-profit sectors to accelerate research and development for poverty-related diseases.”
BVGH was launched with a $1 million start-up grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
In 2018, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation spun off a nonprofit subsidiary to the foundation called the Bill & Melinda Gates Medical Research Institute (Gates MRI), which develops biotechnologies to address health problems in poor countries
BIO is partnered with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), and the DOD specifically funds and provides technology transfers for the diseases that Gates MRI and BVGH are focused on: malaria, tuberculosis and Ebola

In an April 17, 2023, opinion piece in STAT News,1 Dr. Peter Lurie and Beth Ellikidis argue for the genetic engineering of food, claiming “newer technologies can make highly targeted changes at the base-pair level — one specific rung on the DNA ladder — enhancing precision and reducing the likelihood of ‘off-target effects’ in which the base pairs are unintentionally added to or deleted from the genome.”

While targeted genetic engineering is indeed possible, and modern technology lowers the likelihood of unintentional additions or deletions, this precision does not guarantee there won’t be adverse effects. One of the reasons for this is because many genes are multifunctional and can have multiple downstream effects.2,3

By altering a single gene, you can inadvertently affect the expression of hundreds of others. What’s more, the multifunctionality of genes is rarely intuitive. So, while it may seem convenient to genetically engineer cows without horns to prevent injury to other cows and farmhands, as suggested by Lurie and Ellikidis, there’s no telling what that tweak might do to internal organs or biological pathways.

In turn, there’s no guarantee that cascading effects will not alter the nutrition of the meat or dairy that comes from that cow. Maybe it’ll be fine, maybe it won’t. The problem is that, oftentimes with genetically engineered foods, safety testing is minimal or absent.

Who Do Lurie and Ellikidis Answer To?
When assessing the trustworthiness of people, it can be worthwhile to look at their funding and various partnerships. In the case of Lurie and Ellikidis, both are in league with Bill Gates and other Great Resetters that are pushing to replace all natural foods with patentable, genetically modified foods.

Lurie — a former FDA associate commissioner — is the president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). In the summer of 2020, Lurie launched a comprehensive campaign to put Mercola.com out of business by sending the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission after us based on bogus charges.

CSPI is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Fund, Bloomberg Philanthropies and other billionaire-owned foundations. It’s also partnered with the Cornell Alliance for Science, a “global communications initiative” whose primary funding comes from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Greg Jaffe, who heads up CSPI’s Biotechnology Project, is also the associate director of legal affairs at Alliance for Science.

Considering those ties, the CSPI’s long history of promoting industry science and propaganda is not surprising in the least. They supported artificial sweeteners, trans fats, GMOs, fake meat and the low-fat myth. They’ve also actively undermined transparency in labeling efforts.

Ellikidis, meanwhile, is the vice president of agriculture and environment at the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO). She’s leading the “policy and market access strategies for BIO’s Agriculture and Environment section, which includes member companies developing and producing breakthrough technologies in food and agriculture.”4

BIO, the world’s largest GMO trade organization,5,6 represents more than 1,000 pesticide, pharmaceutical and biotech companies in more than 30 countries, as well as industry groups, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and other related organizations.

According to BIO, genetic engineering is the solution to heal, fuel and feed the world, and to that end, it has lobbying committees dedicated to influencing 15 different policy areas, including food, agriculture, health care policy, technology transfer and finance.

According to Open Secrets,7 BIO spent $13,250,000 on “pharmaceutical and health products” lobbying in 2022. For reference, only Pfizer and the lobbying group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America spent more.8

How Gates Sets Himself Up for Success
In 2004, BIO launched BIO Ventures for Global Health (BVGH),9 a nonprofit organization that “strategically develops and manages programs across the for-profit and non-profit sectors to accelerate research and development (R&D) for poverty-related diseases.”

BVGH was launched with a $1 million start-up grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.10 In 2005, the BVGH received another $5.4 million to expand the biotech industry’s role in the fight against neglected diseases.11 The Rockefeller Foundation is also funding the group.

Fast-forward to 2018, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation spun off a nonprofit subsidiary to the foundation called the Bill & Melinda Gates Medical Research Institute (Gates MRI).12 Gates MRI, funded with a $273 million, four-year grant from the Gates Foundation, is focused on developing biotechnologies to address health problems in poor countries.13

It’s a convenient setup to say the least. On the one hand, Gates is funding the R&D of biotech products through Gates MRI, and on the other, he’s funding the acceleration, coordination and management of private-public biotech programs through BVGH.

One key area where the BVGH is being inserted to manage private-public programs is the “Cancer Moonshot” program, launched in 2016 by then-Vice President Joe Biden. Biden “reignited” and highlighted the program in 2022.14 As reported in a White House fact sheet:15

“Working with African Access Initiative (AAI) partners, BIO Ventures for Global Health (BVGH) will implement cancer research projects that are determined and led by African oncologists and conducted in collaboration with U.S. cancer experts.

Through its African Consortium for Cancer Clinical Trials (AC3T) program, BVGH will facilitate five research projects, build capacity to conduct rigorous clinical research at 50 African sites, promote African primary investigator’s research interests on the AC3T platform, and coordinate the implementation of observational clinical studies.

In addition to building AC3T sites’ research capacity, BVGH will map the regulatory pathway in five AAI countries. All clinical studies involving cancer drugs will include development of market access pathways by BVGH.”

Gates MRI, in turn, intends to “apply new understanding of the human immune system learned from cancer research to prevent infectious disease.”16 Conveniently, he’s got the inside track to all of that through the BVGH.


Source: Watch on Vimeo



As it so happens, BIO is also partnered with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD),17 and the DOD specifically funds and provides technology transfers for the diseases that Gates MRI and BVGH are focused on: malaria, tuberculosis and Ebola.18,19,20,21

Not surprisingly, the DOD is also seeking to develop and adopt more mRNA-based therapeutics against other emerging biological threats22 — products that can be manufactured and deployed quickly.

One of the obvious hazards of public-private partnerships becoming more and more intertwined, as we see now, is that the government becomes less and less inclined to ensure the safety of these co-developed, co-owned products.

In a June 2022 BIO webinar, Ian Watson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for chemical and biological defense, specified that the agency will “safeguard” its industrial partners from various threats, including “foreign economic aggression and inherent marketplace vulnerability that are specific to biotechnology and biopharmaceuticals.”23

Does “market vulnerability” also include legal action by people injured by biopharmaceuticals that have been brought to market at warp speed? Judging by what we’ve seen during the COVID pandemic, it sure seems the U.S. government is doing everything it can to hide and suppress evidence of harm, so why would we expect any different in the future?

Are Foods Being Turned Into Bioweapons?
Getting back to the issue of food, just as medicine is being hijacked by the biotech industry, so is our food supply. Indeed, President Biden recently signed an executive order that makes biotechnology a key focus of every federal agency, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture.24

The transhumanist agenda is clear for everyone to see, and it’s being pushed on us from every angle, through food, medicine and national security. It recently came to light that the swine industry in the U.S. and Canada has been using customizable mRNA “vaccines” on herds since 2018,25 and to this day, there’s no research to prove the meat is safe for consumption in the long term and won’t affect the genetics of those who eat it.

Based on our experiences with the mRNA COVID shots, which more and more experts are starting to refer to as bioweapons, it’s not farfetched to wonder whether the use of mRNA in livestock might be a form of biowarfare against the public as well, this time through the food supply.

As reported by Dr. Peter McCullough,26 Chinese researchers have demonstrated that food can indeed be turned into a vaccine (or a bioweapon, depending on the antigen):27

“The nation’s food supply can be manipulated by public health agencies to influence population outcomes ... Now an oral route of administration is being considered specifically for COVID-19 vaccination using mRNA in cow’s milk.

Zhang and colleagues have demonstrated that a shortened mRNA code of 675 base pairs could be loaded into phospholipid packets called exosomes derived from milk and then using that same milk, be fed to mice.

The mice gastrointestinal tract absorbed the exosomes and the mRNA must have made it into the blood stream and lymphatic tissue because antibodies were produced in fed mice against SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein (receptor binding domain) ...

Given the damage mRNA vaccines have generated in terms of injuries, disabilities, and deaths, these data raise considerable ethical issues. The COVID States project has shown that 25% of Americans were successful in remaining unvaccinated. This group would have strong objections to mRNA in the food supply, particularly if it was done surreptitiously or with minimal labelling/warnings ...

These observations lead me to conclude that mRNA technology has just entered a whole new, much darker phase of development. Expect more research on and resistance to mRNA in our food supply. The Chinese have just taken the first of what will probably be many more dangerous steps for the world.”

Say No to mRNA in Your Food
Moving forward, it’s going to be extremely important to stay on top of what’s happening to our food supply. Many of us were surprised to realize mRNA shots have been used in swine for several years already. Soon, cattle may get these customizable mRNA shots as well, which could affect both beef and dairy products.

For now, I strongly recommend avoiding pork products. In addition to the uncertainty surrounding these untested mRNA “vaccines,” pork is also very high in linoleic acid, a harmful omega-6 fat that drives chronic disease. Hopefully, cattle ranchers will realize the danger this mRNA platform poses to their bottom-line and reject it. If they don’t, finding beef and dairy that has not been “gene therapied” could become quite the challenge.

Ultimately, if we want to be free, and if we want food safety and food security, we must focus our efforts on building a decentralized system that connects communities with farmers who grow real food in sustainable ways and distribute that food locally.

Legislative efforts are also needed. Bills that would be helpful in steering us in the right direction include the following:

•The Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption (PRIME) Act28 — This bill was introduced in 2017 and hasn’t moved since its introduction in the House. The PRIME Act would allow farmers to sell meat processed at smaller slaughtering facilities and allow states to set their own meat processing standards.

Because small slaughterhouses do not have an inspector on staff — a requirement that only large facilities can easily fulfill — they're banned from selling their meat. The PRIME Act would lift this regulation without sacrificing safety, as random USDA inspections could still occur.

•The Interstate Milk Freedom Act of 202129 — This bill was introduced at the end of July 2021 as an amendment to the 2018 Farm bill.

•Missouri House Bill 1169,30 which would require labeling of products, including food, that might “impact, alter or introduce genetic material or a genetic change” into the consumer.



Modern industrial farming has created a food production model that is not only unhealthy, but unsustainable as well. The reliance on GMO-derived products and the toxic chemicals used alongside them are destroying the environment and the public’s health.

To combat the encroaching influence of big GMO companies, I encourage you to support farmers and businesses that practice organic, biodynamic and regenerative farming. This food production model benefits both humans and the environment because it:

Rebuilds topsoil by sequestering atmospheric carbon above ground and below ground

Protects water sources, runoff, and reduces water demand by increasing moisture in the soil

Promotes nutrition and health through nutrient-dense, organic food

Minimizes the risk of foodborne illnesses and drug-resistant disease by avoiding the use of industrial chemicals

Restores damaged ecosystems through regenerative methods

Helps local farmers by giving them larger profits compared to industrial counterparts

How can you play your part? The solution is actually quite simple — buy healthy, organic food. One of the best things you can do is to purchase your food from small-business farmers. To help you in your search, I recommend visiting these websites that point you to non-GMO food producers in your area:

Regenerative Farm Map Eat Well Guide (United States and Canada)
Farm Match (United States) Local Harvest (United States)
Weston A. Price Foundation (United States) The Cornucopia Institute
Demeter USA American Grassfed Association
I also urge you to support and donate to organizations like the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), as they are leading the way to promoting regenerative agriculture and sustainable farming practices. By advocating the innovative campaigns of these organizations, you are contributing to the future of regenerative agriculture."

- Sources and References
1 STAT April 17, 2023
2 Globe and Mail January 15, 2005
3 Scitable, Pleiotropy
4 BIO.org November 14, 2022
5 USRTK BIO Key Facts
6 Pharma-IQ Top Pharma Industry Associations August 2, 2018
7 Open Secrets BIO 2022 Lobbying Expenditures
8 Open Secrets, Industry Profile: Pharmaceuticals/Health Products, Client Totals List
9 BVGH.org
10 Gates Foundation, BIO Launches BIO Ventures
11 Gates Foundation BIO Ventures Announces Grant to Expand Biotech Industry’s Role
12, 20 JAMA 2018;320(6):539
13 Bill & Melinda Gates Medical Research Institute
14 White House February 2, 2022
15 White House December 14, 2022
16 Nature Biotechnology July 6, 2018; 36:563
17 BIO.org Partnering with DOD to Protect the Warfighter
18 Return on Innovation Report, Registered Products Table
19 BVGH.org, BVGH FundFinder Featured Funding Announcement 2017
21 BVGH The State of Drugs, Diagnostics, and Vaccines for Neglected Diseases
22 BIO.org Partnering with DOD to Protect the Warfighter Video 1, 2:55 minutes
23 BIO.org Partnering with DOD to Protect the Warfighter Video 1, 6:35 minutes
24 White House Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology September 12, 2022
25 YouTube Global Ag Media 2018
26 Peter McCullough Substack April 7, 2023
27 bioRxiv December 20, 2022
28 HR 2657 PRIME Act
29 HR4835 Interstate Milk Freedom Act 2021
30 Missouri House bill 1169

[onawah]

Lab-Grown Meat Is 25 Times Worse for the Environment
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
May 24, 2023
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...bid=1808950918

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServe...impact-pdf.pdf

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=lgXbr24JP7k

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
According to a recent “cradle-to-gate life cycle” analysis, the lab-grown meat industry produces four to 25 times more CO2 than traditional animal husbandry.
Cultured meats are ultraprocessed and therefore likely to cause health problems similar to those caused by other ultraprocessed products, such as obesity, cardiovascular diseases, Type-2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, cancer, mental health problems and increased all-cause mortality.
The starting ingredients in the new fermented synthetic biology products are cheap sugars derived from genetically engineered (GE) corn and soy. .
GE crops are grown in environmentally destructive monocultures that use loads of herbicides, pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. As a result, they’re loaded with chemical residues.
Once the target organisms in the ferment have consumed the nutrients they need, what’s left over is hazardous biowaste that must be deactivated and safely disposed of.
The waste cannot be sent to a landfill or used for any other purpose.
Lab-grown meats are not about your health or the environment’s; they’re a tool to phase out farmers and ranchers and replace them with an ultraprocessed product controlled by patents.

Lab-grown, or cultured, meat is being promoted as the wave of the future — the “green, sustainable” way to eat. No animal suffering, no greenhouse gas emissions, just meat-like protein that will taste like the burgers and steaks you’re used to. Too bad it’s all a lie.

Beneath the greenwashed façade, the promises of lab-grown meat fall flat. Lab-grown meats are not about your health or the environment’s; they’re a tool to phase out farmers and ranchers and replace them with an ultraprocessed product controlled by patents.

Importantly, even if cultured meats aren’t toxic per se, they’re ultraprocessed products1 and therefore likely to cause health problems similar to those caused by other ultraprocessed foods, such as obesity,2 cardiovascular diseases, Type-2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, cancer,3 mental health problems4 and increased all-cause mortality.5,6,7,8,9

On top of that, they’re more harmful for the environment than conventional ranching. Since synthetic biology relies on genetically engineered (GE) monoculture, it creates the very things they claim to counteract, namely environmental degradation that promotes climate change.

Synthetic Biology Is Made With Junk Food Ingredients
In the video above, Alan Lewis, vice president of government affairs for Natural Grocers, reviews what goes into the making of synthetic biology. Synthetic biology goes by many names, including “gene edited fermentation” and “precision fermentation products.”

While that sounds fairly innocuous, synthetic biology manufacturers rarely ever discuss what goes into the feed they use to grow the target organism, or what happens to the waste at the end of the fermentation process. That’s understandable, as both raise a number of serious questions.

As explained by Lewis, the starting ingredients in fermented synthetic biology products are cheap sugars derived from genetically engineered corn and soy. All GE crops are grown in environmentally destructive monocultures with taxpayer subsidies, and use loads of herbicides such as glyphosate, pesticides like neonicotinoids, and synthetic fertilizers.

As a result, they’re loaded with chemical residues. In addition to a base of sugars, hundreds of other ingredients may be added to the ferment in order to produce the desired end product, such as a certain protein, color, flavor or scent.

As explained by Lewis, the most-often used microorganism in the fermentation process is E. coli. The E. coli is gene-edited to produce the desired compound through its digestive process.

The microorganism must also be antibiotic-resistant, since it needs to survive the antibiotics used to kill off other undesirable organisms in the vat. As a result, antibiotic-resistant organisms also become integrated into the final product, and the types of foodborne illness that might be caused by gene-edited antibiotic-resistant E. coli and its metabolites are anyone’s guess. Nobody knows what such illness might look like.

Cultured Meat Produces Toxic Biowaste
Aside from the desired target metabolite, these gene-edited organisms may also be spitting out any number of non-target metabolites with unknown environmental consequences and health effects.

As explained by Lewis, the various “feed” ingredients are placed in a fermentation bioreactor set at 87 to 90 degrees Fahrenheit for anywhere from 24 to hundreds of hours to grow the target microorganism. The target organisms in the ferment consume the nutrients they need, and what’s left over after those organisms are extracted is hazardous biowaste.

While traditional fermentation processes, such as the making of beer, produce waste products that are edible by animals, compostable and pose no biohazard, the biowaste from these synthetic biology ferments must first be deactivated, and then must be securely disposed of. It cannot go into a landfill. Making food that produces hazardous biowaste is hardly a sustainable model.

Lab-Grown Meat Is 25 Times Worse for Climate Than Beef
Lab-grown meats are also an environmental disaster in the making. Their impact is far more akin to that of the pharmaceutical industry than the food industry.

According to a recent ‘cradle-to-gate life cycle’ analysis, the lab-grown meat industry actually produces anywhere from four to 25 times more CO2 than traditional animal husbandry.
Indeed, precision fermentation — i.e., the process of engineering a gene sequence for a specific protein into a bacterium or yeast strain, and then growing it in fermenters to produce the required protein — has been used for decades in the production of drugs and vaccines.10

According to a recent “cradle-to-gate life cycle” analysis,11,12,13,14 the lab-grown meat industry produces anywhere from four to 25 times more CO2 than traditional animal husbandry.

As noted by the authors, investors have poured billions of dollars into animal cell-based meat (ACBM) sector based on the theory that cultured meat is more environmentally friendly than beef. But according to these researchers, that hype is based on flawed analyses of carbon emissions.

The primary sources of CO2 emissions are the purification processes, which require fossil fuels. The bacteria used to produce the “meat” releases endotoxins, and these must be eliminated from the growth medium or else the cells won’t reproduce properly. As noted by the authors:

“Animal cell culture is traditionally done with growth medium components which have been refined to remove/reduce endotoxin. The use of these refinement methods contributes significantly to the economic and environmental costs associated with pharmaceutical products since they are both energy and resource intensive.”

Based on this assessment, each kilo of cultured meat produces anywhere from 542 pounds (246 kilos) to 3,325 pounds (1,508 kg) of carbon dioxide emissions, making the climate impact of cultured meat four to 25 times greater than that of conventional beef.

The authors also point out that several estimates of ACBM climate impacts are dependent on novel technologies that either do not exist yet or are unlikely to work.

For example, some have proposed growing cyanobacteria hydrolysate in open concrete ponds to then be “harvested, sterilized, hydrolyzed and used as an animal cell growth medium.” The problem is that this technology is not currently used, “nor is it one that is currently near feasibility,” the authors note.

In short, the claims propping up the cultured meat industry are a sham, as the idea that cultured meat is a greener option is based on nonexistent technologies rather than the technologies that are in use.

Climate Impact of Cultured Meat Versus Cattle
Other studies have also been critical. For example, a 2019 article in the journal Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems found that were the world to make the transition to cultured meat, its impact on global warming might initially appear to be beneficial. However, over time, cultured meat production would result in greater warming. As explained in the abstract:15

“Improved greenhouse gas (GHG) emission efficiency of production has been proposed as one of the biggest potential advantages of cultured meat over conventional livestock production systems ... In this study, we present a more rigorous comparison of the potential climate impacts of cultured meat and cattle production than has previously been made.

Warming impacts are evaluated using a simple climate model that simulates the different behaviors of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), rather than relying on carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) metrics.

We compare the temperature impact of beef cattle and cultured meat production at all times to 1,000 years in the future, using four synthetic meat GHG footprints currently available in the literature and three different beef production systems studied in an earlier climate modeling paper.

Cattle systems are associated with the production of all three GHGs above, including significant emissions of CH4, while cultured meat emissions are almost entirely CO2 from energy generation.

Under continuous high global consumption, cultured meat results in less warming than cattle initially, but this gap narrows in the long term and in some cases cattle production causes far less warming, as CH4 emissions do not accumulate, unlike CO2.

We then model a decline in meat consumption to more sustainable levels following high consumption, and show that although cattle systems generally result in greater peak warming than cultured meat, the warming effect declines and stabilizes under the new emission rates of cattle systems, while the CO2 based warming from cultured meat persists and accumulates even under reduced consumption, again overtaking cattle production in some scenarios.

We conclude that cultured meat is not prima facie climatically superior to cattle; its relative impact instead depends on the availability of decarbonized energy generation and the specific production systems that are realized.”

Gaps Between Facts and Claims

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=PMWz8ePwAQI

Another paper,16 published in the April 2023 issue of Animal Frontiers, concluded there are several implications of cell-based meat that need to be considered, but aren’t. In the video above, the corresponding author, Paul Wood, also reviews these issues, which include:

Significant technical, ethical, regulatory and commercial challenges

Widespread adoption is likely to “exacerbate global inequity between affluent and poor individuals and between high- and low-income countries”

Cell-based products are not identical to the foods they’re intended to replace in terms of sensory and textural properties, nor are they nutritionally equivalent

Societal roles associated with animal production will be lost, “including ecosystem services, co-product benefits and contributions to livelihoods and cultural meaning”

Detailed production procedures are unavailable, which makes it “impossible to corroborate the many claims related to their product characteristics and sustainability.” According to the authors, “most of the claims related to the production of ‘CBM’ [cell-based meat] in view of sustainability improvements (e.g., energy or water use) seem not scientifically substantiated or remain at best speculative, especially for its environmental footprint”

Cell-based meat companies claim the cost of synthetic meat will be significantly reduced, as per Moore’s law. However, cell-based meat systems “have natural limits and feedback mechanisms that negate this law”

As noted in this paper:

“There has been significant investment in the precision fermentation space and many predictions that this technology is going to disrupt the traditional meat and dairy industries; however, there are many technical, regulatory, and consumer challenges that need to be addressed.

The major technical challenge will be the cost of goods, with precision fermentation being significantly more expensive. For milk proteins, a range of yeast strains can produce recombinant proteins at a rate of 10–30 g/l, but these proteins then need to be separated from the yeast cells and cell debris using a variety of downstream processing techniques that can account for up to 60% of the cost of manufacture.

Precision fermentation technology will also be critical for the ‘CBM’ sector to produce the various growth factors and perhaps other compounds required to culture mammalian cells. To scale-up precision fermentation, companies use fermenters at >100,000-l capacity, which will require complex engineering and energy intensive processors.”

Will Lab-Grown Meat Cause Cancer?
There are also unanswered questions about the potential carcinogenicity of cell-based meats. Most cultured or cell-based meats are created by growing animal cells in a solution of fetal bovine serum (FBS).

Aside from the fact that this “green” alternative requires the slaughter of pregnant cows in order to drain the unborn fetus of its blood, to get the cell cultures to grow fast enough, several companies are using immortalized cells. As reported by The Fern,17 “Immortalized cells are a staple of medical research, but they are, technically speaking, precancerous and can be, in some cases, fully cancerous.”

The reason precancerous and cancerous immortalized cells are used is because normally-behaving cells cannot divide forever. Most cells will only multiply a few dozen times before they become senescent (old) and die.

This won’t work when your intention is to grow thousands of pounds of tissue from a small number of cells, hence they use immortalized cells that continue to divide indefinitely. Immortalized cells are by definition cancerous (or at bare minimum precancerous) as there’s no off switch for their replication.

MIT biologist Robert Weinberg, Ph.D., believes humans won’t get cancer from these cells because they’re not human cells and therefore cannot replicate inside your body.18 However, there’s no long-term research to back this claim.

The fact that “cow tumors sometimes wind up in store-bought ground chuck”19 and doesn’t cause a problem does not mean that a piece of meat consisting of nothing but cancerous and precancerous cells won’t have unpredictable effects.

To circumvent this PR nightmare, some cell-based meat companies are using embryonic stem cells rather than immortalized cells. Others are using cells from living animals.20 Both of these strategies, however, destroy the argument that cultured meat is animal-free.

Beware of the Fake Food Agenda


Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/UBSLU1o5lgvI/


The video above features a presentation I made at The Attack on Food Symposium, hosted by Dr. Meryl Nass and presented by Children's Health Defense TV, March 4, 2023. In it, I describe how food and agriculture are under attack, and how the fake food agenda threatens human health and the environment alike.

In attempting to create cultured meat on the scale that would be necessary to feed the world, logistical problems are numerous and, possibly, insurmountable. There are waste products — catabolites — to deal with, as even cultured cells excrete waste that is toxic.

The environmental benefits are also on shaky ground when you factor in GE soy production and the use of conventional energy sources. When that is factored in, analyses predict cultured meat will be worse for the environment than conventionally produced chicken, pork21,22 and beef.23

At the end of the day, it’s important to realize that the synthetic meat market is based on a slew of false premises and assumptions, and that the real agenda has nothing to do with saving the planet or improving human health. It’s to eliminate traditional farming and make populations dependent on mass-produced, patented, ultraprocessed foods.

Do We Need to Worry About Biowarfare Too?
There are also open questions about whether lab-grown meat may be weaponized in some way. GOOD Meat, which recently gained FDA approval for its cultured chicken, is using a Chinese firm called JOINN Biologics for its production and quality control — a company linked to China’s biowarfare program.

JOINN Biologics is also involved in some sort of animal-breeding operation. In 2022, they purchased 1,400 acres of land in Morriston, Florida, with the intention to build a primate facility. As reported by The National Pulse:24

“A number of key personnel who work for JOINN Biologics and its parent company studied or worked at the Academy of Military Medical Sciences in Beijing. In 2021, the Academy was added to the U.S. trade blacklist for supplying biotechnology to the Chinese military.

The founder of JOINN and chair of its board of directors is Yuxia Feng, a military physician and a graduate of the Academy. Her co-founder and vice chair of the board of directors, Conglin Zuo, worked at the Academy, in its Institute of Biotechnology.

Other key personnel such as Hemei Wang and Shusheng Feng were also employed by the Academy, in the Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology. Feng has worked on research with a number of scientists in the People’s Liberation Army who are considered key players in China’s biological weapons research ...

JOINN’s involvement in the testing and production of America’s first commercially available lab-grown meat raises questions about the safety certification process for the product and about Chinese influence over critical aspects of America’s infrastructure, including its food supply.”

What are we to make of this? I don’t know, but the idea of relegating production and quality control, of all things, to a company tied to the Chinese biowarfare program seems rather reckless, and certainly doesn’t instill confidence. Without doubt, however, food could be used as a distribution route for a bioweapon, and I’ll just leave it at that for now."

+ Sources and References
1 Friends of the Earth, From Lab to Fork, June 2018 (PDF)
2 Cell Metabolism, 2019; doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008
3 BMJ 2018; 360:k322
4 Advisory UPF Dangerous for Your Brain
5 JAMA Internal Medicine February 11, 2019;179(4):490-498
6 BMJ February 14, 2018; 360
7 JAMA 2017;317(9):912-924
8 BMJ, 2019;365:I1451
9 BMJ, 2019;365:l1949
10, 16 Animal Frontiers April 2023; 13(2): 68-74
11, 23 BioRxiv April 21, 2023
12 New Scientist May 9, 2023
13 Interesting Engineering May 14, 2023
14 Watts Up With That? May 12, 2023
15 Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems February 19, 2019; 3
17, 18, 19, 20 The Fern February 7, 2023
21 LCA of cultivated meat – February 2021
22 The Counter September 22, 2021
24 National Pulse May 16, 2023

[onawah]

New Synthetic Frankenfoods in the Food Supply
11/11/23
From: Organic Consumers Association <campaigns@organicconsumers.org>

"Italy is set to be the first country to ban synthetic food!

Why aren’t U.S. lawmakers talking about this?

New genetically engineered Frankenfoods made with synthetic biology (what the industry calls “precision fermentation”) are already being sold in stores. They’re different from Monsanto’s first GMOs, the Roundup Ready crops that were tweaked with bacterial DNA that made them impervious to the herbicides that would normally kill them.

Roundup Ready GMOs grow from seed like normal crops. They look and taste like regular corn, soy, canola, etc. (even though they contain proteins human beings had never eaten before).

The new GMOs are 100% synthetic. Instead of growing in living plants, they are spit out of genetically engineered yeast or E. coli. Instead of having foreign DNA from another living organism, their molecules and DNA might be totally unique structures not found in nature.

These new synthetic Frankenfoods could be toxic or trigger allergies, but companies like Perfect Day, a maker of “dairy identical” synbio GMOs, say they’re just like real food.

Buyer beware! Back in the 1980s, when a manufacturer of the amino acid tryptophan decided to produce it with genetically engineered bacteria, 37 people died and 1500 were permanently disabled.

This dangerous technology shouldn’t be used in food!

TAKE ACTION: Tell your lawmakers to ban genetically engineered Frankenfoods made with synthetic biology (so-called “precision fermentation”)!
https://advocacy.organicconsumers.or...B+826+Saturday

Moving Forward
Although there has been a small but long standing resistance to Synthetic Biology, spearheaded by public interest non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as ETC Group, Friends of the Earth, and the International Center for Technology Assessment, which we have supported in the past, OCA believes the time is ripe to build up a new, vastly expanded U.S. and global campaign of farmers and consumers to stop the Frankenfoods 2.0 fake meat, fake dairy onslaught.

Through mass public education, litigation, boycotts, and protests, the goal of this revitalized farmer/consumer campaign will be to drive these genetically engineered Frankenfoods (fake meat, fake milk, fake cheese) off the market, and, in the process, turn back the planned demolition of our organic and small farmer-based food and farming system by Bill Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation, Silicon Valley, Perfect Day, Big Meat and Big Dairy who are bringing us closer to farmerless “food” cashless, and worker-less grocery stores.

We need to be talking more about the return to … “decentralized and regenerative systems that can be producing food for all of us moving forward.” Help us take action and please spread the word! "