Tag: food

UK government’s policy of adding folic acid to flour is not safe; studies show an increase in cancer

Why Cancer Is The Question

Folic acid forms the building blocks of DNA and drives cell division. Early embryos have cells dividing at enormous speed and they need a ready supply. Anything that helps cell division presents a hypothetical risk for people with cancer and also for the initiation of cancer in healthy people. Consequently, studies have been carried out to try and measure where that hypothetical concern is present in reality.

Measuring the Harm

The strongest test for harm is a randomised controlled trial, in which people are assigned by the toss of a coin to receive either the treatment or a placebo and are then followed up to see what happens. In 2013, researchers pooled every large folic acid trial, involving around fifty thousand people, into one analysis in The Lancet. They reported no significant effect on cancer. That result became the basis of the official safety verdict.

A year earlier, a separate, more careful review split the same trials by dose given. It found an increase in cancer in the trials using lower doses, close to the amount fortification delivers, but none in the trials using much higher doses.

That headline, a six per cent increase reported as no significant effect, is an average across every dose the trials used. Split the trials into three dose groups, on both the published figures and the patient-level data behind the 2013 analysis, and the average comes apart.

The increase is seen at the exact range that fortifying flour will deliver. That is the reverse of how a drug normally behaves, since a larger dose would usually carry more risk, not less. The result below 1 milligram is the same even if the single polyp-prevention trial that critics single out is excluded and it is seen in ordinary adults rather than just in high-risk groups. 

Prostate cancer in particular is a concern. In one trial, men given 1 milligram of folic acid a day were diagnosed with prostate cancer at 2.6 times the rate of those on a placebo, a ten-year risk of 9.7 per cent against 3.3 per cent. The trial had been designed to study bowel polyps rather than the prostate. Sixteen years later, there have still been no further trials to measure this properly. Instead, researchers re-examined the data from the other folic acid trials already run. Pooled together, six trials covering around 25,000 men showed a 24 per cent increase in prostate cancer among the men given folic acid (relative risk 1.24, 95 per cent confidence interval 1.03 to 1.49). A reanalysis at a case level claimed there was no signal but they specifically excluded dosages within the fortification range. Folate obtained from food carried no such risk, which points to the synthetic form rather than the vitamin as it occurs in the diet.

Keep reading

American Farmers Shouldn’t Need Permission from the US Army to Grow Crops

For nearly a decade, California farmer Jack LaPant was the target of an investigation and prosecution by the United States Army, who alleged that LaPant violated the Clean Water Act by growing a wheat crop to feed his cattle. Earlier this year, LaPant was able to settle the case to get the Army out of his hair, but the settlement required him to give the Army more than $1 million in money and land value. This, despite the fact that the government never proved a single allegation in court.

Most of us today take for granted that we’ll be able to get the food we want when we go to the grocery store or our favorite restaurant. But the reality is that a safe, plentiful, and affordable food supply depends on people like Jack LaPant—a fact we should never forget.

Fewer Americans make their living in agriculture these days, which means more workers can devote their time and energy to other productive pursuits.

Modern farming produces substantial food surplus, which is an essential condition for an economy to diversify and grow. Less than 2 percent of the American population is now engaged in producing the food that nourishes the rest of us, thanks in large part to mechanization, technological advances, improved land and crop management practices, and other welcome innovations.

But let’s be clear: despite those advances, farming is still demanding, difficult work, and we should be thankful for those who make it their mission to feed the rest of us. Further, it is no coincidence that free economies produce the greatest food surplus. Centrally planned economies tend to produce famine. It is necessary that those few who do farm have their property and economic rights protected. If they aren’t safeguarded, we will all pay the price alongside them.

Jack LaPant decided 45 years ago to leave his steady power company job and take up farming. Since LaPant had no personal or family background in agriculture, this was an unusual career move, to say the least.

He moved his family from Oakland to a remote valley in the Sierras and learned to work the land. Over the decades, he built a living for himself and his children, while contributing to the food supply that sustains the rest of us. Then he found himself at odds with the US government.

The concern in LaPant’s case goes beyond the effects on the farm operations themselves. Heavy-handed and ruinous regulation at the hands of our nation’s military is a threat to the food surplus that we depend upon as part of the foundation of our modern life.

Remember that more than 98 percent of us have the freedom to do whatever our talents and opportunities allow because of the less than 2 percent of Americans who produce the food that the rest of us need. That imbalance marks a radical difference from the rest of the world—globally, about 60 percent of the population is dedicated to farming. In many less-developed countries, that’s not because farming is the path people choose—it’s because they have no choice at all if they don’t want to starve.

Keep reading

Ultraprocessed Foods Linked to Measurable Drops in Human Attention Span

More than half of the calories on the average American or British plate now come from foods built in factories rather than grown on farms. That’s a problem your brain pays for in ways many people never connect back to their plate.

Research published in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring adds another piece to a growing body of evidence: the industrially processed foods filling modern diets are eroding cognitive performance in midlife adults, long before any formal diagnosis appears.1

Unlike obvious memory loss, declining cognitive function often hides in plain sight. You notice it as brain fog, distractibility, slower thinking, mental fatigue, or trouble concentrating during conversations and work tasks. Many people blame stress, aging, or lack of sleep. Meanwhile, their daily diet floods their body with industrially processed snacks, sweetened drinks, packaged meals, and refined oils that disrupt how their cells produce energy.

What makes the findings especially striking is that the cognitive effects appeared independent of overall diet quality. Someone could still eat fruits and vegetables, yet experience measurable harm if ultraprocessed products remained a major part of their routine. The processing itself appears to matter, not just the nutrients displaced by it.

If processing itself is the problem, not just sugar, not just fat, then the standard advice to “eat more vegetables” isn’t enough. What you remove from your diet matters as much as what you add. Many people consume ultraprocessed foods several times a day without realizing how deeply these foods affect brain function, metabolic health, and long-term dementia risk. The next section breaks down exactly what the researchers found and why one specific aspect of cognition appeared especially vulnerable.

Keep reading

New York Bodega Owners to City: Drop Dead!

It’s been more than 50 years since the New York Daily News reported that President Gerald Ford would veto any bailout for the city’s endless red ink with the headline, “Ford to City: Drop Dead.” Ford never said exactly that, of course, but the headline created such a backlash that Ford backed down a few months later, putting his signature on $2.3 billion worth of emergency loans. That’s about $14.3 billion in 2026 money — a very nice little bailout, indeed.

Today, New York City bodega owners know that nobody will bail them out when the city’s Commie-Islamist Mayor Zohran Mamdani puts them out of business, which is why they just silently told him to drop dead.

Or at least that’s the impression I got from a Monday morning New York Post exclusive detailing the showdown between Gracie Mansion and local retailers threatened by Mamdani’s campaign promise to build and operate city-run grocery stores.

“Business owners gripe that city officials are only now seeking their input — and seemingly as an afterthought — after sparking alarms in April with a surprise plan to build a public grocery store in East Harlem at La Marqueta,” the Post reported. “That store will cost a whopping $30 million to build – and threatens the livelihood of more than a dozen existing stores nearby.”

All of that is to be expected. The city can throw Other People’s Money at its socialist stores until it runs out, while typical grocers operate on razor-thin 2% profit margins. Considering the services they provide and the complexity of their operations, the real crime is how little money they make.

But I digress, as I usually do.

What I love about this story — and what makes it so newsworthy — is the sheer gall of the Mamdani administration. 

“We met with bodega owners so they could help us plan and ensure that we take into account their challenges and their role as a part of the food ecosystem,” Julie Su, deputy mayor for “economic justice,” told the Post in a statement. But what really happened was that bodega owners reported to City Hall last week at Su’s invitation for a roundtable discussion, “only to get barraged with ‘intrusive’ questions about their businesses,” according to the Post’s source.

The questionnaire bodega owners were expected to fill out included questions like, “What items are sold the most at your stores?” and “Where is your profit margin the greatest?” 

The correct answer to questions like those is, “Get stuffed.” The polite answer is, “Try running a bodega and figure it out for yourself, or get stuffed.”

Instead, an anonymous bodega owner who spoke to the Post said, “They wanted us to share proprietary information with them but they don’t answer our questions and that’s why there is distrust.”

“Tell us how to run you out of business with your hard-won institutional knowledge and your tax dollars” is pretty much the height of gall, I thought. But then I read the part where Su told the Post, “One of the questions we wanted to understand is whether there are key products bodegas sell and rely on that we should not sell. That’s how serious we are about not undercutting them.”

Keep reading

Seeds of Surveillance: The Track and Trace Playbook

QR codes are usually associated with convenience. In the Seed Act 2026, they become something else entirely: extending traceability to what is grown before it enters the supply chain, changing who has control over our food.

The Seed Act 2026 is presented by the Union Government of India as a necessary modernisation measure to curb the circulation of fake or substandard seeds.

The stated aim is the rollout of a new nationwide traceability system that mandates QR codes on all seed packets, compulsory registration for all commercial seed entities and significantly heightened penalties—up to ₹30 lakh (€27,000+ euros) and three years’ imprisonment—for seed fraud.

The government has consistently maintained that the Seed Act 2026 is designed to regulate only the commercial seed trade and will not interfere with the long-standing rights of farmers to save, sow, exchange or share seeds within their communities.

Officials emphasise that these traditional, non-branded and community-based practices remain a vital part of India’s agricultural heritage and are explicitly exempt from the registration and digital traceability requirements imposed on commercial entities.

While the government maintains that the Act will rebuild farmer trust, streamline quality control and strictly protect the traditional rights of farmers to save, share and exchange seeds, critics like the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (an umbrella coalition of 400+ farmers’ unions) view these reforms as a well-worn corporate strategy of enclosure that eradicates seed and food sovereignty.

Critics argue that these government assurances are insufficient and potentially misleading. They contend that by failing to explicitly define and protect community seed systems as a distinct sector, the Act leaves them vulnerable to administrative overreach.

Farmer organisations worry that without clear, ironclad legal safeguards, the pressure to comply with registration and branding requirements—especially for small-scale seed producers who may use simple packaging—will effectively force them to adopt the same burdensome and costly standards as large corporations, gradually pushing decentralised, village-level systems towards extinction.

Even with an informal exemption, the pressure to meet the ‘certified’ market standard could make traditional seed sharing increasingly risky. Critics argue that the rigid requirements for ‘certified, stable and uniform’ seeds will effectively criminalise or marginalise indigenous, locally adapted varieties, creating a dependency loop that forces farmers to rely on high-cost, proprietary inputs from large agribusinesses.

This would, in effect, mirror the pattern of corporate capture and loss of food sovereignty observed in other countries across the world.

Keep reading

Big Corporations Get Rich From Their Secret Seed Patents — Taxpayers and Farmers Pay the Price

The U.S. is one of only a handful of countries that allows companies to hold patents on plant varieties.

As a result, a small number of corporations can — and do — suppress competition in the seed industry, stifle innovation and turn taxpayer subsidies intended for farmers into corporate profits.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has found that two companies control more than 70% of U.S. corn and soybean seed sales, and the top four cottonseed companies control nearly 94% of that market.

In a May court filing in a legal dispute between two U.S. seed companies, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said patents on seeds are obstructing competition and research in the agriculture industry.

As researchers who work on plant breeding and seed policy, we have seen how that plays out.

When huge companies assert their patents, smaller businesses and public plant breeders, who often lack the legal resources to fight back, are frequently dissuaded from conducting research and development that might actually not be illegal at all.

And a lack of competition allows dominant companies — not always based in the U.S. — to collect large sums of taxpayer money that Congress allocated in hopes it would help farmers, not shareholders’ and executives’ bottom lines.

Keep reading

Liberals’ 10% tariff on canned vegetables will hurt low-income Canadians: Kris Sims

On this week’s episode of The Gunn Show, Kris Sims of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation discussed the Liberal government’s recent imposition of a 10% tariff on certain imported canned vegetables.

Sims slammed the move as another tax on food that will hit low-income families the hardest, noting canned vegetables are a pantry staple for many Canadians trying to stretch their budgets, especially as grocery prices continue to climb.

The tariff, announced June 19 and effective immediately, applies to imports from most countries but conveniently exempts the United States, Mexico, and several others.

“Canned tomatoes, a big chunk of them come from Italy, because those folks are really good at working with tomatoes,” Sims explained.

“And what’s super upsetting about this is that anyone whose ever pinched a penny knows that canned tomatoes are you’re go-to staple in your pantry if you’re trying to stretch your dollar, if you’re making chili, you’re making spaghetti sauce, food banks just really count on stuff like this,” she continued.

“And [the government] is making it more expensive on purpose,” Sims added.

The tariff was described by the federal government as a provisional safeguard measure that can last up to 200 days while the Canadian International Trade Tribunal completes its inquiry into surging imports. Imports of canned vegetables have risen sharply in recent years, with notable increases from countries like Thailand, Turkey, and Peru.

The government says the tariff is needed to protect Canadian processors facing “immediate challenges,” but critics point out it comes from the same Liberals who repeatedly promised to tackle the cost-of-living crisis.

Keep reading

Corrupt Obama Judge Amy Berman Jackson Shuts Down Trump Administration’s SNAP Junk Food Restrictions

A federal judge on Monday shut down the Trump Administration’s pilot program restricting the purchase of soda and junk food with SNAP benefits.

US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, said Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins applied the wrong law in approving a pilot program for states that wanted to restrict junk food purchases.

23 states applied for the pilot program in an effort to limit the purchase of soda, candy and other junk food.

Plaintiffs in five states filed the lawsuit against Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins.

Judge Berman Jackson’s ruling applies to five states: West Virginia, Tennessee, Colorado, Iowa and Nebraska.

Politico reported:

A federal judge on Monday scrapped a set of state pilot programs intended to restrict the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program money to purchase unhealthy foods.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, wrote in her decision that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, who oversees the SNAP program, misapplied federal law in approving requests from states to allow them to impose limits on what participants can buy with funds from the nation’s largest food aid program. Her ruling applies to Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia.

“With her solicitation and approval of the pilot projects in this case, the Secretary purports to waive not just a mere administrative or technical obstacle, but the very definition of ‘food’ as it was laid down by Congress,” Berman wrote. “Neither the USDA nor the states can force this square peg into a round hole to avoid the plain language of the statute and the requirements of 2026(k),” referencing the part of the statute that addresses projects to help improve SNAP households’ health status.

Jackson’s ruling could jeopardize one of the biggest policy achievements of the Make America Healthy Again agenda. Rollins and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have urged states to submit food restriction plans, arguing that they will improve health outcomes and that federal dollars shouldn’t be funding junk food.

Kennedy also incentivized the states to apply by tying some federal rural health care funding to whether states had applied for a waiver to limit foods like soda in SNAP.

Keep reading

Flesh-Eating Screwworm Outbreak Threatens Texas Cattle Industry as Critical Sterile Fly Facility Faces Multi-Year Delay

A dangerous New World screwworm outbreak has been confirmed in Texas livestock for the first time in decades, raising serious concerns for the already struggling cattle industry, while an important domestic sterile fly production facility remains years away from full operation.

The Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service confirmed the first case in early June in a calf in Zavala County, Texas.

Additional cases have since been detected in cattle and a goat in Texas, and in a dog in New Mexico.

“This is believed to be an isolated case; however, because the dog’s recent travel and exposure history remain unknown, USDA and state partners have initiated inspection of additional animals in the dog’s home and increased outreach in the area while continuing to investigate the animal’s movement history,” the USDA said in an announcement.

The parasite, whose larvae burrow into the flesh of warm-blooded animals and feed on living tissue, poses a major threat to livestock, wildlife, and potentially pets.

While no human cases have been reported in the current outbreak, the screwworm can infest people in rare instances.

The U.S. cattle industry herd is already at its lowest level in 75 years due to droughts, high feed costs, and other factors.

The added expense of increased monitoring, quarantine measures, and treatment for infected animals is expected to further strain operations and could push beef prices higher for consumers.

According to a wire from Nerve News, “The most effective method to combat screwworm involves breeding sterile flies to disrupt the parasite’s reproductive cycle. However, a facility under construction at Moore Air Base in Texas will not begin producing sterile flies until November 2027, with full capacity not expected for several years. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins acknowledged the delay, stating that the US will not be able to eradicate the parasite until the facility reaches full production, but expressed optimism about containment efforts.”

“We’re not going to be able to eradicate it until we’ve got the couple hundred million more flies coming in, but we will be able to contain it,” Rollins said.

Once complete, the facility is expected to breed up to 300 million sterile flies per week.

In an effort to contain the outbreak, quarantines have been placed in multiple Texas counties, and surveillance efforts have been expanded.

USDA APHIS has begun releasing sterile flies in affected areas using existing inventory from Panama and Mexico.

Canada has implemented temporary restrictions on certain livestock imports from Texas as a precaution.

The USDA urged, “While not common in people, if you notice a suspicious lesion on your body or suspect you may have contracted screwworm, seek immediate medical attention.”

Keep reading

Amsterdam Bans Meat Ads as the War on Food Expands

Amsterdam’s decision to ban meat advertising should be viewed as part of a much broader trend that has been unfolding for years. Politicians insist this is about climate change. Every new restriction is presented as a noble sacrifice for to save the environment. Yet the target is almost always the same: farmers, ranchers, livestock producers, and regular people who are forced to sacrifice their health and livelihood for the globalist agenda.

The Netherlands has already spent years battling its own farming community through nitrogen regulations, forced buyouts, and restrictions that have pushed many family farms to the brink. Massive farmer protests erupted because people recognized that this was never merely about emissions. Agriculture was being redesigned from the top down. Now the campaign has moved beyond production and into culture itself. If citizens cannot be persuaded to abandon meat voluntarily, then governments will gradually make meat less visible, less available, more expensive, and increasingly stigmatized.

Many people dismissed concerns years ago when international organizations began discussing alternatives to traditional meat consumption. The World Economic Forum published articles exploring insects as a future protein source and repeatedly promoted dietary shifts away from actual meat. The argument was always framed around sustainability, carbon reduction, and environmental goals. They attempted to normalize chewing on bugs as an alternative to a steak. They claim it is our duty as global citizens to sacrifice essential nutrition to save the planet, despite knowing well that these measures would not make a meaningful dent in anything.

Keep reading