Tag: food

No Farms, No Food

We live in a world where oligarchs accumulate land, use their media assets to denigrate natural foods and invest in fake alternatives. On the other ‘side’, wealthy professionals calling themselves freedom fighters travel the world and the internet insisting we should eat organic and local. Meanwhile, the food security of many of the eight billion-plus of us remains at the mercy of the weather, diseases and insects. Neither side offers a viable solution or much benefit for many beyond themselves.

An increasing realisation of the corruption and greed that drives much of our New Normal is motivating a growing movement for self-sufficiency. Local sourcing of natural-grown foods is coupled with denigration of big agribusiness and industrialised food production. Incoherently, it is also often coupled with claims that those backing the big agribusiness enemy are aiming for depopulation, while the way in which small-scale agriculture will feed the world’s growing population is left unexplained.

From the comfort of big jet planes made in huge factories, it is now possible to gain likes by posting photos of the organic and rather cute livestock we left back home. These can be supplemented with pictures of the Thai rice, Costa Rican coffee and Mexican avocados from our favorite brunch spot. This approach to food and agriculture is a hobby, and a good one. But the world cannot support eight billion such hobbies.

The other side of the agriculture coin has also been doing us harm: an obese population in rich countries with declining life expectancy, fat on industrial corn syrup, seed oils and other unnatural metabolism adulterators, coupled with declining physical activity. Nor are we benefiting from unevidenced claims that diets including meat or raw milk will somehow restart an age of plagues. Or that humans should transform themselves into insectivores.

Regulating independent family farmers out of business, with their generations of knowledge, is not a step forward either but a decimation of rural society and human dignity – of the reason for living in the first place. Replacing them with centralised fake food factories funded by wealthy investors and their pet celebrities will concentrate wealth rather than food security. To survive and thrive – all of us – we need to face the realities of growing and delivering huge quantities of healthy human food.

We feed far more, and live far better, than past Malthusians predicted because we grow more food and store and transport it more effectively than they thought we could. That is not an ‘elitist’ thing, it is quite the opposite. Like the rest of life, we need to continue to progress, but keep that progress in all our hands rather than a greed-driven few – which is the unavoidable challenge of all human progress, and a challenge our agencies are now failing. But in fighting for food freedom, we must still feed over eight billion. This means investing in large-scale farm machinery and supply and food management infrastructure – in large agricultural enterprises.

Keep reading

Farming To Feed Eight Billion Is A Business, Not A Hobby

We live in a world where oligarchs accumulate land, use their media assets to denigrate natural foods, and invest in fake alternatives. On the other ‘side’, wealthy professionals calling themselves freedom-fighters travel the world and the internet insisting we should eat organic and local. Meanwhile, the food security of many of the eight billion plus of us remains at the mercy of the weather, diseases and insects. Neither side offers a viable solution, or much benefit for many beyond themselves..

An increasing realization of the corruption and greed that drives much of our New Normal is motivating a growing movement for self-sufficiency. Local sourcing of natural-grown foods is coupled with denigration of big agribusiness and industrialized food production. Incoherently, it is also often coupled with claims that those backing the big agribusiness enemy are aiming for depopulation, while the way in which small-scale agriculture will feed the world’s growing population is left unexplained.

From the comfort of big jet planes made in huge factories, it is now possible to gain likes by posting photos of the organic and rather cute livestock we left back home. These can be supplemented with pictures of the Thai rice, Costa Rican coffee and Mexican avocados from our favorite brunch spot. This approach to food and agriculture is a hobby, and a good one. But the world cannot support eight billion such hobbies.

The other side of the Agriculture coin has also been doing us harm; an obese population in rich countries with declining life expectancy, fat on industrial corn syrup, seed oils and other unnatural metabolism adulterators, coupled with declining physical activity. Nor are we gaining by unevidenced claims that diets including meat or raw milk will somehow restart an age of plagues. Or that humans should transform themselves into insectivores.

Regulating independent family farmers out of business, with their generations of knowledge, is not a step forward either but a decimation of rural society and human dignity – of the reason for living in the first place. Replacing them with centralized fake food factories funded by wealthy investors and their pet celebrities will concentrate wealth rather than food security. To survive and thrive – all of us – we need to face the realities of growing and delivering huge quantities of healthy, human food.

Keep reading

Study Confirms — Trans Fats Policy Killed Millions

For the past six decades, saturated fats and cholesterol have been wrongly vilified as the central culprit of heart disease, stroke and peripheral vascular disease. However, research has demonstrated that it’s actually trans fats and processed vegetable oils found in many processed foods that are the real enemy.

In the decades saturated fats were demonized, the food industry responded by replacing saturated fats with more shelf-stable trans fats and a new market of low-fat (high-sugar) foods was born.

Americans’ health has plummeted ever since, and millions have been prematurely killed by this mistake. Making matters worse, genetically engineered soy oil, which is a major source of trans fat, can oxidize inside your body, thereby causing damage to both your heart and your brain.

One of the first articles published exonerating saturated fats was in 1957 by the late Dr. Fred Kummerow,1 who spent eight decades absorbed in the science of lipids and heart disease. In 2013, Kummerow sued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for not withdrawing trans fats from the market.2 It was Kummerow’s lifetime work that revealed the dangers of trans fat and oxidized cholesterol and the relationship to heart disease.

Not surprisingly, trans fat is also linked to dementia as the arterial changes that occur in the heart muscle also occur in the brain, triggering neurological damage. Research has demonstrated the dangers to health and a great financial burden that eating a diet with trans fat has placed on the American public.

Keep reading

Kamala Harris’ solution to climate change is to alter the food pyramid and force Americans to eat less meat

At a CNN Climate Town Hall on Sept. 4, 2019, then-Sen. Kamala Harris wanted the government to create “incentives” for Americans to eat less meat, even agreeing to change the food pyramid. According to her, this could curb the effects of climate change.

The event was part of the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries. Before she dropped out of the race, a voter asked if she supported changing the nation’s dietary guidelines to reduce the consumption of red meat – because, according to the woman, climate change is linked to the “overproduction of red meat.”

Harris answered: “I think the point that you’re raising in a broader context, which is that, as a nation, we actually have to have a real priority at the highest level of government around what we eat and in terms of healthy eating because we have a problem in America.”

“So the answer is yes,” she continued. “I will also say this: The balance that we have to strike here, frankly, is about what government can and should do around creating incentives, and then banning certain behaviors.”

During the same gathering, she admitted to having cheeseburgers from time to time. “But there also has to be what we do in terms of creating incentives that we will eat in a healthy way, that we will encourage moderation, and that we will be educated about the effect of our eating habits on our environment. We have to do a much better job at that, and the government has to do a much better job at that,” she said.

Meanwhile, the administration of President Joe Biden has been pushing ways to combat climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions, switching to electric vehicles and allegedly even eating meat substitutes such as bugs rather than consuming red meat.

“Joe Biden’s climate plan includes cutting 90 percent of red meat from our diets by 2030,” Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) tweeted in 2021. “They want to limit us to about four pounds a year. Why doesn’t Joe stay out of my kitchen?” But Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack denied it back then.

“There is no effort designed to limit people’s intake of beef coming out of President Biden’s White House or USDA,” Vilsack said as reported by Politico. “Sometimes in the political world, games get played and issues are injected into the conversation knowing full well that there’s no factual basis.”

Keep reading

The UN’s Green Agenda Will Spark Famine

“We The Peoples of the United Nations determined…to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,” — United Nations Charter Preamble (1945)

This is the second part in a series looking at the plans of the United Nations (UN) and its agencies designing and implementing the agenda of the Summit of the Future in New York on 22-23 September 2024, and its implications for global health, economic development, and human rights. Previously the impact on health policy of the climate agenda was analyzed.

The right to food once drove UN policy towards reducing hunger with a clear focus on low- and middle-income countries. Like the right to health, food has increasingly become a tool of cultural colonialism – the imposition of a narrow ideology of a certain Western mindset over the customs and rights of the ‘peoples’ that the UN represents. This article discusses how it happened and the dogmas on which it relies.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the farming equivalent of the World Health Organization (WHO), was founded in 1945 as a specialized United Nations (UN) agency with a mission to “achieve food security for all.” Its motto “Fiat panis” (Let there be bread) reflects that mission. Headquartered in Rome, Italy, it counts 195 Member States, including the European Union. The FAO relies on more than 11,000 staff, with 30% being based in Rome.

Of its US$3.25 billion biennial 2022-23 budget, 31% comes from assessed contributions paid by Members, with the remainder being voluntary. A large share of voluntary contributions come from Western governments (US, EU, Germany, Norway), development banks (e.g. World Bank Group), and other lesser-known publicly- and privately-funded entities set up for assisting environmental conventions and projects (including the Global Environment Facility, Green Climate Fund and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation). Thus, like the WHO, most of its work now consists of implementing the dictates of its donors.

The FAO was instrumental in implementing the 1960s and 1970s Green Revolution, associated with a doubling in world food production that lifted many Asian and Latin American populations out of food insecurity. The use of fertilizers, pesticides, controlled irrigation, and hybridized seeds was considered a major achievement for hunger eradication, despite resulting pollution to soil, air, and water systems and facilitation of the emergence of new resistant strains of pests. The FAO was supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) founded in 1971 – a publicly funded group with the mission to conserve and improve seed varieties and their genetic pools. Private philanthropies, including the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, also played supportive roles.

Successive World Food Summits held in 1971, 1996, 2002, 2009, and 2021 have punctuated the FAO’s history. At the second summit, world leaders committed themselves to “achieving food security for all and to an ongoing effort to eradicate hunger in all countries” and declared “the right of everyone to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger” (Rome Declaration on World Food Security).

Keep reading

DOD Funds Research on Fake Meat Rations to Improve Soldiers’ ‘Military Readiness’

The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) has partnered with the BioIndustrial Manufacturing and Design Ecosystem (BioMADE) to produce lab-grown foods intended to feed the nation’s military. The public-private partnership, which is largely DOD funded, released a project call in May 2024 looking for proposals in a number of focus areas, including “sustainable food production.”1

Under this category, the Sustainable Logistics for Advanced Manufacturing (SLAM) project includes a call for innovations in food production that “could include, but are not limited to, production of nutrient-dense military rations via fermentation processes, utilizing one carbon molecule (C1) feedstocks for food production, and novel cell culture methods suitable for the production of cultivated meat/protein.”2

Ultimately, the partnership sets up military members as lab rats who will be fed synthetically grown, ultraprocessed junk foods in lieu of a healthy, whole-food-based diet.

DOD Plans to Feed Soldiers Fake Meat

The biotech industry is rolling out a “tsunami of fake foods”3 that are being positioned as environmentally friendly and health-promoting alternatives to real foods like meat and dairy. Lab-grown meat may one day represent 80% or more of the “meat” consumed worldwide,4 a dramatic departure from the way humans have eaten for centuries.

The DOD describes BioMADE as “a nonprofit created by the Engineering Biology Research Consortium (EBRC).” In 2020, it awarded the outfit $87 million in funding for a new Manufacturing Innovation Institute (MII):5

“Through a close relationship with DOD and the Military Services, BioMADE will work to establish long-term and dependable bioindustrial manufacturing capabilities for a wide array of products.

Anticipated bioindustrial manufacturing applications include the following products: chemicals, solvents, detergents, reagents, plastics, electronic films, fabrics, polymers, agricultural products (e.g., feedstock), crop protection solutions, food additives, fragrances, and flavors.”

However, the DOD also funds innovation grants, each of which has a $2-million limit up to a total budget of $500 million — funding that earmarked at least in part for BioMADE’s development of lab-grown fake meat products.6 In fact, in March 2023, BioMADE announced that its federal funds budget ceiling had increased from an initial $87.5 million to over $500 million.7

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) condemned the idea. Ethan Lane, NCBA vice president of government affairs, said in a press release:8

“It is outrageous that the Department of Defense is spending millions of taxpayer dollars to feed our heroes like lab rats … American troops deserve to be served that same wholesome, natural meat and not ultraprocessed, lab-grown protein that is cooked up in a chemical-filled bioreactor.

This misguided research project is a giant slap in the face to everyone that has served our country. Our veterans and active-duty troops deserve so much better than this.”

Former U.S. Special Forces member Martin Bailey further told the Daily Mail:9

“I think the government should focus on letting the military protect our nation from enemies, foreign and domestic, sometimes, but you know, that’s what the military is there for. They’re not there to be experimental lab rats … why doesn’t the government feed experimental meat product that, you don’t even know what it is, why don’t they feed that to, let’s say, homeless people?

Well, there’s a reason they don’t, because that would be completely unethical. So why is it ethical to stick it down the throat of our military service members?”

Keep reading

Free drink refills could be banned in Wales

Free drink refills could be banned at restaurants and cafes as part of new proposals by the Welsh government.

Health Secretary Eluned Morgan has launched a consultation to restrict “promotions of food products high in fat, sugar and salt”.

It also proposes to restrict retailers from putting forward offers, such as buy one get one free, on unhealthy food.

The Welsh government said it was “supporting people in Wales to make the healthy choice”.

The consultation outlines proposed legislation which the Welsh government said was “taking action to improve our food environment”.

  • It includes a proposal to prohibit retailers from offering free drink refills, which many high street restaurants including Nando’s and Five Guys offer.
  • Another proposal will prevent retailers offering promotions, including buy-one-get-one-free and three-for-two offers on unhealthy food products.
  • A third proposal will bar retailers from placing high fat, sugar and salt food products in certain locations in stores, including entrances, end of aisles and checkout or queueing areas.
  • It will also apply to online equivalents including website entry pages, shopping basket and payment pages.

The Welsh government said food products with poor nutritional value were promoted more than healthier products, which then influenced the food and drink people buy.

Keep reading

Gassy cows and pigs will face a carbon tax in Denmark, a world first

Denmark will tax livestock farmers for the greenhouse gases emitted by their cows, sheep and pigs from 2030, the first country to do so as it targets a major source of methane emissions, one of the most potent gases contributing to global warming.

The aim is to reduce Danish greenhouse gas emissions by 70% from 1990 levels by 2030, said Taxation Minister Jeppe Bruus.

As of 2030, Danish livestock farmers will be taxed 300 kroner ($43) per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2030. The tax will increase to 750 kroner ($108) by 2035. However, because of an income tax deduction of 60%, the actual cost per ton will start at 120 kroner ($17.3) and increase to 300 kroner by 2035.

Keep reading

The Government Wants To Track Your Steak

The government has a long history of using tracking technology to ascertain our whereabouts, our habits, and even our preferences. From cellphones and cars to snow plows and garbage trucks, governments seemingly want to track anything that moves—or moos.

The USDA recently finalized a rule—set to go into effect in a few months—that will require all cattle and bison being moved across state lines to be tagged with radio-frequency identification (RFID) ear tags. RFID technology uses radio frequency waves to transmit and collect data by way of a system of electronic tags and scanners. The technology is best viewed as a type of electronic or remote barcode, in which scanners can read an RFID chip anywhere from a few meters away to around 100 meters away. In some ways analogous to a shorter-range GPS system, RFID can track geographic location and also operate as a system of data collection and storage.

In the context of livestock, a quick scan of an RFID tag can pull up information like a cow’s date of birth, weight, vaccine records, ownership history, what farms it has been to, and what movements it has made. The USDA is justifying its RFID mandate on public health grounds, claiming that it can help trace and eradicate potential disease outbreaks among livestock, such as mad cow disease or hoof-and-mouth disease. 

While plausible at first blush, it is far from clear that the mandate will accomplish its intended objective, and it is very clear that it will disproportionately hurt small and independent ranchers and cattle farmers.

Keep reading

Vaccines in the Food Supply: What Are the Risks?

In my previous articles, we looked at the global war on farmers, the organizations pushing for the Great Food Reset, the tactics used to foist these changes on the public, and the projects underway to remove your access to healthy, farm-fresh foods.

Today we will delve into the contentious issue of vaccines in the food supply. Accurate information on this topic is not easy to find.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and drug developers aren’t required to release any information on veterinary drugs in the development pipeline, so independent detectives are left searching through peer-reviewed papers, university publications, USDA contracts, grant notifications, company white papers and university websites to learn what is on the horizon.

This system is far from transparent, and frankly, I don’t think that’s an accident.

Before any vaccine technology is used on humans, it is usually tried in the veterinary market first due to the incredibly lax regulations. Knowing this, it should come as no surprise that our food animals had been receiving mRNA injections for years before the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

Around 2014, the USDA granted a conditional license for an mRNA vaccine for use in pigs for the Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus. This is equivalent to emergency use authorization and gets around the USDA’s vaccine licensing and authorization process.

In 2015, Merck bought Harrisvaccines to acquire their RNA platform. Merck’s 2015 press release stated that this “RNA Particle technology … represents a breakthrough in vaccine development.

It also has a highly versatile production platform able to target a wide range of viruses and bacteria.

Pathogens are collected from a farm, and specific genes are sequenced and inserted into RNA particles, making safe, potent vaccines able to provide herd-specific protection.”

Introduced in 2018, Sequivity is Merck’s RNA vaccine platform built on the Harrisvaccines technology. These RNA injections are already in use in pigs.

They are customized for different viruses, and each customized injection undergoes no new safety testing; new formulations are deployed immediately. The pork you are eating from the supermarket is already likely treated with these gene therapies.

Keep reading