+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 66

Thread: Poisoning the Food Supply

  1. Link to Post #41
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    24,630
    Thanks
    52,608
    Thanked 132,846 times in 23,086 posts

    Default Re: Poisoning the Food Supply

    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/d...tm_id=20240802


    (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]
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  2. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (7th August 2024), DNA (4th September 2024), Ewan (7th August 2024), Harmony (7th August 2024), NancyV (7th August 2024), pounamuknight (27th December 2024), Sadieblue (26th October 2024), Yoda (7th August 2024)

  3. Link to Post #42
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    24,630
    Thanks
    52,608
    Thanked 132,846 times in 23,086 posts

    Default Re: Poisoning the Food Supply

    Free event: Attack on Food & Farmers
    Childrens Health Defense
    https://live.childrenshealthdefense....tm_id=20240831



    "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....tm_id=20240831

    In unity for change,

    The Children’s Health Defense Team"
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  4. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (4th September 2024), DNA (4th September 2024), East Sun (13th October 2024), Ewan (3rd September 2024), Harmony (3rd September 2024), pounamuknight (27th December 2024), Yoda (10th October 2024)

  5. Link to Post #43
    United States Avalon Member RMF808's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th June 2017
    Location
    BIG Island Hawai’i
    Age
    48
    Posts
    244
    Thanks
    268
    Thanked 1,200 times in 219 posts

    Default Re: Poisoning the Food Supply

    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/b...hthalates.html

  6. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to RMF808 For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (4th September 2024), Ewan (5th September 2024), Harmony (4th September 2024), Pam (4th September 2024), pounamuknight (27th December 2024), Sue (Ayt) (4th September 2024), Yoda (10th October 2024)

  7. Link to Post #44
    France Avalon Member Abondance's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st January 2024
    Language
    French
    Age
    47
    Posts
    243
    Thanks
    1,512
    Thanked 2,502 times in 240 posts

    Default Re: Poisoning the Food Supply

    Quote Posted by RMF808 (here)
    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/b...hthalates.html





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

  8. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Abondance For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (4th September 2024), Ewan (5th September 2024), Harmony (5th September 2024), Paul D. (4th September 2024), pounamuknight (27th December 2024), Sadieblue (26th October 2024), Yoda (10th October 2024)

  9. Link to Post #45
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    37,848
    Thanks
    265,808
    Thanked 505,574 times in 36,389 posts

    Default Re: Poisoning the Food Supply

    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.


  10. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    Ewan (11th October 2024), gord (10th October 2024), Harmony (10th October 2024), kudzy (11th October 2024), pounamuknight (27th December 2024), Yoda (10th October 2024)

  11. Link to Post #46
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    37,848
    Thanks
    265,808
    Thanked 505,574 times in 36,389 posts

    Default Re: Poisoning the Food Supply

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

    When Food Turned Toxic - How Big Tobacco Stole Your Grocery Cart
    Source: https://www.brighteon.com/embed/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/ImageServe...system-pdf.pdf


  12. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    Ewan (14th October 2024), Harmony (13th October 2024), onawah (13th October 2024), pounamuknight (27th December 2024), Sue (Ayt) (13th October 2024), Vangelo (14th October 2024), Yoda (13th October 2024)

  13. Link to Post #47
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    37,848
    Thanks
    265,808
    Thanked 505,574 times in 36,389 posts

    Default Re: Poisoning the Food Supply

    Copying this new post by Houman on his thread:

    ~~~
    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.



  14. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    Ewan (26th October 2024), grapevine (25th October 2024), Harmony (26th October 2024), Hermoor (4th November 2024), kudzy (26th October 2024), onawah (3rd November 2024), pounamuknight (27th December 2024), Violet3 (26th October 2024), Yoda (25th October 2024)

  15. Link to Post #48
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    24,630
    Thanks
    52,608
    Thanked 132,846 times in 23,086 posts

    Default Re: Poisoning the Food Supply

    Industry Scandal: The Loss of Nutrients
    by Dr. Joseph Mercola
    November 02, 2024
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...&rid=154123558

    https://media.mercola.com/ImageServe...t-loss-pdf.pdf



    "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
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  16. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (3rd November 2024), Ewan (4th November 2024), grapevine (3rd November 2024), Harmony (4th November 2024), Hermoor (4th November 2024), pounamuknight (27th December 2024), Vangelo (3rd November 2024)

  17. Link to Post #49
    Avalon Member Hermoor's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th April 2020
    Language
    English
    Posts
    1,320
    Thanks
    7,347
    Thanked 13,031 times in 1,304 posts

    Default Re: Poisoning the Food Supply

    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. 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.
    "A rising tide lifts all boats." Greybeard.

  18. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Hermoor For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (4th November 2024), Casey Claar (20th November 2024), Ewan (4th November 2024), Harmony (4th November 2024), Mari (4th November 2024), meat suit (4th November 2024), onawah (4th November 2024), Sunny (4th November 2024), Yoda (27th December 2024)

  19. Link to Post #50
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    24,630
    Thanks
    52,608
    Thanked 132,846 times in 23,086 posts

    Default Re: Poisoning the Food Supply

    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/a...&rid=166201339
    https://media.mercola.com/ImageServe...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.



    "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.



    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
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  20. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (20th November 2024), Ewan (20th November 2024), Harmony (20th November 2024), Hermoor (20th November 2024), pounamuknight (27th December 2024), Yoda (27th December 2024)

  21. Link to Post #51
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    24,630
    Thanks
    52,608
    Thanked 132,846 times in 23,086 posts

    Default Re: Poisoning the Food Supply

    As if that ^ weren't enough...Bezos/Gates Bankroll Cattle Methane Vaccine
    by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
    November 19, 2024
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...tm_id=20241119


    (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."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  22. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (20th November 2024), Ewan (20th November 2024), Harmony (20th November 2024), Hermoor (20th November 2024), pounamuknight (27th December 2024), Yoda (27th December 2024)

  23. Link to Post #52
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    37,848
    Thanks
    265,808
    Thanked 505,574 times in 36,389 posts

    Default Re: Poisoning the Food Supply

    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.

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


  24. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    ClearWater (27th December 2024), Ewan (28th December 2024), Harmony (28th December 2024), Jamie (28th December 2024), kudzy (28th December 2024), norman (27th December 2024), onawah (28th December 2024), pounamuknight (27th December 2024), Sue (Ayt) (28th December 2024), wondering (29th December 2024), Yoda (27th December 2024)

  25. Link to Post #53
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    24,630
    Thanks
    52,608
    Thanked 132,846 times in 23,086 posts

    Default Re: Poisoning the Food Supply

    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/a...&rid=200554548

    https://media.mercola.com/ImageServe...estock-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.



    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.



    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.



    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.



    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.



    - 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
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  26. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (8th January 2025), ClearWater (8th January 2025), Ewan (8th January 2025), Harmony (8th January 2025), meat suit (8th January 2025)

  27. Link to Post #54
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    24,630
    Thanks
    52,608
    Thanked 132,846 times in 23,086 posts

    Default Re: Poisoning the Food Supply

    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/a...&rid=215114129

    https://media.mercola.com/ImageServe...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!



    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




    "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



    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_sour ce=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20250128&foDate=true&mid=DM1695055&rid=21511412 9

    Also see: Dr. Stephanie Seneff – HOW GLYPHOSATE DESTROYS YOUR GUT
    https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1330468
    Last edited by onawah; 29th January 2025 at 02:51.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  28. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Alecs (30th January 2025), Bill Ryan (29th January 2025), Ewan (29th January 2025), Harmony (29th January 2025)

  29. Link to Post #55
    Avalon Member Ravenlocke's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th September 2011
    Posts
    21,186
    Thanks
    12,545
    Thanked 188,317 times in 21,190 posts

    Default Re: Poisoning the Food Supply

    https://x.com/GMWatch/status/1892616182097731660



    https://beyondpesticides.org/dailyne...h-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.)
    "Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul and sings the tune without the words and never stops at all."
    - - - - Emily Elizabeth Dickinson. 🪶💜

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ravenlocke For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (24th March 2025), Ewan (26th February 2025), Harmony (25th February 2025)

  31. Link to Post #56
    Avalon Member Ravenlocke's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th September 2011
    Posts
    21,186
    Thanks
    12,545
    Thanked 188,317 times in 21,190 posts

    Default Re: Poisoning the Food Supply

    https://x.com/GMWatch/status/1894061035088183440



    https://x.com/GMWatch/status/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.
    "Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul and sings the tune without the words and never stops at all."
    - - - - Emily Elizabeth Dickinson. 🪶💜

  32. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ravenlocke For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (24th March 2025), Ewan (26th February 2025), Harmony (25th February 2025)

  33. Link to Post #57
    Avalon Member Ravenlocke's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th September 2011
    Posts
    21,186
    Thanks
    12,545
    Thanked 188,317 times in 21,190 posts

    Default Re: Poisoning the Food Supply

    https://x.com/GMWatch/status/1893692483294437695

    "Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul and sings the tune without the words and never stops at all."
    - - - - Emily Elizabeth Dickinson. 🪶💜

  34. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ravenlocke For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (24th March 2025), Harmony (25th February 2025)

  35. Link to Post #58
    Avalon Member Ravenlocke's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th September 2011
    Posts
    21,186
    Thanks
    12,545
    Thanked 188,317 times in 21,190 posts

    Default Re: Poisoning the Food Supply

    https://x.com/GMWatch/status/1891956021502820397

    "Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul and sings the tune without the words and never stops at all."
    - - - - Emily Elizabeth Dickinson. 🪶💜

  36. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ravenlocke For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (24th March 2025), Harmony (25th February 2025), onawah (26th February 2025)

  37. Link to Post #59
    Avalon Member Ravenlocke's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th September 2011
    Posts
    21,186
    Thanks
    12,545
    Thanked 188,317 times in 21,190 posts

    Default Re: Poisoning the Food Supply

    https://x.com/GMWatch/status/1891956021502820397



    https://www.propublica.org/article/a...mo-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.”
    "Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul and sings the tune without the words and never stops at all."
    - - - - Emily Elizabeth Dickinson. 🪶💜

  38. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ravenlocke For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (24th March 2025), Ewan (26th February 2025), Harmony (25th February 2025)

  39. Link to Post #60
    Avalon Member Ravenlocke's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th September 2011
    Posts
    21,186
    Thanks
    12,545
    Thanked 188,317 times in 21,190 posts

    Default Re: Poisoning the Food Supply

    https://x.com/GMWatch/status/1893284974435893647

    "Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul and sings the tune without the words and never stops at all."
    - - - - Emily Elizabeth Dickinson. 🪶💜

  40. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ravenlocke For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (24th March 2025), Harmony (25th February 2025)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts