Tag: food

Beyond Oil: How The Iran War Could Send Food Prices Soaring

In the wake of U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian military infrastructure, the financial press has reflexively focused on oil. Tanker traffic, Brent crude, and the risk of triple-digit prices dominate the discussion.

But oil is not the only commodity posing a serious long-term risk.

Another deep vulnerability runs through natural gas—and from there into nitrogen fertilizer. If commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz were significantly restricted, the impact would extend beyond fuel markets. It would reach directly into global food production.

That’s because the Gulf region is not just a major energy exporter. It is one of the world’s most important suppliers of nitrogen fertilizer—the foundation of modern agricultural yields.

The Energy Behind the Food System

Nitrogen fertilizer begins with natural gas. Through the Haber-Bosch process, methane is converted into ammonia, which is then upgraded into urea and other nitrogen products. In practical terms, nitrogen fertilizer is natural gas transformed into plant food.

Roughly half of global food production depends on synthetic nitrogen. Without it, crop yields would decline sharply.

Globally, about 180 million metric tons of nitrogen fertilizers are consumed each year (measured in nutrient terms). Of that, roughly 55 to 60 million metric tons of urea move through international seaborne trade annually. The Middle East accounts for approximately 40% to 50% of that traded volume.

And nearly all of those exports must transit the Strait of Hormuz.

Keep reading

‘We’ve Addicted Our Farmers’ to Glyphosate, RFK Jr. Tells Joe Rogan

U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called glyphosate a “poison” embedded in America’s food supply, even as he backed President Donald Trump’s executive order expanding its domestic production.

Speaking Feb. 27 on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Kennedy emphasized his decades-long fight against pesticides. “Pesticides are poison. They’re designed to kill all life. It’s not a good thing to have in your food,” he said.

Yet he defended the president’s executive order as a national security measure.

Trump signed the order in February to boost U.S. production of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller. Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018 and now faces tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging Roundup exposure caused cancer.

Hours after the order, Kennedy told The New York Times, “Donald Trump’s executive order puts America first where it matters most — our defense readiness and our food supply.” Days later, Kennedy posted on X, explaining his position.

On Rogan’s show, Kennedy said industry reports show that 99% of U.S. glyphosate supplies come from China. U.S. Department of Defense officials warned that dependence poses “an extreme national security vulnerability,” he said. A supply disruption “could literally cut off our food supply overnight and cripple the country.”

“The president was dealing with national security,” Kennedy said.

The executive order also grants legal immunity to domestic manufacturers compelled under the Defense Production Act of 1950 to produce glyphosate-related products. The law allows the federal government to require companies to produce materials deemed necessary for national security.

Bayer is the only company manufacturing glyphosate in the U.S.

Kennedy criticized the liability protections. “It’s not something that I was particularly happy with. Let me put it that way mildly,” he said.

He warned that immunity “takes away all incentive for them to make the product safer.”

Keep reading

They Are Experimenting on Your Dog

You read the labels. You check the ingredients. You avoid seed oils, limit sugar, and side-eye anything with a barcode longer than a haiku. You subscribe to Substacks that dissect institutional capture. You understand, probably better than most, that “the science” can be quietly purchased by the people it is supposed to regulate.

So let me ask you a question that might sting.

What did you feed your dog this morning?

If the answer is a brown pellet from a bag, you are running the same ultraprocessed food experiment on your dog that you have spent the last few years learning to reject for yourself and your family. And you are doing it for entirely understandable reasons, because the same machinery of institutional capture, industry-funded research, and reassuring pseudo-scientific language that once told you margarine was healthier than butter has been quietly operating in veterinary medicine for decades.

I am a practising veterinary surgeon in the UK. I have spent over 30 years in clinical practice, and I am the founding president of the Raw Feeding Veterinary Society. I also lecture on canine nutrition at the University of Glasgow and around the world. I was in Florida last year and San Diego the year before. I am writing a book on ultraprocessed food for dogs, because someone needs to say plainly what the pet food industry would rather you never thought about: your dog has been subjected to the most sustained ultraprocessed feeding experiment in mammalian history, and almost nobody noticed.

The Cleverest Marketing You Never Saw

Here is how it works, and it will feel familiar to anyone who has followed the corruption of nutritional science in human medicine.

The major pet food corporations do not merely sell food. They fund the university departments in the UK and the US where veterinary nutritional science is researched. They endow professorships. They provide free student packs and educational materials to veterinary schools. They sponsor the conferences where vets gather for continuing professional development. They supply the textbooks. They fund the bursaries. They stock the waiting room shelves and put posters on the surgery walls.

They do this so quietly and so comprehensively that most vets do not even realise they have been swimming in industry-sponsored water since the first day of vet school.

The result is predictable. Almost all large-scale nutrition studies published over the past 50 years have been conducted on extruded, grain-based diets produced by the very companies that funded the research. That research became what vets are taught. 

Raw and fresh diets, by contrast, have received almost no industry funding, which means almost no large-scale trials. Vets are then honestly told there is “no evidence” for raw, because nobody with money has paid for that evidence to exist.

It is rather like sponsoring every study on buses and then declaring there is “no evidence” that bicycles work.

The World Small Animal Veterinary Association’s Global Nutrition Committee now explicitly warns that most pet nutrition studies are industry-funded and says conflicts of interest should always be declared. RCVS Knowledge, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in the UK, which runs the Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine Network, notes that funding source is one of the strongest predictors of outcome in nutrition trials. JAVMA News has run pieces on corporate influence in veterinary education.

This is in the official documents. It is no longer fringe grumbling.

Keep reading

How China purchased a prime cut of America’s pork industry

Nathan Halverson takes us inside this major investigation of America’s pork industry.

Smithfield Foods, producer of the iconic holiday ham, was one of America’s flagship food companies, steeped in centuries of U.S. tradition.

The Virginia-based pork company derived its ham from a curing process Native Americans taught settlers five centuries ago. It owned part of Main Street in the bucolic town of Smithfield – including a restaurant, a historic Southern hotel and the company’s nearby headquarters.

C. Larry Pope, its president and CEO, had a fireplace in his sprawling executive office, which looked more like a hunting lodge than the command center for what had become America’s largest pork business.

But in 2013, a Chinese firm bought this quintessential slice of Americana – Main Street and all. The takeover, valued at $7.1 billion, remains the largest-ever Chinese acquisition of an American company.

Naturally, it riled patriots and protectionists. Pope’s mother asked him why he sold to the communists. Pope also had to defend himself in the local newspaper: “These are not Russian communists. They like Americans.”

Some xenophobia was to be expected. Anti-Chinese racism in America goes back nearly as far as, well, holiday ham.

But behind the usual flag waving and Red Scare antics lies a stark new reality: Chinese companies, at the urging of their government, have launched a global buying spree, a new phase in their unprecedented economic experiment. And they’re targeting a resource that climate scientists, economists, the U.S. government, even Wall Street, all forecast will become dangerously scarce in the coming decades: food.

Food is poised to become the oil of the 21st century, with scarcity and demand creating a situation ripe for wars, riots and uprisings.

Keep reading

Countries, States, and Provinces where Glyphosate has been Banned or Restricted

Here’s a comprehensive breakdown of countries, states, and provinces (or smaller jurisdictions) where glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) has been banned or significantly restricted as of now. This includes both national-level actions and subnational measures.

National-Level Bans or Major Restrictions

Countries that have fully banned or are phasing out glyphosate:

  • Sri Lanka
    • Introduced a nationwide ban in 2015; the ban was lifted and re-instituted at various points. As of now, use requires a permit.
  • Austria
    • Implemented a full ban in 2019.
  • Luxembourg
    • Enacted a full ban in 2020, though it was later challenged in court.
  • Vietnam
    • Banned glyphosate in 2019.
  • Mexico
    • Announced a phase-out with a target ban by January 31, 2024; some sources say it’s now officially banned.
  • Bhutan
    • Reported to have a full ban in place.
  • Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
    • Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates banned glyphosate starting around 2015–2016.
  • Bermuda
    • Blocked new imports in 2015 and banned concentrations above 2% in 2016.
  • St. Vincent and the Grenadines
    • Suspended imports of glyphosate-based herbicides.
  • Costa Rica
    • Banned glyphosate use in protected areas and government-owned land.
  • Malawi and Togo
    • Malawi suspended import permits (2019), and Togo prohibited import, marketing, and use.
  • France, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Czech Republic
    • Enacted significant restrictions such as bans for amateur use, in public spaces, or as pre-harvest treatment. (Examples: France – banned in public green spaces; Belgium – banned for non-professional users; Czech Republic – tight restrictions; Denmark – banned post-emergent use; Italy – banned public area use and pre-harvest desiccation; Germany – set to fully ban by 2024).
  • Colombia
    • Ceased using glyphosate for aerial eradication of coca cultivation in 2015; later lifted.
  • Thailand
    • Initially decided to ban in 2019, but reversed the decision; instead, imposed restricted usage.
  • Canada
    • No national ban—but eight out of ten provinces have restrictions in public spaces; Quebec is attempting broader prohibitions; Vancouver banned glyphosate in public parks.

Keep reading

O’Keefe Media Group Goes Undercover: Cattle Ranchers and Insiders Expose How Tyson, JBS, Cargill and National Beef Secretly Control America’s Beef Market

The O’Keefe Media Group went undercover at CattleCon in Nashville, Tennessee, and exposed how Tyson, JBS, Cargill and National Beef secretly control America’s beef market.

In November, President Trump said cattle prices were falling while beef prices kept rising and launched an investigation into price manipulation.

Trump directed the DOJ to investigate the meat packing companies who are driving up the prices through illicit collusion, price fixing and price manipulation.

The O’Keefe Media Group went undercover at CattleCon and ranchers spilled the beans on how the “Big Four” control the beef industry.

“Our team spoke directly with ranchers and industry partners, documenting firsthand how the “Big Four” dominate the market and impact pricing,” James O’Keefe said.

“Tyson, JBS, Cargill, and National Beef control most of the U.S. beef industry, raising serious questions about who really sets the price. So when you see higher prices at the grocery store, it’s worth asking why,” O’Keefe said.

“This may explain why your steak keeps costing more,” he said.

“They [Big Four] are buying like all the companies in the United States… so they don’t have competition,” one insider said.

“They [Big Four] can knock you out of this industry in two seconds,” another said.

“They [Big Four] closed all the markets — all the markets are theirs in Brazil and now in the U.S.”

Keep reading

Deranged Dem Rep Calls WHOLE MILK Campaign ‘White Supremacy Dog Whistling’

Democrats have taken their obsession with labeling everything racist to new heights, now targeting the push for whole milk in schools as a secret signal to extremists.

Rep. Maxine Dexter, a Democrat from Oregon, unleashed the claim during a public event, tying the MAHA campaign—Make America Healthy Again—to supposed far-right agendas.

In footage from the event at Wyeast, Dexter stated that the MAHA campaign to drink whole milk is “white supremacy dog whistling.”

This comes just weeks after NYU professor Arthur Caplan sparked outrage by declaring milk racist.

Caplan linked whole milk to fascist regimes and white nationalists, also warning it was a “dog whistle” to the alt-right.

Dexter’s remarks echo that paranoia, showing how leftists continue to twist commonsense health policies into divisive conspiracies.

The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, signed by President Trump, restored nutrient-rich whole milk to school lunches after its removal under Obama-era rules. 

Backed by bipartisan support, including figures like Dr. Ben Carson and Sen. John Fetterman, the law prioritizes kids’ nutrition over outdated low-fat mandates.

Yet Democrats persist in smearing it, revealing their disconnect from everyday American priorities.

Public reaction poured in, with users exposing the lunacy.

Keep reading

NYC Gets a Free Grocery Store, but It’s a Slap in the Face for Mamdani

New York City got its first free grocery store on Thursday, and yet it does more to discredit self-proclaimed democratic socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani than do him any favors. The store wasn’t launched by the city but by Polymarket, a private prediction market where users bet on world events. More than 400 New Yorkers lined up for free groceries, praising the store as a much-needed relief during challenging financial times.

“Times are hard. Things are very expensive, so this helps,” Tori Hall, who was second in line outside the store, said. “It goes a long way.”

The Polymarket “free” grocery store opened Thursday and will operate as a five-day pop-up through Sunday, with the final day dedicated to donations. They added in a statement that the company had donated $1 million to the Food Bank for NYC “to help fight food insecurity across all five boroughs.” 

The initiative follows a similar stunt earlier this month by Kalshi, another prediction-market platform, which offered New Yorkers $50 in free groceries.

Mamdani responded to the latter stunt, posting a headline on X that read: “Heartbreaking: The worst person you know just made a great point.”

Keep reading

U.S. Military Meals Contain Toxic Cocktail of Glyphosate, Veterinary Drugs and Heavy Metals

Independent laboratory testing commissioned by Moms Across America, with the support of Children’s Health Defense Military Chapter and Centner Academy, revealed Wednesday that U.S. military food, including Meals, Ready to Eat (MREs) and other rationed and cafeteria items are contaminated with a mixture of toxic pesticides, banned veterinary drugs, beta-agonists and steroids used widely in U.S. beef and pork production for growth promotion, heavy metals and glyphosate at levels that pose serious threats to human health.

Each year, more than 1.5 billion U.S. military meals and 37 million Meals, Ready-to-Eat (MREs) are served to active-duty service members, making the U.S. military one of the most powerful purchasers and influencers in both the U.S. and global food supply.

The health, readiness and security of U.S. troops depend on these meals to support physical performance, cognitive function and long-term well-being.

The U.S. military seems to be lagging behind in the area of clean and safe food, as in 2014, the Chinese army ordered all military supply stations to only allow the purchase of non-genetically modified organism (GMO) grain and food oil due to health safety concerns over GMOs and their associated pesticides, which have now been shown to be contaminating U.S. military food supplies.

“We applaud President Trump’s commitment to increasing the budget of the military to ensure Americans are safe and creating the most powerful military in the world,” said Zen Honeycutt, founding executive director of Moms Across America.

“As our nation’s Commander in Chief, we call on him to be a true hero by ensuring our global power by providing the safest and healthiest meals of any military in the world. We are calling for American troops to have American food — regeneratively raised, organic meat and non-toxic, organic and nutrient-dense produce,” Honeycutt concluded.

The independent laboratory testing included 40 samples in total, with 16 samples from six military base cafeterias and 24 MREs being tested for toxic chemicals and nutrients. The samples contained ingredients such as wheat, GMO corn, GMO soy and meat.

Keep reading

Beyond MREs: The U.S. Army Is Testing 3D-Printed Food for the Battlefield

The future of military rations may move beyond the iconic plastic-sealed MREs, replaced by meals printed layer by layer, tailored to each Soldier’s needs, and prepared on demand near the battlefield.

A new study conducted by researchers at the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (DEVCOM) suggests that while many Soldiers initially recoil at the idea of eating 3D-printed food, hands-on exposure and tasting experiences can rapidly shift attitudes—potentially paving the way for a new era of personalized military nutrition.

Set to be published in the June 2026 edition of Future Foods, the research offers one of the first direct looks at how U.S. Army personnel actually perceive food made through additive manufacturing.

The findings are significant not only for military logistics but also for the broader future of food technology, where customized nutrition, reduced supply burdens, and decentralized production are becoming strategic priorities.

Beyond the novelty of 3D-printed food is the reality that modern warfare increasingly demands mobility, endurance, and sustained cognitive performance under extreme conditions. Feeding Soldiers efficiently—without weighing them down—remains a persistent logistical challenge. The Pentagon believes that 3D-printed food rations could help solve that problem.

“Initially, Soldiers showed skepticism and reluctance towards use of the technology,” the researchers behind the recent study note. “However, after 3DFP technology was explained and 3D-printed prototypes were provided, Soldiers’ acceptance increased considerably.”

The Army-led research team conducted focus groups and tasting sessions with 17 U.S. Army Combat Medics to examine their reactions before and after encountering 3D-printed food prototypes.

Initially, most participants were skeptical, associating printed food with artificial, overly processed products or bland “calorie blocks.” However, attitudes evolved as Soldiers learned more about the technology and sampled 3D-printed food themselves.

One Soldier summed up a key concern voiced early in discussions, saying 3D food printing “takes the identity out of food,” explaining that “When you’re eating chicken, you see that it’s chicken. But if it’s just a brick, it almost makes the feeding process monotonous.”

Essentially, soldiers echoed a broader public sentiment: when food no longer resembles its original ingredients, the experience becomes less satisfying and more tedious.

This reaction captures a central challenge to technologically engineered meals. Food is not just fuel. It is cultural, emotional, and psychological. This can be especially true in high-stress operational environments that warfighters face.

The Army’s interest in 3D printing food stems from long-standing logistical realities. Traditional Meals Ready-to-Eat (MREs) are durable and calorie-dense, but they are also heavy and standardized. A Soldier on a week-long mission without resupply might carry more than 30 pounds of food alone, often prompting troops to cut rations and risk undernutrition.

Additionally, standard rations cannot easily account for individual differences. Soldiers vary in metabolic demands, mission intensity, climate exposure, and dietary preferences. Many end up modifying or discarding parts of their meals, a practice known informally as “field stripping,” to get something closer to what they actually need.

However, 3D printed food offers an alternative. Meals can be produced near the point of need, customized nutritionally and structurally for each Soldier. Instead of shipping finished meals across the globe, raw ingredients or shelf-stable printing materials could be transported and transformed into tailored meals in the field.

That possibility makes understanding acceptance critical. Technology is useless if Soldiers refuse to eat what it produces.

Keep reading