Tag: food

Bees Are Behind Our Food And Natural Medicines – And They’re Disappearing

Bees are dying—and at an alarming rate.

Between 2023 and 2024, US beekeepers lost an estimated 55.1 percent of their colonies—the worst loss in more than a decade and nearly 15 percent higher than the previous 13-year average.

Bees pollinate three-quarters of the fruits, vegetables, and nuts we eat, and many of us rely on bee products for their nutrition and health-promoting gifts. If bees vanish, it’s scary to think of all we stand to lose. And some say that if the bees go, we go too.

Jeff Pettis, president of Apimondia—The International Federation of Beekeepers’ Associations—sums up the health benefits that bees offer humans in one word: huge.

Although two-thirds of our diet comes from carbohydrates—crops like rice, wheat, and corn—which are pollinated by wind rather than insects, many other important foods require bees.

“So we’re not going to starve if we don’t have bees. But literally, everything you can think of that’s nutritious—fruits, nuts, and vegetables—all of those are, we’ll call it, animal-pollinated. The vast majority of those are pollinated by honey bees or other wild bees,” he told The Epoch Times.

Bees Pollinate

Ryan Burris is a third-generation beekeeper and the president of the California State Beekeepers Association. He points out that many people don’t realize how many fruits and vegetables we eat depend on bees for pollination.

“The biggest one, obviously, for beekeepers, is almonds. And then you have things like blueberries, watermelons, and stuff you don’t think about, like onions and carrots—all require pollination. There’s an estimated 100 crops that require pollination,” he told the Epoch Times.

Twenty thousand species of bees grace our planet, and 4000 species are native to the United States. Bees are some of our most well-known and beloved pollinators. One in every three bites of food you eat depends on pollinators to produce, and bees pollinate one in every four bites.

Beyond their critical role as pollinators, bees also gift us powerful products like honey, bee pollen, propolis, and royal jelly—each packed with nutritional and medicinal benefits.

Keep reading

Gov. Abbott Requests Waiver to Ban Unhealthy SNAP Purchases in Texas

Gov. Greg Abbott has formally requested a waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to prohibit the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for the purchase of unhealthy foods, such as soda and candy. 

The move, announced in a letter sent to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, marks a significant push to reshape the nutritional standards of SNAP purchases in Texas.

SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, is the largest federal nutrition assistance program, helping over 41 million Americans afford groceries each year. While the program’s stated goal is to increase access to nutritious food, critics argue that a substantial portion of SNAP benefits are currently spent on items with little or no nutritional value.

USDA data cited by Texas lawmakers indicates that about 20 percent of SNAP dollars go toward sugary drinks and snack foods, with sweetened beverages alone accounting for 9.3 percent of expenditures.

Abbott’s letter emphasizes that SNAP was created to promote nutrition and health, but instead “many SNAP purchases are for food with little to no nutritious value.” He wrote that the waiver would ensure “taxpayer dollars are used only to purchase healthy, nutritious food.”

Keep reading

Feeding the Narrative: How School Lunch Became Political Theater

There’s a huge debate playing out on X and in Congress over school lunch. The basic framing goes like this: the good, caring Democrats want kids to eat and learn, so they argue there must be free, federally funded school lunch for all students. Meanwhile, under the biased narrative, the evil, stingy Republicans supposedly want kids to go hungry, to stay ignorant, and for the money that would have funded school lunches to somehow end up in Elon Musk’s pocket.

As is often the case, about 80% of the people arguing about school lunch don’t even understand what the real issue is, what the Democrats are actually proposing and why the Republicans oppose it. The current debate in Congress, rather than on Twitter, centers on whether school meals should be made universally free for all students or remain limited to low-income children, and, importantly, how “low-income” should be defined.

The current debate is just one more negative consequence of the destructive COVID lockdowns that robbed American children of two years of education and social development. During the pandemic, Congress made school lunches universally free, regardless of family income. That temporary policy expired in 2022, sparking a national debate. Supporters of making free meals permanent argue that universal access removes stigma, supports families struggling with economic hardship, and ensures that children are well-fed and ready to learn.

Opponents, mostly Republicans, argue that universal free school lunch is too expensive, subsidizes meals for those who can afford it, and shifts responsibility for feeding children from parents to the federal government. Additionally, supporters of these programs rarely address basic questions: How were children eating before the COVID-era lunch program? And if that system worked, why can’t we return to it?

Democrats support legislation like the Universal School Meals Program Act of 2023, introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Ilhan Omar, and the No Hungry Kids in Schools Act. While these bills sound appealing—who wants hungry kids in school?—they assume a level of need that isn’t supported by data. Were 51 million children really going without lunch before the pandemic? The way Democrats frame the issue, you’d think the U.S. is Calcutta, with malnourished children collapsing on their way to school.

The reality is quite different. The United States has far more of a problem with obesity than hunger. Nearly 20% of American children between the ages of 2 and 19 are classified as obese. Obesity in the U.S. is inversely correlated with wealth. Poorer communities tend to have higher obesity rates. In fact, the U.S. is one of the few countries in the world where the poor are more likely to be overweight than underfed.

Keep reading

Congress Keeps Trying to Overturn State Agriculture Laws

Whatever you think of tariffs, it should be clear that now is not the time to introduce more uncertainty into agricultural markets. The “Food Security and Farm Protection Act” (S. 1326) — recently introduced in the United State Senate — would do exactly that, giving foreign adversaries like China an even bigger chokehold on American agricultural production while harming producers and principles of state sovereignty in the process.

S. 1326 is the latest iteration of 2023’s Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act. It would create a private right of action for anyone “affected” by another state’s agricultural regulation to bring suit and invalidate it.

S. 1326, like EATS before it, is largely targeted at laws like California’s Proposition 12 and Massachusetts’s Question 3, which set animal welfare standards for certain animal products (like pork) sold in the state. Over a dozen other states — including Florida, Michigan, Oregon, Maine, Arizona and Colorado — have similar statutes addressing animal confinement and farm practices.

Proponents of S. 1326 have characterized such laws as part of a “war on breakfast.” Their solution: introducing legislation that could nullify more than 1,000 state-level agriculture laws that support our economies and feed our people.

Soon after Proposition 12’s passage in 2018, the National Pork Producers Council brought suit against California — with the fight eventually reaching the Supreme Court. Writing in support of the Golden State, Justice Gorsuch said: “While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list.”

Whatever you think of these laws, they fall well within the states’ reserved powers under the U.S. Constitution. They were democratically approved by voters, who are allowed to promulgate statutes regulating their own health and safety and reflecting their own ethical standards. We either believe in states’ rights or we don’t. But outside groups have not given up the fight, pushing bills like EATS and S. 1326 to create a legal backdoor for overturning the will of the American people.

The elephant in the room amidst all this discourse is Smithfield Foods, America’s largest pork producer, which is owned by a Chinese holding company that operates in coordination with the Chinese government. As such, the timing of S.1326’s introduction — April 8, 2025 — could not have been more darkly ironic. It’s the same day that China and the U.S. entered into an all-out trade war.

As the Chinese attack us from the outside, do we really want to give them an internal mechanism to also invalidate state laws they don’t like?

Then there’s the issue of stability. Proposition 12, which mandates that pigs raised for food have enough space to turn around during their pitiable lives, passed nearly seven years ago. Companies have largely adapted to California’s new requirements — including more than 230 out-of-state distributors and even large producers like Tyson Foods, JBS and, yes, Smithfield. Why, then, the need to create a vague, catchall mechanism to overturn not just state pork laws, but any state agriculture law? And do we really want to tell farmers that have retrofitted their operations to conform with new state requirements that their investments are worthless?

Add to that the fact that the USDA recently cancelled two programs giving food banks and schools funding to purchase from small farmers and ranchers. Passing S. 1326 will kill whatever competitive advantage these producers — who are more likely to employ traditional husbandry practices — have left. It will lead to even more consolidation in the food industry and more power for the biggest players. The administration is already considering a farm bailout, which cost taxpayers $23 billion the last time we did it. Creating new mechanisms to disrupt entrenched state regulations is a good way to make ever more handouts a necessity.

Keep reading

Not so fast on the FDA’s food dye ban — the Supreme Court has changed the rules 

Last week, the Food and Drug Administration announced long-awaited bans on certain food dyes and added new warnings about sugar in processed foods. Public health advocates cheered. Parents breathed a sigh of relief. But as someone who has spent years reporting on the intersection of federal science, health and regulation, I have a warning: In today’s legal climate, we are celebrating too soon. 

The Supreme Court’s recent reversal of the Chevron doctrine means every new regulation is now living on borrowed time — and the FDA’s food dye ban may be its first casualty. 

For 40 years, the “Chevron deference” gave federal agencies the benefit of the doubt in their interpretations of ambiguous laws within their areas of expertise. So when Congress writes broad rules, courts are to give agencies like the FDA, EPA and NOAA wide latitude to fill in the scientific and technical details.

But last year, in a move cheered by conservative legal activists, the Supreme Court struck down Chevron. Now, federal judges need not give such great deference to agencies as to what the law means, even on issues where the judges have no practical experience, such as food additives and clean air.

This is a landmark shift with potentially far-reaching consequences. While a regulation-friendly administration like Joe Biden’s can’t guarantee that new public health protections will survive the courts, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s FDA under the Trump administration should prepare to encounter similar hurdles.

The Chevron ruling presented us with a fitting preview of what happens when judges — as opposed to subject-matter experts at relevant agencies — determine the best way to interpret applicable regulatory frameworks within the law.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a concurring opinion overturning Chevron, referenced “nitrous oxide” as a pollutant from coal plants. Nitrous oxide — the compound best known for providing the temporary euphoria you may experience while a dentist fills a cavity — has nothing to do with the “nitrogen oxides” that actually come out of smokestacks and threaten respiratory health.  

Keep reading

UN agency runs out of food aid in Gaza after Israeli blockade

The UN World Food Programme says it has depleted all its food stocks in Gaza, where Israel has blocked deliveries of humanitarian aid for seven weeks.

“Today, WFP delivered its last remaining food stocks to hot meals kitchens,” it warned. “These kitchens are expected to fully run out of food in the coming days.”

Israel cut off aid on 2 March and resumed its offensive two weeks later after the collapse of a two-month ceasefire, saying it was putting pressure on Hamas to release its remaining hostages.

The UN says Israel is obliged under international law to ensure supplies for the 2.1 million Palestinians in Gaza. Israel says it is complying with international law and there is no aid shortage.

At the end of March, all 25 bakeries supported by the WFP in Gaza were forced to close after wheat flour and cooking fuel ran out. Food parcels distributed to families containing two weeks’ rations were also exhausted.

Malnutrition is also rapidly worsening, according to the UN. Last week, one of its humanitarian partners screened 1,300 children in northern Gaza and identified more than 80 cases of acute malnutrition – a two-fold increase from previous weeks.

The UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) says there are also severe shortages of medicine, medical supplies and equipment for hospitals overwhelmed by casualties from the Israeli bombardment, and that fuel shortages are hampering water production and distribution.

World Health Organization (WHO) director-general Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said “an awful and grim moment” had been reached in Gaza.

“This aid blockade must end. Lives depend on it.”

Keep reading

“Take Control Of Their Food Supply”: Tractor Supply CEO Says Backyard Chicken Demand Skyrockets  

President Trump’s swift action to combat soaring egg prices, caused by the Biden-Harris regime’s mass culling of egg-laying hens just before he took office, has been nothing short of spectacular.

Egg prices have since collapsed, forcing Democratic strategists to abandon their propaganda warfare efforts with corrupt leftist corporate media to blame “egg-flation” on Trump when, in reality, it was a crisis of Biden’s making through improper culling practices and no countermeasures to offset loss production. It’s almost as if the prior administration wanted consumers to feel pocketbook pain. 

Trump saves the day. 

Earlier this year, as egg prices spiked to record highs during the tail end of the Northern Hemisphere’s winter season, we urged readers to purchase backyard chicken coops and take control of their own food supply chains:

Months later, with the latest USDA retail egg prices down 62% from record highs of more than $8 per dozen, Tractor Supply CEO Hal Lawton confirmed to investors on an earnings call this week that the nationwide egg shortage sparked an unbelievable surge in chick demand at stores nationwide.

Here’s more from Bloomberg:

Tractor Supply Co., a rural retailer best known for its animal feed and ranching equipment offerings, expects to sell a record amount of chicks this year as customers expand their broods and first-timers seek to avoid record-setting egg prices.

Those novice poultry farmers are attempting to “take more control of their food supply,” Tractor Supply Chief Executive Officer Hal Lawton said during the company’s first-quarter earnings call Thursday, after egg prices more than doubled this year.

Mizuho Securities Director David Bellinger wrote in a note earlier this month that 7 million to 8 million of Tractor Supply’s loyalty members now own chickens. 

Keep reading

As Israel Openly Declares Starvation as a Weapon, Media Still Hesitate to Blame It for Famine

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on March 2 that “Israel has decided to stop letting goods and supplies into Gaza,” where the ongoing Israeli genocide, with the loyal backing of the United States, has officially killed more than 51,000 Palestinians since October 2023. The announcement regarding the total halt of humanitarian aid amounted to yet another explicit declaration of the starvation policy that Israel is pursuing in the Gaza Strip, a territory that—thanks in large part to 17 consecutive years of Israeli blockade—has long been largely dependent on such aid for survival.

Of course, this was not the first time that senior Israeli officials had advertised their reliance on the war crime of forced starvation in the current genocidal assault on Gaza. On October 9, 2023, two days after the most recent launch of hostilities, then–Defense Minister Yoav Gallant ordered a “complete siege” of the Gaza Strip: “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed.” Two days after that, Foreign Minister Israel Katz boasted of cutting off “water, electricity and fuel” to the territory.

And just this month, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir proclaimed that there was “no reason for a gram of food or aid to enter Gaza.” Following an April 22 dinner held in his honor in Florida at US President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, Ben-Gvir reported that US Republicans had

expressed support for my very clear position on how to act in Gaza and that the food and aid depots should be bombed in order to create military and political pressure to bring our hostages home safely.

Never mind that the hostages would have been brought home safely as scheduled had Israel chosen to comply with the terms of the ceasefire agreement with Hamas that was implemented in January, rather than definitively annihilating the agreement on March 18. It is no doubt illustrative of Israel’s modus operandi that the March 2 decision to block the entry of all food and other items necessary for human existence took place in the middle of an ostensible ceasefire.

Keep reading

MAHA Rising: HHS, FDA Announce Phase-Out Of All Artificial Food Dyes

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s quest to “Make America Healthy Again” grew far more substantial on Tuesday, with the announcement that the federal government will eliminate all petroleum-based synthetic food dyes by the end of 2026. The announcement came at a Washington DC news conference, with RFK Jr joined by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Marty Makary and National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya. The podium was flanked by “MAHA Moms” and their children; the moms are a coalition of outspoken advocates of the Trump administration’s health agenda.  

Kennedy framed the move against artificial, petroleum-based dyes using forceful language: 

“For too long, some food producers have been feeding Americans petroleum-based chemicals without their knowledge or consent. These poisonous compounds offer no nutritional benefit and pose real, measurable dangers to our children’s health and development. That era is coming to an end. We’re restoring gold-standard science, applying common sense, and beginning to earn back the public’s trust. And we’re doing it by working with industry to get these toxic dyes out of the foods our families eat every day.”

Keep reading

Synthetic milk from Bored Cow and Perfect Day contains 92 unidentified molecules, including fungicides

In an era where food technology is rapidly advancing, the line between natural and synthetic is becoming increasingly blurred. The recent controversy surrounding Bored Cow’s “synthetic” milk, made with Perfect Day’s ProFerm, has raised serious concerns about the safety, nutritional value, and ethical implications of these new products. The Health Research Institute’s (HRI) findings, which revealed 92 unidentified molecules and a fungicide in Bored Cow’s milk, have sparked a legal battle and a broader debate about the regulatory framework governing food additives.

The rise of synthetic milk and the Perfect Day controversy

Perfect Day, a biotech company, has been at the forefront of developing synthetic milk proteins using genetically modified microflora. The company claims that its product, ProFerm, is “identical” to cow’s milk and offers a more sustainable alternative. However, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and GMO/Toxin Free USA have filed a lawsuit against Perfect Day, alleging that the company’s marketing is false and misleading.

According to the lawsuit, ProFerm is not identical to cow’s milk. HRI’s testing revealed that ProFerm is only 13.4% cow’s whey protein, with the remaining 86.6% consisting of fungal proteins. These fungal proteins and compounds are not found in cow’s milk and have never been part of the human diet. John Fagan, Ph.D., HRI’s chief scientist and CEO, emphasized the nutritional deficiencies in synthetic milk:

  • 69 important nutrients present in natural milk were either absent or present in trace amounts in ProFerm.
  • Vitamins B2, B5, and E, as well as omega-3 fatty acids, were either missing or present in negligible amounts.
  • Carnitine, essential for energy metabolism, was either absent or present in trace amounts.

Fagan’s findings highlight the stark differences between synthetic and natural milk, challenging Perfect Day’s claims of nutritional equivalence. The presence of a fungicide, Benthiavalicarb-isopropyl, in Bored Cow’s milk further raises concerns about the safety of these products.

The ethical and regulatory implications

The lawsuit against Perfect Day also highlights the shortcomings of the FDA’s “GRAS” (Generally Recognized as Safe) process. Under current regulations, companies can self-affirm that their products are GRAS without thorough safety testing. This loophole has allowed Perfect Day to market ProFerm for the past five years, despite the lack of comprehensive safety data.

Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director for the OCA, stated, “Perfect Day markets the ‘milk’ as ‘identical’ to cow’s milk. That’s what we’re going after them for. That kind of false advertising is illegal, and it’s something we can take direct legal action against.” The OCA and GMO/Toxin Free USA are demanding a jury trial and an injunction to halt the deceptive marketing of ProFerm.

Diana Reeves, founder and executive director of GMO/Toxin Free USA, described ProFerm as a “nutritionally-devoid substance composed primarily of fungal proteins never before consumed by humans.” She added, “It is deeply concerning that this potentially harmful food-like product could be labeled cow’s whey or be advertised as ‘identical to traditional milk.’”

The FDA’s “GRAS” process has come under scrutiny, with calls for reform. On March 10, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. directed the FDA to address the GRAS loophole. However, the lawsuit against Perfect Day focuses on the company’s misrepresentation to consumers, not the FDA’s regulatory framework.

Keep reading