Over the past few decades, GMO crops have been imposed in countries around the world, touted as a solution to food insecurity and malnutrition crises. However, hunger, disease and malnutrition have increased, while biodiversity has declined and toxins have spread. GMO imperialism has destroyed the lives and livelihoods of small farmers and biodiversity in the centers of origin. These centers of biodiversity origin are the cradles of the world’s food supply and protection against disease, climate challenges, natural disasters or other obstacles to food production.
In Mexico, which is the center of origin of corn, there has been a long struggle by society and organized communities against GMO imperialism which threatens the subsistence and culture of local peoples. It is following this mobilization that the Mexican society obtained a ban on planting genetically modified corn through a collective lawsuit brought against the companies Bayer-Monsanto, Syngenta and Corteva Agriscience. This ban is still in effect.
Recently, the Mexican government issued an executive order phasing out the use of glyphosate and banning the use of genetically modified corn in tortillas, a staple food. Faced with this decision, the US government, on the basis of the United States-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement (USMCA), activated the dispute resolution mechanism with the aim of canceling the order and forcing the introduction of GMOs into the country.
The Mexican government as well as the non-governmental organizations from Mexico presented their Technical Opinions before this Panel, based on detailed scientific evidence, including new found evidence by Mexico’s scientific advisory board CONAHCYT, rooted in scientifically rigorous evidence from academic institutions. This evidence pointed out and warned about the multiple risks that make it pertinent and urgent to stop the presence of genetically manipulated maize in the food of the Mexican population, and as raw material for other industries.
From 12 to 16 March 2024, Navdanya International, together with Latin American partners and the Mexican Government, organized a series of events in Mexico City to build a common strategy against the imposition of new and old GMOs. The mobilization in Mexico City counted on the presence of representatives of Latin American movements such as Argentina, Colombia, Bolivia, Costa Rica and others, in collaboration with Mexican civil society organizations, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources and the Ministry of Culture. It was at the Ministry of Culture that the Garden of Milpa, the biodiverse traditional farming system of Mexico, was blessed at the Museum of Corn.
The case of Mexico represents the attempt of a people to protect their biodiverse cultures, their thousand-year-old food heritage, the health of their population and ecosystems. It is the case of a people who demand respect for their sovereignty and represents a beacon of hope for the places where this imposition continues. People have the right to have sovereignty over their health, and that starts with food sovereignty.
However, the GMO agenda has always been about patents and profits, not food and health. Food sovereignty is a high-level concept, because it implies the sovereignty of beings to manage and organize themselves and protect their right to health. This is why the goal of industrial agriculture has always been to push farmers off the land. It is inherent in the very definition of industrial agriculture. The sovereignty of people, farmers and nature has been violated by the imposition of agrotoxins, GMOs and ultra-processed foods, destroying diversity and ancient food cultures and threatening land, water and biodiversity.
Agribusiness and biotechnology giants are trying to circumvent existing biosafety regulations, such as the Cartagena and Nagoya Protocols of the Convention on Biological Diversity, by subtly making changes to GMO regulations, in order to promote GMOs under new acronyms, such as NBT (New Breeding Techniques), NGT (New Genomic Techniques) or TEA (Techniques of Assisted Evolution). These new GMOs have been silently inserted into the agricultural legislation in force in various countries, with the aim of maintaining patent monopolies in the hands of the chemical and biotechnology giants.
Today, our seed sovereignty is threatened by intellectual property rights and new GMO technologies that have transformed seeds from a common good into a commodity under the control and monopoly of multinational agri-food companies. Impositions continue to take place, violating the sovereignty and rights of people and nature, in furtherance of the corporate agenda. While multinationals get rich by stealing our biodiversity. Faced with this, building relationships, based on common struggle and the vision of an ecological future, contributes to creating international networks of resistance and solidarity. Together, as global citizens, we must unite to oppose the bullying of GMOs and defend our seeds.
Citizens are rising up against the unscientific, anti-democratic and anti-ecological imposition of GMOs by multinationals and the US government. The first generation of GMOs failed. But multinationals continue to impose genetically modified organisms, or new GMOs, in centers of diversity. They continue to shift the narrative towards framing nature and biodiversity as commodities to be commercialized and monopolized. In the wake of Mexico’s battle against the United States, it is necessary to support and strengthen international solidarity against the corporate imposition of industrial food systems.
Spring has sprung! ‘Tis the season of new growth, birdsong, and the pulling of garlic mustard! For those not interested in an interlude into the “weeds,” you can stop reading now.
I offer a brief segue to speak for the plants. Because soon, people will become activists in large groups to pull a plant called garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) out of the ground to end its life. Why has this tradition taken root in the greater part of the U.S., before this plant sets seed?
Did Nature get it wrong?
Or is garlic mustard misunderstood?
What is a Weed?
Herbalists know that no plant is a “weed,” since each plant has a purpose. Weeds do not exist in Nature. According to medical anthropologist Ben Belek:
Weeds don’t exist in the wild. They can’t exist. A weed is only a weed when an onlooker says it is. The property of weediness, I reflected, is little more than herbage out of place. Only when a hardworking farmer extends her field to make room for a cauliflower patch, does the hitherto wild flora that lived and thrived there suddenly transform into a nuisance. Only with foreign settlement, does indigeneity become adversarial.
If people uproot garlic mustard, it is because they are convinced it is a non-native, invasive plant. End of discussion. However, if we can align ourselves with the plant kingdom, then we can better understand them. We are not so different from our plant allies. Most humans are transplants. When humans are forced to leave their home, it is called eminent domain.
If Ends of Discussions do not sit right with you, then you might be a contrarian! You might align with garlic mustard, the contrarian of the plant world! Any good contrarian, anyone who rejects popular opinion, would not let the discussion end.
Our Nature Is Nature
Pulling garlic mustard where it is abundant prolongs its run. It also robs a great deal of nitrogen, macro- and micronutrients, and organic matter from the ecosystem.— Dr. Berndt Blossey, Cornell University
As we have begun this discussion, let us continue with some basic definitions that humans ascribe to the plant kingdom.
Invasive plants are plants that have been introduced to an ecosystem and are poised to take over. According to Naturalists, invasive plants have aggressive root systems that spread long distances. They may smother other plants in the area. Some produce chemicals which impact the growth of plants around them. Basically, these plants dominate and some claim they don’t offer the benefits to local fauna. [There are politicians who qualify as invasive.]
Consider the Dandelion (Taxacum officinale), a transplant from “somewhere else” that has naturalized itself in every part of the world but Antarctica! Sound similar to human migration? Today, the dandelion is listed as invasive only in Oregon and Alaska. Perhaps more people have come to appreciate her gifts and place in the world.
Dandelions were once native to Eurasia, before they have become native everywhere. It is generally believed that the dandelion was first brought to North America on the Mayflower for its medicinal uses. In Europe, China, India and Russia dandelions were used to treat skin, infection, liver (root), kidneys (leaf) and digestive problems (the root balances HCL, aids constipation).
In Chinese Medicine, liver is known to be the seat of anger. Thus, dandelion leaves and roots help to detoxify an angry liver. As a flower essence, the sunny countenance of the dandelion works with the solar plexus to release trauma related to fears, ego, self worth, and personal power.
Non-native plants are also introduced plants, but they don’t have the negative reputation that invasive plants do. They could produce foliage or blooms that benefit local wildlife and they don’t take over their habitat. Dandelion qualifies here, too.
Native plants are well adapted to survive in their environment. They typically need less water, less fertilizing, and overall less care to fit in and thrive. Stay long enough in one place, and plants qualify as “native.”
Over time, the dandelion has gathered many names from the locals. In the case of the solar, resilient dandelion, she is known as all three: “native, non-native, invasive.” Beyond human classification, her flowers make a tasty jelly, while her roots make a great coffee alternative as a tea.
Garlic Mustard Misunderstood
Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), too, has a lot to offer humanity. However, she is called pernicious,exotic, and a Class A noxious weed on a list of plants to be controlled. That’s a lot to overcome. With all the publicity, this plant that has captured the attention of plant lovers and haters, alike. Insults aside, who is she really?
A member of the cabbage and broccoli family (Brassicaceae), garlic mustard grows 2-3 (up to 6) feet tall all over the Northeast and Midwest U.S. Lower leaves are kidney-shaped with scalloped edges. In spring, roots and new leaves smell like garlic, and small, four-petal white flowers appear clustered at stem ends, followed by long, skinny seedpods.
The family Brassicacea does not consider her evil. As a medicinal, the leaves and stems of garlic mustard are: antiasthmatic, antiscorbutic, antiseptic, deobstruent, diaphoretic, vermifuge and vulnerary.
According to Maude Grieve’s, A Modern Herbal, “The leaves used to be taken internally as a sudorific and deobstruent, to promote sweating and to treat bronchitis, asthma and eczema. Externally, leaves are antiseptic in gangrenes and ulcers, and against itching caused by bites and stings. The juice of the leaves taken alone or boiled into a syrup with honey is found serviceable in dropsy. The herb, when eaten as a salad, warms the stomach and strengthens the digestive faculties. The seeds have been used as a snuff to excite sneezing.”
This plant has the spicy tang of mustard with a hint of garlic, and can be used as a base for pesto and sauces, and to flavor salads, soups and other dishes. That qualifies as sassy, not noxious.
However, eating her leaves has not worked well as a control strategy. Plant stands can produce more than 62,000 seeds per square meter, and can self-pollinate, which helps it rapidly spread, to displace native plants along trails, in forests, and on riverbanks.
Out of the way, garlic mustard minds her own business, perfectly happy in a group, not bothering anyone, friend to the deer. After all, in the wilds of Nature, plants with such a bad reputation must work in creative ways to survive.
Self-Regulating Life Style
To survive, garlic mustard populations secrete a compound called sinigrin, a chemical that deters the growth of other plants and decreases competition. In 2016, researchers at the University of Illinois found that within three decades, “sinigrin concentrations decrease as garlic mustard populations age, demonstrating evolutionary change due to ecological processes.” Garlic mustard declines when it reaches a balance with native species that re-colonize invaded areas.
One of the things we’ve seen over the last 20 to 30 years is that garlic mustard becomes less of an issue, and actually balances out over time.—Adam Davis, ecologist, U of I, and USDA Agricultural Research Service
Garlic mustard is self-regulating. Its life cycle runs about 20-30 years. As the plants age, they die off completely. Other species are then able to move back in.
If humans were to look closer to garlic mustard’s example, we might find we are not so different. Nature is self-regulating, just as we are.
The more deer in the area, the more garlic mustard. The deer are forced to eat the garlic mustard instead of the native plant species. Garlic mustard plays a role in defense of the collective plant world.
Doing Less is More
A decade-long Cornell University study of garlic mustard has shown that avoidance is the best way to manage garlic mustard. Conservation biologist, Dr. Berndt Blossey, says:
Pulling up large swaths of garlic mustard is not only futile, it is worse than leaving it alone. It bears echoing: When well-intentioned people rip out this stuff, it actually prolongs the infestation period because the plant self-limits (more on that below) if undisturbed. Also, these mass garlic mustard-ectomy events do more damage to the ecosystem than the target species itself does. —Dr. Berndt Blossey
The study found (see video): “Side-by-side controlled trials showed that where garlic mustard is “managed,” the plants are considerably larger, and cover a much higher percentage of a site (at times by an order of magnitude) than the sections where nothing has been done. Not only that, but biomass on the managed sites tended to be roughly stable over the ten-year time frame studied, whereas it declined year after year in the unmanaged plots.”
Blossey says people wrongly conclude that “maple sap flows up from the roots during the day; goldenrod causes allergy symptoms; and garlic mustard wipes out native wildflowers and adversely affects salamanders.” Upon closer examination, these conclusions are demonstrably 100% false:
It turns out that while garlic mustard competes with native species, it does not displace them where deer are excluded or drastically reduced in number. And it is earthworms, not our maligned invasive plant, which make a neighborhood less attractive to salamanders. —Dr. Berndt Blossey
Nature teaches that one can have intellect but not wisdom. Wisdom is not a group activity. When it comes to the ways of garlic mustard, wisdom beats activism.
According to Pascal Baudar, author of Wildcrafted Fermentation, a book about lacto fermentation of common wild edibles, stone ground black mustard seeds (Brassica nigra) make plant-based cheeses, fermenting mushrooms, sauces, soups, condiments, and more. Baudar says:
I don’t know why this resource is simply wasted, an L.A. Times article from 2019 called the plant “evil” because it covers our local hills. With such narrative, you’re going nowhere in terms of positive solutions. I wish the city had a special program to look at culinary solutions for the abundant wild food surrounding us.
I mean, instead of spending money on chemicals you probably could make money selling gourmet organic mustard with the profit going back to helping the environment. Why not? Some people would make a point to buy it.
Of course, in spring time you can also do all kinds of recipe with the leaves and flowers. I think it’s much more creative than spraying Round-Up or wasting this delicious “unwanted” resource by throwing it away.Organic all the way.
Bauder shares garlic mustard recipes on his June 15, 2022 post Facebook page: “These days, I use a different technique. I soak the seeds for 3 days in a mix of 2 parts vinegar and 1 part wine and was able to make this wild “Dijon” mustard in 5 minutes during a class last weekend. Those “Invasive” plants can truly be gourmet food and so easy to procure. It took me 30 minutes to gather enough seeds to fill nearly 2 cups.
Be Like Garlic Mustard
If you have stood by, wondering why people expend so much time and energy on digging up plants in the wild, without understanding their unique qualities, then you, too, are a contrarian. Why not celebrate this unique quality with some garlic mustard, and dandelion tea?
Few of us were born when the forces for milk pasteurization launched the first major attack on Nature’s perfect food. In 1945, a magazine called Coronet published an article, “Raw Milk Can Kill You,” blaming raw milk for an outbreak of brucellosis in a town called Crossroads, U.S.A., killing one-third of the inhabitants. The Reader’s Digest picked up the story and ran it a year later.
Just one problem with this piece of “reporting.” There was no town called Crossroads and no outbreak of brucellosis. The whole story was a fabrication—otherwise known as a lie. And lies about raw milk have continued ever since.
Unfortunately, the fictitious Crossroads story paved the way for laws against selling raw milk, starting with Michigan in 1948.
Here’s another example of lies against raw milk (which I referenced in an earlier post,[i] but it is worth repeating). In 2007, John F. Sheehan, BSc (Dy), JD, US Food & Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition (USFDA/CFSAN), Division of Dairy and Egg Safety, prepared a Powerpoint maligning raw milk; it was presented to the 2005 National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS) by Cindy Leonard, MS.[ii]
As shown in the table below, all of the fifteen reports associating outbreaks of foodborne illness with raw milk that Sheehan cites are seriously flawed. For example, in two of the fifteen, the study authors presented no evidence that anyone consumed raw milk products and in one of them, the outbreak did not even exist. Not one of the studies showed that pasteurization would have prevented the outbreak.
No Valid Positive Milk Sample
12/15
80%
No Valid Statistical Association with Raw Milk
10/15
67%
Findings Misrepresented by FDA
7/15
47%
Alternatives Discovered, Not Pursued
5/15
33%
No Evidence Anyone Consumed Raw Milk Products
2/15
13%
Outbreak Did Not Even Exist
1/15
13%
Did Not Show that Pasteurization Would Have Prevented Outbreak
15/15
100%
Fast forward to the present and the ruckus about bird flu in dairy cows—more lies, very clever lies, but lies nevertheless.
In a press release dated March 25, 2024 ,[iii] the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as well as state veterinary and public health officials, announced investigation of “an illness among primarily older dairy cows in Texas, Kansas, and New Mexico that is causing decreased lactation, low appetite, and other symptoms.”
The agencies claim that samples of unpasteurized milk from sick cattle in Kansas and Texas have tested positive for “highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI).” Officials blame the outbreak on contact with “wild migratory birds” and possibly from transmission between cattle. The press release specifically warns against consumption of raw milk, a warning repeated in numerous publications and Internet postings.
According to the press release, national laboratories have confirmed the presence of HPAI (Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza) through testing, but it does not reveal the type of test used to detect this so-called viral illness.
THE FIRST LIE: Researchers have found HPAI virus in the milk of sick cows.
Officials have NOT found any viruses in the milk or any other secretions of the sick cows. The CDC has yet to reply to repeated requests for proof of finding the isolated HPAI virus in any fluid of any sick chicken or other animal.[iv] Nor have health and agriculture agencies in Canada,[v] Japan[vi], the UK[vii] and Europe[viii] provided any proof of an isolated avian influenza virus.
As for all the studies you can find in a PubMed search claiming “isolation” of a virus, not one of them shows the true isolation of a virus, any virus, from the fluids (phlegm, blood, urine, lung fluids, etc) of any animal, bird or human.[ix]
The truth is that “viruses” serve as the whipping boy for environmental toxins, and in the confinement animal system, there are lots of them–hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, methane and ammonia from excrement, for example.[x] Then there are toxins in the feed, such as arsenic added to chicken feed, and mycotoxins, tropane and β-carboline alkaloids in soybean meal.[xi] By blaming nonexistent viruses, agriculture officials can avoid stepping on any big industry toes nor add to the increasing public disgust with the confinement animal system.
Way back in 2006, researchers Crowe and Englebrecht published an article entitled, “Avian flu virus H5N1: No proof for existence, pathogenicity, or pandemic potential; non-‘H5N1’z causation omitted.”[xii]Nothing has changed since then.
Here’s your homework assignment: Contact USDA at Aphispress@usda.gov and ask them to provide proof of the isolation of the HPAI virus or any virus in the milk of the sick cattle.
SECOND LIE: National laboratories have confirmed the presence of HPAI (Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza) through testing.
They don’t say anything about the kind of test they used, but it almost certainly the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test. The PCR test detects genetic material from a pathogen or abnormal cell sample and allows researchers to make many copies of a small section of DNA or RNA. The test was not designed to determine or diagnose disease, it was designed to amplify or increase a certain piece of genetic material.
Each “amplification” is a doubling of the material. If you amplify thirty times you will get a negative; amplify 36 times or more, and you will get a positive. At 60 amplifications, everyone will “test positive” for whatever bit of genetic material you believe can cause disease.[xiii] If you want to show that you have a pandemic brewing, just amplify, amplify, amplify. Folks, this is not a valid test, not good science by any stretch of the imagination—especially as there was no virus to begin with.
How many times did our health officials amplify the samples they obtained from the milk of the sick cows? Be sure to ask them when you email Aphispress@usda.gov for proof of the virus.
THIRD LIE: The “virus” is highly pathogenic.
According to the Wall Street Journal, one—just one–person working in the dairies got sick and tested positive for avian influenza after exposure to dairy cattle presumed to be infected with the H5N1 bird flu.[xiv] The person reported eye redness, or conjunctivitis, as his only symptom—a symptom that can be explained by exposure to any of the many airborne toxins in confinement dairies. (How are they treating the illness? With vitamin A and herbal eyedrops? No, the poor sod is getting treatment with a toxic antiviral drug.)
According to the CDC, the disease in humans ranges from mild infections, which include upper-respiratory and eye-related symptoms, to severe pneumonia. If the “virus” is so highly pathogenic, we’d expect a lot of workers working around these sick cows to end up in the hospital. . . but we’ve heard of none so far.
FOURTH LIE: You can get avian fly from drinking raw milk, but pasteurized milk is safe
According to medical biologist Peg Coleman,[xv] “Recent risk communications from CDC, FDA, and USDA regarding transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza virus or HPAI (subtype H5N1) to humans via raw milk include no supporting evidenceof viral transmission from raw milk to humans in the peer-reviewed literature. . . An extensive body of scientific evidence from the peer-reviewed literature . . . does not support the assumption by these US government agencies that [non-existent] HPAI transmits to humans via milkborne or foodborne routes and causes disease. Nor does the scientific evidence support the recommendation that consumers should avoid raw milk and raw milk products [emphasis in the original].”[xvi]
Coleman notes the suite of bioactive components in raw milk, including bovine milk, that destroy pathogens and strengthen the gut wall. “Many of these bioactive components of raw milk are . . . sensitive to heat and may be absent, inactive, or present in lower concentrations in pasteurized milks. . . Cross-disciplinary evidence demonstrates that raw milk from healthy cows is not inherently dangerous, consistent with the CDC evidence of trends for 2005-2020 and evidence of benefits and risks. There is no scientific evidence that HPAI in raw milk causes human disease.”
And while USDA, FDA and CDC assure the public that pasteurization will make milk safe, they note that “Milk from infected animals is being diverted or destroyed,” implying that pasteurization alone does not guarantee safety. In any event, sales of industrial pasteurized milk continue their relentless decline.
Fortunately, raw milk drinkers are already skeptical of government pronouncements and are skilled at seeing through lies. Both large and small raw milk dairy farms report that sales are booming. The current bird flu fracas is just another Crossroads, U.S.A., a bunch of lies fostered by a dishonest dairy industry taking aim at the competition.
Seeds are emblematic of the connections between our lives, our food, our health and our freedom. They are the first link in the food chain. They embody our heritage and enfold the future evolution of life. The cultivation of seeds and their free exchange among farmers is the core foundation of our biodiversity and our food security. To have control over seeds is to have control over our lives, our food and our freedom.
Bio-imperialism severely threatens this freedom today through intellectual property rights. Old and new GMO technologies that have transformed seeds from a commons shared by farmers, to a commodity under the control and monopoly of agribusiness corporations. This imperialism seeks to appropriate the world’s seeds, destroying the lives and livelihoods of peasant communities, as well as biodiversity, but more seriously, in territories recognized as centers of origin. These centers of origin of biodiversity are the cradles of the world’s food supply, and the protection against plague, climate challenges, natural disasters or other hindrances to food production.
Over the last few decades, GMO crops have been imposed in countries all over the world, advertised as a solution to food insecurity and the malnutrition crisis. However, hunger, disease and malnutrition have increased, while biodiversity has declined and toxins have spread. Corporations have forced the introduction of genetically manipulated seeds to impose Food Imperialism through various tools such as regulatory frameworks for intellectual property of seeds, such as UPOV 91, and other legal mechanisms like Trade Dispute Settlement Panels. GMO imperialism has destroyed the lives and livelihoods of small farmers and biodiversity around the world and especially in these centers of origin.
Most recently, agribusiness and biotech giants are attempting to bypass existing biosafety regulations, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Cartagena and Nagoya Protocols by quietly making changes to GMO regulation around the world, in order to promote these new GMOs under new acronyms, such as NBTs (New Breeding Techniques), NGTs (New Genomic Techniques), or TEAs (Techniques of Assisted Evolution). These new GMOs have been silently dovetailing into different countries’ existing agricultural legislation, with the aim still being patent monopolies in the hands of the big chemical and biotechnology giants.
This deregulation would allow gene edited crops to:
Be commercialized with no environmental or consumption safety testing
Require no labeling
Have little to no traceability
Be free from public disclosure of gene edited organisms
Mass deregulation
Be patented without disclosure
These new GMOs are leaving farmers, and citizens completely in the dark as to what is in their food and are an attempt to subvert sovereign governments, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and biosafety laws, with their imposition. The biotech industry has claimed that their gene edited products, including seed, plants, microorganism, and animals, are to be considered the same as their conventional counterparts. This deregulation of old and new GMOs absolves the biotech industry from any responsibility and is a continued attack on food sovereignty.
Agribusiness companies have not solved any issue for humanity on the pretext of false narratives around GMOs solving problems of food supplies. The true basis of the world’s food supply is free seeds, the heritage of humanity that contain the answers to pests, climate challenges and other threats to the world’s production of healthy and sufficient food, not GMOs and Bio-Imperialism. GMOs cannot be forced upon communities, violating norms of democracy and freedom.
All over the world, citizens are rising against the unscientific, undemocratic, anti-ecological imposition of GMOs by corporations. The first generation of GMOs has failed, but corporations continue to impose gene-edited organisms, or new GMOs, in centers of diversity. They continue to shift their narrative towards framing nature and biodiversity as commodities for commercialization and patent monopolies.
Imposition of GM corn in Mexico has global ramifications
In Mexico, which is the center of origin of maize, just as in other centers of biodiversity, there has been a long struggle by society and organized communities against GMO imperialism threatening the subsistence and culture of its peoples. To date, Mexican society has achieved a ban on the planting of GM maize in Mexico through a class action lawsuit filed against the companies like Bayer-Monsanto, Syngenta and Cortiva Agriscience. This ban is still in force, which since 2013 has prevented the planting of genetically manipulated maize in Mexican territories.
Mexican NGOs have bravely continued to resist genetically modified maize to strengthen access to healthy, sustainable and culturally appropriate food for all people; to defend the food sovereignty of peasant and indigenous communities, responsible for developing the 59 breeds and thousands of varieties of maize existing in Mexico, which are also part of the milpa, a holistic, sustainable and biodiverse system that involves other staple foods such as beans, chili peppers, squash, quelites and amaranth.
Recently, the Mexican government issued an executive order that proposes the gradual prohibition of the use of glyphosate and the use of GM maize in food products, such as tortillas, a staple food for Mexicans. GMOs compromise access to healthy, sustainable, culturally appropriate foods free of genetically modified organisms. Faced with this decision, the U.S. government, based on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement (USMCA), and under the duress, of agribusiness lobby, installed a dispute settlement panel to reject the Mexican government’s decision to restrict the use of genetically manipulated (modified) maize in human food and the importation of glyphosate, citing lack of scientific evidence of their harm. This Dispute Settlement Panel neglects the risks to human health, the environment and biodiversity associated with genetically manipulated maize. In addition, it jeopardizes the food sovereignty of the entire Mexican population, since maize is an indispensable food.
In response to this omission, on March 15th, non-governmental organizations from Mexico presented their Technical Opinions before the Panel, arguments based on reliable scientific evidence, including new found evidence by Mexico’s scientific advisory board CONAHCYT, rooted in scientifically rigorous evidence from academic institutions. This evidence points out and warns about the multiple risks that make it pertinent and urgent to stop the presence of genetically manipulated maize in the food of the Mexican population, and as raw material for other industries.
The case of Mexico is a people’s attempt to guard their biodiverse cultures, inheritance, food, health and fields. It is a case of a people demanding their sovereignty be respected. It is a statement to the world and to agribusiness that they cannot continue to impose their system that violates and destroys sovereignty at all these levels, and has wave after wave destroyed health, the land and biodiversity.
On March 5, 2024 Mexico published its formal response to the dispute where its submission presented evidence supporting the implementation of precautionary measures aimed at safeguarding consumers from potential health risks associated with imported GM corn from the U.S. and residues of glyphosate. They noted that the scientific data regarding the safety of GMOs presented by the U.S. was outdated, with a significant portion originating from industry-sponsored studies lacking peer-reviewed support. They pointed out that the regulatory process in the U.S. lacks sufficient stringency to guarantee the safety of products for consumption by Mexicans. Furthermore, the Mexican submission highlighted that Genetically modified (GM) corn, designed to eliminate insect pests, has strong potential to pose negative effects on non-target animals with research that has demonstrated that mammals can experience harm to their digestive systems due to a GM trait that targets the guts of pests, leading to unintended consequences.
While the US claimed that Mexico’s ban is “unscientific”, IATP Senior Advisor Timothy A. Wise highlighted that Mexico’s response “refutes that claim, presenting hundreds of academic studies that show cause for concern about human health and the threat to native corn diversity.”
Significantly, The US claim that Mexico’s ban is unscientific is completely unjustified as the US never signed onto the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. It has no biosafety regulatory organism to judge the safety of these GM foods. It is based instead on “substantial equivalence” which is not enough to be considered as a safety assessment in itself. This principle doesn’t prioritize consumer protection from health risks nor does it provide consumers with comprehensive information regarding the actual level of risks and hazards associated with “novel foods” (in this case GMO foods) compared to traditional ones.
Globally, Mexico’s case is important due to the current context of the world. Due to the industrial food system, we are seeing the rise of chronic diseases rooted in metabolic disorders, increasing ecological disasters, lack of water and declining biodiversity. Mexico defending its cultural and food heritage is equivalent to a country taking a stand, backed by scientific evidence and government support, against the continuation of these multiple crises.
Furthermore, the significance of this case is that an unfavorable resolution for Mexico in this Panel, would limit Mexican people’s right to decide which seeds to plant and which types of maize to feed themselves with. This directly jeopardizes the traditional Mexican cuisine which is central to the cultural identity of the communities that practice and transmit it from generation to generation and has been recognised as Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity by UNESCO.
This in turn also has the potential to devastatingly affect all other centers of biodiversity and interconnected food cultures around the world who will continue to face such attacks on their sovereignty.
In the face of this local and global Bio-imperialism, Navdanya International joined together with the campaign Sin Maiz No Hay País, and Via Orgánica, along with the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT), the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (SADER) and the Ministry of Culture, along with other Latin American movements to organize events from March 12th to 16th in Mexico City to carve a common strategy against the further imposition of new and old GMOs around the world, sharing experiences, struggles and solidarity in defense of Biodiversity, Food and Seed Freedom, through strengthening the support and solidarity, in cultivating and connecting different organizations, movements and people.
These meetings and convergences helped create a gathering place for solidarity by bringing together representatives from movements from all over Latin America and beyond to demonstrate that this struggle goes beyond individual borders. All over the world the impostions continue to take place, directly violating the sovereignty and rights of people and nature, in favor of corporate agenda.
José Bernardo Magdaleno Velazco (Nino), President of the Peasant Union, Totikes, Chiapas emphasized that “we are not alone in this fight”. Together with activists and organizations such as the Campaña Nacional Sin Maíz No Hay País, Semillas de Vida, Vía Organica, Regeneration International, Bloque Verde, Probioma, Naturaleza De Derechos, and Semillas de Identidad- Colombia, Navdanya International joined the demand for governments around the world to stop genetically manipulated seeds, which threaten the survival of food and agricultural systems based on biological and cultural diversity.
These events carved a convergence of movements, to stand in defense of our biocultural diversity and food heritage across the world, in resistance to old GMOs and new GMOs.
It is in this coming together of different movements and voices united in their goal of food and seed sovereignty that these events in Mexico led to the emergence of an interconnected strength and resistance. Where the nurturing of solidarity and a reminder of a common resistance despite varied contexts, echoed and re-iterated that together, we are all more than the sum of the parts. Building relationships and connections, across organizations, across movements and beyond countries is necessary for effectively resisting this GMO imperialism. This interconnected strength is what we have to tap into, to continue our struggle in defense of life, diversity and freedom.
Significance: Food sovereignty as a driving force for political sovereignty
The current socio-political context of Mexico’s demand of autonomy based on being a center of diversity and cultural heritage is unique because food sovereignty is the driving force behind the political sovereignty of the people. This reiterates that every kind of autonomy is rooted in food and seed.
At the event held on March 12, 2024 at Mexican Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (SADER), Mexico City called “In Defense of Food Sovereignty”, Dr. Vandana Shiva, President of Navdanya International in her keynote lecture on food sovereignty, mentioned that it was so important to celebrate cultures where cultural diversity and biodiversity are not seen as separate. She added that “Food sovereignty is a high level concept, because it implies the sovereignty of beings to manage and organize themselves toward health.” The cultivation of biodiversity has to imply sovereignty at all levels. Sovereignty is needed at all levels for organisms to be able to freely develop and evolve, self organize toward health.
Leydy Pech, evocatively added in the same event that “In Maya, we have no word for GMO, we call them instead seeds that have no heart, seeds with no life.” Furthermore, she asked a significant question, potent for everyone around the world: “Our seeds, our knowledge is our inheritance, with this destruction what will we inherit in the future?”
As also highlighted by Jesús Ramírez Cuevas, general coordinator of social communication and spokesperson for the Government of the Mexican Republic, “Mexican sovereignty starts with food sovereignty.” It is food sovereignty and the sovereignty of all interconnected beings to self-organize and grow with health that holds the power of resistance politically, economically and socially.
GMO imperialism is an attack on this sovereignty of all interconnected beings at all levels of self organization. It is an attack on life itself.
As Leydy Pech echoed: “You cannot call what goes against life, development”. Dr. María Elena Álvarez-Buylla Roces, general director of the National Council of humanities, sciences and technologies (CONAHCYT) said that “On a global level the deregulation and imposition of GMOs and toxic food systems is a denial of sovereignty and right to health on multiple levels.” She added that Mexico’s success in asserting its own sovereignty on seeds and food policies would be a beacon for other countries to be able to assert their food sovereignty and seed freedom in turn.
Biodiversity at all levels
A Seminar on Biodiversity Protection titled “Protection and Conservation of Biodiversity in Centers of Origin” was held on March 15, 2024 at the Mexican Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) Headquarters, Mexico City. This seminar analyzed and discussed strategies to conserve and protect natural resources in countries that are centers of origin and genetic diversity of species, through a dialogues, work round tables, and discussions for common strategy with key actors of the Mexican government, representatives from Latin America, Asia, the United States, and others in the protection and conservation of biodiversity in Latin America and other regions.
Maestro Iván Rico López, Subsecretary of Environmental Planning and Policy, SEMARNAT highlighted that “Megadiverse countries, the centers of origin of crop varieties, have greater responsibility in protecting the world’s biodiversity. We have learned that our plant genetic heritage is our cultural heritage. Natural and Social aspects go hand in hand, as those who have preserved the genetic diversity are the indigenous peoples.”
Columba López, Director of the Commission for Natural Resources and Rural Development, CORENADR, emphasized the key to this biodiversity being in the hands of the farmers. It is the farmers who are the custodians of these biodiverse foods, cultures, seeds, knowledges. She said that “We work on native seeds in our Seed Houses. We cultivate and replicate seeds through agroecological practices in the field. We develop seeds that adapt in the mountains or near the water, that are climate resilient and we do it through farmers’ participatory breeding.”
Biodiversity at all levels produces health, diversity in our farms, our seed, our foods, our cultures etc. having a biodiverse field in line with local ecosystem and cultural heritage, gives us a diversity of foods, and a diversity of food cultures. This is how we create health first in our fields all the way to our plates and our guts.
Dr. Vandana Shiva, of Navdanya International highlighted that, “Indigenous peoples and communities know that seeds continuously evolve. By turning biodiversity into technology they (corporations) deny the creativity of biodiversity, they go against how nature works. Diversity is a living necessity.” She further reiterated that, “The colonizing mentality considers living beings as disposable and nature as raw material to be extracted. Mexico is recovering the dignity of natural resources, which are the basis of our health and well-being & the health of the planet.”
Similarly, at the event held on March 16, 2024 held at Cencalli, Museo de maíz y centro de la cultura alimentaria, Los Pinos, Ciudad de México, in the presence of the Alejandra Frausto Guerrero, from the Ministry of Culture, Victor Sanchez reaffirmed the need to resist the food imperialism that destroys our cultures by defending our biodiversity and strengthening seed freedom. Navdanya International co-organized this event with Campaña Nacional Sin Maíz No Hay País, Via Organica and Regeneration International. Andre Leu, Director of Regeneration International, discussed the latest evidence of negative health effects caused by exposure to glyphosate: “There’s scientific evidence about the correlations between the introduction of glyphosate and transgenic crops and the increase in diseases such as cancer, obesity, kidney failure and autism.”
Mercedes López Martínez from Vía Orgánica, Mexico, discussed the great importance of protecting small farmers and indigenous communities as the backbone of a thriving food culture. Miguel Ángel Crespo of Probioma, Bolivia shared how, “The fight to protect biodiversity and genetic resources is also political, legal and scientific.”
It is this interconnection of diversity at all levels, including diversity of organizations and movements reflecting the interconnection and sovereignty of organisms that is needed to resist GMO imperialism from the ground up.
The ‘deep state’ has no power over you. None. It can only try and make you believe it does.
And in this it is very clever, using sophisticated psychological techniques that give the impression of holding the dominant position and exercising the dominant power.
But this is a chimera; and immediately one sees it as such one manifests the authoritative position and the deep state is in check; it can only operate defensively.
This it does by putting up ever greater barriers to freedom of expression, movement and choice.
It knows it’s on the losing side, so has to pull all the tricks in the trade to make itself appear to be in control. It’s a psychological battlefield.
Edward Bernays, the founder of modern advertising, has had much to do with weaponising the powers of perception and deception. He found that you can get people to believe and do almost anything once you learn how to exploit their psyche with carefully chosen imagery and words.
Once you tap into people’s widespread subconscious attraction to the trappings of seductive consumables.
The deep state’s corporate/banker led ‘seeming’ global dominance draws on Bernays’s cunning, using advanced insights concerning how to influence the functions of different areas of the human brain.
The objective is to come up with a blanket like web of virtual signposting pointing to the direction life must go in in order to overcome some purposefully manufactured crisis. A crisis that is claimed will otherwise cook, starve or destroy people and the planet.
People in a state of funk take all this to be real, of course, and plod on with their tunnel vision acceptance of the pathological diktats of the status quo.
The deep state cabal has a mental hold over their perception of what is and is not true, and rolls out the moderators, fact checkers and ‘sudden silencers’ to counteract anything that emerges as an emissary of truth. Many of us have had firsthand experience of this executioner formula.
Nevertheless, ‘we the purposeful people’ are winning through. There is simply too much informative material on the loose for the thought/surveillance police to cover, in spite of their algorithmic interventions.
Their tactic is therefore to try to gain the upper hand by pushing harder on the ‘disaster agenda.’ This is exemplified by the global dissemination of the dystopian agenda laid out in Klaus Schwab’s Fourth Industrial Revolution.
The most ubiquitous cooked-up disaster is, of course, ‘man-made global warming’ – with its stated solution to be the Transhuman. All steps in between are sold as vital to advancing the speed and efficiency of the ‘human to inhuman’ transformation process.
The digitalisation of life is central to the architects of control argument that humanity is incapable of managing itself and that, without their intervention, the outcome will be the complete breakdown of planetary life.
Only a race of soulless computer assisted ‘super beings’ can save the day, say the likes of Yuval Noah Harari, Elon Musk and Klaus Schwab.
Consider how this agenda plays on the psychology of those who have yet to find in themselves the self-assurance to discard that which has no practical sense of purpose and no foundation in basic common sense.
The architects of control count on the majority remaining unresistant to the rolling out of their high-tech hegemonic master plan. So much so that they can freely announce that by following it “You will own nothing and you will be happy.”
In the psychological battle for truth, the perpetrators of the lie have access to a vast storehouse of mind-bending persuasion techniques to make their agenda seem the only choice.
They recognise that when a high percentage of individuals believe themselves to be unable to operate without a mobile phone – they will be sufficiently unfocussed and distracted so as to be unable to rebel against a fateful acceptance of slavery to the big brother of convenience.
Easily manipulated victims of digital mass hypnosis.
Here lies the rub: if the upwardly mobile urban ‘educated’ segment of society sees no problem conducting their lives within a credit card bubble of hypermarket convenience shopping, digital EMF communication systems, computer fed entertainment packages and a well-paid job in a global or trans national corporation – where is the resistance going to come from?
If this genre of people is already too far gone to register an internal kick when faced by a high-level plan to ‘happily’ have all their material assets taken away from them – then who or what is going to raise the alarm?
It looks to me as though only a small percentage of mankind can read the script being outlined for their future behind bars. Only a few can grasp the psychology of the insentient psychopath and his soulless urge to possess and control, at any price.
But once one moves outside the world of Godless urban shopping obsessed nine to fivers and ‘well-educated’ university trained job hunters, a potential to get real starts to emerge.
Amongst those working people who regularly get their hands dirty, who till the fields; build shelters; repair cars; mend pipes; fix electrics and dig drains, the virtual reality digital cybernetic future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution – and Green New Deal – looks like pure fantasy. The ravings of the unhinged.
They don’t need to mentally struggle in order to try to grasp the twisted logic being broadcast by the global media mafia. They simply know in their gut that it’s so much ‘bull’.
It is those who form the foundation of pyramid who hold society together. Who glue together the basic infrastructure which supports our daily lives. And it is from here that an increasing percentage reject the psychology of mental indoctrination and the promotion of a digitalised virtual future.
The ‘Throw out Green Deal’ remarkable, unified farmer uprisings happening in all parts of Europe and beyond are testimony to this. They are rising up against the imposition of phony ‘Net Zero by 2045’ rules that demand an end to farmers working the land and an end to the livestock that keep that land fertile.
These farmers are out in their tens of thousands. In Poland they are mounting month long tractor blockades of cities, supermarkets and border crossings. Coals miners, faced by being shut out by large scale ‘stop global warming’ redundancies, are joining the uprising.
Farmers say they will not cease their disruptions until their demands are met by government and by the EU.
This is the refreshingly undiluted language of genuine defiance.
It has the authorities rattled. Green Deal is, after all, the very backbone of the agenda to enslave us all to a Brave New World of synthetic everything – from food to nature to people.
The general public are in sympathy with the farmers’ actions. Approximately 80% of European citizens are on their side according to opinion surveys.
Getting a solid core of consumers to rise up and participate in this bottom-up movement for the survival of real food and real farming will be vital to maintaining the momentum.
Coming from an unlikely place, a solid earthed uprising is gathering pace. The farmers’ demands are essentially for economic fairness, respect and recognition of the vital roll they play in the food security of the nation.
Under ‘Green Deal’ none of these demands are taken seriously. The WEF solution is not to support the agricultural community but to destroy it!
In the 2024 battle for truth, everyone should behave as resolutely as the farmers. The need is to be uncompromising in one’s face to face dealings with political liars and hypocrites.
We are the trustees of Planet Earth. In order to maintain its balance and equilibrium – we have no choice other than to enter into a pactless fight against all opposing forces.
Those who have land, can grow food and draw water from the well, are the last independent individuals on the planet. They are not about to capitulate to a bunch of psychos in Brussels, London, Warsaw, Washington or Paris – and nor are we.
Everyone’s life is dependent upon having access to nourishing food. Therefore, everyone’s life is dependent upon the survival and future prosperity of the farmer.
Support them now in their hour of need. Their need is also your need.
They have no future – and nor do we – without a lifesaving revolution that re-establishes the priorities for what is actually important in life. Think deeply about this and then act on it without delay.
And if you’re left in doubt – ask farmers who actually controls the food chain. Who is really in the driving seat when it comes to feeding the world?
Rise up, all good people. Take your destiny in both hands. Vigorously join together in forging a great victory for humanity over inhumanity.
Allowing oneself to slide into a state of abject slavery is a doctrine of the graveyard.
All those retaining some life-giving red blood corpuscles know that the road to truth accepts no compromise and can never be subverted by the orchestrated opium of mass indoctrination.
Julian Rose is an organic farmer, writer, broadcaster and international activist.
Cover image credit: European Commission (Christophe Licoppe)
Tractors parked and road traffic at a standstill in the European Quarter in Brussels, February 1, 2024 — creative commons
Pesticide Exposure Linked to Obesity, Type 2 Diabetes, and Metabolic Disease in Seniors
(Beyond Pesticides, February 27, 2024) Popular culture and official policy continue to ignore a blatant source of the rise in obesity: chemical exposures, including pesticides. A study, “Associations of chronic exposure to a mixture of pesticides and type 2 diabetes mellitus in a Chinese elderly population,” contributes to the now-massive trove of evidence linking pesticides to diseases and shows that by the time people reach retirement age they are suffering from a heavy burden of contamination that raises their risk of complex disease.
Since the 1960s, obesity in both adults and children has nearly tripled. More than half of U.S. adults were either obese or severely obese by 2018, according to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Study. The 55-year trend line is decidedly upward. More women than men are obese, and black women suffer the most, but men are racing to catch up. Between 1999 and 2018, Mexican American men shot up from the lowest percentage of obesity to nearly the highest.
Obesity is a milestone on the road to Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, kidney failure, joint replacement, and more. The causes of obesity are severely misunderstood. Most people believe that discipline and willpower are what keep a person from being fat, even if they have “fat genes.” The medical opinion is “calories in, calories out” — obesity, genetic or not, can be staved off with diet and exercise. But despite decades of advice, sweat, tears, and billions of dollars spent on ineffective diet pills and menus, obesity is a global emergency. If popular attitudes and medical theories were correct, obesity would be far less common and more easily controlled. It is not. Therefore, beliefs and advice are incorrect—or at least incomplete.
The researchers from the Shanghai Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention identified 39 pesticides in the study population. Women had slightly higher levels and a stronger correlation between obesity, pesticide burden and type 2 diabetes than men. The most significant contributors were β-Hexachlorocyclohexane (β-BHC) and oxadiazon.
β-BHC is a byproduct of technical grade lindane production and common near lindane factories. For example, in 2005 an Italian biomonitoring program found β-BHC levels 20 times higher than the legal limit in cows’ milk. The subject cows’ water came from a river which had been polluted by waste from a lindane facility. Lindane is available in the U.S. only as a treatment for head lice and not for any agricultural uses. It has been listed as a Persistent Organic Pollutant under the Stockholm Convention since 2009. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies it as a possible human carcinogen; it has been linked to aplastic anemia and breast cancer and is an endocrine disruptor. Oxadiazon is a herbicide and likely human carcinogen used in the U.S. on golf courses, parks, athletic fields, playgrounds, cemeteries and some horticultural contexts but which is not registered for any food uses.
The β-BHC and oxadiazon associations with type 2 diabetes in the Chinese senior study are “pronounced among elderly women,” according to the authors. They are also linear, meaning that for each increment of pesticide body burden, the risk of diabetes rises a comparable amount. These data, the authors write indicate “that it is an urgent need to take practical measures to control these harmful pesticides.”
Although β-BHC and oxadiazon now have limited uses in the U.S., the study found levels in the Chinese seniors of many pesticides that are still used in the U.S. in agricultural, horticultural, residential, and other applications. These include atrazine, acetochlor, metolachlor, and permethrin, to name a few, all of which have been reported to disturb lipid functions. A 2020 review of agrochemicals affecting obesity discusses more obesogenic pesticides registered in the U.S.
A concurrent publication by most of the same authors as the 2024 Chinese pesticide study reviewed evidence for environmental obesogens’ disruption of lipid metabolism. This review notes that, “Currently, more than 50 types of chemicals with high human exposure levels have been identified as environmental obesogens that can interfere with lipid metabolism and induce obesity. Experimental studies have shown that the lipid metabolism interference effects of obesogens have multiple targets, including nuclear receptors [thyroid, steroid, vitamin D3, and retinoid receptors], transcription factors [wide number of proteins that initiate and regulate the transcription of genes], cytokines [proteins important to cell signaling], and hormones. The interfering factors of environmental obesogen-induced obesity include transgenerational effects, susceptibility [developmental] windows, gender differences…and diet habits…”
Lipids are fat-soluble compounds that are essential for cells’ structural integrity along with numerous other functions in organisms from bacteria to humans. But when fat consumption exceeds the body’s need for lipids, humans make more fat cells or expand existing cells. When these storage options are full, lipids begin leaking into other tissues such as the kidneys and pancreas, contributing to a wide variety of serious diseases.
Research on environmental contributions to obesity was pioneered by Bruce Blumberg, who recounts how he discovered the effects of tributyltin (TBT) in his 2018 book with Kristin Loberg, The Obesogen Effect: Why We Eat Less and Exercise More but Still Struggle to Lose Weight. TBT refers to a family of tin compounds used to keep marine snails off ship hulls (a use now banned), to prevent fungal growth in wood and textile production, as a stabilizer in polyvinyl chloride products, and other uses. It bioaccumulates and can take 30 years to break down. Blumberg’s presentation at Beyond Pesticides’ 2018 36th National Pesticide Forum, is available on YouTube.
Dr. Blumberg, a professor of developmental and cell biology at the University of California Irvine and a molecular biologist by training, was curious about Japanese research showing that TBT could change fish from female to male, so he looked for cellular receptors that TBT could bind to. He found that TBT did not activate sex hormone receptors as expected; instead, it activated the process that leads to fat cell development. He showed that frog embryos exposed to TBT converted their testes to fat, that mice exposed to TBT in the womb had larger fat deposits as adults, and that this predisposition affected later generations. Subsequent research into the term Blumberg coined, obesogens, has expanded knowledge of these phenomena.
One of the widely-studied culprits is the notorious organophosphate chlorpyrifos. It has a painful and ragged history of regulation by EPA, which itself has repeatedly opined that it is toxic to human health. Currently, as BP reported last November, chlorpyrifos residues are still permitted in food owing to a shoddy and biased court-ordered instruction by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos does its damage in varied ways. Beyond Pesticides covered a 2019 study finding that it promotes obesity development even at low doses. The study found that chlorpyrifos prevented “diet-induced thermogenesis” in brown adipose tissue at concentrations “as low as 1 part per million.” Brown fat is considered better than white fat, and it burns calories to keep the body at an even temperature in cold conditions.
An earlier study by some of the same authors of the 2024 pesticide-diabetes research showed that chlorpyrifos also contributes to obesity by causing leaky gut and inflammation; when they transferred chlorpyrifos-altered microbes to unexposed mice, those mice added fat and lost insulin sensitivity –major factors in type 2 diabetes induction.
Despite reduced usage, TBT keeps on giving – and demonstrating that even at individually low doses, and even when a chemical has been banned or restricted, it can remain in the environment and combine with other toxic chemicals to cause harm. A 2019 study showed that “Combined exposure [to TBT and the “forever chemical” perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)] significantly promoted the fat accumulation in newly hatched [fish] larvae, even when the doses of TBT and PFOS were both at the levels that did not show obesogenic effect. The interactive effect of TBT and PFOS could aggravate the total obesogenic effect of their mixtures, indicating a synergistic interaction.”
There are ways to fight back against the onslaught:
Eating organic food reduces risk of metabolic diseases including diabetes, which strongly suggests that pesticides have a direct link to diabetes. See Beyond Pesticides’ 2020 blog post, “Food For Thought: Eating Organic Reduces Risk of Type 2 Diabetes.” In a post last October, “Organophosphate Pesticides and the Link to Respiratory, Metabolic, and Heart Disease,” we noted that “Replacing dietary exposure to food grown in chemical-intensive agriculture with organic consistently reduces pesticide levels in one’s body…maintaining lower levels of conventional, synthetic pesticides is likely to reduce the risk of developing chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes. In addition to positive impacts on the human microbiome, organically grown food (i.e., milk, meat, strawberries, tomatoes, and a range of other foods) contain a much more diverse bacterial community than their chemically grown counterparts.”
The body of research now available also supports the very recent admission by some health professionals that obesity is not caused by poor character, laziness or lack of willpower. The review of environmental obesogens and their role in metabolic diseases cites approximately 50 studies reporting specific obesogenic effects of more than 50 chemicals. Obesity has multiple determinants, but absent willpower is not one of them. Unfortunately, the medical establishment is still focused on mechanisms, such as brain activity, that cause people to eat too much, and suggest that high-calorie food is too easily available. These are probably factors, but the message that environmental obesogens are a dire emergency has not yet been received. The prevailing concept is that too much food is the problem, when it’s perhaps not the amount of food, but the pesticide load of the food, that is an essential cause of the slow-motion global pandemic of obesity and diabetes.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides
Sources:
Associations of chronic exposure to a mixture of pesticides and type 2 diabetes mellitus in a Chinese elderly population. Tian Chen, Xiaohua Liu, Jianghua Zhang, Lulu Wang, Jin Su, Tao Jing, Ping XiaoChemosphere, Volume 351, March 2024, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653524000870?via%3Dihub [Open Access]
Environmental Obesogens and Their Perturbations in Lipid Metabolism. Xiaoyun Wang, Zhendong Sun, Qian S. Liu, Qunfang Zhou, and Guibin Jiang Environ. Health, February 13, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1021/envhealth.3c00202 [Open Access]
Pesticide-Induced Diseases: Diabetes. https://www.beyondpesticides.org/resources/pesticide-induced-diseases-database/diabetes; “a wealth of additional research on the link between toxic pesticide exposure and the development of diabetes. Replacing conventional food products with organic consistently leads to reduced levels of pesticide in one’s body.”
The documentary, “The Lives of the Amish in the U.S.,” shares how “an encounter with the Amish is like traveling back in time” and why, in this day and age, this could be a very smart move
The Amish typically avoid technology and other modern-day conveniences like electricity and cars
There are significant benefits of living in concert with your community — off the grid without being dependent on anyone or any technology
The Amish typically produce the majority of their own food and aren’t reliant on the public control grid
A reliance on modern-day comforts and technology leaves you incredibly vulnerable should they collapse, while embodying the preparedness and resourcefulness displayed by the Amish protects your autonomy and freedom
Technology and other modern-day conveniences have become so engrained in our daily lives that most people would be hard-pressed to live without them. This isn’t the case for the Amish, who are still living life much the way it was 300 years ago.
Their way of living, which can prohibit ownership of computers and may rely on electricity only in limited cases for business, may seem filled with unnecessary hardship. But there are significant benefits of living in concert with your community — off the grid without being dependent on anyone or any technology.
The DW Documentary above, “The Lives of the Amish in the U.S.,”1 shares how “an encounter with the Amish is like traveling back in time” and why, in this day and age, this could be a very smart move.
No Reliance on Conveniences That One Day May Be Taken Away
About 370,000 Amish people live in the U.S., primarily in Indiana, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Different communities have slightly different ways of life, with some groups avoiding electricity entirely, for instance, while others do not. However, at the core of being Amish is self-reliance, rejection of most technological advances and devotion to the community.
Without cars, most Amish people drive horse-drawn carts. Others may hire a taxi or use an e-bike to take them distances that are too far for horses to travel. There’s also a notable absence that would be foreign to most modern families — no computers, cellphones, internet or social media in the home.
Chester and his family, featured in the film, follow the Old Amish Ordnung. The word “ordnung” is German for “order” and describes a set of rules that dictates their way of life. In addition to little technology and the use of only batteries and generators, the family heats their home with wood from a nearby forest and uses an old-fashioned washing machine to clean their clothes. Far from being a hassle, this is part of what promotes their well-being. Chester says:2
“Even during COVID and all this turmoil … that was worldwide, we’ve been able to retain a way of living that promotes inner peace. And I don’t think that’s possible if you’re always 24/7, if you’re completely connected to social media and the outside world. Even businesses completely run with … instant communication — it’s great for a business, [but] I’m so happy I can step back from it. And that’s the way I keep my sanity.”
For many, it’s difficult to imagine a life without such modern conveniences as electricity, computers and cellphones. But it’s wise to pay attention as The Great Reset unfolds around us. A common mantra was chanted by world leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic: A Great Reset is necessary to “build back better” from the crisis and create a new sustainable future.
This future is one led by a powerful global cartel eager to gain control over society and, ultimately, humanity. Toward that end, resources that currently seem inalienable — like the right to grow your own food and maintain control of your financial assets — could one day disappear. If you can’t survive without them, you lose all autonomy and are at the mercy of those in control.
Growing Your Own Food Helps Protect Your Freedom
If you control the food supply, you control the population. It’s another area where the Amish have it right, as they produce the majority of their own food. Lloyd and Edna Miller, who run their farm of 50 dairy cows on solar power, are among them.
Edna uses her e-bike to visit a grocery store once a week, purchasing only supplemental items they don’t grow on the farm. The ability to sustain themselves is important not only to the Millers but to the Amish community as a whole. Lloyd says:3
“When COVID came, a lot of people panicked … people aren’t even sure where their food is coming from today. And those are real-life issues … for the most part we could be self- sustainable for quite a long time, especially within the group. Within the group of people that we personally know, we could survive a pretty good long time without any outside input.”
Growing as much food as you can is a principle that everyone can live by. You might invest in a greenhouse, plant an orchard or move to a rural area where you can raise chickens. Any additional level of self-sufficiency you can create will offer you more protection.
The globalists have long held a monopoly on the grain industry, for instance, with their patented genetically modified organisms (GMOs). A similar trend is now occurring with fake food. The globalists are trying to replace animal husbandry with lab-grown meat and even insects, which will allow private companies to effectively control the entire food supply. Those who are able to grow their own food, however, cannot be controlled.
Investing in real things, like land and buildings, is also a wise move and an area where the Amish excel. Although any type of formal education ends after 8th grade, many in the Amish community own and run successful businesses, including blacksmithing and bakeries.
“The Amish are very business-oriented, small business, you know. Small family businesses that are run by families or friends, and we work together as a team,” Tom Berer from Pennsylvania says in the film.4
Community and Family Life Over Technology
Another tenet that runs deep in the Amish community is self-reliance and looking out for the good of the whole. “It means putting your individual desires, your selfish desires, to the side and doing what is good for the community,” Chester says, adding:5
“As a culture, we don’t like to be dependent on government help. So, we don’t want to accept any handouts. We do not pay into Social Security. We also don’t get the benefits. We don’t get Medicaid or Medicare, but we, within the community, have some church or community-funded programs where it’s all nonprofit.
So, for myself I pay in about $200 every month and that gives me basic coverage, up to $100,000 a year, that’s just for my family.”
To pay for a $50,000 surgery for a 10-year-old Amish boy, the community also came together, with more than 250 people donating and exceeding the goal. There may be health benefits to the Amish lifestyle as well.
In humans, the incidence of depression has grown along with the use of electric lights. While this is only a correlation, it’s interesting to note that Amish populations, which have no electricity, have low rates of depression.6 The Amish also have low rates of asthma, likely due to their farming environment. Substances in Amish house dust may even shape the innate immune system, suppressing the development of allergic asthma.7,8
Further, while some Amish people use telephones — land lines, not cellphones — for business purposes, they usually don’t keep them inside the home, as “too much technology disrupts family life.”9 Meanwhile, in the rest of the U.S., technology and social media use are changing the way the human brain works, especially with high usage.
Data from teens’ phones reveals that usage is, indeed, high, with 6th graders picking up their phones more than 100 times a day, with some picking them up more than 400 times daily. Adolescents also spend an average of 8.2 hours on devices each day, with some spending twice that amount.10
Digital stress, which occurs from connection overload, fear of missing out on online conversations or feeling the need to be always available online, along with anxiety over gaining approval online, is another significant issue. Close to 50% of youth on social media suffer from digital stress, which is associated with increases in depressive symptoms.11
In the Amish community, teens may engage in rumspringa, a period of increased social activity and exploration. The term is Dutch for “running around” and is a rite of passage during which they may choose to leave the Amish community or be baptized into the Amish church.12
The Amish Are Already Free of the Control Grid
The increasing prevalence of smart cities, with connected smart meters, set up the infrastructure for widespread surveillance, while digital IDs keep everything — your finances, health information, employment history and social credit score — all in one place. This means globalists can monitor, and control, your spending and use of resources.
Organizations such as the World Economic Forum and many of the central banks are pushing for the rollout of the globalist control grid. Once in place, it may be impossible or near-impossible to live without a digital ID and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).
Getting yourself out of the control grid as much as possible is essential for protecting your freedom, and this is another area where the Amish — who do not depend on the control grid — have a significant advantage.
In this way, we can all take a lesson from their old-fashioned ways and strive to live a simpler, more self-reliant lifestyle — build your own “ark,” hone your skills and cultivate a strong community around you. This involves growing your own food or, if you can’t, developing a relationship with a local farmer who can supply food for you.
At the very least, shop small and local, including for your food, supporting local farmers instead of corporate giants. You can also ditch your cellphone, which has been described as a “surveillance weapon and beyond,” as much as possible.13 Even if you have no interest in the Amish way of life, it’s worth recognizing that a reliance on modern-day comforts and technology leaves you incredibly vulnerable should they collapse.
Though it’s uncomfortable to think about, this existence is a fragile one that could be taken away as The Great Reset progresses. Becoming complacent only makes globalists’ plans easier to implement while embodying the preparedness and resourcefulness displayed by the Amish makes a full takeover unlikely.
Along with the practical steps of growing food and considering alternate energy sources, like solar roof panels or a generator, you’ve also got to keep your mind sharp and clear. So, ditch your cellphone and other Big Tech propaganda interference as much as possible in favor of real relationships and local connections. Forge ties in your community where ever you can, and work together, as the Amish do, to build a meaningful, resilient life.
[TCTL editor’s note: Those of us who have purchased food from Miller’s Farm network over the years (many of us travelling from other states) know what a gift they are to a wide community who value pure foods (including raw milk) and value the care in growth and preparation of those foods. If food freedom is essential to you, please consider sending a donation or supporting them by writing to the state “authorities” involved in this raid.]
State agents carry off coolers full of Amos Miller’s property on Jan. 4, 2024 in Upper Leacock Township, Pennsylvania.
Three Pennsylvania State Troopers and seven other individuals spent several hours inside a building on Amos Miller’s Lancaster County farm while conducting a search on Jan. 4, 2024, eventually leaving with multiple coolers containing Miller’s property.
Attempts were made by The Lancaster Patriot to enter the facility during the search, but a Pennsylvania State Trooper said, “we’re conducting a search warrant inside this building right now,” and told the reporter to leave the building until the search was completed.
The search was conducted by employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, with Pennsylvania State Police offering assistance as needed.
A search warrant was issued on Jan. 3, 2024, by Magisterial District Judge B. Denise Commins and included an affidavit of probable cause completed by Sheri Morris, Acting Bureau Director of Food Safety with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
The affidavit referenced incidents involving Miller’s products dating back to 2016, with the latest including the claim that on Dec. 19, 2023, Morris was informed “by the NY state Department of Health of a confirmed positive case of a foodborne pathogen (STEC – Shiga toxin producing E. Coli) in an underage individual” who had allegedly consumed products from Miller’s private buying club. On Dec. 28, 2023, Morris was allegedly notified about a similar incident in Michigan.
In the affidavit, Morris contends that Miller has not filed for applications from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture “for registration, licensing, or permitting under the pertinent Retail Food Facility Safety Act, Food Safety Act, or Milk Sanitation Laws.”
A report of seized property provided to Miller after the search was conducted listed 37 items, including sour cream, chocolate milk, ice cream, and eggnog.
A notice affixed to a walk-in cooler door stated that the food in the cooler “has been detained by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture pursuant to Section 5726(a) of the Food Safety Act.” The notice states that the food “may be adulterated or misbranded and shall be detained.” The notice states that it is “unlawful to remove the food from the premises or to dispose of it without approval of the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.”
Removal or disposal of “a detained or embargoed food article” is a criminal and civil offense.
The cooler contains hundreds of items and represents a large portion of Miller’s products.
Products in Amos Miller’s walk-in cooler put “under detention” by Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
Miller’s private buying club provides customers with sustainable alternatives to commercially produced food. In addition to serving customers who travel to his location, Miller also ships his products across the nation.
“They [his customers] don’t trust the large corporations,” Miller told The Lancaster Patriot in 2022. “It’s not sustainable. For some reason the government keeps endorsing the large corporations, and it can cause big trouble.”
Miller’s products include cheese, meat, eggs, and raw milk. His company website states that all food products “are only available to members who belong to our Private Association and are NOT available to the PUBLIC.” Miller’s products are not sold in grocery stores.
Looks like Amos Miller’s farm is being raided.
With all of the problems in society today, this is what the government wants to focus on?
A man growing food for informed customers, without participating in the industrial meat/milk complex?
U.S. Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) shared a post from The Lancaster Patriot on X (the platform formerly known as Twitter) and commented in support of Miller.
“Looks like Amos Miller’s farm is being raided,” Massie said. “With all of the problems in society today, this is what the government wants to focus on? A man growing food for informed customers, without participating in the industrial meat/milk complex? It’s shameful that it’s come to this.”
The post on X has garnered over 745,000 views in less than six hours, with many comments in support of Miller and food freedom, noting that Miller’s buyers knowingly purchase his raw products and accept any associated risks.
The mailbox for Miller’s Organic Farm sits along Mill Creek School Road in Upper Leacock Township.
Miller’s attorney, Robert Barnes, released the following statement just hours after the search was conducted:
“Today, the Department of Agriculture of the State of Pennsylvania suddenly came, without notice, raided Amos’ farm, and detained everything Amos had in the farm’s freezer. They did so in a lawless manner, without appropriate authority, in violation of their own rules and regulations, despite never objecting to the prior resolutions reached with the federal government, and despite a complete failure by the state to even reach out to Amos’ known counsel, Robert Barnes. The state’s own rules require advance notice, reasonable time frames for inspections, and a showing of credentials, none of which occurred here. Instead, the state unlawfully obtained a search warrant, based on materially false statements in an affidavit by a high-ranking state official in an agency with a known grievance against independent farmers like Amos, and, after the raid and finding no evidence of wrongdoing, then illegally ordered detained every item of food in one of Amos Miller’s coolers, including buffalo meat not even subject to federal regulation. The detention order is patently illegal under Pennsylvania law. Despite the constant harassment, Amos will continue to do all he legally can to provide the food his members deeply need. Amos thanks you for your continued support at this critical time for food freedom in America.”
From GiveSendGo Campaign page in support of Miller’s Farm:
Amos Miller’s Amish farm in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, was raided on January 4, 2024. Under the watchful eye of Pennsylvania State Troopers, and the backing of a search warrant, agents of the state entered Amos’ property, spent hours inside his buildings, and then hauled off some of his products. The remaining products they are forbidding Amos from selling, effectively ending his business until further notice. As Amos fights this injustice, he needs to keep paying his employees and supporting the small farms that rely on Amos to sell their natural products. If you would like to help keep Amos in business, please consider a donation.
Also, if you live in Pennsylvania, please contact your State Representative and State Senator and ask them to pressure Dept. of Ag Secretary Russell Redding to rescind the food detainment order. If you are outside Pennsylvania, please consider contacting Redding directly (https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/about/executive_office/Pages/Russell-Redding.aspx)
(Beyond Pesticides, January 3, 2024) A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives finds elevated, chronic exposure to glyphosate throughout one’s lifetime increases the risk of mosaic loss of chromosome Y (loss of chromosome Y occurs to many men in some cells due to aging [mLOY]) that impacts a noticeable fraction of cells. Although the loss of this sex chromosome does not cause cell death, like the loss of autosomal chromosomes, the risk of mLOY is a biomarker for genotoxicity (the damage of genetic information within a cell causing mutations from chemical exposure, which may lead to cancer) and expansion of cellular response to glyphosate, resulting in the precursor for hematological (blood) cancers. This study is one of the first to identify sex-specific chromosome degradation, with stark evidence demonstrating links to various cancers, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified the glyphosate as a probable carcinogen or cancer-causing chemical. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) allowance of widespread use of glyphosate allows for adverse impacts, especially among vulnerable individuals, like pregnant women, infants, children, and the elderly. Glyphosate exposure levels and resulting residues in urine has been documented with recent data showing that four out of five (81.6%) U.S. residents have detectable levels of glyphosate in their bodies. Despite these concerning data, evidence of widespread exposure to a carcinogen has so far failed to influence regulators at EPA, which puts increasing responsibility on local elected officials and consumers, according to advocates, to stop glyphosate use in their community’s land management.
The study notes, “Although future studies are needed to confirm the observed associations, our findings for glyphosate add to the limited literature on occupational and environmental exposures as contributors to mLOY, the most common acquired chromosomal alteration in men, and provide novel mechanistic evidence supporting the potential carcinogenicity of this widely used herbicide.”
The study analyzes blood-derived DNA from 1,606 farmers to detect mLOY using genotype assessments of the sex chromosomes in the cells. Researchers gathered self-reported pesticide exposure from the farmers and estimated the association between mLOY and glyphosate use, employing a multivariable logistic regression. The results find that mLOY is detectable in 21.4 percent of farmers, with mLOY expanding throughout most cells in 9.8 percent of farmers. Most farmers with mLOY expanding throughout most cells are older in age, with a greater lifetime exposure and intensity of exposure to glyphosate. However, these individuals are non-smokers and non-obese, which are other risk factors for mLOY.
Glyphosate is the most commonly used active ingredient worldwide, appearing in many herbicide formulas, including Bayer’s (formerly Monsanto) Roundup®. The use of this chemical has been increasing since the inception of crops genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate over two decades ago. Glyphosate is often promoted by industry as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals, yet it has been shown to have detrimental impacts on humans and the environment. The toxic herbicide readily contaminates the ecosystem, with residues pervasive in food and water commodities. In addition to this study, decades of accumulated scientific literature commonly associates glyphosate with human, biotic, and ecosystem harm. Additionally, glyphosate’s ubiquity threatens 93 percent of all U.S. endangered species, resulting in biodiversity loss and ecosystem disruption (e.g., soil erosion, loss of services, and trophic cascades). Moreover, chemical use has been increasing since the inception of crops genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate. Not only do health officials warn that continuous use of glyphosate will perpetuate adverse health and ecological effects, but that use also highlights recent concerns over antibiotic resistance. Thus, glyphosate has been extensively controversial about its safety for humans, nonhuman organisms, and ecosystems. For instance, the presence of glyphosate in human bodies has risen dramatically during the past three decades. Research at the University of California San Diego found that, between two data collection periods (1993–1996 and 2014–2016), the percentage of people testing positive for the presence of glyphosate (or its metabolites) in urine rose by an average of 500 percent, peaking at 1,208 percent.
This study is one of the first to investigate mLOY as a biomarker for genomic instability (loss of sex chromosome), providing new insight into the biological mechanism involved in carcinogenicity beyond general genotoxicity (i.e., DNA damage) and oxidative stress. However, considering the co-occurring effects of glyphosate exposure, including the chemical’s breakdown product AMPA, is essential. Since glyphosate and its formulations have long been associated with oxidative stress and strong evidence of genotoxicity, multiple biological mechanisms can work synergically (together) to increase the risk, time of onset, or disease severity.
It is essential to understand the effects of widely used pesticides and their breakdown products on the health of current and future generations. Beyond Pesticides challenges the EPA registration of chemicals like glyphosate in court due to their impacts on soil, air, water, and health. However, emphasis on converting to regenerative-organic systems and using least-toxic pest control can mitigate harmful exposure concerns. Public policy must advance this shift rather than allow unnecessary reliance on pesticides. Considering glyphosate levels in the human body can decrease by 70% through a one-week switch to an organic diet, purchasing organic food whenever possible—which never allows glyphosate use—can help curb exposure and adverse health effects. Learn more about pesticides’ impacts on human health by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. Moreover, Beyond Pesticides provides tools, information, and support to take local action: check out our factsheet on glyphosate/Roundup and our report, Monsanto’s Roundup (Glyphosate) Exposed. Contact us for help with local efforts and stay informed of developments through our Daily News Blog and our journal, Pesticides and You. Additionally, check out Carey Gillam’s talk on Monsanto’s corruption on glyphosate/Roundup at Beyond Pesticides’ 36th National Pesticide Forum.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
Low-carb/high-fat diets ultimately backfire because they inhibit glucose metabolism, which is the most efficient form of energy production in the mitochondria; they also impair thyroid function
One of the reasons why ketogenic and carnivore diets are usually helpful for a time is because, if implemented properly, you’re radically reducing your intake of omega-6 fats, linoleic acid (LA) in particular, which is one of the primary drivers of ill health
LA is a primary driver of disease, in large part due to its detrimental effect on mitochondrial function and, hence, energy production
Your body has a certain amount of energy and a number of biological processes that it can turn on or turn off with that energy pool. The more energy you have available, the more functions your body can turn on. When your energy production is lower than required to maintain all functions, your body must downregulate certain functions, which ultimately results in problems
One of the easiest ways to assess how much energy your body is producing is to take your body temperature. Take your temperature 30 to 40 minutes after breakfast and midday. You want to see a rise in temperature
The interview above features Ashley Armstrong, who’s an expert in two areas. One is producing some of the healthiest food in the United States, and the second is understanding how your body uses it and how to select the right types of food to optimize your biology, based on the late biologist and thyroid expert, Ray Peat’s, principles of bioenergetic medicine. She also is a certified personal trainer with a Ph.D., MS and BS in engineering.
Like many others who are trying to improve their health, Armstrong tried low-carb diets, fasting, keto and even carnivore diets in the past. But while these all led to improvements initially, they didn’t eliminate them, which ultimately led her to investigate Peat’s principles.
“Ray Peat, he honestly saved my life and I owe so much to that man,” she says. “I’m forever grateful for him. The biggest wake-up for me was measuring my body temperature. I was on a carnivore diet and measured my body temperature — it was 96.5 degrees Fahrenheit.
I was like, wow, no wonder my hair is thinning. No wonder my complexion is so pale. No wonder I’m not sleeping through the night. There was just a number of red flags. That body temperature measurement just woke me up. It’s what I needed to [realize] I’m not thriving, I’m just surviving.
I’ve been implementing Dr. Peat’s principles for over three years now. I have more energy in life than I think I’ve ever had, even as a teenager. And it’s just amazing to see how being not restricted with your food, just being strategic with macros, types of food, how powerful that can be for your energy production.”
The Problem With Low-Carb and Keto
As I’ve detailed in previous articles over the past year, low-carb/high-fat diets ultimately backfire because they inhibit glucose metabolism, which is the most efficient form of energy production in your mitochondria; they also impair thyroid function. Your thyroid is crucial for energy production, and if your thyroid doesn’t work, you’re down the creek without a paddle.
One of the reasons for this is because ketogenic diets increase the stress hormones — cortisol, glucagon and adrenaline. On the other hand, one of the reasons why ketogenic and carnivore diets are usually helpful for a time is because, if implemented properly, you’re radically reducing your intake of omega-6 fats, linoleic acid (LA) in particular, which is one of the primary drivers of ill health.
Energy Production Is Key for Overall Health
As explained by Armstrong, the best way to understand the bioenergetic principle is to think of your body as a system. It has a certain amount of energy, and a number of biological processes that it can turn on or turn off with that energy source.
The greater your energy pool, the more functions your body can turn on. When your energy production is lower than required to maintain all functions, your body must downregulate certain functions, which ultimately results in problems. The human body is designed to promote survival, so it’s going to prioritize things like your heart rate.
Functions that aren’t necessarily vital for survival in the immediate moment, like sex hormone production, reproductive function, digestion, sleep and high cognitive thinking, get downregulated first. When you increase energy production, however, your body can then expend energy on those functions and bring them “back online.”
Using Body and Pulse Measurements as Guides
As explained by Armstrong, one of the easiest ways to assess how much energy your body is producing is to take your body temperature.
“High stress hormones can keep your waking body temperature elevated,” she says, “so you’ve got to do your waking temperature 30 to 40 minutes after breakfast, and then I like to do midday. You want to see that temperature rise.
For many who are on low-carb or who are living on stress hormones, they’re going to have potentially high waking body temperature, but after breakfast, that temperature may drop. That’s because the food you’re consuming is lowering your stress hormones and your actual body temperature is then better exposed.
So we want to see that body temperature rise. And I love how both of us are so passionate about linoleic acid. As human linoleic acid consumption has gone up, human body temperature has gone down. So, the types of fats that we are consuming in our diet is impacting energy production in a negative way.
It’s shown with obesity rates out the roof. It’s shown with the decline in our body temperature. It’s shown with the decline in our healthy life expectancy, which is bizarre as a First-World country. There are just so many profound effects.
But when we just think of it as energy production — the more energy we can give our body to be able to perform functions, the better it’s going to function. I asked this question to someone who is really adamant about fasting. I said, ‘If you’ve got two bodies, one body that’s fasted and the other body that is fed nourishing food, which body is going to thrive and function better?’
It’s obvious. If you add a third person fed more of a standard American diet, of course maybe fasting is going to make you feel better, but you can elevate yourself a step above. You don’t have to rely on fasting to increase energy production. Your body is not going to increase energy when you’re not [putting] energy in.”
Indeed, when it comes to fasting, one of the primary benefits is that it lowers the fuel for gram-negative bacteria that produce endotoxin in your gut. Low-carb does this as well. Endotoxin, estrogen, LA and stress hormones will all decrease your mitochondrial function, mediated in big part by your thyroid function. Those are the big things that need to be reduced to enhance your mitochondrial function and energy production within the mitochondria.
How LA Harms Your Energy Production
As mentioned, LA is a primary driver of disease, in large part due to its detrimental effect on mitochondrial function and, hence, energy production. Your body can use both fat and glucose for energy. Muscle, in particular, will use fat for fuel, as will your heart. So, fat is not bad, but it’s important to realize that different fats affect your body in different ways, so it’s crucial to get the right fats. Armstrong explains:
“The different types of fatty acid molecules have drastically different structures and those impact the internal environment inside of us. They impact how your body is producing energy. The more saturated we can become, the better our internal environment is going to be.
When someone goes low-carb, maybe they reduce the amount of packaged food that they’re eating that contains a ton of vegetable oil and linoleic acid, and so potentially they’re resaturating some of their tissues.
But when you learn about what livestock are being fed these days, then you realize that a high animal fat diet can still contain quite a bit of PUFAs [polyunsaturated fats] and linoleic acid, depending on what those animals ate. So, think it’s important to consider the amount of each macronutrient that you’re intaking because that can have profound impacts on your energy production.
Saturating your tissues is going to take you to the next level, but adding in appropriate levels of carbohydrates is going to allow you to take your consciousness and energy production level to the next level [beyond that].”
The types of carbs you eat matter, however. I’m convinced the ideal carbohydrate is fresh, ripe fruit. Ripe is the key here. Of course, some fruits are better than others. Watermelon, for example, is among the best. Watermelon with feta cheese and a little mint on top makes for a delicious snack.
Aside from containing a lot of water, watermelon also contains a substance called citrulline, which converts into arginine, a precursor for nitric oxide (NO). NO is important to your body, but the caveat is that it needs to come from real food. Drugs like Cialis or Viagra, which act by increasing NO, will accelerate your path toward premature death. Artificial citrulline and other synthetic amino acids that raise NO are also best avoided.
“In Michigan, I rely a lot on frozen fruit,” Armstrong says. “In the summertime I’ll go to strawberry fields and pick strawberries when fresh and then freeze a ton of them. Same thing with blueberries and peaches. And then I rely on a lot of apples in the winter because apples are abundant around here and can be stored.”
Juices also have their place. Cold-pressed, pulp-free orange juice, for example, is a good choice. The reason you want pulp-free is because if you’re like most people, you have gram-negative, endotoxin bacteria in your gut that will thrive on the pulp, hence increasing endotoxin production.
So, if you have an unhealthy microbiome, pulp-free orange juice is a great carb that will gently and safely allow you to enter the higher carb world. As your microbiome improves, then you can transition to whole fruits and berries, which is, I believe, far superior to juices.
How to Produce the Best Eggs
Segueing into the topic of food production, Armstrong’s farm produces some of the highest quality eggs I’ve ever come across, and the feed recipe I use for my own chickens came from her. But I recently discovered something that could make them even better, and that is to allow the chickens to scratch for their own food.
Their ideal food is insects fresh from the ground, and while I previously thought chickens couldn’t get enough food this way, meaning you had to give them something, that may actually not be true.
Unfortunately, in places where the ground freezes, chickens will not be able to sustain themselves on insects, and you definitely do NOT want to feed your chickens dehydrated bugs. Why? Because the bugs are raised on corn and soy, making them very high in LA.
But in places like South Florida, for example, you can easily produce top-notch eggs, quality-wise, by allowing your chickens to peck for insects, without giving them any supplemental feed. Armstrong is also making plans to let her chickens forage for bugs year-round:
“I think that would be the ideal condition, and I have an image in my head of what I want to bring our farm to in the future — a greenhouse where we’ve got fodder growing on the ground and a worm farm … so [the chickens] will get abundant bugs in the winter. That’s what I want to move towards, but that requires a lot of financial investment. So we’ll get there one day.”
The Feed Has Dramatic Impacts on Animal Foods
The feed Armstrong developed, which I’ve been using as well, results in eggs that have about 75% less LA than conventional eggs. When it comes to conventional eggs, the LA is really the only problem. When the chickens are fed an ideal diet, the yolk in the egg is one of the best, most nutritious foods imaginable. The only thing that comes close is organ meat.
Egg yolks are the ultimate food; the problem is 99.99% of the eggs produced in this country are not that good. I don’t care if they say free range, grass fed, organic, it doesn’t matter. They’re terrible because they have four times more LA than they should. As noted by Armstrong:
“It’s important to consider organic soybeans have the same amount of linoleic acid as non-organic soybeans. Whether it’s grown conventionally, organically does not change the fatty acid composition of soybeans. You don’t want to be eating eggs from chickens fed a bunch of soy vegetable oil and other high omega-6 PUFA foods.”
According to Armstrong, the feed of the chickens may even determine the eggs’ allergenicity. In other words, if you’re allergic to eggs, you could potentially be able to eat the eggs from correctly-fed chickens.
“What is soy high in? Phytoestrogens that can be very problematic for some people. If a chicken is eating phytoestrogens that can be problematic for humans, those get passed through into the eggs. We have a number of customers that cannot eat any other eggs, but they’re totally fine with our eggs. And it’s because of the diet of the chicken.
So if you have allergic reactions or problems with eggs, try a different source where they’re not fed soy. Some people can be allergic to corn as well, and that allergenicity can pass through the egg as well. But it seems like soy is the biggest culprit.
But be careful of many corn and soy-free feeds, because those are high-PUFA ingredients like sunflower, flax, fish oil, vegetable oil and safflower oil. And so, just be really careful of your source, and ask what the chickens are eating. But yes, allergenicity of eggs I think really depends on what the chicken eats.”
LA-Rich Animal Feed Is Now Impacting Human Energy Production and Health
All of that said, it’s still crucial to ensure your chickens have enough food, be it fresh insects or a carefully planned feed that is low in LA and high in healthy saturated fats and other nutrients.
“Your chicken is not going to thrive if it’s underfed,” Armstrong says. “Your chicken is not going to thrive if it doesn’t have food. I am trying to boost the metabolic rate of our chickens as high as possible. Just like us, chickens are monogastric single stomach animals, the types of fat that they are fed, the types of fat that we are fed impacts the types of fat inside of us.
This is a little bit different for ruminant animals — cows, goats — but for monogastric chickens, pigs, their diet is very important. And this is why I am so passionate about it, because we have been lied to and convinced that saturated fat is bad for us.
So, you’ve seen a huge push for PUFAs in our diet. This is going beyond just human dietary choices. This is impacting our livestock food. And this is having profound impacts on not only livestock health, but also the food that we’re consuming …
Even in the dairy industry, they’re creating things called rumen-protected fats. They are PUFAs that in a typical rumen digestion system can go through the process called hydrogenation, which turns the PUFA into saturated fat.
They are designing rumen-protected fats so that the PUFA is passed through the rumen. The PUFA content of milk is increasing. That means any dairy fat — butter, cream, whole milk. The PUFA content of beef fat is increasing. And this is by design … Lard and chicken fat from conventional animals has the same amount of PUFA as canola oil.
This is profound. We have changed the types of fat inside of us. I think the linoleic acid content of humans has increased 136%. That is changing how our body is making energy inside of us. The types of fat we consume day-to-day have a long life inside of us — 600 days. So, the types of fat we’re consuming day to day impacts our energy production for years to come.
It’s unfortunate because this is just the reality for a lot of people, and that’s why I’m so passionate about it. Our food system is designed in a way that is not setting us up for success. That’s why I want to try to change it by going back to how our food was produced 100 years ago, where there was appropriate amounts of PUFAs in foods, small amounts, and saturated fat was the predominant fat source for both livestock and humans.”
High PUFA Diets Shut Down Your Metabolism
As explained by Armstrong, in nature, animals increase their PUFA consumption up to a certain amount to initiate torpor, which means their metabolism is so downregulated that they can survive the winter without eating. Think about that. Can you function optimally if your diet is one meant for hibernation? In that state, you have to eat fewer and fewer calories to avoid weight gain, which results in undernourishment and poor energy production.
“I try to keep my PUFA consumption as low as possible,” Armstrong says. “You can easily track that in Cronometer and see what your total PUFA, total linoleic acid content is per day. If you have four conventional eggs, you’re already at about 5 grams of linoleic acid in a day. And I would want people to be lower than that. All foods contain some amount of linoleic acid, so even milk is going to have a little bit.”
There’s no question that LA is NOT an essential fat, even though it’s categorized as such. It’s not essential because nearly all foods contain it. It’s virtually impossible to become deficient in LA if you eat food, regardless of what that food is.
Another fat that likely IS essential, but isn’t widely recognized as such, is the odd-chain saturated fats (OCFAs) found primarily in dairy. You can learn more about this in “The Amazing Benefits of Dairy Fat.” There’s also evidence suggesting that if you don’t get enough OCFAs in your diet, then high saturated fat intake might become problematic.
So, you need these odd-chain saturated fats. That’s why you need butter. You need milk. These are essential. Your optimized biology and health is dependent on these foods, because, again, the OCFAs help increase your body’s energy pool. They boost energy production, which will improve how your entire body functions.
In the interview we also discuss how dairy improves the health benefits of eggs, as the calcium in the dairy reduces the conversion of tryptophan in the egg white into serotonin. Serotonin is another compound you simply do not want too much of.
You also want to make sure you’re having enough carbohydrates with that meal. Carbohydrate oxidation produces 50% more carbon dioxide (CO2), so simply having carbs with your eggs will raise your CO2 level, which is very important for health.
“So, for breakfast, have eggs, milk, some honey or maple syrup and fruit. Boom, there you go. You’re drastically reducing the conversion of tryptophan to serotonin and it’s a simple meal,” Armstrong says.
More Information
We discuss a lot more in this interview than what I’ve covered here, so for more fascinating details, be sure to listen to the whole interview. For example, we discuss the pros and cons of egg whites, and why most cheese sold in the U.S. is less than healthy, as many cheese producers are using a microbial rennet made by Pfizer that is derived from mold that eats genetically modified corn and soy.
We also discuss various ideas for improving the feed of chickens, and how to maintain maximum egg production in the winter with incandescent lights and red light therapy.
If you want to purchase eggs from Armstrong’s farm, Angel Acres Egg Co., visit angel-acresfarm.com. She’s also started a new private member food system that offers milk, cheese, low-PUFA pork and low-PUFA chicken, called Nourish Cooperative. Both will ship farm-fresh food right to your door.
“The colonizing mentality sees nature as dead matter to be exploited and used. Colonizers do not see self-organisation. They do not see creativity. They just see control and profits while bringing disease and ill health, destroying the land, the soil, and the water.
False solutions, such as synthetic foods, involve a further separation from nature. But the separation between us and nature is the root of the problem.
We are now at a watershed between perpetuating the mechanistic model or choosing to live in harmony with nature and its regenerative and creative capacities. We need to bring life back into the soil. In the micro-organisms of the soil we find the life we cannot see, which is the basis of our health and the solution to the climate problem.
The real solution to the ecological and climate crisis does not lie in creating substitutes for food or expanding the industrial paradigm, but in scaling the initiatives all over the world that are already working on healing our connection with the Earth through care.”
The industrial agriculture paradigm, which sees the world as a machine, and not as a self-organized living system, has created devastation on the planet, while contributing significantly to the issue of climate change. Navdanya International’s latest graphic report, ‘Regeneration is Life‘, presented at Cop 28 in Dubai, analyzes the actual causes at the root of climate change and highlights the true regenerative solutions against the false solutions proposed by polluters.
The fertilizer industry is responsible for more than a fifth of total estimated greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture systems worldwide. Factory farms are significant contributors to soil and water pollution. The FAO considers that livestock in CAFOs accounts for 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, while some estimates put the figure above 30%.
Today, the majority of the industrialized and globalized food system is concentrated in the hands of a few companies. Five agrochemical companies hold a 55% monopoly over the $61.5 USD billion world seed market. In 2018, 61% of global seeds and pesticide production was owned by three mega-corporations. Four corporations hold a monopoly over global commodity food trade, and approximately 80% of the US beef market is controlled by only four firms. In 2018, seven firms dominated poultry, pigs, cattle, and aquaculture genetics, and made over $80 billion in sales.
But these very corporations are behind the push for synthetic and lab-made foods, with meat industry giants like Tyson foods, JBS, Cargill, Nestlé, and Maple Leaf Foods have invested up to $2.78 billion, in this new sector. Synthetic and lab-cultured foods are quickly becoming a next means to consolidate even more power and profit into the hands of a few food giants without holding them accountable to the consequences of the system they perpetuate.
The dominant corporate-sponsored narratives are now pushing for the reduction of complex ecological collapse, and climate change, into dualistic narratives around plant versus animal, instead of addressing the larger crisis of how current industrial practices are destroying the Earth’s ecosystems.
Acting as if the world were a machine undermines and ultimately destroys life processes and organic systems. In the European Union, for example, total numbers of all types of farmers fell from 14.4 million to 9.1 million between 2005 to 2020. Meaning that over 5 million small and medium-sized companies have had to shut down. Meanwhile, global biodiversity has decreased by an average of 69% since 1970.
The colonizing mentality sees nature as dead matter to be exploited and used. Colonizers do not see self-organisation. They do not see creativity. They just see control and profits while bringing disease and ill health, destroying the land, the soil, and the water.
False solutions, such as synthetic foods, involve a further separation from nature. But the separation between us and nature is the root of the problem.
We are now at a watershed between perpetuating the mechanistic model or choosing to live in harmony with nature and its regenerative and creative capacities. We need to bring life back into the soil. In the micro-organisms of the soil we find the life we cannot see, which is the basis of our health and the solution to the climate problem.
The real solution to the ecological and climate crisis does not lie in creating substitutes for food or expanding the industrial paradigm, but in scaling the initiatives all over the world that are already working on healing our connection with the Earth through care.
These solutions already exist and are being implemented by local, diverse food communities around the world. Showing us that it is possible to walk a path of living in harmony with nature. We are part of the Earth’s systems, our food is a continuum of health from the ecosystems of the earth. We are deeply and inherently interconnected.
Agroecological systems can improve soil health, reduce erosion and increase resilience against the impacts of climate change through biodiversity conservation.
Agroecology and organic farming also reduce the need for external inputs through integration of agroecosystem, increase crop diversification and soil management. By increasing carbon sequestration, organic agriculture has a lower climate impact than industrial agriculture. Regenerative agroecology, if systemised, has the regenerative potential to reverse the course and serve as an important tool for climate change mitigation.
There are two ways of seeing ourselves and our relationship with the Earth. Either we think of ourselves as separate from Nature or as one with it. It only takes putting a seed in the ground to create this vision. And every additional community that lives ecologically, lives a better life. It is a very exciting time to be alive to regenerate life.
On the latest episode of Russell Brand’s “Stay Free,” scholar, environmental activist and food sovereignty advocate Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., discussed food fascism, the power of “philanthropy,” digital enslavement and how people can free themselves from this system.
“Human beings cannot have a relationship with nature, land and one another, it seems increasingly, without the intercedence of this corporate power,” comedian and political commentator Russell Brand told scholar and environmental activist Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., on the latest episode of his “Stay Free” podcast.
Brand asked Shiva, a food sovereignty and environmental activist, to explain how this corporate takeover of nature happened.
Shiva said the privatization of land and resources under colonialism was the first step in transforming nature into “either a mine or a dump.”
Today, she said, privatization has become so entrenched that mega-corporation Cargill can own every chicken, chicken production facility, and every input needed to raise chickens, and then dump all of its waste into public rivers.
The situation we face today could not have happened, she said, without the criminalization of farmers — for which she held media organizations like The Guardian responsible because they attack farmers instead of the corporations.
“If the drivers are the corporations,” she said, “you have to have the guts to bite the corporations. You don’t target the victims. The farmers are victims of this system.”
Who are the real ‘food fascists’?
Brand asked Shiva why the global uprising of farmers — from Sri Lanka and India to Germany, England and the Netherlands — against the globalization of agriculture had come to be cast as a right-wing idea by the press.
Shiva said Mussolini himself defined fascism as “the convergence of economic and political power.” “Food fascism,” she said, “is the recent control over our food systems by giant corporations and the billionaires.”
Under colonialism, the British controlled the land, she said, but they didn’t control the food. The advent of agricultural industrialization, the green revolution and globalization made it possible for corporations to take control of food.
The call for “food sovereignty,” she said, “came as the call as opposite to the food dictatorship and food fascism.”
Now, she said, those people want to complete the separation of people from the land that began with colonialism.
Today, they want “farming without farmers.”
Being able to plant a seed, input love, knowledge and sun and produce food, “is the only truly independent production system and it’s that freedom they want to attack,” Shiva said, because they are threatened by it.
So they discredit farmers by calling them “fascists” and “right wing.”
“And anybody who facilitates that is essentially doing the work of these globalists,” she said, “they’re the fascists.”
How ‘philanthropy’ buys control
Today, people who talk about the disproportionate power and influence that billionaires like Bill Gates have over global agriculture and health are regarded as “conspiracy theorists,” Brand said.
He asked Shiva to explain Gates’ rise to power in plain language and with facts.
Shiva said people like Gates became wealthy through neoliberal trade liberalization, where trade in information, in the software and other forms of data Gates produced, went completely untaxed.
Then, she said, they used that money “philanthropically” to gain control of other sectors.
It even gives them the power to control governments, she said, who have been made desperate for money through indebtedness.
Gates and Silicon Valley, she said, “are very big players in the fake food future of farming without farmers, food without farms.” And they get journalists such as The Guardian’s George Monbiot to promote it.
Chasing enslavement
Shiva said this vision is built on “an imagined promise of an imagined future that we are never gonna arrive at. Because when you get there, you’ll find it doesn’t belong to you. It belongs to them.”
The systems that support their vision of the future appear to offer us convenience, but in reality, she said, maintaining them takes all of our time.
Many indigenous people, she said, still have a lot of time to enjoy life “because they’re not chasing enslavement through consumption.”
Shiva wondered why people would want a “smart home,” where, for example, “the fridge will tell you your milk is getting old. How dumb are we getting that we can’t open the door of our fridge and know our milk is getting old?”
“All that is surveillance data,” she said.
And processing that data takes big servers. “The tiny bits of enslavement we are getting into is [producing] 4% of greenhouse gases, which is more than the aviation sector,” she said.
She added:
“So, not only is it a very foolish kind of slavery, it’s a huge ecological footprint on the planet. Yes. And we can’t afford it. So we have to learn to walk lightly.”
Data is the new oil
Brand said he was alarmed at the increasing pace of “desacralization” where people prioritize materialism over spirituality and lose control over their lives. He asked Shiva how she thought censorship, the inhibition of free speech and the ability of the media to shut down dialogue, fed into this process.
Shiva said it was part of “a system of total control,” that makes that control highly profitable.
What’s new in this system according to Shoshana Zuboff’s “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism” is that today, human beings themselves have been turned into raw material whose data can be extracted.
“That is the capital of today. Big data is the new oil, and then it’s used to manipulate us,” she said, adding “Any system that allows you the awareness of your real freedom must be censored.”
The strange thing, Brand said, is that this system of technological domination was sold to people as a way of empowering them and giving them their freedom.
Technology should be a tool, she said, but it “has been elevated to a god” and those opposed to that transformation are discounted, through Orwellian doublespeak, as “right wing.”
But, Shiva said, the last few years have shown there are three things people cannot give up:
“First, your ability to know and distinguish between truth and untruth. … And not allow post-truth to be projected as truth and the truth speakers to be projected as conspirators.
“The second is our ability to relate to each other without the intervention of a surveillance state and surveillance corporation.
“And third, because food is what makes us, it becomes our blood, ourselves, our brain.”
In other words, Brand said:
“Speak freely. Tell the truth. Communicate freely. Grow your own food. Don’t eat things grown in labs. Don’t eat bugs. And don’t listen to people who want to promote it.”
“Experts Agree: Not only is the sky falling but we’re all going to die from global warming. SUVs are a major culprit, and have been contributing to rising sea levels according to climate expert, Chicken Little. Colleague, Algore, speaking during a blizzard, agreed with Little.”
~ The Daily Alarmist
I must preface my comments here with sane logic, so as to ward off the absurd idiots who have bought hook, line, and sinker, the madness of the mainstream media, the political class, the non-science ‘scientists,’ the fake environmental whackos, the evil UN, the illegitimate IPCC, and the staged marketing of the ever-pathetic rantings of the once teenage bimbo ignoramus, Greta Thunberg, about man’s normal activity destroying the ‘planet.’ It is just not so!
Yes, the climate on earth changes on a regular basis. Yes, extreme weather conditions are seemingly present more often than not considering the near past. Yes, warming and cooling takes place over time, and has for millions, (or billions) of years. Yes, particular humans, (government, malevolent ‘scientists,’ NGOs, and the military, among many other nefarious individuals and organizations) can manipulate weather to harm us, but no; driving an SUV cannot kill us all. I present this as a purposeful affront to the evil liars, propagandists, depopulation monsters, eugenists, and technocrats, who desire to rule the earth at the great expense of all common men and nature.
The latest absurdity, not new or unique in any way, is the plan of the Irish government to cull (kill) 200,000 healthy cows, claiming “they contribute to ‘climate change’ due to ‘carbon’ emissions.” Anyone who takes this nonsense seriously, or accepts and/or ignores it, is opening the gates to voluntary human extermination. To not be able to understand that both cows and humans eat, live, and expel C02, and to not see that there are eight times more humans than cows globally, why would anyone not grasp that killing humans would be, according to these mad enviro-fools, even more effective in their efforts to ‘save the planet’ than killing cows? Why not kill every animal, including large numbers of humans, if ‘saving the planet’ from farts is the main goal?
Humans not only expel more C02 than cows, but they consume vast amounts of energy, they drive cars, they fly on planes, they build factories that pollute, they mine, they create incredible mountains of plastic and garbage, they perpetuate wars that destroy the earth at unheard of levels, and they continue to outpace cows in population growth by extreme margins. Cows only breath and fart, so why kill these innocent animals; why not just go ahead and cut to the chase, and kill large swaths of humans, (the real plan) saving the soon to be endangered Bos taurus — bovine? (cow) Are you beginning to see the absurdity of this bogus ‘climate change’ bullshite? The nonsense swallowed up and believed by most all these ‘climate change’ pushing scum, expands the bounds of absurdity to astronomical levels.
It gets much worse. This incredibly harmful and idiotic plan by the very imbecilic Irish Department of Agriculture, and the Irish Environmental Protection Agency, will pay 5,000 euros ($5,622) for each cow killed. Keep in mind, that 200,000 cows makes up 0.02% of the total number of cows on earth. Is anyone stupid enough to consider this a legitimate fight against the fraudulent notion of ‘climate change?’ At that price, it would cost $1.125 billion just to pay the farmers for killing their animals. (At this price, to kill all cows on earth, would cost $5.525 trillion) But what about the cost to dispose of these animals, the huge amount of energy and pollution used to do so, the loss of food and dairy products, the supply reduction and obvious extreme price increases certain to come? How will these losses be made up, and how much increased energy will be required to fill this void?
I do realize that most might consider this a minor subject matter, but that would be a grave mistake on your part. The powers that be are not planning on stopping with the killing of animals; they are intent on total control over every aspect of your life, including what food you eat, where you are allowed to go, how much energy you are allowed to use, how much heat you will be allowed in winter to keep warm, how you spend your allotted currency units, (CBDCs) how much medical care you may be allowed, where you may live, and even control whether you may procreate or not.
Why not get to the meat (pun intended?) of this problem, and dispose of the lies and propaganda that consume this now ignorant, pathetic, and indifferent population. The weather is being controlled, it is greatly harming humanity and nature, and is causing an incredible amount of damage not only to this earth, but to every living thing on it. This is not, and never has been, the result of normal human behavior, but is due to mass manipulation of the weather by the ruling class of claimed ‘elites’, who have chosen to use false climate narratives to create mass fear in order to control all. This is the ultimate fake ’emergency’ being used to take over humanity.
Many factors are likely present concerning climate extremes, including, but not limited to, weather geoengineering by the State, graphene rain, directed energy, climate modification assault, heating the ionosphere using HAARP technology, cloud seeding, spraying our skies with metals and poisons through stratospheric aerosol injection, (chemtrails) and most assuredly, artificially creating and enhancing the destructive nature of hurricanes and earthquakes. Certainly, there are other devastating manipulations of weather going on as well that are unknown at this time, as the military’s full technological potential is hidden, and far ahead of what is believed by most. In addition, releases of toxic chemicals, bioweapons, and the continuous poisoning of the earth’s land and water by deadly substances such as glyphosate, is continuously ongoing. Weather is now a major weapon against mankind, and is being used to monopolize all agriculture and food production, or planned lack thereof.
It is not just cows that will be targeted by these evil ‘climate change’ monsters, it is the entire human race. So to believe that killing cows will save anyone or this earth, is not only completely ludicrous, but a sign that this is only the start of a much broader assault on all of the proletariat herd. They may attempt to begin with the cattle, but if that atrocity is allowed to happen, you and your family will likely be next.
Carbon Dioxide (C02) is absolutely vital to the existence of man. Without it, everything on earth would die. Through the process of photosynthesis, leaves on trees and plants use the great energy of the sun in order to convert this C02 to feed the plants, causing life-sustaining oxygen to be produced so that all things can live and breathe. It is said that one large tree can produce by using expelled C02, enough oxygen supply to provide what is necessary for a full day for several people. Plants also store carbon dioxide to clean the air and reduce negative effects to the environment. This process is imperative for life to survive, as without it, oxygen would cease to be available. If carbon dioxide were to be eliminated, (net zero is the stupid term used) everything would die. Keep this in mind the next time you hear some ranting ‘climate change’ dreg advocating the killing of all our animals (including humans) to ‘save the planet.’
All that is needed to save this planet and everything on it, is the elimination of all rulers and governments! Think about that the next time you perpetuate your own destruction by choosing to vote to ‘elect’ a master, any master, to rule over and control you. It is better to cull politicians and save the cows.
“Almost all of history is an unbroken trail of one conspiracy after another. Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception.”
For the last few years, agribusiness and biotech giants have been quietly making changes to GMO regulation around the world, deepening and entrenching their monopolistic grip on the global food system.
Today the effects of this lobbying also reached Europe.
On July 5, 2023, the European Commission released a proposal to exclude a large part of the new GMOs, or organisms genetically modified through new genetic editing techniques, from existing GMO regulations that require traceability, labeling, and risk assessment for genetic engineering products. The new regulation considers plant products deriving from genetic editing, of “category 1″, or equivalent to those that “could have been achieved with classic techniques like seed selection and crossbreeding”.
Through this proposal, the products obtained with genetic editing can contain up to 20 different genetic modifications and would be considered “equivalent” to all conventional plants and products, without the need to explicitly declare their nature as genetically modified.
The European Union represents the last bastion against the imposition of these new technologies. Therefore, it is essential for environmental, ecological, and human health and safety to require that these new genetically modified organisms be labeled, and subjected to independent evaluations. Also meaning that their process of production, sale, and distribution be carefully regulated.
Second generation GMOs
Over the last five years, new gene-edited technologies, denominated under an alphabet of new acronyms, from NBTs (New Breeding Techniques), NGTs (New Genomic Techniques), and TEAs (Techniques of Assisted Evolution), have been silently dovetailing into different countries’ existing agricultural legislation to by-pass any existing regulations and safety checks set in place for GMOs.
The logic used around the world to justify the deregulation of what is nothing but a new generation of GMOs is based on statements coming from the influential biotechnology sector. According to them, these products obtained through genetic editing (including seeds, plants, microorganisms, and animals), are to be considered harmless as gene editing would allow them to mimic nature’s natural mechanisms of genetic evolution and reproduction, now only faster. According to the large agrotech companies operating in the sector, since these techniques do not involve the insertion of foreign DNA through transgenesis, they cannot be considered equivalent to the first generation of GMOs and can therefore be regulated like conventional crops, microorganisms, and animals.
A question of biosafety
As demonstrated by numerous independent studies, however, gene editing is not as accurate, safe, or sustainable as the industry claims. The process, considered as a whole, induces hundreds of unwanted mutations throughout the plant genome. This may affect multiple gene functions with unknown consequences to cell protein biochemistry and metabolic activity.
We have already seen how the promises of food security, sustainability, and adaptation to climate change which in the past justified the use of highly toxic chemicals, GMOs, and the unlimited expansion of monocultures, have been severely disregarded.
Considering the devastating consequences already caused by the industrial food system in terms of environmental pollution, loss of biodiversity, climate destabilization, and the destruction of small rural economies, there is little reason to believe that the scenario will be different for new genetic editing techniques. Especially when the actors behind this push are the same ones who have fuelled an agricultural model of exploitation and ecological disaster for decades.
The exclusion of gene edited products from regulation, traceability, and labeling and the lack of independent research on their actual safety for human health and the environment, would leave consumers and farmers unaware of the type of GMOs released into nature, the risks associated with their spread and the ecological and/or health damage they can cause. Directly violating the precautionary principle to protect the rights of citizens, farmers, and of the environment.
Food sovereignty under attack by multinationals
This lack of transparency appears to serve to absolve manufacturers of any responsibility and represents a further attack on food sovereignty. Also understood as the fundamental right of people to healthy and safe food, produced by ecological methods and adequate information on the origin and production methods of food.
The lack of in-depth research on the safety, as well as the long-lasting effects of gene edited products on the environment, undermine this fundamental right and encourages the centralization of food systems to the detriment of local food systems.
A closer analysis is sufficient to bring out all the interests at stake in this very dangerous game. Indeed, the deregulation of gene editing around the world has opened the door to the advent of a new “bioeconomy,” which is a new method of economic production based on manipulating the genetic information of microbes, plants, and animals to “program biology” to make it more economically productive.
What is really at stake is a further process of corporate appropriation and control not only of our food system but of all living systems. In this new “bioeconomy,” the goal of biotech and agrotech companies is to make gene editing and biological engineering the main tool for producing and processing all natural material, reducing agribusiness production to an artificial system of exclusive patents and licensing.
“Organic” and “No GMO” labeling are thus likely to disappear in favor of more generic labels such as “healthy” or “sustainable,” regardless of the process used to create the product.
The deregulation of gene editing biotechnology is opening up huge new profit potential for the major players in global agriculture. Regardless of the regulatory definition that equates these products with conventional ones, companies continue to file hundreds of patents using these new technologies to further strengthen their control over food systems.
The advent of these new technologies is enabling companies to patent specific genomic sequences by circumventing the foundations of current biosafety regulations established by the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol.
The real solutions to the climate and food crises
The agribusiness industry’s attempt to reduce the complexity, diversity, and richness of life forms to a mere matter of genetics, treating food and crops as mechanical products, only further endangers the world’s biodiversity, ecological systems, and people’s health.
The desire to control everything living, and the very constitution of living things, is an attack on diversity and life. Diversity is the basis of life on the planet and is the only antidote we have to create ecological, health, and climate resilience.
After centuries of dominance of a mechanistic, reductionist, and linear worldview, we should see that the solution to the multiple crises of the present cannot come from further manipulation or control of nature.
New gene editing technologies continue to shift attention away from the real alternatives that can drive ecological regeneration. The solutions lie in the creation of ecologically integrated systems based on biodiversity, care, and science that understands and respects the interconnections between life and nature.
The Netherlands has been chosen as a pilot area in the EU to be climate neutral with a transition in protein food and a transformation of healthcare into a telemedicine, data, and AI-driven connected system approach led by Public Private Partnerships. A closure of 55-70 percent of traditional farming is foreseen to be replaced by tech-driven vertical farming, gene-edited crops, edible insects, veganism, 15-minute cities and a CBDC passport covering personal health data.
Citizens will pay for the transition by increasing prices for energy, food, healthcare services, and insurance.
A U-turn of these EU-driven policies is highly needed. Health and wealth have been decreasing in the past years due to pandemic measures, inflation, and recently implemented policies. The Netherlands, famous for farming and innovations, can best win this challenge to re-establish healthcare driven by traditional farmers producing nutritious whole food that prevents famine, improves the soil and the immune system for healthy lives.
Dutch Farmers will no longer accept harmful policies
The Netherlands, a small country conveniently situated within the EU, has been economically growing by generations of farming and fishing. In July 2022 the Dutch policies on farming led to the articleNo farmers No Food No Life.
Large demonstrations initiated by farmers and fishermen took place in July 2022, November 2022, and March 2023 in The Hague and Brussels respectively, which received much attention worldwide.Now, half a year later an even bigger demonstration initiated by Dutch farmers took place on June 29,2023 in The Hague. Farmers and citizens have drawn the line.
The new policies pushed forward by politicians in Rutte IV could be disastrous for farmers and humanity. This will not only affect the Netherlands. Changes in farming in the Netherlands, being the second largest export country for food, will affect many people worldwide.
Last week the negotiations with farmers and agricultural society on the Agriculture Agreement IN MOVEMENT to meet the governmental goals for climate change on CO2 and Nitrogen reduction in 2040 collapsed. In the draft Agreement a 25-30 percent reduction of farmers and cattle and loss of agricultural fields is foreseen in 2035.
It could even be a reduction of 55-70 percent of farmers to transform the Netherlands together with Flanders and North-Rhine Westphalia in one region ‘Tristate city’ “a large green world city with 30 million inhabitants.” This is a concept that was introduced in 2016 as a marketing strategy, established as a place brand, and initiated by the private sector. The concept was found by visiting emerging markets in China. The opinion of thought leaders is that it will be a success, but there is no way of knowing this would be the case.
When the new agreement is signed farmers need to fulfill 122 measures; most of them will not be able to meet them. Farmers are warning that if the eighth EU Nitrogen rule will be forced for the ability to grow vegetables and fruit, it will be impossible to continue farming. This year the use of certain crop protection spreads has become restricted in the Netherlands while other countries are allowed to use it. A 40 percent reduction in yield is expected.
The only way out for farmers seems to be to accept the offer by the government to sell their ownings for 120 percent of the value with a restriction not to be allowed to start another farm within the EU area. Many farmers still refuse the offers made. ‘Even when they pay 400 percent of the value I won’t leave, my son is going to be the next generation farmer.’
The draft agreement does not present information on effects on farmers’ income and consumers’ behavior. The advisory report from Wageningen University and Research (WUR) writes that they cannot advise on this topic as they do not have the information. With the reduction of cattle, farming land and a transition to regenerative farming they will be able to meet the goals on climate change. However, 30,000 jobs will be lost and €6.5 billion of added value.
Remarkably, the role of Rabobank (originally derived from Boerenleenbank, a cooperative owned and run by farmers) which has been pushing investments by farmers for large-scale farming, while knowing for 30 years this strategy could harm the environment, has been kept out of the N2 debate in the Netherlands. A report published by Greenpeace explores the role of Rabobank. The minimum Rabobank (a bank for actively accelerating transitions for food, climate and finance) can do says Greenpeace is to contribute €3.1 billion in the N2 Fund.
A catastrophic power by a Culture of Climate Hysteria
Recently Rob Jetten, the Dutch minister for Climate and Energy Policy presented in parliament the net zero CO2 and nitrogen plan, which will cost €28 billion and would result in a 0.000036 degree Celsius reduction in temperature in 2050. A harmful and unrealistic plan for a problem that even does not exist.
There is no climate emergency, over 500 eminent experts wrote in 2019 in an open letter to the United Nations. A research paper by Skrable et al, in Health Physics in 2022 concludes the increase in total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels was much too low to be the cause of global warming. Another group of researchers found ice around Antarctica Thwaites Doomsday was eight times thinner around 8,000 years ago.
Furthermore, the Nobel Prize winner in Physics in 2022, John F Clauser, says it is clear; there is no climate crisis. Climate crisis is based on scientific corruption, pseudo-science. Similarly, Greenpeace co-founder Dr Patrick Moore explains in his speeches ‘Carbon dioxide is the currency of life and the most important building block for all life on earth. It is not responsible for global warming. The whole debate on climate change is a fabrication.’
The European Court of Auditors stated in a recent report, ‘It is not clear if the suggested measures will be supportive to meet the climate goals.’ Probably the EU will not be able to meet their sustainability goals to reduce CO2 emission in 2030 by 55 percent. Unfortunately, the EU committed that they will be the first worldwide to be climate neutral. In the near future every EU citizen will have to pay for CO2 emissions via house, car, and company.
Gripped in a culture of climate catastrophism, society seems to allow to rip the work of generations of farmers and thousands of cattle being slaughtered while the real consequences are unknown and threatens us all.
What is also conveniently overlooked in the climate debate against cows is the carbon cycle. CO2 is absorbed by grass during photosynthesis. Cows eat the grass produce methane-which is released into the atmosphere and breaks down into CO2 and H2O. And the cycle repeats itself. Basic biological knowledge that is learned at school and everybody knows. Livestock are highly needed for fertile lands. A healthy soil, the underpinning of cultivation throughout history is created in interaction between grazing animals and soil microbiology. Regenerative agriculture can sequester more carbon than humans are inventing.
A net zero CO2 policy in Sri Lanka has proven to be a disaster and ruined many farmers’ lives. The policy resulted in complete chaos and a setback in health, environment, and economy.
In the Netherlands an increasing number of farmers a year commit suicide; the exact numbers are unknown. According to a recent investigation there was a 37 percent increase in 2020. Families are crying at the kitchen table daily.
Dutch citizens will be financing the €28 billion climate plan by extra taxes on food prices for example on milk products, meat, compounds for vegetation protection, and fertilizers while inflation is high and purchases are expensive.
Also, a prepared law for zero taxes on vegetables and fruits to promote healthy foods supposed to pass for January 2024 seems to make a U-turn. According to a report from SEO Economic Research it will be too complex and too expensive and it is not sure the introduction of this law will promote health. However, keeping taxes on vegetables and fruit will generate €550-950 million in income for government.
Overlooked risks of expensive food transitions
A transition to ‘Food is Medicine’ initiatives is a strong promotion for the necessity to eat fully plant-based (vegan), bio-engineered food, lab-grown meat, and novel foods like edible insects. Fresh whole foods from farmers will be replaced by products derived from vertical farming, food grown in laboratories, and innovative Food Hubs.
According to the many start-ups and initiatives, it is necessary to solve diminishing resources and an insecurity for healthy nutritious and sustainable food for a fast-growing human population to 9 billion people in 2050. A future of food with low-footprint ingredients and technology that will bring a beautiful nature back into balance. A Global Food Forum of young people is accelerating the transition.
The Netherlands is leading this worldwide food transition funded by the private sector-run FoodvalleyNL, the World Economic Forum and Rockefeller Foundation, the EU, and the Dutch government. The secretariat and coordinating centre for various Food Hubs in the world is based at Wageningen University and Research (WUR). In 2050 we will eat less meat, eggs and dairy products and more chickpeas, crickets and chlorella; a movement for everyone, the WUR states.
A McKinsey report ‘Alternative proteins, the market share is on’ states leading alternative protein resources will be plant protein, insect protein, mycoprotein and cultured meat.
It is not a surprise that the world’s largest and leading insect company Protix, producing protein and fats from insects for feed and food for animals and humans, is based in the Netherlands.
The company was founded in 2009 by two consultants from McKinsey and attracted huge amounts of funding. Protix uses high-track control systems, artificial intelligence, genetic improvement programs, and robotics. The company received many awards, among them from the WEF. A circular frontrunner in the greenfield of insect-based foods.
In the EU in the past few years Protix, Fair Insects, and CricketOne, a Vietnam-based company, gained approval for use of insects in human consumption. The growing number of insects authorized in the EU for sale in food including dietary supplements will not be required to carry special labels to distinguish them from other products the EU has confirmed despite protests from MEPs.
Insect protein and fat can be found in products like paste, bread, ice creams, cakes, and more. The argument is that before insects can become a large-scale food product for humans in the Western world, insects should be turned into an appealing product. For several years start-ups in food transition products like hamburgers from cultivated crickets have been supported by the EU and government in the Netherlands.
According to the Dutch Platform De Krekerij is the most sustainable fast food on the planet. One kg of cricket meat uses 85 percent less food, 90 percent less land and 95 percent less water than one kg of beef.
Green gas emission from farming insects would be 100 times lower than those from pigs and cattle. However, a position paper of the Eurogroup for animals says insect farming is a false solution for the EU’s food system. Industrial animal farming for food should be replaced rather than having insect protein as another form of industrial farming.
Although more than 2,000 edible insects caught in the forests or agricultural fields have been consumed for thousands of years all over the world, there is hardly any knowledge on consuming insects cultivated in plastic boxes in fabrics. Impacts on various aspects, governing the cultivating and production methods of insects and issues on upscaling, on health, and the environment have not been investigated in the short and long term. ‘Little is known about the food chain leading edible insects from farm to plate and on their role in human and planet wellbeing says the editorial Edible Insects: From Farm to Fork.
In a report in 2022 the FAO documented possible food safety issues with edible insects. Among them are allergen cross-reactivity, biological safety hazards as bacteria, viruses, fungi as well as chemical contaminants (toxins (myco), PFAS, pesticides, antibiotics, toxic metals, flame retardation, cyanogenic glycosides). Especially for undernourished children and people with a weakened immune system, eating insects might be a risk factor. The EFSA report for CricketOne is warning of a possible negative impact on both the innate and adaptive immune system.
A research paper on edible insects versus meat shows that the content of individual nutrients in both insects and meat varies significantly. Both are rich in nutrients for development and functioning of the human body. Some foods might exacerbate diet-related health problems while others may be effective in treatments. However, studies on eating insect products versus meat on health are still lacking.
Around the myth of cultured meat It remains to be seen whether the production of artificial meat will be enough to be competitive in comparison with conventional meat. It is still in its infancy. Analysis found that lab-grown meat made from cultivated stem cells could be 25 times worse for the climate than beef if current production methods are scaled up because they are still highly energy-intensive.
Another threat for traditional farming in the EU conversation is the industrial lobby owning 10,000 patents boosting the use of gene-edited crops (CRISPR-Cas) as a solution to climate change and biodiversity. Recent research by the EU and the Global Biodiversity Framework are likely to foster the use of CRISPR-Cas as a solution to not only climate change but also biodiversity conversion. Also WUR scientists expect the EU will change the rules this year with smarter governance for the benefits of society and environment.
The debate on gene-editing for crops instead of classical natural crossings for crops is not new and has been used by Monsanto. The use of the gene-edited seeds has been expensive for many farmers. Biological farmers are concerned that farmers will become dependent on multinationals and natural classical solutions will no longer be effective. The balance with nature will be destroyed. Plants are interconnected with soil, animals and humans. The long-term effects of combining various gene-edited plants and foods are not known. Moreover human gene-editing is still controversial and the effects of eating the gene-edited plants and fruits on animals and humans is not known.
It is clear that when evaluating the food transition to veganism, gene-edited plants, soil fertilizers converting biodiversity, increased irrigation technologies, and edible insects, the intended transition has many risks in the short and long term for humans, animals, plants, and the planet.
A ‘rich’ country in famine and lack of care
The Healthcare system in the Netherlands has been ranking for years as the best in Europe. In 2020 the Dutch healthcare system was ranked as the number three most innovative in the world.
Unfortunately, in a country with 17.8 million people, approximately 2 million people do not get the care they need, and 1.2 million people are living below poverty. Around 148,000 citizens visit a food bank. Poverty is expected to rise to 5.8 percent.
In 2021 30.9 percent of men and 35.9 percent of women (age > 16 years) experienced one or more chronic diseases. This is expected to increase to around 7 million in 2030. During the last few years a strong increase in heart problems has taken place, and one in ten persons in the Netherlands experiences heart problems.
After three years of pandemic measures and limited care, healthcare is confronted with a population with an increasing number of elderly people, people with more chronic diseases, rising mental problems, increased feelings of stress, fear, and loneliness, more people dying as expected, shortness of nurses, increased sickness leaves, low salaries, inflation, high prices for energy and food, and more people being undernourished. People are leaving the healthcare system, and 37 percent experience moral conflicts. Doctor visits are replaced by telemedicine or done by people with less professional education.
The number of people on waiting lists for urgent care in nursing homes is increasing and surgeries have been postponed. CEO’s of healthcare organisations have started to hire nurses from Indonesia and India as sufficient Dutch nurses are not available or prefer to work as an independent nurse. In 2032 a shortness of 137,000 nurses is expected. Furthermore, shortness of family doctors (35 -45 percent ) is on the rise. Telemedicine and efforts on the implemention of technological support for big data and AI are pushed forward by the minister of Healthcare.
Large academic hospitals have started AI labs. Personal medical information files will become more easily available among different care organisations and within the EU. Special acute care will be concentrated in fewer hospitals.
CEO’s of healthcare organizations with nursing homes and homes for the disabled have written an open letter to the minister that the current situation will drive organisations into bankruptcy. The risk for Dutch women to become burnt out or lose their paid work to replace with unpaid voluntary care is near.
Prices for mandated private health insurance increase due to inflation. During the pandemic billions have been thrown away for unsafe and ineffective and even harmful measures. But, politicians in the Netherlands don’t see it as a priority to evaluate the policies as they have postponed the pandemic inquiry. Trust in politics in the Netherlands is at an all-time low.
Preventing Famine
It is the UN report that appeared in April 2023 that needs to be on the front page of all media worldwide. “Globally the consumption of animal source foods including, meat, eggs and milk can help to reduce stunting, wasting and overweight amongst children.”
“This is a significant gap given the co-existence of micronutrient deficiencies with overweight, obesity and Non-Communicable Disease.”
At least one in ten people and one in three children worldwide is malnourished. This is presumably much more when various grades of deficiencies are considered. While it is known that most non-communicable diseases can be prevented and restored, it is unacceptable given the co-existence with deficiencies that malnutrition and even hunger and famine may increase when EU policies will be forced into the agriculture and healthcare system in the Netherlands.
The Netherlands owes generations of hard-working farmers and fishermen a solution to the problem of famine and a restoration of lower cost of healthcare. A cooperation between farmers, fishermen, and medical doctors for good nutritious whole food and loving care will be a strategy less costly, safe, better for soil and the immune system, and more successful. This will be the way that needs to be followed to regain trust and wealth.
Permaculture is an ecological design system focused on creating sustainable human habitats while promoting the preservation of natural resources.
It’s a philosophy.
The term “permaculture” was coined in the 1970s.
Permaculture has a few design principles that aim to create self-sustaining ecosystems that require minimal human intervention.
Diversity and abundance are key, as Jim Gale often explains.
You don’t have a snail infestation; you have a duck deficiency.
Jim Gale
The system involves creating a network of interconnected components such as plants, animals and structures that work together to produce food.
It’s about mimicking natural ecosystems.
Monoculture reminds me of a barren desert.
Not only is it pretty, but it is also pretty anti-establishment because it can have a significant impact on mega-farming which relies on large-scale monoculture practices that deplete soil nutrients and harm local ecosystems.
By using permaculture principles, farmers can create diverse ecosystems that produce food while preserving natural resources.
Permaculture can also lead to more resilient farming practices that can withstand droughts, floods, and other extreme weather conditions.
Jim has been on my show before, but this time he gave me a type of beginner’s guide.
“Sometimes the less conspicuous among us have pretty cool names, tiny wildflowers, interesting life strategies, and edible uses. When they do, it’s worth paying attention to them and wondering ‘what else have we been stepping on all these years?’.”
A typical walk in nature can be slow. From an outsider’s perspective, it can be painfully slow. A 1-mile walk might take a naturalist 4 hours to complete — a pace 12 times slower than the average walking speed.
While it’s true that a turtle could probably outpace a botanist walking through a flowering floodplain, the point of any nature excursion isn’t momentum.
It’s observation, education, and integration.
On several walks this year, I’ve halted my pace in order to observe a particular wildflower. Known as false mermaidweed, this plant grows in floodplain forests along rivers and streams.
False mermaidweed is unlike other plants for a few reasons, one of which is the size of its flower. Only a few millimeters wide, this flower is among the smallest of any wildflower in nature. It’s rarely seen by people walking through the woods, which is why even a slow pace isn’t recommended for proper observation.
Rather, complete stillness is.
Despite its small size, false mermaidweed offers immense value. Its stems, leaves, and flowers are edible and can be harvested during the spring season.
Nano-materials of the Graphene family are strictly unregulated by the European Commission
How long have Graphene derivatives been contaminating Agriculture? Ten years or fifteen years?
Graphene Hydrogels commercialized for Agriculture
Studies on the toxicity of Graphene derivatives on plant growth and soil health
Studies on the toxicity of Graphene derivatives on all elements of aquatic environments
Studies on the ability of Graphene derivatives to allegedly improve plant growth
Studies on the ability of Graphene derivatives to eliminate or mitigate, allegedly, toxicities or pests in agriculture
A few Patents concerning the insertion of graphene oxide in Fertilizers and in Pesticides/Biocides of all kinds
Foreword
This dossier is a follow-up to my first one, entitled “Graphene in Agriculture”, which presented two of my short articles on the subject, as well as six essays written by the Spanish researcher, Mik Andersen. This first dossier was presented in January 2022.
In this present dossier, I have “restricted myself”, in the first part, to the proven contamination of agricultural plants, agricultural soils, terrestrial environments and aquatic environments, by Graphene present in fertilizers and pesticides used in Agriculture. I do not address the same “contamination”, by Graphene as a “decontamination vector”, of these same agricultural, terrestrial and aquatic environments… which it has itself contributed to contaminate in synergy with a host of other metallic nanoparticles. This scandalous issue of the “decontamination by Graphene” will be the subject of a subsequent dossier.
The situation is much more serious than the Spike’s Wacky Sectarians, and other devout dissidents of the Covidian religion, can imagine, when they censor us, inexorably, we whistleblowers who denounce the presence of graphene, nano-particles and other nano-technologies, in CoYid/19 injections – and other injections called infantile, anti-flu, anti-cancer, anti-meningitis, “vaccines” – ad nauseam and ad mortem.
Graphene is everywhere: namely, in all sectors of daily life because it is considered the miracle material – especially by all the eugenicist Globalists and other scientists in their pay… Indeed, Graphene will allow them to trace and connect Humans by chaining and imprisoning them, “digitally”, in the nets of the virtual network under the pretext of “digital health”, “digital medicine” or “digital pharmacy” – or under no pretext at all… when dictatorship sets in.
Biologists, doctors, researchers, journalists, activists, columnists, influencers, civil servants, etc., who continue to deny this reality of the omnipresent Graphene – or to deny the extreme health risks associated with this reality of the omnipresent Graphene – are thus invited to open their eyes, their ears and their synaptic connections very quickly… or to change profession. What about plumbing?
Why? Because they are liars and because, today, the empire of lies – and its peddlers under all ideological shades – is in the process of collapsing under the weight of its own inconsistencies, manipulations, dissonances. Indeed, the empire of lies can no longer generate as much energy as it would take to fill the gaps… which are becoming more and more gaping.
In a second part, I present the studies which affirm that Graphene can increase the growth of the plants, fight against the pests or, even, take part in the decontamination of the agricultural plants toxified by the extreme abundance of heavy metals, various and varied, in the agricultural grounds.
Indeed, there are teams of highly paid “scientists” whose mission is to claim that Graphene is harmless in agricultural soils, in food plants, in terrestrial and aquatic environments – and that it is, in fact, beneficial. These are the same people who produce “scientific” studies on the danger of the non-existent CoYid/19 or on the harmlessness of genocidal vaccines.
These are the same people who produce “scientific” studies claiming that Graphene is not dangerous for the human organism – and that it is, in fact, beneficial. In fact, I am presenting, here, summaries of hundreds of studies on the toxicity of Graphene derivatives: graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide, carbon nanotubes, carbon quantum dots, graphene quantum dots, etc.
It is important to elucidate what a plethora of scientists have been working on, for the last 15 years or so, with regard to the very concrete problem of nano-particles in agriculture – and therefore in food. Indeed, those who finance this type of research and study are, of course, very intentional – in terms of profitability, or, in the case of “vaccines”, in terms of orchestrating planetary depopulation.
This elucidation is all the more essential since, as mentioned below, hundreds of thousands of tons of nano-materials are injected annually into agriculture, in France for example, without anyone being aware of the existence of this phenomenon – or of the nature of the nano-particulate substances injected… under the pretext of fertilizers, elicitors or pesticides.
This is why I am presenting, first of all, the very concrete and commercialized case of the graphene hydrogel, GelPonic, in order to highlight the fact that – just as insect meal has been sneaking into many foods for years – graphene has already infiltrated all sectors of agriculture… and therefore, of food.
It is no longer just a matter of patents or PhD studies… but of concrete proposals made by the industry. Moreover, patents and other scientific studies by PhDs are often only the first signs of an industrial catastrophe.
I invite readers interested in this very toxic issue to consult my very long files on the subject of Graphene in human food through cellular food, insect-based food, functionalized meats, food packaging, etc:
Graphene has infiltrated agricultural plants even more than it is beginning to contaminate all terrestrial and aquatic environments – as many of the following studies have shown. And this is, of course, without dwelling on the Graphenization of the Atmosphere, which I have already addressed in a voluminous dossier, “Graphene in the Atmosphere”.
Graphene in its various forms circulates in the Atmosphere, in agricultural environments, in aquatic environments… and, therefore, in the rivers and water tables that serve agricultural soils – in a vicious circle of self-accumulation and self-assembly.
It goes without saying that the problem of contamination of terrestrial and aquatic environments by graphene present in fertilizers, elicitors and pesticides of toxic conventional agriculture, is also posed for all other metallic or non-metallic nanoparticles that have been used in agriculture for a long time.
What should we do? We will avoid panicking, first of all, because the Globalists already handle panic with brio.
Let us be confident that in the long run – whatever the amplitude – Gaia, our Mother Earth, digests and metabolizes any substance and, one day, she will emanate, from her Biosphere, a bacterium with the capacity to digest all the two-dimensional carbonaceous nano-materials (0.35 nm thick) of the Graphene family… if they excessively disturb Her Natural ways.
Nano-materials of the Graphene family are strictly unregulated by the European Commission
Here is how the European Commission (the tool of the European dictatorship in the service of the military-industrial complex) presents the regulations on nano-materials in three pages – the third of which is extremely clear as to the strict preponderance of derivatives of the Graphene family in the general nomenclature of this class of materials. [91] These regulations are, intrinsically, non-regulations. It goes without saying that all nano-materials are strictly unregulated by the European Commission – not just graphene derivatives.
«Nanomaterials in REACH and CLP. On 3 December 2018 the Commission adopted Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1881 to modify REACH Annexes I, III and VI-XII, introducing nano-specific clarifications and new provisions in the chemical safety assessment (Annex I), registration information requirements (Annex III and VI-XI) and downstream user obligations (Annex XII).
… On the basis of the Commission Recommendation of 18 October 2011 on the a nanoform is a form of a natural or manufactured substance containing particles, in an unbound state or as an aggregate or as an agglomerate and where, for 50 % or more of the particles in the number size distribution, one or more external dimensions is in the size range 1 nm-100 nm, including also by derogation fullerenes, graphene flakes and single wall carbon nanotubes with one or more external dimensions below 1 nm.»[86]
Reading this regulation 2018/1881, it is obvious that the European Commission authorizes, blindly, the totality of the nano-particles produced by the Industry because if one refers to its requests of non-toxicity – with regard to humans, invertebrates, algae, etc – it is a long time since a formal, and generalized, prohibition should have been promulgated in order to protect the health of the populations and the eco-systems.
Indeed, only for some graphene derivatives, I have presented about 300 studies proving their extreme toxicity. And these are, for the most part, studies dating from recent years … while the first studies, of toxicity, date from about 2011 – ie, the time of the « recommendation » of the European Commission of October 18, 2011 on the “nano-form” … [87]
How could Graphene be regulated, in terms of its toxicity, when billions of euros of public money are being transferred to all the pseudopods under the aegis of the Graphene Flagship – which, of course, all affirm, with their mouths agape, that Graphene is the miracle material – and so harmless!
How could Graphene be regulated, in terms of its toxicity, when the Globalists are drooling with excitement over the concept of “15 minute cities” promoted by the demented and eugenicist gang of the World Economic Forum?
How could Graphene be regulated, in terms of its toxicity, while the Globalists are drooling with excitement over the concept of “Graphene cities”, the integral Graphene cities? Why? Because graphene is the inescapable, fundamental foundation of the “15-minute cities” so dear to Klaus Schwab. Graphene is the fundamental vector, present and future, of the Connection, in all its virtual and false aspects. All those who are not able to apprehend, organically, this Reality are, probably, already disconnected from it.
According to the review titled “Hazard characterization of graphene nanomaterials in the frame of their food risk assessment: A review”, and published, in June 2022, in Food and Chemical Toxicology. [93]
«The obtained results showed that the investigations performed up to now did not follow internationally agreed-upon test guidelines. Moreover, GFNs seemed to resist gastrointestinal digestion and were able to be absorbed, distributed, and excreted, inducing toxic effects at different levels, including genotoxicity. Also, dose has an important role as it has been reported that low doses are more toxic than high doses because GFNs tend to aggregate in the digestive system, changing the internal exposure scenario. Thus, further studies including a thorough toxicological evaluation are required to protect consumer’s safety. »
How long have Graphene derivatives been contaminating Agriculture? Ten years or fifteen years?
If we refer to the article, from 2015, presented by Inf’OGM, and entitled « Des nanos en agriculture? », [58] here is what Danielle Lanquetuit and Mathilde Detcheverry of the association AVICENN – whose objective is to promote public debate and the transparency of political leaders on the issue of nanotechnologies – state.
«Thanks to the mandatory declaration instituted by France in order to feed a register (R-Nano) of nano-materials on our territory, created in 2013, we know that nearly 416 000 tons of nano-substances were declared as having been produced or imported in 2014 in France. But this figure is far below the overall volume of nano-materials actually introduced on our territory and which escape the radar of the authorities. For the past two years, agriculture has topped the list of declared sectors, without any indication of either the volume of nano-materials actually used in this sector, or the number of agricultural declarants…
Farmers are unknowingly exposed to the nano-materials in the mixtures they handle and spray... In 2014, we were able to identify at least seven companies that market products for crops that have filled out declarations in R-Nano, with about forty products sold in agriculture… without being able to have more information: the companies indeed do not provide any information on the nano-materials they use, neither in the safety data sheets, nor on their sites nor on the site of the Union of Plant Protection Industries (UIPP).»
The underlining is mine to emphasize that this is a ten year old agricultural issue. What is the nature of these nanoparticles in fertilizers, elicitors and pesticides/biocides in conventional agriculture? Few people know the composition of these nanoparticles because it requires going back upstream… to the trade secrets of the Pharma Industry – which controls the Agro-Chemical Industry.
What we can be sure of is that graphene is everywhere in agriculture because, firstly, its various derivatives have been known for about twenty years; secondly, it is considered to be the miracle material that will revolutionize everything; and, thirdly, for the last few years, it can be produced by the ton – from any carbonaceous bio-mass – at a very minimal cost.
Here is how the organization, called Graphene Council, presents, in May 2022, the new generation of nanoparticle pesticides as conceived by the US EPA, Environmental Protection Agency :
«To meet this need, an EPA research team led by Dr. Su conducted an exhaustive search for patents and published literature related to nanopesticides to understand the state-of-the-science. The team found and analyzed over 36,000 patents and 500 peer-reviewed journal articles. From their research findings, the team established two general categories of nanopesticides to help inform EPA’s regulatory reviews: 1) products with mostly metal-based nanomaterials as the active ingredient, like nanosilver and nanocopper oxide/hydroxide, and 2) products that encapsulate and carry the active ingredient using nanomaterials (mostly carbon based) like graphene and carbon nanotubes.
The team found that nano-enabled pesticides adhere better to plant surfaces and have a reduced impact on non-target organisms. Nanopesticides may also enhance plant resilience against stressors from heat or drought. These benefits could lead to higher crop yield and provide more agricultural resilience to address climate change and weather extremes. The team’s findings also highlight the data gaps and the need for additional research on potential adverse impacts of nanopesticides.» [59]
It is thus very clear to the US governmental environmental protection agency that there are two classes of nano-particulate materials, called « nano-pesticides » in agriculture: on the one hand, active ingredients based on metallic nano-particles and, on the other hand, conventional pesticide carriers, which are all of the Graphene family.
Here, now, is how the platform, named AzoNano, presents, in April 2022, the next generation of graphene-based nanoparticle fertilizers and pesticides: [60]
«In agriculture, carbon-based nanomaterials attempt to decrease the number of pesticides distributed, minimize nutrient leaching in fertilization, and increase pest and disease control output.
Carbon nanomaterials (CNMs) can be used as excellent fertilizer carriers due to their stable molecular arrangement, uniform dispersion, and low toxicity in application media. For example, graphene oxide nanoparticles are effective trace element transporters.
Carbon nanomaterials (CNMs) are utilized as light converters for supplementing plant photosynthesis. Through chloroplast photosynthesis, plants transform solar energy into chemical energy.
The sunlight used by chloroplasts is primarily confined in the blue and red regions of the visible spectrum. Therefore, they can be used as light conversion materials to maximize solar energy for expanding the light spectrum for plant photosynthesis. That said, to use carbon nanomaterials (CNMs) as light converters in plants, some important factors such as light conversion efficiency, biocompatibility, and cytotoxicity of light converting carbon nanomaterials (CNMs) in plants, and heat produced during carbon nanomaterials-enabled light transformation in plants must be taken into account.
Recently, Zhu et al. revealed that carbon-based nanomaterials with antifungal characteristics could be used to generate new fungicides. Among the different carbon nanomaterials (CNMs) tested against two plant pathogenic fungi, including nanotubes, fullerenes, and graphene oxide, the single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) had the strongest antifungal action.
The use of carbon nanomaterials (CNMs) in applying biosensors, light convertors, fertilizers, pesticides, and agrochemical delivery is notable. However, their impact may change depending on plant species, carbon nanomaterial (CNM) type, and its dosages.
In agricultural applications, carbon-based nanomaterials can make the following contributions:
Increased agricultural yield with the use of plant growth boosters and innovative nanomaterial-based fertilizers.
Plant protection products based on nanomaterials, such as insecticides and herbicides.
The use of nano-encapsulated plant protection agents and slow-release fertilizers to reduce the number of agrochemicals used.
Nanotechnologies for agricultural practice optimization via precision farming. [60]
Graphene Hydrogels commercialized for Agriculture
In England, researchers at the University of Manchester are working on a new concept, called “Graphene City”, which aims to graphenize all supply chains – and, in fact, all sectors of daily life.
May I repeat that all sectors of daily life, that means: “vaccines”, injections, drugs, aerosols, cosmetics, dressings, condoms, sanitary napkins, therapeutic women’s panties, anesthetics, dental implants, eye lenses, concrete, asphalt, window frames, water treatment membranes, ventilation system filters, fertilizers, agricultural pesticides/biocides, bio-testing shoes, bio-testing clothing, clothing insulation, face masks, wall paints, batteries, electronics, wind turbines, pain relief patches, night covers, mattresses, light bulbs, headphones, ski goggles, etc., etc?
One of their research objectives is to graphenize agriculture. They are, thus, developing an agricultural alternative they have named “GelPonic” in order to, allegedly, reduce energy and space wastage by promoting vertical agriculture. “GelPonic” is a graphene hydrogel that has the ability to “sense” the nutritional needs of plants in the soil and meet them.
This graphene hydrogel is available in the form of granules, plates or blocks. [1]
This research, funded by the UK government and Europe, is under the responsibility of Dr. Beenish Siddique, the founder, and CEO, of AEH Innovative Hydrogel – which is located in the Graphene Engineering Innovation Centre in Manchester. [77]
Their official propaganda is well-smoothed and uses all the key concepts to fool the dumb and the sleepy: “sustainability”, “recycling”, “resilience”, “carbon sequestration”, “water saving”, “corporate social responsibility”, “zero carbon emissions”, etc.
AEH Innovative Hydrogel’s graphene hydrogel is also used for medical applications – in particular to treat chronic wounds, to avoid infections and amputations. [78]
“Connected bandages” are also manufactured by Grapheal in Grenoble, in France – a graphenizing company that also offers a “digital” CoYid/19 saliva test. Grapheal announces itself as “designer and manufacturer of embedded digital biosensors for field medical diagnosis and remote patient monitoring”. [902][903] The connected bandage is presented as follows: «This smart and connected graphene-based bandage is extremely flexible and adapts easily to all parts of the body. Its tiny wireless electronics with very light and highly flexible electrodes transmit data to a mobile application. Using tele-medicine software and medical technologies in the cloud, the hospital receives the information, which can then be monitored and evaluated by a specialist.»
One study, published in July 2021, even proposes an aerogel composed of graphene oxide and polyethylene glycol reinforced with grape seed extract (for its proanthocyanidins) to heal wounds. [1069]
On the other side of the Atlantic, in California, Juan Pablo Girald – from the University of California Riverside – is leading a $1.6 million funded project on the use of nanotechnology to deliver nitrogen, as a fertilizer, directly into choloroplasts.
UC San Diego, to use nanotechnology, chemized by her team, to deliver genetic material into chloroplasts. According to Nicole Steinmetz, «Our idea is to refunctionalize natural nanoparticles, namely plant viruses, in order to deliver genes into a plant… Some engineering is needed to make sure that the nanoparticles access the chloroplasts and also that they cannot infect the plants.» Their goal is, thus, to have these lettuces and spinach, chimerized in vaccine mRNA, grown by gardeners themselves – or by large-scale market gardeners for city populations.
These researchers specify, with their hand on their heart, that all their researches are oriented towards “ecology” – that is to say the same ecology promoted by Klaus Schwab, the Transhumanist Reinitiator. It is a question of optimizing the delivery of nitrogen to the heart of the cells of cultivated plants in order to avoid its waste – real, namely the direct infiltration, of half of this nitrogen of synthesis, in the water tables.
The question that one must ask oneself, when dealing with these mentally disturbed people: what is the nature of this “engineering”, of chimerization, that must be applied in order for the nanoparticles to reach the chloroplasts. In short, what is the process by which the “refunctionalization” of phytoviruses – that is, of plant-infecting viruses – is carried out?
According to the presentation of a Korean patent, from 2019, on the increase of plant growth by incorporation of graphene nano-particles: « It has been shown that carbon nanotubes, in monofoil, can be transported and deposited, in the lipid bilayer of chloroplasts, through kinetic trapping that promotes photosynthetic activity and electron transfer.» [929]
The other question we have to ask ourselves: could it be a “refunctionalization” with graphene oxide, carbon quantum dots or carbon nanotubes? Would these graphene nanoparticles be used for conveying purposes… in order to access the chloroplasts?
It is very likely that the answer will be of the same type as for the Quantum/19 injections of the Pharmacratic Mafia. The mRNA is wrapped in lipid nanoparticles and nothing more, I promise… And how do we explain, then, the magnetization of some injected?
Thus, as early as spring 2018, the University of Adelaide, Australia, made headlines in the Industrial Fertilization sector by announcing the effectiveness of “eco-friendly” industrial fertilizers, respectful of the environment, because they are vectorized by graphene oxide. [934][935]
Today, as mentioned above, it is not easy to determine who is marketing nano-fertilizers or nano-pesticides. On the other hand, it is very easy to determine which companies commercially distribute graphene, carbon nano-tubes, fullerenes, carbon nano-cones, carbon nano-pulp, etc., etc. Examples are INSCX [76], NanoIntegris [77], OCSiAl [78], Tuball [79], MKNano [84], Matexcel [83], Platonic Nanotech [82], NanoAmor [81], etc.
The Nanowerk platform presents 53 industrial companies, worldwide, commercializing a plethora of nano-products of the Graphene family. [80]
Studies on the toxicity of Graphene derivatives on plant growth and soil health
“Distribution of different surface modified carbon dots in pumpkin seedlings”. 2018. [16]At the biochemical level, the elevated antioxidant enzymes in pumpkin roots suggest that all the CDs could potentially trigger the antioxidant defense systems in pumpkin seedlings. Additionally, such alteration was greater in the roots than in the shoots. Our study represents a new perspective on CD visualization in plant tissues and provide useful information for the potential toxicity of different types of CDs to terrestrial plants, which is of importance to agricultural application.
“Graphene oxide enters the rice roots and disturbs the endophytic bacterial communities”. [55]
“Identifying the Phytotoxicity and Defense Mechanisms Associated with Graphene-Based Nanomaterials by Integrating Multiomics and Regular Analysis”. 2021. [20]
The results showed that the plant defense was regulated by reducing the calcium content by 21.7-48.3%, intercellular CO2 concentration by 12.0-35.2%, transpiration rate by 8.7-40.2%, and stomatal conductance by 16.9-50.5%….The phytohormone gibberellin and abscisic acid receptor PYL8 were upregulated, indicating the activation of defense systems. However, reduced graphene oxide and graphene oxide quantum dots trigger stronger oxidative stress (e.g., H2O2 and malondialdehyde) than graphene oxide in fruits due to the breakdown of antioxidant defense systems (e.g., cytochrome P450 86A22 and P450 77A1).
“Stress Response and Nutrient Homeostasis in Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) Exposed to Graphene Quantum Dots Are Modulated by Particle Surface Functionalization”. 2021. [2]
C-GQDs and O-GQDs cause oxidative damage, disruption of mineral and organic nutrients homeostasis, impairment of photosynthesis, and modulates the levels of phytohormones. Light-triggered reactive oxygen species generation and oxidation of antioxidants in plants are the critical reason for the phytotoxicity and explain the difference between the different functionalizations. These findings suggest that GQDs may not be as safe as expected. Future studies should consider the modulation of surface chemistry to achieve optimal safety of GQDs, and more plant species should be tested over a longer-term scale.
“Surface charge affects foliar uptake, transport and physiological effects of functionalized graphene quantum dots in plants” 2021. [21]
Overall, our findings provide direct evidence for the influence of surface charge on foliar uptake, translocation, and physiological effects of GQDs in crop plants, and imply that foliar exposure of GQDs negatively impact plant photosynthesis and growth health.
“A double-edged effect of manganese-doped graphene quantum dots on salt-stressed Capsicum annuum”. 2022. [24]
However, based on a comprehensive analysis of normal alkanes (n-alkane) using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), we also observed that the leaf epicuticular wax profile was disturbed by GQD-Mn, as the concentration of long-chain n-alkanes was increased. Meanwhile, the content of magnesium (Mg) and zinc (Zn) indicated a potential promoted photosynthesis activity in C. annuum leaves.
“Sustainable agronomic response of carbon quantum dots on Allium sativum: Translocation, physiological responses and alternations in chromosomal aberrations”. 2022. [25] This study deals with the evaluation of the uptake, translocation and phytotoxicity of graphene quantum dots, blue luminescence emitters, on the Allium sativum plant. The evaluation of the genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of CQDs towards the roots of Allium sativum was estimated according to three different concentrations.
“Sunlight promoted self-fenton photodegradation and pathway of doxycycline: Interactive effects of nanomaterial on bean plant and its genotoxicity against Allium cepa”. 2023. [26]
“Synergistic effects of glyphosate and multiwall carbon nanotubes on Arabidopsis thaliana physiology and metabolism”. 2021. [27]
The synergistic effect observed was attributed to the accumulation of glyphosate resulting from permeability and transportability of the carbon nanotubes. Overall, the risk of nanotube-herbicide interaction suggests a caution use of nanotubes in agricultural applications.
“New insight into the mechanism of graphene oxide-enhanced phytotoxicity of arsenic species”. 2021. This study deals with the joint phytotoxicity of graphene oxide and arsenic species (arsenite, arsenate) on monocotyledonous (Triticum aestivum) and dicotyledonous (Solanum lycopersicum) plant species. [30]
In addition, co-exposure with GO resulted in more severe oxidative stress than single As exposure, which could subsequently induce damage in root plasma membranes and compromise key arsenic detoxification pathways such as complexation with glutathione and efflux. Co-exposure to GO and As also led to more significant reduction in macro- and micronutrient content.
“Effects of three graphene-based materials on the growth and photosynthesis of Brassica napus”. 2022. [31]
The results revealed that RGO impaired photosynthesis mainly by decreasing the chlorophyll content and Rubisco activity. A further gene-level analysis suggested that this effect of RGO might be due to its toxicity on sulfate transmembrane transporter and nitrogen metabolism, which ultimately led to nutrient imbalance. However, GO directly damaged the photosystem by disrupting the chloroplast structure, and a decrease in Rubisco activity indicated that GO also inhibits carbon fixation. Further gene-level analysis demonstrated that GO has toxicity on the chloroplast membrane, photosystem, photosynthethic electron transport and F-type ATPase.
“Is airborne graphene oxide a possible hazard for the sexual reproduction of wind-pollinated plants?” 2022. [35]
“Assessment of graphene oxide toxicity on the growth and nutrient levels of white clover (Trifolium repens”). 2022. [39]
In this study, white clover (Trifolium repens L.) was grown in a potted soil with graphene oxide (GO) at levels of 0.2%, 0.4% and 0.6% and the effects of GO on the growth and nutrient uptake of white clover were evaluated after 50 and 100 days of exposure. GO exposure showed adverse effects on seedling growth, photosynthetic parameters and nutrient uptake in shoots, and the effect was more significant with increasing concentration and exposure time. Compared with the control, GO at the highest level of 0.6% decreased plant height, leaf and stem dry weights, total chlorophyll content and net photosynthetic rate by 43.7%, 45.7%, 43.4%, 32% and 85.7%, respectively, after 100 d of exposure, and N, K, Cu, Zn, Fe, Mo, B, Si contents decreased by 19.5%, 20.1%, 12.6%, 25.0%, 12.9%, 26.0%, 18.9%, 23.0%, respectively. Furthermore, the electrolyte leakage, lipid peroxidation, reactive oxygen species, antioxidant enzyme activities were all increased by GO, especially at high dose and long exposure. These results indicate that GO can suppress plant growth by oxidative stress, photosynthesis inhibition, and nutrient imbalance.
“Graphene oxide affected root growth, anatomy, and nutrient uptake in alfalfa”. 2022. Cette étude porte sur l’ impact négatif de l’oxyde de graphène sur la croissance et le développement des racines de luzerne. [10]
Our findings indicate that GO at high levels has a negative impact on root growth and development by inducing oxidative stress, structural impairment, and nutritional imbalance. Careful soil GO management should be emphasized.
“Effect of graphene oxide on the uptake, translocation and toxicity of metal mixture to Lepidium sativum plants: Mitigation of metal phytotoxicity due to nanosorption”. 2022. [9]
“Combined effects of carbon nanotubes and cadmium on the photosynthetic capacity and antioxidant response of wheat seedlings”. 2021. [7]
Compared with Cd alone, CNTs combined with Cd decreased net photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, transpiration rate, primary maximum photochemical efficiency of photosystem II, actual quantum yield, photosynthetic electron transport rate, root canal protein, and ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase content. Moreover, combined treatments increased the content of superoxide anion, superoxide dismutase, guaiacol peroxidase, cytochrome, and malondialdehyde in wheat seedlings. Moreover, membrane lipid peroxidation was aggravated, causing serious damage to the wheat membrane system. In addition, the toxicity of the SW treatment and the combined treatment with SW and Cd was higher than that of the MW treatment.
“Synthesis and characterization of single-walled carbon nanotube: Cyto-genotoxicity in Allium cepa root tips and molecular docking studies”. [3]
As a result, cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of SWCNTs in A. cepa root meristematic cells which is a reliable system for assessment of nanoparticle toxicology were demonstrated in this study.
“Effects of multi-walled carbon nanotubes in soil on earthworm growth and reproduction, enzymatic activities, and metabolomics”. 2022. [15]
Exposure to 50 mg/kg MWCNTs significantly increased activities of CYP2C9, CYP3A4, SOD, CAT, and GST but clearly reduced levels of L-aspartate, L-asparagine, and glutamine. With exposure to 100 mg/kg MWCNTs, toxic effects on earthworms were observed, with significant inhibition in activities of CYP isoenzymes and SOD, significant reductions in L-aspartate, L-asparagine, glutamine, and tryptophan, and simultaneous accumulations of citrate, isocitrate, fumarate, 2-oxoglutarate, pyruvate, D-galactose, carbamoyl phosphate, formyl anthranilate, hypoxanthine, and xanthine. Results suggest that toxicity of MWCNTs to earthworms is associated with reduced detoxification capacity, excessive oxidative stress, and disturbance of multiple metabolic pathways, including amino acids metabolism, the tricarboxylic acid cycle, pyruvate metabolism, D-galactose metabolism, and purine metabolism. The study provides new insights to better understand and predict the toxicity of MWCNTs in soil.
“Interactive effects of metals and carbon nanotubes in a microcosm agrosystem”. 2022. [43]
“Effects of microplastics and carbon nanotubes on soil geochemical properties and bacterial communities”. 2022. [46]
Our findings show that conventional and biodegradable MPs differently change soil geochemical properties and microbial community structure and functions, which can be further modified by co-existing MWCNTs.
“Nanomaterials in agricultural production: benefits and possible threats?”. 2013. This review covers the most recent literature on the application of nanotechnology to agriculture, including nano-fertilizers, nano-sensors, crop protection, pollution control, waste management, and pesticide detection. The negative effects of nanoparticles on edible plants are also discussed. [82]
“Induction of programmed cell death in Arabidopsis and rice by single-wall carbon nanotubes”. 2010. This study investigated the exposure of Arabidopsis and rice leaf protoplasts to single-walled carbon nanotubes and examined cell viability, DNA damage, reactive oxygen species generation and associated gene expression. [86]
Consequently, SWCNTs have an adverse effect on protoplasts and leaves through oxidative stress, leading to a certain amount of programmed cell death. Although nanomaterials have great advantages in many respects, the benefits and side effects still need to be assessed carefully.
“Effects of graphene on morphology, microstructure and transcriptomic profiling of Pinus tabuliformis roots”. 2021. This study focuses on increasing the growth of Chinese Red Pine (Pinus tabuliformis) by adding graphene oxide nanoparticles to the irrigation water – at 25 mg per liter.[1610]
Notwithstanding these positive effects, it is reported that graphene may be detrimental to plants under certain conditions. The sharp edges of graphene may physically cut cell membranes and compromise their integrity [18]. In addition to increasing the uptake of water and fertilizer by roots, graphene also increased the uptake of heavy metals such as cadmium and arsenic, which increased their toxic effects [19, 20]. Furthermore, graphene treatment may lead to the alteration of pH, metabolic processes, induce different degrees of oxidative damage, and cause cell death [21]. These reported negative effects underscore the necessity for further research before graphene can be applied in agroforestry.
“Effects of carbon nanotubes and derivatives of graphene oxide on soil bacterial diversity”. 2019. [52]
“Graphene phytotoxicity in the seedling stage of cabbage, tomato, red spinach, and lettuce”. 2011. [56]
“Advances in transport and toxicity of nanoparticles in plants”. 2023. [118]
Studies on the toxicity of Graphene derivatives on all elements of aquatic environments
“Assessment of graphene oxide ecotoxicity at several trophic levels using aquatic microcosms”. 2020. [102]
The trophic chain was composed of a consortium of algae and bacteria as primary producers, chironomid larvae as primary consumers and decomposers while larvae of the amphibian Pleurodeles waltii constituted the secondary consumers. Monitoring of multiple ecotoxicological and ecological endpoints allowed to observe changes in bacterial communities while no toxic effects were noticed in chironomids. However, chironomids feeding behaviour changed as a consequence of GO contamination, leading to an increase in leaf litter consumption. Genotoxic effects were noticed in Pleurodeles larvae. This study highlights the importance of using such experimental systems to better encompass the ecotoxic potential of GO through the determination of toxicological routes and consequences on ecosystem’s functioning.
Effects of environmental factors on graphene oxide ecotoxicity towards crustacean Daphnia magna”. 2018. [121]
“Acute toxicity assessment of polyaniline/Ag nanoparticles/graphene oxide quantum dots on Cypridopsis vidua and Artemia salina”. 2021. [125]
“The effects of humic acid on the toxicity of graphene oxide to Scenedesmus obliquus and Daphnia magna”. [88]
“Acute Toxicity of Graphene to Water Flea, Brine Shrimp and Zebrafish”. 2016. In order to understand the potential ecotoxicity of Graphene released into aquatic environment, the toxicities of two types of this material were assessed using two freshwater (Daphnia magna and Danio rerio) and one saltwater (Artemia franciscana) organism. [103]
“Fast Identification and Quantification of Graphene Oxide in Aqueous Environment by Raman Spectroscopy”. 2020. [40]
GO was chemically reduced by hydrazine hydrate to form partially reduced GO (PRGO), where the fluorescence from GO was largely reduced, and the Raman signals (G band and D band) were dominating. According to the Raman characteristics, GO was easily be distinguished from other carbon nanomaterials in aqueous environments, such as carbon nanotubes, fullerene and carbon nanoparticles.
“Carbon and Metal Quantum Dots toxicity on the microalgae Chlorella pyrenoidosa”. 2016. [68]
“Toxicity of microwave-synthesized silver-reduced graphene oxide nanocomposites to the microalga Chlorella vulgaris: Comparison with the hydrothermal method synthesized counterparts”. 2020. Cette étude porte sur les effets toxiques des nano-composites d’oxyde de graphène réduit à l’argent synthétisés par micro-ondes sur l’algue Chlorella vulgaris. [92]
Moreover, reduction in the phenol and flavonoid contents, enhancement of H2O2 content, changes in the antioxidant enzymes activity and decreases in the growth parameters as well as photosynthetic pigments quantities confirmed the toxicity of MS-Ag-rGO to the C. vulgaris cells.
“The toxicity of graphene oxide affected by algal physiological characteristics: A comparative study in cyanobacterial, green algae, diatom”. 2019. This study investigates the toxicity of graphene oxide to green algae (Chlorella vulgaris, Scenedesmus obliquus, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii), cyanobacteria (Microcystis aeruginosa) and diatoms (Cyclotella sp.). The objective was to evaluate how the physiological characteristics of the algae affect the toxicity of graphene oxide. [47]
Meanwhile, growth inhibition and cell division were significantly correlated with the oxidative stress and membrane permeability, suggesting the latter two indicators can effectively signal GO toxicity to algae. The findings of this study provide novel insights into the toxicity of graphene materials in aquatic environments.
“Toxicity Studies on Graphene-Based Nanomaterials in Aquatic Organisms: Current Understanding”. 2020. This study focuses on the toxic effects of graphene and graphene oxide on aquatic invertebrates and fish (cell lines and organisms). [28]
“Effects of graphene oxide nanosheets in the polychaete Hediste diversicolor: Behavioural, physiological and biochemical responses”. 2022. This study focuses on evaluating the effects of different concentrations of graphene oxide nanosheets on the behavior, feeding activity, mucus production, regeneration capacity, antioxidant status, biochemical damage, and metabolism of the Hediste diversicolor worm. [32]
Numerous applications exist for graphene-based materials, such as graphene oxide (GO) nanosheets. Increased concentrations of GO nanosheets in the environment have the potential to have a large negative effect on the aquatic environment, with consequences for benthic organisms, such as polychaetes. The polychaete Hediste diversicolor mobilises the sediments, hence altering the availability of contaminants and the nutrients biogeochemical cycle. As such, this study proposes to assess the effects of different GO nanosheet concentrations on the behaviour, feeding activity, mucus production, regenerative capacity, antioxidant status, biochemical damage and metabolism of H. diversicolor. This study evidenced that H. diversicolor exposed to GO nanosheets had a significantly lower ability to regenerate their bodies, took longer to feed and burrow into the sediment and produced more mucus.
“Humic acids alleviate the toxicity of reduced graphene oxide modified by nanosized palladium in microalgae”. 2022. [41]
“Toxicological effects resulting from co-exposure to nanomaterials and to a β-blocker pharmaceutical drug in the non-target macrophyte species Lemna minor”. 2023. [37]
“The cytotoxicity of nano- and micro-sized graphene oxides on microalgae depends on the characteristics of cell wall and flagella”. 2023.This study investigates the cytotoxicity of nanosized and microsized graphene oxide on microalgae depends on the characteristics of the cell wall and flagella. [34]
The nano-sized GO inhibited the growth of cell wall-deficient strains and reduced the photosynthetic activity. The micro-sized GO inhibited the growth of all strains, but the inhibition efficiency was higher in flagella-deficient strains, indicating that cell wall and flagella have different roles in response to contaminant exposure. The electron microscopy analysis demonstrated that nano-sized GO caused the cell rupture in cell wall-deficient strains. In flagella-deficient strains, the nano- and micro-sized GOs were parallelly attached on the surface of cells, covering the cells. The wrapping of flagella-deficient cells by GO led to the increase of reactive oxygen species (ROS) contents. These results indicate main cytotoxic mechanism of nano-sized GO was the membrane damage of cells, and the presence of cell wall can protect the cells from the attack of nano-sized GO. On the one hand, the presence of flagella might help to avoid the attachment of GO while the cell proliferation and photosynthesis were inhibited in flagella-deficient cells due to the GO wrapping.
“Integrating FTIR 2D correlation analyses, regular and omics analyses studies on the interaction and algal toxicity mechanisms between graphene oxide and cadmium” 2022. [42]
“A trophic transfer study: accumulation of multi-walled carbon nanotubes associated to green algae in water flea Daphnia magna”. 2021. [11]
“A trophic transfer study: accumulation of multi-walled carbon nanotubes associated to green algae in water flea Daphnia magna”. 2021. [11]“Wastewater treatment nexus: Carbon nanomaterials towards potential aquatic ecotoxicity”. 2021. [13]
“A workflow to investigate the impacts of weathered multi-walled carbon nanotubes to the mud snail Lymnaea stagnalis”. 2021. [5]
“Colloidal Behavior and Biodegradation of Engineered Carbon-Based Nanomaterials in Aquatic Environment”. 2022. This review focuses on the current knowledge regarding the colloidal behavior, transformation, and biodegradation of different types of CNMs, including graphene and graphene-like materials, carbon nanotubes, fullerenes, and carbon quantum dots. The other part of this work presents an overview of the known mechanisms of CNM biodegradation and discusses current research related to CNM biodegradation in aquatic species. [14]
“Interactions between multi-walled carbon nanotubes and plankton as detected by Raman spectroscopy”. 2022. [44]
Studies on the ability of Graphene derivatives to allegedly improve plant growth
“Multi-walled carbon nanotubes promote the accumulation, distribution, and assimilation of 15N-KNO3 in Malus hupehensis by entering the roots”. Mars 2023. Cette étude porte sur l’impact des nano-tubes de carbone à multiples parois sur l’utilisation de l’azote chez les pommiers. [85]
“Graphene: A new technology for agriculture”. 2021. This study focuses on a review of the use of graphene in different segments, explaining that this product can be used in various industrial sectors. These are mainly in agriculture (such as in major crops of great importance, such as coffee), the food industry and the environment, as a plant growth stimulator and in fertilizers, nano-encapsulation and smart release systems, antifungal and antibacterial agents, smart packaging, water treatment and ultrafiltration, contaminant removal, pesticide and insecticide quantification, detection systems and precision agriculture. [90]
“Opportunities for graphene, single-walled and multi-walled carbon nanotube applications in agriculture: A review”. 2022. [66]
“Fluorescent carbon-dots enhance light harvesting and photosynthesis by overexpressing PsbP and PsiK genes”. 2021. This study focuses on enhancing light harvesting and photosynthesis by overexpressing PsbP and PsiK genes with fluorescent carbon quantum dots. [73]
“Enhanced Biological Photosynthetic Efficiency Using Light-Harvesting Engineering with Dual-Emissive Carbon Dots”. 2018. This study focuses on improving the efficiency of biological photosynthesis through light harvesting engineering with dual-emitting carbon quantum dots. [64] Note this novel concept of using graphene derivatives to augment « sunlight harvesting » processes… and thus, photosynthesis.
“Carbon dots as light converter for plant photosynthesis: Augmenting light coverage and quantum yield effect”. 2021. This study focuses on carbon quantum dots as light converters for plant photosynthesis, inducing an increase in light coverage and a quantum yield effect. [65]
“Biofertilizers and nanofertilizers for sustainable agriculture: Phytoprospects and challenges.” 2022. This study focuses on bio-fertilizers and nano-fertilizers for sustainable agriculture.[63]
“Carbon-Based Nanomaterials for Sustainable Agriculture: Their Application as Light Converters, Nanosensors, and Delivery”. 2022. This study focuses on the different types of carbon-based nano-materials and their applications in light converters, nano-sensors and delivery tools in sustainable agriculture. [61]
“Vital roles of sustainable nano-fertilizers in improving plant quality and quantity-an updated review”. 2021. This study focuses on the vital roles of sustainable nano-fertilizers in improving plant quality and quantity. [89]
It should be noted that, according to some studies, this would be “sustainable agriculture”… but, according to field ecologists, what is sustainable is, rather, the graphene derivatives that self-accumulate in soils, terrestrial and aquatic environments – and that toxify them.
“Nanocarbon fertilizers: Implications of carbon nanomaterials in sustainable agriculture production”. 2020. This study focuses on the interactions of carbon-based nano-materials such as fullerene, carbon nanotubes, carbon quantum dots, carbon cone dots and graphene with agricultural plants for sustainable agriculture. [62]
Carbon nanofertilizers have shown their role in the improvement in seed germination, seedling growth, shoot-root length enhancement, enhancement of chlorophyll content and photosynthesis rate, and plant biomass increment in various cereals and horticultural crops. The transportation of carbon-based nanomaterials is illustrated in plants and how their accumulation causes phytotoxicity is explained. Further, the potential of carbon nanomaterials in agriculture is also discussed for commercial production of nanocarbon as fertilizer. Some of the carbon-based nanomaterials showed phytotoxicity after a certain high concentration level, but there is more research required to optimize the threshold concentration for each crop‑carbon nanomaterial model where maximum growth and production can be obtained.
“Graphene oxide exhibited positive effects on the growth of Aloe vera”. 2021. This study focuses on increasing the growth of Aloe Vera by adding graphene oxide nanoparticles to irrigation water – at 50 mg per liter. [1608]
“This new technology is called « bionic strategy for plant growth acceleration by injection of nanoparticles”.
“Chitosan and Graphene Oxide Nanocomposites as Coatings for Controlled-Release Fertilizer”. 2019. [938]
“Effects of graphene on morphology, microstructure and transcriptomic profiling of Pinus tabuliformis roots”. 2021. This study focuses on increasing the growth of Chinese Red Pine (Pinus tabuliformis) by adding graphene oxide nanoparticles to the irrigation water – at 25 mg per liter. [1610]
Notwithstanding these positive effects, it is reported that graphene may be detrimental to plants under certain conditions. The sharp edges of graphene may physically cut cell membranes and compromise their integrity [18]. In addition to increasing the uptake of water and fertilizer by roots, graphene also increased the uptake of heavy metals such as cadmium and arsenic, which increased their toxic effects [19, 20]. Furthermore, graphene treatment may lead to the alteration of pH, metabolic processes, induce different degrees of oxidative damage, and cause cell death [21]. These reported negative effects underscore the necessity for further research before graphene can be applied in agroforestry.
“Graphene quantum dots as enhanced plant growth regulators: effects on coriander and garlic plants”. 2015. [48]
“Sulfonated graphene-induced hormesis is mediated through oxidative stress in the roots of maize seedlings”. 2016. Cette étude porte sur l’hormèse induite par le graphène sulfoné qui est médiée par le stress oxydatif dans les racines des plantules de maïs. [54]
“Graphene oxide as a water transporter promoting germination of plants in soil”. 2018. [49]
“Improvement of Commercially Valuable Traits of Industrial Crops by Application of Carbon-based Nanomaterials”. 2019. This study focuses on the biological effects of graphene and carbon nanotubes on fiber-producing species (cotton, Gossypium hirsutum) and ornamental species (Catharanthus roseus). [50]
A study was published, in 2014, entitled “Slow-release fertilizer encapsulated by graphene oxide films” [936] as well as another study, in 2017, entitled “Cogranulation of Low Rates of Graphene and Graphene Oxide with Macronutrient Fertilizers Remarkably Improves Their Physical Properties”. [937]
“Slow-release fertilizer encapsulated by graphene oxide films”. 2014. [51]
“Cogranulation of Low Rates of Graphene and Graphene Oxide with Macronutrient Fertilizers Remarkably Improves Their Physical Properties”. This study focuses on the claimed improvement of physical properties through cogranulation of low levels of graphene and graphene oxide with macronutrient fertilizers. [53]
“PVA-coated fluorescent carbon dot nanocapsules as an optical amplifier for enhanced photosynthesis of lettuce”. 2020. This study focuses on the enhancement of lettuce photosynthesis with fluorescent carbon dot nano-capsules coated with polyvinyl acetate as optical enhancer. [71]
“Magnesium-nitrogen co-doped carbon dots enhance plant growth through multifunctional regulation in photosynthesis”. 2021. This study focuses on enhancing plant growth through multifunctional regulation of photosynthesis by magnesium and nitrogen codoped carbon dots. [72]
“Transfer, transportation, and accumulation of cerium-doped carbon quantum dots: Promoting growth and development in wheat”. 2021. This study investigates the transfer, transport and accumulation of cerium-doped carbon quantum dots to allegedly promote wheat growth and development. [23]
“Graphene Oxide-Assisted Promotion of Plant Growth and Stability”. 2020. This study focuses on graphene oxide to increase the growth of plants – such as watermelon. [29]
We showed that with an appropriate amount provided, graphene oxide had a positive effect on plant growth in terms of increasing the length of roots, the area of leaves, the number of leaves, and the formation of flower buds. In addition, graphene oxide affected the watermelon ripeness, increasing the perimeter and sugar content of the fruit. We believe that graphene oxide may be used as a strategy for enabling the acceleration of both plant growth and the fruit ripening process.
“Graphene Oxide, a Novel Nanomaterial as Soil Water Retention Agent, Dramatically Enhances Drought Stress Tolerance in Soybean Plants”. 2022. [36]
Taken together, our findings revealed that GO could directly increase plant defense enzymes, hormone content, and the expression of drought-related genes, thereby improving the soybean’s ability to resist drought. These findings could provide new opportunities for improving drought tolerance in soybeans through effective soil water retention agents.
“Effects of Graphene Oxide on Plant Growth: A Review”. 2022. This study focuses on the effects of graphene oxide on plant growth to facilitate its safe and effective use. [33]
Several reports of graphene oxide (GO) promoting plant growth have sparked interest in its potential applications in agroforestry. However, there are still some toxicity studies that have raised concerns about the biosafety of GO. These reports show conflicting results from different perspectives, such as plant physiology, biochemistry, cytology, and molecular biology, regarding the beneficial and detrimental effects of GO on plant growth. Seemingly inconsistent studies make it difficult to effectively apply GO in agroforestry.
“Functional carbon nanodots improve soil quality and tomato tolerance in saline-alkali soils”. 2022. This study focuses on the alleged improvement of soil quality and tolerance of tomato in saline-alkaline soils using carbon quantum dots. [4]
“Carbon nanotubes can promote seed germination via seed coat penetration”. 2011. This study investigates the enhanced germination of various crops using single-walled carbon nano-tubes: Capsicum annuum, Salvia macrosiphon, Festuca arundinace… [84]
“Nanomaterials in plant protection and fertilization: current state, foreseen applications, and research priorities”. 2012. [79]
“Proceedings of a workshop on “Nanotechnology for the agricultural sector: from research to the field””. 2014. [80]
“Carbon nanomaterials: production, impact on plant development, agricultural and environmental applications”. 2016. [88]
Studies on the ability of Graphene derivatives to eliminate or mitigate, allegedly, toxicities or pests in agriculture
Carbon nanotubes can be either toxic or beneficial to plant growth and can also modulate toxicity of organic contaminants through surface sorption. The complex interacting toxic effects of carbon nanotubes and organic contaminants in plants have received little attention in the literature to date. In this study, the toxicity of multiwall carbon nanotubes (MWCNT, 50 mg/L) and paraquat (MV, 0.82 mg/L), separately or in combination, were evaluated at the physiological and the proteomic level in Arabidopsis thaliana for 7–14 days. The results revealed that the exposure to MWCNT had no inhibitory effect on the growth of shoots and leaves.
“Whole-Transcriptome Responses to Environmental Stresses in Agricultural Crops Treated with Carbon-Based Nanomaterials”. 2021. [67]
When subjected to salt stress, sorghum seedlings showed modified expression in 51 stress-related genes. The introduction of CNTs or graphene into the salty growth medium resulted in the restoration of the expression of 29 affected genes, resembling that of untreated sorghum seedlings.
“Applications of carbon quantum dots to alleviate Cd2+ phytotoxicity in Citrus maxima seedlings”. 2019. This study focuses on the purported mitigation of cadmium toxicity in grapefruit trees with carbon quantum dots – up to 900 mg/liter. [17]
“Carbon Dots as a Protective Agent Alleviating Abiotic Stress on Rice ( Oryza sativa L.) through Promoting Nutrition Assimilation and the Defense System”. 2020. This study focuses on carbon quantum dots used as a protective agent allegedly mitigating abiotic stress on rice (Oryza sativa) by promoting nutrition uptake and the defense system. [18]
“Graphene quantum dots as cysteine protease nanocarriers against stored grain insect pests”. 2020. This study focuses on the use of graphene quantum dots as cysteine protease nano-vectors, from the species Albizia procera, against, allegedly, two species of stored grain insect pests, the small mealworm, Tribolium castaneum and the grain capuchin, Rhyzopertha dominica.[19]
“Synergistic Effects of Graphene Oxide and Pesticides on Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda”. 2022. [38]
The results showed that graphene oxide could enhance the activity of four selected pesticides: chlorantraniliprole, cypermethrin beta, methoxyhydrazide and spinetoram.
“Can the multi-walled carbon nanotubes be used to alleviate the phytotoxicity of herbicides in soils?”. 2021. [12]
Results indicate efficient alleviation of herbicide-induced phytotoxicity to rice and tobacco due to MWCNTs amendment. When 0.4% MWCNTs were applied, the concentration of sulfentrazone that inhibited the same rice height by 50% (IC50) increased to more than 3 times that of pure soil. When the MWCNTs were used to alleviate the phytotoxicity of quinclorac to tobacco, the MWCNTs not only alleviated the phytotoxicity of quinclorac but also promoted the growth of tobacco. The MWCNTs amended soil significantly increased the adsorption of herbicide to soil than biochar. The soil microbial analysis shows that MWCNTs had no significant effect on soil microbial community diversity, but the long-term exposure to MWCNTs could change the structure of the soil microbial community. Above all, our results highlighted the potential implication of the MWCNTs to ensure crop production by promoting crop growth and reducing the residual bioavailability of herbicides.
“Copper stress alleviation in corn (Zea mays): Comparative efficiency of carbon nanotubes and carbon nanoparticles”. 2022. This study investigates the comparative role of carbon nanotubes and carbon nanoparticles in maize (Zea mays) seed germination, seedling growth and Copper stress mitigation. [6]
“Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes Alter the PSII Photochemistry, Photosystem-Related Gene Expressions, and Chloroplastic Antioxidant System in Zea mays under Copper Toxicity”. 2022. [8]
“Applications of nanomaterials in agricultural production and crop protection: a review”. 2012. [81]
“Synthesis of nanopesticides by encapsulating pesticide nanoparticles using functionalized carbon nanotubes and application of new nanocomposite for plant disease treatment”. 2014. [83]
“Evaluation and mechanism of antifungal effects of carbon nanomaterials in controlling plant fungal pathogen”. 2014. [69]
“Graphene oxide as a pesticide delivery vector for enhancing acaricidal activity against spider mites”. 2019. [74
A few Patents concerning the insertion of graphene oxide in Fertilizers and in Pesticides/Biocides of all kinds
In the agricultural field, there are already a good number of patents for the insertion of graphene oxide in fertilizers and in pesticides/biocides of all kinds, as well as for the intensification of growth processes.
There is even a patent, from 2020, entitled “Application of graphene aqueous dispersion in farmland water retention, fertilizer retention and bacteriostasis”. It is, therefore, a question of disseminating an aqueous dispersion of graphene in agricultural water retention, in fertilizer tanks… under a bacteriostatic pretext. [1112]
These patent applications date from the last few years. Here is a very partial list, out of thousands, of such patents:
“A kind of foliar fertilizer of graphene-containing nano material”. 2016 Chine. CN106747954A. [922]
“Porous oxidation graphene and preparation method thereof and porous oxidation graphene coated slow-release chemical fertilizer and preparation method thereof”. 2017. Chine. CN107585764A. [923]
“Graphene oxide and Antagonistic Fungi compound the application in terms of preventing plant Phytophthora root rot”. 2018. Chine. CN108782610A. [926]
“Water-based graphene oxide nano pesticide and preparation method and application thereof”. 2020. Chine. CN111149798A. [927]
Cover image credit: Adrien Nicolaï/RP — Simulations by Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute reveal the potential of graphene oxide frameworks, pictured in black, to remove contaminants such as salt ions, seen in blue and green, from water.
Josh Sigurdson reports on the massive uprising in the Netherlands as tens of thousands of protesters and farmers gather in The Hague against World Economic Forum policies destroying the supply chain in the country with the second highest level of agricultural exports.
As thousands of farms are closed and land is given to immigrants while the supply chains of Europe, UK and the US collapse, the goal is to get rid of 30% of farms. They’re targeting nitrogen and fertilizer all while the supply chain crumbles alongside the energy grid and store shelves empty off.
This is all part of the tyrannical WEF agenda to bring in 15 Minute Cities and social credit/carbon credits.
Dutch protesters are not having it and a revolution is just beginning.
These major protests are also happening in several other European countries.
There should certainly be more gathered however. Every human being in the Netherlands and over 100 countries depend on food from Dutch farms. When will they stand up against the tyrants for their ability to eat and sustain themselves?
Real food is how our bodies are interconnected to the web of life on Earth. We are so deeply interconnected that our microbiome forms a continuous, reciprocal macro-organism with the microbiome of the soils. We are so connected that the debilitation of health of one aspect of our food web, goes on to have a direct effect on our health.
But since the advent of industrialization, we have been systematically displaced from the deep, inherent relationships we hold with our food. This systemic displacement of our relationships with the Earth, and with our food systems, has now resulted in multiple overlapping global emergencies: the ecological crisis, the health crisis, and livelihood crisis. These multiple emergencies are not separate, they are interconnected and they have their root in a growing dependence on a dysfunctional paradigm.
The industrial, globalized food system, based on toxic chemicals, monocultures and unsustainable globalized supply chains, represent a denial of the fact that our health is a continuum coming from the health of our planet. From the biodiversity in the soil, of our foods and in our gut microbiome. The destruction of biodiversity, thanks to industrial agriculture, is now contributing to disease and sickness for the Earth and her beings, including humans. The planet’s health and our health are inseparable.
Through the imposition of industrial systems small farmers and local food communities have deliberately been destroyed in favor of corporate power, and the health of people, the planet and food systems has been purposefully disregarded. Now the very corporations who have perpetuated the Earth’s destruction are attempting to try and convince us they hold the solutions to our multiple crises.
In order to erase the last remaining small farmers, corporate-sponsored narratives are now pushing for the reduction of complex ecological collapse, and climate change, into dualistic narratives around plant versus animal, instead of addressing the larger crisis of how current industrial practices are destroying the Earth’s ecosystems. In these false dichotomies animals are now being blamedinstead of industrial systems as a whole, for the food system’s impact on climate and health.
This has been the case with the Brucellosis disease spreading through buffalos in Italy. A disease caused by the industrial CAFOs of buffalos, which is now being used as an excuse to push false solutions to climate change and food shortages. Small-scale farmers were forced to cull their animals due to the diseases caused by industrial production, effectively destroying the livelihoods of the real small-scale producers of mozzarella. Amid this destruction of real food, and real food culture, Fake Food companies, like German start-up company Formo, received record funding to produce lab ricotta and mozzarella. Allowing them to take advantage of the destruction already caused by the industrial system.
The integral, complex, and interconnected husbandry of animals in many traditional cultures around the world is now being lumped in with industrial animal production, effectively erasing the importance of these traditional land-based cultures. In these false climate narratives, animals have also been reduced to mere products for protein, that can simply be replaced by more efficient technologies such as lab-engineered products.
Climate reductionist narratives and their false solutions are effectively ignoring the multidimensional and essential roles animals can fill in diverse agroecosystems. It thus completely ignores our relationship with nature and creates a rift separating humans from nature and food from life. While it is a fact that all industrial production systems, whether for plants or animals, are heavily responsible for ecological collapse, agroecological and small-scale systems are not one in the same.
So, are we going to look to those who regard land, food, and life as extractible, commodifiable, profitable objects to solve the problem which stems from the fundamental disconnection to the Earth and Life? Or do we look to the generational stewards, the indigenous people who speak for their lands, the independent scientist evolving the science of agroecology, and the careful small farmer? Who are the ones that can teach us how to care for the Earth?
Sardinia as an Example Under Threat
One example of where this conflict is raging is the island of Sardinia. For centuries human settlements in Sardinia have been characterized by the presence of shepherds who have a long-standing tradition of co-existence and integration between human communities, animals and the surrounding ecosystem. Animals have always been part of community life, culture and traditions, especially in relation to food and agriculture.
In the Sardinian context, many define the local food systems as agro-pastoral systems, highlighting the inherent integration of pastoralism (e.g. traditional animal husbandry) and agricultural practices. Moreover, Sardinia is an emblematic area of inquiry in terms of complex and genuine food systems in the Italian context. The region has the highest number of traditional shepherds and is world famous for its historic dairy culture and diversity in food products. Animals are intricately intertwined with local culture, traditional food and the islands’ identity, as many shepherds see themselves as custodians of the agro-pastoral history and tradition of their regions. Through their work and practices they maintain their language and typical food systems alive and pass their knowledge to the next generations.
In these systems shepherds consider their animals part of their family. They could not live without their animals and take care of them each and every day, and they see this relationship as a reciprocal exchange between humans, the environment and the animals.
Pastoral systems in Sardinia also maintain a high-degree of multifunctionality in agricultural practice and biodiversity cultivation. Small-scale shepherds integrate several agricultural activities in their work, such as cultivating their own hay for their animals, growing their own vegetables, organic olive oil production, organic wine production, with many having a variety of animals and trees, plants in their farms.
Traditional systems also require the local wild biodiversity to thrive and co-exist with the animals and farming activity. Especially as animals are deeply integrated and are used for the maintenance of marginal, and wild territories. For example, sheep and goats that graze in the mountainous wild areas, where fire risk in the current hot summers is higher, help keep the ecosystem in balance. Small-scale shepherds are not deforesting to make space for their farms, but are integrating the animals in the wild environment, taking care of the risk of overgrazing through a small amount of animals for extensive areas.
Nonetheless, over the past fifty years, along with the modernization & industrialization processes in agriculture and livestock farming, the dairy and meat industry in Sardinia has grown to unprecedented rates, switching to intensive animal cultivation and large-scale export of local products (milk, dairy products, and meat). Replacing the well-structured, local community exchange networks and local food economies where shepherds would traditionally sell their products to their local communities, contributing to the local economy and providing fresh genuine food to the territory.
In this context many traditional small-scale shepherds and farmers are struggling to survive with many traditional shepherds and pastoral communities disappearing. Therefore, the Sardinian context stands as a lively battlefield between small-scale, traditional, multifunctional shepherds and farmers and large scale, industrialized farms and dairy producers.
The disappearance of these communities means much more than just the transition of farmers to other forms of work. It means a loss of deep cultural ties, intimate knowledge of the Sardinian territory. With their work so dependent on natural cycles and wild ecosystems, shepherds have acquired a profound and ancient knowledge of the territory.
They know their land more than anyone else and continue to inhabit inhospitable areas that would otherwise be abandoned. With their knowledge they are able to actively monitor changes in climate, water availability and the health of the soils. If agro-pastoral tradition is lost, so is the cultural heritage, identity, local economy and liveness of local communities in Sardinia. Real food and a crucial example of real sustainable practices that are being disregarded by current reductionist climate change solutions.
What about Fake Food
The case of fake food is emblematic, among the false solutions that are threatening land-based cultures and as a consequence of the false narrative that do not consider the huge difference between large scale animal farming in industrial food systems and the role of animals in ecological small-scale farming systems, like the ones in Sardinia.
Proponents of fake food claim that it provides a real solution to climate change, and environmental degradation, due to it not needing intensive water and land resources, while also addressing concerns over animal greenhouse gas emissions and animal welfare in the admonished meat industry. However, the true purpose could not be further away from ending climate change or world hunger.
These technologies represent a new wave of the patenting logic that was first applied to seeds during the Green Revolution. By being able to now fully control the entire food supply chain, from the genetic manipulation of these fake foods, to their lab production, to the distribution chains already controlled by big agribusiness. The Earth and small farmers will no longer be needed, with the exception of the mass monocultures already controlled by agribusiness.
Not to mention that ultra-processed ‘plant-based’ fake, synthetic foods that rely on dangerous technical innovations such as synthetic biology, CRISPR-Cas9 gene manipulation, and new GMOs. These techniques involve reconfiguring the genetic material of an organism to create something entirely new, and not found in nature. Some companies are also investing in cell-based meat, grown from real animal cells. The result is a whole range of lab-grown fake meats, eggs, cheese, and dairy products swarming the market to ultimately replace animal products and alter modern diets.
These foods are now quickly making their way into global markets, as for example, the US government has recently opened the US market to synthetic meat, declaring it safe for human health and authorizing the Californian company Upside Foods to produce laboratory-made chicken meat. The first applications for authorization into the European market could start by this year.
As the agrifood industry is threatened by consumer apathy, big companies that stand to lose significant profits are trying to tap into a new market of environmentally aware consumers looking for alternatives. Hence, the promotion of these synthetic foods is nothing more than a clever way to reorient profits back to the same old companies by re-purposing the destructive technologies of the Green Revolution combined with new biotechnologies as a well-disguised ‘sustainable alternative’.
Real Food cultures
Although it might seem that the issue of fake food is far from the day by day struggles that shepard’s face in Sardinia, local communities, farmers and local movements are well aware of how it represents a present and future threat to their economy, and have been organising events and debates, also thanks to the intense information campaign that has been carried out at national level by civil society movements, including Navdanya International.
Small producers, farmers and shepherds of Sardinia, are very keen on explicitly manifesting what they think is healthy food. To them, real food is food their ancestors would recognize. The foods they’ve eaten since time immemorial. Foods coming from their land, and local cultivation practices. This is especially the case as local food systems have been built through well-structured local community networks, creating a local economy, where shepherds sell their products to local shops or markets or through well-established informal solidarity networks in their communities, contributing to local economy and providing fresh genuine food to the territory.
What is now at stake is the erasure of millennia old food cultures, which throughout time have created complex expressions of culture, territory, and identity all entwined with co-beneficial relationships between agricultural cultivation, animals, wild biodiversity, landscapes and human communities.
We must see the recentering of economies to be local, circular, and regenerative, in line with ecological rhythms and boundaries that support these symbiotic relationships. Not the destruction of them for the sake of corporate profit and reductionist ideals. The defense of real food, and real food/ land-based cultures is now more important than ever, as it also represents the defense of the small farmer, and the defense of our relationship to life itself.
This means stepping back onto the path of life which has sustained humanity over millennia where communities and cultures have co-evolved in their ways according to their climates, soils, and biodiversity, contributing to the diversity of food and farming systems, weaving biodiversity and cultural diversity symbiotically.
While everyone has been distracted by the COVID-19 fraud, many other aspects of the globalists’ agenda have been cooking in the background. One of them is the removal of poultry and eggs from the food supply.
The so-called Avian Flu is being used as the excuse to cull hundreds of millions of birds. It may be a surprise to some people that this is essentially a reboot of a narrative that was first tested two decades ago.
In 2005, a publication blew apart the fraudulent science used to invent a non-existent pandemic. Let’s have a look at the paper they don’t want you to know about as they attempt to take away your chickens.
by Vandana Shiva, Navdanya International
November 10, 2022
Mustard is the colour of our spring — basant. It is the flavour, and aroma, of our foods. It is a warm massage for a baby, and the glow of our oil-lamps on Diwali. Mustard has been central to the cultural and food identity of the diverse cultures that make up India. Mustard was the colour of freedom during our freedom movement. India’s mustard cultures and seed freedom are being threatened by the Poison Cartel, and Bayer-Monsanto.
There is a desperate push for introducing GMO Mustard, which will be the first GM food crop introduced into India. The attempt was made in 2016 to 2017, but it failed. And now another attempt is being made. On the 3rd of October 2022, the Supreme Court told the government to maintain the status quo till a hearing on the introduction of GM mustard was completed.
The push for this GMO is anti-science and anti-democracy. GMO mustard approval is a handing over of our democratic institutions to the Poison Cartel.
Thanks to the case of Bt Cotton, we have already seen what GMO crops can do in terms of destruction. Farmers have been committing suicide because of debt due to the high cost of seeds. Since Bayer-Monsanto has been focused on extracting patent royalties, the price of seed has jumped 80,000%. They have extracted Rs 7000 crores as illegal royalties. Under Indian Patent law article 3j, Bayer-Monsanto does not have a patent on BT cotton seed, since the law does not allow patents on seeds, plants and animals. But they have been manipulating and attacking India’s courts to weaken article 3j, thus attacking our democratic and farmers rights. This article is the legal expression of the concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumkam, or the Earth as one family.
For the poison cartel, there are no plants and animals with their own integrity. Life is a corporate “invention”. For Bayer-Monsanto GMO means God Move Over, we will now pretend to be creators of life to collect royalties and Lagaan. Patents and royalty collection is the endgame; GMOs are the excuse.
When the Competition Commission of India started an inquiry because 95% of the seed is controlled by Monsanto, Monsanto dragged the Competition Commission to court. The Monsanto and Bayer merger intensified the threat of monopoly over seed, the first link in the food chain. And when corporations get as big as Bayer-Monsanto, manipulating the courts and the government becomes very easy. If the Seed Price Control order is dismantled, and if the 3j article is removed, the GM mustard will fully become a Bayer-Monsanto mustard.
Sarson Satyagraha in Rajasthan, 2015 – Photo credits: Navdanya
Risky Genetic Transformations
In other words, the basic patents on the GM Mustard technology, as well as agrichemical package, are all owned by Bayer, as the Glufosinate (commercially called “Basta”) to be used with the GM mustard is also a Bayer herbicide.
The gm crop is based on multiple genetic transformations, and introduction of genes from unrelated organisms. These include the barnase gene for male sterility, bar-star gene, bar gene for herbicide resistance to Glufosinate (Basta, Bayer’s herbicide analogous to Monsanto’s Glyphosate), TA29 for regulator, CaMV 35S, Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (as a viral promoter), AMV, Alfa-alfa Mosaic Virus (as a viral promoter), and Agrobacterium tumefaciens as Terminators.
The original Food and Environmental safety assessment of the plant reveals that the barstar gene is to be found in the leaves, stem and roots of the GMO Mustard, and the Barnase gene is found in various vegetative tissues. The Bar gene is also found in the leaves, oil and oilseeds of the new plant. These are proteins that are not present in traditional mustard varieties.
However, the plant (as food) has not been assessed for safety, in its expression of the “layered” Bar “Trans Gene”, that has been implanted into the GMO mustard. What is tested, is surrogate proteins expressed in E Coli Bacteria. Isolated proteins expressed in bacteria are not equivalent to transgenes expressed in plants, which are much more complex organisms. Instead of testing for difference, a false assertion is dictated — that the two are equivalent.
The assessment also casually states, on page 63, “The data showed that the Barnase expression levels are below the detection level and yet the expression level is sufficient to create the male sterility trait”. As it is the expression of the trait that makes the difference in living systems, it is this trait that needs to be assessed in transgenic mustard as food.
Barnase is an enzyme that breaks down RNA indiscriminately and is known to be an extremely potent cell poison. Traces of barnase have been found to be toxic to rat’s kidneys and to human cell linings (Ilinskaya and Vamvaka, 1997; Prior et. Al., 1996).
The Barnase enzyme is also inhibited by the barstar protein. Both are produced by the soil bacterium Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. In the soil bacteria, these enzymes are bound, so barnase can do no harm. But when present in the plant, and when it is secreted from the cell, it is no longer bound and is thus harmful to other cells. It is exactly this harm that has not been scientifically assessed.
Additionally, there have been no official tests done on the safety of viral promoters.This is especially concerning as the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus, for example, is notoriously unstable (Ho, Ryan and Cummins, 1999). The CaMV 35S promoter taken from the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus is a DNA sequence used in commercial GMO crops for almost twenty years. It is also a classic example of how DNA can still reveal unexpected functions, even decades after discovery or use in a GM crop. The CaMV 35S DNA is described in every application for commercial use as a simple DNA “promoter” (as in, an “on” switch for gene expression). In 1999, however, the CaMV 35S “promoter” was found to encode a recombinational hotspot, meaning implanted genes were more likely to be unstable, resulting in likely horizontal gene transfer (Kohli et al., 1999). In 2011, it was found to produce massive quantities of small RNAs. These RNAs probably function as decoys to neutralize the plant immune system (Blevins et al., 2011). One year later still, regulators found these plants to contain an overlapping viral gene whose functions are still being elucidated (Podevin and du Jardin, 2012).
It is important to note that when first released in 2002, Pro-Agro’s (Bayer) application for the approval of commercial planting of GM mustard, based on the same transformations, was rejected by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC).
Besides the instability and clear risks of the genetic transformations, there are many other risks associated with GMO-Mustard. With its Herbicide Resistant Trait, the new GMO will displace native mustard varieties, just like GMO-Cotton displaced Desi-Cotton in India. Genetic contamination from GM mustard will also be irrevocable and irreversible. Furthermore, mustard is grown as a mixture, with chana and wheat. Agrichemical spraying will also destroy the biodiversity of associated crops.
The sterility trait is introduced to produce non-renewable seeds. Just as has previously been the case, farmers will have to re-buy seeds every year, leading them to be trapped in debt, and be driven to suicide like the farmers growing GMO Bt cotton. An unnecessary violence, as in India, there already exists a diversity of local varieties of mustard coupled with traditional farming practices which give more yield without chemicals. The push for this GMO is therefore anti-science, especially as the main justification given for the necessity to genetic engineer with herbicide resistant traits, to resist Bayer’s herbicide, is to increase yields and curve the dependency on edible oil imports. The GMO mustard has lower yields than non-GMO alternatives available in the country. The government itself has admitted in the Supreme Court that increased yields are not being claimed, yet in the media this is the false claim being spun.
HT hybrid mustard DMH 11 has failed the first criteria of a test risk protocol of a GM crop, of whether the GM Crop is required in the first place. The answer in “No” based on the admission of the Union of India itself in their ‘Reply’ Affidavit in the Supreme Court. They said: “No such claim has been made in any of the submitted documents that DMH 11 out-performs Non-GMO hybrids. The comparison has only been made between hybrid DMH 11, NC (national Check) Varuna and the appropriate ZC (zonal checks) — MSY of 2670 Kg/ha has been recorded over three years of BRL trials which is 28% and 37% more than the NC & ZC respectively” (At 88, pg.56).
India can produce enough oilseeds that are diverse, healthy, safe, and culturally appropriate. In the 1990’s India had become self-sufficient in edible oils as a consequence of the conscious commitment to grow more oilseeds. The policy was called the “Yellow Revolution”, and it worked. In 1993-94 India was producing 97% of her requirements.
Native Mustard Seeds – Photo credits: Navdanya
Import Manipulation
In 1998, the same year that Monsanto sneaked in its BT cotton, the multinational companies (MNC) in India manufactured a crisis to get indigenous oilseeds banned and dumped GMO soya oil on India by manipulating a drop on import duties. India had bound its import duties at 300% in the WTO. The United States lobby had soya oil import duties reduced to 45%. In the manipulated crisis of 1998, the duties were dropped to 0%. In addition, the soya bean was subsidized by $190/tonne by the US government, and Rs 15/kg by India. It is no wonder then that India was flooded with imports. It was not because of domestic scarcity, but because of manipulated prices, manipulated trade and manipulated policy .
At that time, the women of the slums of Delhi called me to say their children could not eat the food cooked in soya oil. They wanted the mustard oil back. So we organized the “Sarson Satyagraha” in 1998 and saved our mustard. But the imports kept increasing through dumping and manipulation of policy. Compared to 1.02 million tonnes edible oil imports in 1996-97, India’s imports doubled to 2.98 million tonnes in 1998-99, and then jumped to 5 million tonnes in 1999-2000.
Today we are importing more than 60% of our domestic requirements. And destroying our coconut, sesame, groundnut, safflower, niger, mustard, and linseed diversity. All for GMO soya which is destroying the Amazon, and palm oil which is destroying the Indonesian rainforests. This has directly caused Indian farmers to lose livelihoods, and health.
We can grow enough oilseeds to meet India’s needs. As the farmers organizations wrote in a letter to the Environment Minister, Anil Dave: “Oil seed production has taken a hit due to bad pricing/procurement support from the government, and inappropriate anti-farmer import policies adopted by the government. It is not because we are unable to produce enough or do not have the seeds or know how. If the pricing, procurement and import policies are made farmer friendly we assure you that we can produce all the mustard and other oil seeds the country needs.”
Today, the government of India is again being manipulated by the same interests that forced the edible oil imports on India, to now force GMO Mustard in the name of reducing import dependence.
The unscientific and corrupt approval for GMO Mustard is simultaneously an approval to 100 other crops that are undergoing trial. We stopped Bt Brinjal in 2010. There was a democratic consensus in India that we would not become victims of GMO foods. The 2020 decree by Mexico President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador aims to phase out GM corn and the herbicide glyphosate by 2024.
The decision about GMO Mustard is not merely a technological choice. It is about our Seed Freedom and Food Freedom. Since GMO technology has been pushed primary to own the seed through patents to collect royalties, since such patents cannot be granted without dismantling the public interest and national interest built into our structures, laws and policies, GMO mustard is a recipe for the colonization of India by the Poison Cartel Bayer- Monsanto. If GMO mustard is approved, India as a free, democratic, sovereign country dies. If GMO crops are approved, and article 3j of our patent laws is diluted, misinterpreted, and distorted, India as a civilization dies and becomes a colony in the toxic empire of the Poison Cartel.
This is why we are continuing the Sarson Satyagraha we started in 1998 – to keep India free, healthy and prosperous.
(Dr. Vandana Shiva was appointed by the UN to an expert group to create the Biosafety Framework to implement art 19.3 of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). This framework evolved into the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Dr Shiva has also served on the National Expert Group which drafted India’s National Biodiversity Act, and the Plant Variety Protection and Farmers Rights Act.)
Bibliography:
Blevins T, Rajeswaran R, Aregger M, Borah BK, Schepetilnikov M, Baerlocher L, Farinelli L, Meins F Jr, Hohn T, Pooggin MM. Massive production of small RNAs from a non-coding region of Cauliflower mosaic virus in plant defense and viral counter-defense. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011 Jul;39(12):5003-14. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr119. Epub 2011 Mar 4. PMID: 21378120; PMCID: PMC3130284.
Ilinskaya ON, Vamvakas S. Nephrotoxic effects of bacterial ribonucleases in the isolated perfused rat kidney. Toxicology. 1997 Jun 6;120(1):55-63. doi: 10.1016/s0300-483x(97)03639-1. PMID: 9160109.
Kohli, A., Griffiths, S., Palacios, N., Twyman, R., Vain, P., Laurie, D.A. and Christou, P. (1999), Molecular characterization of transforming plasmid rearrangements in transgenic rice reveals a recombination hotspot in the CaMV 35S promoter and confirms the predominance of microhomology mediated recombination. The Plant Journal, 17: 591-601. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.1999.00399.x
Mae-Wan Ho,, Angela Ryan, & Joe Cummins (1999) Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter – A Recipe for Disaster?, Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease, 11:4, 194-197, DOI: 10.1080/08910609943562.
Podevin N, du Jardin P. Possible consequences of the overlap between the CaMV 35S promoter regions in plant transformation vectors used and the viral gene VI in transgenic plants. GM Crops Food. 2012 Oct-Dec;3(4):296-300. doi: 10.4161/gmcr.21406. Epub 2012 Aug 15. PMID: 22892689.
Prior TI, Kunwar S, Pastan I. Studies on the activity of barnase toxins in vitro and in vivo. Bioconjug Chem. 1996 Jan-Feb;7(1):23-9. doi: 10.1021/bc9500655. PMID: 8741987.
The web of life is a food web, and we are interconnected with natural systems and all living things. Thus, food sovereignty is primarily an ecological process of co-creation with other life forms. Food sovereignty begins with the right of all living things, of biodiversity and “living” seeds to thrive and evolve, with the right of soil and food not to be considered inert matter. Earth rights are the foundation of the right to food freedom and food sovereignty. There can be no food sovereignty without seed sovereignty, that is, the right to save and use traditional, resilient, native seeds. This activity necessarily involves caring for the land and soil. We cannot aspire to food sovereignty if we do not nurture soil organisms because ecosystem biodiversity supports biodiversity within our gut microbiome. The health of the planet and our health are one and the same.
Seed sovereignty means seeds in the hands of farmers. Seeds that can be stored, bred and exchanged freely. Open-pollinated seeds that are not patented, genetically modified, owned or controlled by agribusiness giants. Seed sovereignty is based on reclaiming seeds and biodiversity as commons and public goods. When the food web is broken by chemicals and poisons and the rules of “free trade” and globalization, biodiversity is wiped out, farmers go into debt, and people die from starvation or chronic non-communicable diseases related to environmental pollution and poor quality food. Food sovereignty includes the right to grow food free of chemicals and GMOs. Food sovereignty means poison-free food and agriculture.
In 1987 I was invited to a meeting on biotechnology from which it became clear how the opportunity to patent life forms for profit was the real purpose of pushing GMOs onto the market. It was then that I decided to start saving seeds through the movement that, since 1991, has been called Navdanya. Since then, more than 150 community seed banks have been established in India. Local seeds, adapted to local cultures, provide more nutrition and are more resilient to climate change. At the Navdanya Farm and Earth University, we have trained more than one million farmers who now practice organic agriculture based on biodiversity and without the use of synthetic chemicals.
The shift from globalization driven by multinational corporations to a progressive localization of our economies has become an ecological and social imperative, essential for food sovereignty. Supporting local economies implies that anything produced locally, by making use of local resources, should be protected, so as to protect both people’s lives and the environment. Food sovereignty therefore means biodiverse, circular and local food systems.
The globalized industrial food system has recently produced a new monster, the modern synthetic, fake, lab-made food industry, even claiming that fake food is the best solution for the health of the planet and people. It is important to consider that artificial food depends on industrial agriculture. For example, on soy monocultures with high chemical input of fertilizers and pesticides and, in some cases, on GMO soy. Food sovereignty means feeding ourselves real, genuine, biodiverse food and freeing ourselves from the false promises of artificial food.
Therefore, free trade rules written by corporations that promote hunger, disease and climate change must be corrected. Earth rights and human rights are the foundation of food freedom and food sovereignty. Around the world, small farmers are already implementing organic farming based on biodiversity, and real food free of chemicals. They are practicing agroecology, preserving and nurturing their soils and seeds. They are feeding their communities with healthy, nutritious food while regenerating the soil and the planet. True agriculture is practiced in harmony with the laws of nature and leads to the regeneration of the planet through the renewal of biodiversity, soils, and water. We need to support small farms that care for the earth, for all life, and produce biodiverse, healthy, fresh, environmentally friendly food for all.
Real food is how our bodies are interconnected to the web of life on Earth. We are so deeply interconnected that our microbiome forms a continuous, reciprocal macro-organism with the microbiome of the soils. The real food we eat provides information to our bodies about the season, environment, and the health of the surrounding ecosystems so that our body can respond accordingly. We are so connected that the debilitation of health of one aspect of our food web, goes on to have a direct effect on our health. But since the advent of industrialization, we have been systematically displaced from the deep, inherent relationships we hold with our food.
The deep seeded extent of corporate power’s infiltration into our daily bread extends all the way from the overuse of toxic substances, shadowy backroom lobbying, and a shapeshifting appropriation of resistance through greenwashing tactics. All to keep us in the dark over the destructive consequences of agribusiness-as-usual. So much so that now less and less people remember where food comes from, and what a healthy, integrated agro-ecosystem looks and feels like.
Such is the disconnect that nutritionally empty, artificial, chemically laced junk, masquerading as food, has become the norm. We have been fooled into thinking food is an object, a necessary but fundamentally non-distinct input into the machine of the body. Corporations would have us believe that food is just ‘functional’, i.e. all nutrients, whether synthetic, from plants, or from animal foods are all created equal in terms of nutrition. But this is simply not so. There are fundamental differences and complexities in bioavailability, nutritional synergies, nutrient density and diversity that are present in real foods. It is impossible for lab-made imposters to mimic the bioavailability and nutrition synergies present in natural foods. Especially as the extent of such complexity is not yet fully understood. As the most advanced branches of science evolve, such as epigenetics, microbiome research, ecology and others, it’s clear there is an infinite amount of information we still don’t know and therefore cannot manipulate artificially.
There is also overwhelming evidence of how such synthetic simulacrums cause detrimental health effects on their own. Just as the Earth, her ecosystems, and her soils have been treated as dead, empty matter that can be manipulated with chemicals, so has the body, under this vision, suffered the same fate.
Small farmers and local food communities have deliberately been destroyed in favor of corporate power, and the health of people, the planet and food systems has been purposefully disregarded. Today this has become evident in the explosion of noncommunicable, metabolic diseases, along with mental illnesses, on one side, and the growing number of people affected by malnutrition and hunger on the other. All caused by the depletion of the human microbiome, lack of basic macro and micronutrients, and food being contaminated with carcinogenic and endocrine disrupting chemicals from toxic pesticide residues, heavy metals, artificial growth hormones, and antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. These same diseases that are affecting humans are also affecting the Earth, in the forms of pollution, mass extinction, and ecological collapse causing climate change.
The call has been made that this system can no longer go on, and now we are finding agribusiness chanting along with what food movements have been saying for years. The corporate chimera has shifted its mask again, appearing to be an ally to the growing eco-conscious movements. Now the very ones who have perpetuated the Earth’s destruction and our amnesia, have shapeshifted once more to try and convince us they hold the solutions. But how can the same groups that have so heavily profited off the destruction of our health, small farmers, and the Earth, all of a sudden be so interested in changing the system they created? If in condemning the industrial atrocities of animal factory farming, for example, we are inadvertently making way for the same corporate actors to step in, are we really making any progress?
The imagination of corporate power can only conjure further iterations of itself- cold, anti-life, lab-made, synthetic and most importantly, profitable. Those that have caused mass-suffering (of peoples, ecosystems, animals and so on) are now saying no more animal suffering, no more nutrient deficiency, no more climate problems thanks to carbon trade offs, nature-based solutions, digital agriculture and lab-made foods. Technological innovation can solve all this by simply eliminating the problem. No more cattle to feed, no more chickens to house, no more dairy cows to pump because now a highly complex combination of never before seen ingredients can be put together with pesticide laden, industrially grown seeds to produce a sterilized, denatured facsimile of the real thing. Complex ecological breakdown is now simplified into catchy marketing slogans, reduced to simple solutions where corporate accountability is conveniently forgotten in favor of shameful individual responsibility.
The push for food without farmers, and farming without the Earth, represents the agenda of the next corporate takeover of food systems in the final elimination of real farming through digital agriculture, and elimination Real Food through lab-made synthetic foods. An agenda being pushed through corporate aligned, false climate-change policies to eliminate animal agriculture, vertically integrate supply chains and digitalization. The industrial, monocultural farm will now find its use in providing previously inedible, unpopular commodity crops as raw materials for lab-made foods. The parasite now sucks the last drops of its heavily infected host before it moves on to its new cell-cultured lab protein.
The already underway destruction of real food has already destroyed health, as profits cannot be made from a healthy planet, healthy people, or a well-functioning local food community. The fight now extends beyond just small farmer versus factory farming, its now real food versus man-made synthetic, fake foods; its nutrient-dense, regenerative foods grown with care, versus corporate digital dystopia.
So, are we going to look to those who regard land, food, and life as extractible, commodifiable, profitable objects to solve the problem which stems from the fundamental disconnection to the Earth and Life? Or do we look to the generational stewards, the indigenous people who speak for their lands, the independent scientist evolving the science of agroecology, and the careful small farmer? Who are the ones that can teach us how to care for the Earth?
The defense of real food is now more important than ever, as it also represents the defense of the small farmer, the defense of our relationship to the Earth, and to life itself.
Real food is nutrient dense, comes from living soil, living water, sunlight and the contribution of hundreds, if not thousands of interconnections with other living beings (including animals).
Real food comes from the care of a small farmer’s hands.
Real food works in tandem to the inherent interconnections of both plants and animals as essential elements of a healthy and balanced agroecosystem. It is made by caring for multidimensional health necessary to produce nutrient rich foods for generations to come.
Real food accepts, honors and humbly respects the cycles of life and death inherent in the Earth’s cycles.
Real food connects us all to the flow of life.
Real food gives us a chance to rejuvenate the earth, our food economies, food sovereignty and food cultures.
Mother Earth is self-organised. Mother Earth has created and sustained Diversity.
Colonialism transformed Mother Earth, Vasundhara, Pachmama, Terra Madre, into Terra Nullius, the empty earth. Our living, bountiful earth, rich in Biodiversity and Cultural Diversity was reduced to an empty earth. People of the colonised lands were denied their humanity to justify the appropriation of the their lands, their homes, their resources. The Biodiversity of the earth disappeared in the minds of men who reduced the earth to private property to be owned, and raw material to be extracted.
The colonial Monoculture of the Mind separated people from the land, forests from farms, seed from food, food from biodiversity, health and nutrition in order to maximise profits through extractivism. People of colonised cultures and the biodiversity of plants and animals were objectified, enslaved and transformed into the property to be owned.
The colonial industrial paradigm could not tolerate diversity and self organisation and redefined “wild” as place or region uninhabited and uncultivated by humans.
This is clearly a flawed definition. The places and ecosystems recognised as “wild” today are where indigenous people protect nature, the land and biodiversity.
On 22% of land left with the original custodians and guardians, indigenous people protect 80% of biodiversity.
Wild is not the absence of humans, but the loving, compassionate presence of caring communities.
Wild is the opposite of the colonised, enclosed, controlled and exploited, manipulated monocultures and the uniformity.
Wild is where humans are partners of nature, enhancing biodiversity and cultural diversity through co-creativity, respecting the integrity and ecological space of all beings
Wild is self-organised and self-regulated. Wild is living as part of nature, not living in the illusion that we are separate from nature and are her masters and owners. Wild is living in nature’s ways,
Wild societies and cultures respect the integrity of all beings, the sovereignty of all cultures and peoples, and enhance the well-being of all through cooperation, sovereignty, mutuality, and symbiosis. Since the web of life is a food web Rewilding food is the first and most significant step in rewilding the earth, respecting her rights, rejuvenating her biodiversity, her self-organised freedom, her rights.
To regenerate biodiversity and provide more food for more species and more people so no one is hungry, no one is malnourished, no one is sick with chronic diseases, we need to Rewild our minds, our food and food systems.
As Albert Howard observes about Indian and Chinese agriculture in the Agriculture testament,
“In the agriculture of Asia we find ourselves confronted with a system of peasant farming which in essentials soon became stabilised. What is happening today in the small fields of India and China took place many centuries ago. There is here no need to study historical records or pay a visit to the remains of the megalithic farming of the Andes.The agriculture practices of the Orient have passed the supreme test – they are almost as permanent as those of the rival forest, of the prairie or of the ocean.”
Farming like the Forest Is Rewilding
Colonial forestry separated forests from farms and reduced forests to monoculture timber mines, without people, without food. Sacred forests disappeared. Community forests disappeared. Biodiversity and its ecological functions disappeared.
If revenues and profits could not be extracted from land it was declared wasteland by the British even though the forests were rich on biodiversity, local communities were sustained by food from the forests and the waters, and the forests performed vital ecological functions life protection from cyclones. The Sundarbans mangrove forests of India were listed as wastelands in British records.
Farms that had more trees than forests were transformed into Green Revolution monocultures of commodities to maximise profits.
Plants were manipulated to first adapt to external inputs of chemical fertilizers and then genetically engineered to become pesticide factories (Bt toxin GMOs), or resistant to herbicide (Roundup Resistant GMOS). Both applications have failed. Instead of controlling pests, Bt crops have created superpests. Instead of controlling weeds, Roundup-resistant crops have created superweeds.
All sustainable food systems, whether they be the forests, grasslands or farms, have animals integrated in them.
Rewilding food includes undoing the historic injustice to indigenous people and tribals. It includes bringing people and food back into the forests, and trees and animals back on farms.
Rewilding includes rediscovering and regenerating forest foods and wild edibles and creating Food Forests.
This also means not destroying the forest.
It includes taking animals out of factories and putting them back on the land, letting them be free-range, and integrating them back in farming systems, nourishing the plants that feed them.
Rewilding also means regenerating biodiversity on our farms and forests, and rewilding our gut microbiome, our bodies, and our minds.
Nine Principles to follow to Rewild Food, Rewild the Earth and Feed the World
We are part of the web of life, not outside the web. We are members of the Earth Family, other species are our relatives We are not masters and of the Earth, we are not owners of biodiversity. EcoApartheid, the illusion humans being separate from the earth, is at the root of violence against the earth, her biodiversity, her diverse cultures. Returning to our membership in the earth family in our minds and life is the first step of Rewilding. It is a step towards making peace with the earth and creating non violent ecological civilisations.
The web of life is a food web. Food is the currency that flows through the nutrition cycle, nourishing all life. The nutrition cycle is an ecological cycle that weaves the web of life. As an ancient Upanishad states Everything is food, everything is something else’s food”.
Humans are part of the food web, as custodians of biodiversity, as cocreators with other species, as eaters, as growers. Food makes us members of the earth family, nourished by soil micro-organisms, by insects, by plants and animals
Every ecosystem is a home of diverse species. Every ecosystems provides diverse foods to diverse species. Forests, farms and grasslands are interconnected ecologically through the nutrition and water cycle, and cannot be divided and separated.
Self organisation and self regulation is the principle of life and of Rewilding ,from the smallest molecule and cell, to microbes, plants, animals, ecosystems, and Mother Earth herself.
Biodiversity is the organising principle of all living systems and of Rewilding. Biodiversity weaves the web life through interconnections of mutuality and symbiosis. biodiversity produces more food and increases resilience.
The Planet’s Health and our Health is one Health. The Biodiversity in the soil microbiome, the biodiversity of the plants we eat, and the biodiversity in our gut microbiome is one interconnected health.
Rewilding food is rewilding the Earth. The more biodiversity we grow, the more we create conditions for the earth to grow more biodiversity, thus arresting biodiversity loss and species extinction.
The Earth’s Climate system has been created by the living earth through photosynthesis. Climate change is a result of the Earth’s Climate Balance and her self regulation being disrupted through the junk energy from fossil fuels. Rewilding our food and the Earth is a Climate Solution.
The views and opinions expressed in articles posted on this site are those of the authors and video creators, and may differ in some way from views of Truth Comes to Light. Everything posted on this site is done in the spirit of conversation. You’ll get a sense of the positions this site holds in regards to key issues by becoming familiar with the articles we feature and the philosophies we share. Please do your own research, question everything and trust yourself when reading and when giving consideration to anything that appears here or anywhere else.
Bill Gates’ ‘Magic Seeds’ Won’t Solve World Hunger But Will ‘Create Ecological Disaster’
Bill Gates is rebranding genetically engineered seeds as “magic seeds” and says they’re the answer to world hunger, but according to Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., a “failed, clumsy crude manipulation of living systems does not create ‘magical seeds.’ It creates an ecological disaster.”
What is needed, he said, are “magic” seeds that have been genetically engineered to be resistant to hot and dry climates or to grow three weeks faster than natural seeds.
“Temperature keeps going up,” Gates said. “There is no way, without innovation, to come even close to feeding Africa. I mean, it just doesn’t work.”
“This is patently false and an example of spin doctoring by public relations companies to rebrand products that are widely regarded as Frankenfoods,” Leu told The Defender.
According to Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., environmental activist, author and founder of Navdanya International, “[Natural] seeds as the source of life are magical. They hold their implicate order within them, and unfold to relocate the unique patterns and structures of life in its diversity.”
In contrast, Shiva said, “Genetically engineered seeds have been made to own life through patents.”
Shiva told The Defender:
“[Genetically engineered seeds] are a failed technology.
“Herbicide-resistant crops were supposed to control weeds. They have created superweeds. Bt toxin crops were supposed to control pests. They have created super pests, increased the need for pesticides, increased farmers’ debt and driven farmers to suicide in India.
“A failed, clumsy, crude manipulation of living systems does not create ‘magical seeds.’
“It creates an ecological disaster of monocultures of GMOs [genetically modified organisms] displacing the rich diversity of crops that we need for the health of people and the health of the planet.”
According to Gates, he’s concerned about the planet — at least how it may be impacted by climate change.
The BMGF on Sept. 6 released an “Agriculture Adaptation Atlas” that uses predictive modeling to estimate how climate change may affect growing conditions for crops in African countries.
The BMGF is also promoting the use of artificial intelligence (AI) that processes the genome sequences of crops along with this environmental data to conjure up a data-based vision of what farms should look like in the future.
“From this computer model, researchers can identify the optimal plant variety for a particular place,” Cambria Finegold, director of digital development for CABI, an intergovernmental organization that is developing models for the BMGF, earlier this month told The Associated Press (AP). “Or they can do the reverse: pinpoint the optimal place to grow a specific crop.”
Finegold added:
“It’s not just, ‘how do we get through this crisis and get back to normal?’ It’s, ‘what does the future normal look like?’”
But critics pointed out this reliance on AI and genetically modified seeds would exacerbate environmental issues because the modified seeds require heavy use of fossil-fuel fertilizers, which must be transported across great distances, and pesticides that threaten biodiversity.
According to Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa and AGRA Watch, a group that “works with partner organizations in Africa and the US to support sustainable, agroecological, socially responsible, and indigenous alternatives,” the BMGF’s industrial agricultural programs in Africa, including its Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), cause biodiversity loss, hurt small-scale farmers and cause environmental harm — all while failing to solve hunger.
Rachel Bezner Kerr, a professor of global development at Cornell University, told the AP there are existing alternatives — such as locally managed seed banks, composting systems that promote healthy soil and non-chemical pesticide interventions — that can build more resilient farming systems and reduce the need for food aid.
Kerr, a lead author of the food chapter of the latest report from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that although the panel doesn’t make recommendations, “overall, the kind of focus on a few technologies and reliance on fossil fuel-based inputs isn’t in line with ecosystem-based adaptation” or a biodiverse future.
However, BMGF CEO Mark Suzman contended fertilizer is necessary. “You simply cannot meet overall productivity gains without it,” he said on a call with reporters, according to the AP.
Gates also dismissed alternative ideas.
“If there’s some non-innovation solution, you know, like singing ‘Kumbaya,’ I’ll put money behind it,” Gates told the AP in an interview. “But if you don’t have those seeds, the numbers just don’t work.”
Gates said, “When researchers in Kenya compared plots of this new [genetically modified] maize, which they called ‘DroughtTEGO®,’ with the old one, they saw the DroughtTEGO farms were producing an average of 66% more grain per acre.”
Shiva said genetically engineered crops and seeds aren’t the answer.
“To end world hunger we must stop treating food as a commodity and seeds as corporate ‘intellectual property,’” she told The Defender.
“To solve world hunger every farm must become biodiverse and ecological. Biodiversity intensification produces more nutrition per acre, with no dependence on external inputs of seeds and toxic agrochemicals as our report ‘Health Per Acre’ shows.”
“We can feed the people while regenerating the biodiversity of the planet,” Shiva said.
Leu agreed. “The scaling up of regenerative organic agriculture based on the science of agroecology would easily solve the global food insecurity crisis. It is low-cost, proven, and effective, and scaling it up globally would be less than the cost of developing one GMO crop.”
Claiming GMOs have no place in solving world hunger, Leu said:
“Despite more than 40 years of hype that GMO seeds were going to dramatically increase yields, solve pest and disease problems, reduce pesticide use, drought-proof crops, allow them to be grown in saline soils, and numerous other extravagant claims, this has not been achieved.
“The research by independent scientists — not by the scientists employed by the biotech companies who have an obvious conflict of interest — clearly shows that there have been no yield increases over conventional breeding.
“The only two things GMO crops have succeeded in doing are dramatically increasing the use of toxic pesticides such as glyphosate (Roundup) in our food, bodies, and environment and the profits of the large agribusiness pesticide companies.”
Leu emphasized the effectiveness of teaching organic farming methods to small-scale farmers to address hunger.
“The majority of food-insecure people are smallholder family farmers and others who depend on them in rural communities,” he said.
“We have proven many times that teaching good organic farming practices can increase their yields by over 100% so they can feed their families and local communities. They also get an income to pay for healthcare, education and many other things that are important for a good quality of life.”
Who really suffers and who profits from ‘philanthrocapitalism based on biopiracy’?
On July 13, Gates pledged to donate $20 billion to the BMGF so it can increase its annual spending to “mitigate some of the suffering people are facing right now.” The donation brought the foundation’s endowment up to $70 billion, CNBC reported in July.
The BMGF has spent $1.5 billion on grants focused on agriculture in Africa, according to Candid, a nonprofit that researches philanthropic giving.
But an independent evaluation of AGRA’s efforts, released in late February by the consulting firm Mathematica, found “mixed” outcomes on inclusive financial, output markets and farmer outcomes, The Defender reported.
According to Joeva Rock, Ph.D., assistant professor of development studies at the University of Cambridge who wrote a not-yet-released book about food sovereignty in Ghana, activists in Africa questioned whether the funds could have been better spent elsewhere.
In Ghana, field trials for four varieties of genetically modified seeds began in 2013, Rock told the AP.
“What would happen if those went into increasing funds to the national research centers in Ghana, to building roads, to building storage, to building silos or helping to build markets?” Rock said.
Food insecurity is not caused by low yields, Leu told The Defender. “It is caused by unfair and inefficient food distribution systems.”
Leu said:
“Industrial farming systems are not designed to feed the poor. The COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns and war in Ukraine are examples of why it is the wrong model.
“Growing food thousands of miles away from where it is needed instead of growing it locally is the problem. People are dependent on supply chains that can easily be disrupted.
“Also, food-insecure people are the poorest on the planet. Even if the food gets to their country, they can’t afford to buy it.
“On the other hand, we now have an obesity epidemic in the more affluent countries and regions due to an oversupply of calories empty of nutrition from industrial agriculture.”
“Over the long term, the partnership, called Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), intends to improve agricultural development in Africa by addressing both farming and relevant economic issues, including soil fertility and irrigation, farmer management practices, and farmer access to markets and financing,” the groups said.
At its inception, AGRA declared Africa deficient in what it referred to as “improved inputs,” such as fertilizer and “advanced” seeds, and has worked to implement policies that would make African farmers use manufactured fertilizers, pesticides and engineered seeds — which are all patented products that generate profits for their owners.
Although the BMGF and AGRA claim to be “pro-poor” and “pro-environment,” their alignment with transnational corporations such as Monsanto, and foreign policy groups such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), makes their motives suspect, according to AGRA Watch:
“[BMGF] takes advantage of food and global climate crises to promote high-tech, market-based, industrial agriculture and generate profits for corporations even while degrading the environment and disempowering farmers.”
A three-part video series “Rich Appetites: How Big Philanthropy Is Shaping the Future of Food in Africa” explains why exporting the U.S. agribusiness model to Africa is a “grave mistake” and exposes how “Big Philanthropy” — namely the BMGF — is destroying farming and food in Africa by seizing control from local interests.
As of Sept. 20, Forbes estimated Gates’ net worth to be around $104.4 billion.
Despite being raided by armed U.S. Marshals and facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, Amos Miller explained that farmers need to stand strong.
Recently, Miller’s Organic Farm in Bird-in-Hand, Pennsylvania was raided by armed federal agents. They demanded the farm cease operations and are economically crippling the business with over $300,000 in fines.
The government is arguing that the farm isn’t adhering to federal regulatory requirements for food.
The water buffalo, the cattle, and even the camels are living and being processed in the way, as Miller argues, that God intended.
All of the animals on the farm eat fully organic diets, munching only on the wild plants, flowers, and the bugs in their pasture.
Veteran journalist, Michael Yoder, is a long-time customer of Amos Miller’s farm and has been closely covering the story for a local newspaper.
“I think they want to use Amos as an example,” Yoder said.
He explained that the government wants to make sure other farmers don’t attempt to replicate what Miller’s Farm succeeded in doing.
“Miller is selling his meat and dairy directly to the consumer, without the government acting as the middleman. The government doesn’t have as much control over this type of operation,” Yoder explained.
Amos Miller explained to me that because his farm doesn’t use chemical fertilizers, herbicides or patented seeds which are chiefly manufactured by industry giants with strong ties to the government, they’re using the power of the government to shut him down.
“Corporate America is taking over and putting people in our government…they have the government on their side and they’re making it harder for farmers to be farmers,” said Amos Miller.
Miller is legally arguing that because he’s selling to what he calls a “private food club” and not the open market, certain rules and regulations of the federal government don’t apply to him.
The customers are buying meat and dairy from his farm explicitly because his food isn’t processed and manufactured at giant industrial facilities and instead is grown, fed, and processed right here on the land.
“Some come from Florida, California, North Carolina, basically all over the country because they are seeking nutrient-dense foods like raw meat and raw buffalo milk…and they trust us for keeping our animals out on pastures and they can actually see the color in the fat of the beef and the distinct color of the milk…this color comes from the nutrient density of the animals feeding grass,” Miller explained to Rebel News.
Amos, despite being raided by armed U.S. Marshals and facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, explained that farmers need to stand strong.
“We farmers need to stand together and stand strong and we can’t just fall for the government’s rules and regulations,” he added.
The current and predicted food shortages are planned, by design, under The United Nations Sustainability Agenda. If you’re just hearing about it now, you missed the warnings of food shortages that came earlier, recommending a diet of insects.
In 2013, the U.N. released a report titled, Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security. The report fueled a campaign to “stabilize the global food supply.” If the Chinese can eat insects, then so can everyone else, right?
What about meat lovers pizzas? What about steak dinners, and bacon bits?
After decades of government subsidies for chemical applications to crops for feedlot animals, and vaccines for diseased animals, world leaders are telling people that they must now stop eating conventional beef and animal protein and they must do it for the environment. Everyone must fall in line with the U.N. Sustainability protocol.
Back in 2019, the media warned people that Beyond Burgers made of hemp, pea protein, and crickets were just around the corner. A 2019 article in Bloomberg news on Beyond Meat:
Crickets are the main insect making it’s way into recipes, with the ground-up bugs having little taste. The powder is a filling option and contains “far more protein than wheat flour,” which is not saying much. It is being added to foods like sausages, cookies, muffins, tofu and ice cream. Last year, Loblaw Cos., Canada’s largest grocer, even added cricket powder to its line of President’s Choice products.
Cricket Cheese Puffs
Today, it is more important than ever to read labels if you want to know what form of protein you are ingesting. On the new sustainable Cheese Puffs, right next to organic cornmeal flour is listed organic cricket flour.
Organic cricket flour?
According to a decade of media hype, crickets will save the planet using sustainable insect-based technologies. What type of technology is that? Did someone say feedlots?
Crickets are replacing factory-farmed, grain-fed cows in large scale-insect farming lots, which requires huge water and energy resources. These feedlots pose the same environmental risks as other animal production systems.
According to Nature, a healthy cricket’s natural diet is grass, similar to a healthy cow’s natural diet. If not grass-fed, how are crickets a sustainable food?
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.– Albert Einstein
What about protein? The Chinese eat crickets for protein, right?
Researchers raised crickets on one of five different diets: corn, soy, grain, food waste, and crop residue. Those crickets fed processed food waste had protein conversion rates (35%) similar to chickens. Nearly all those fed straight food waste died before they could be harvested.
In summary, the same technologies that created diseased feedlot animals are back, with crickets.
It’s what’s for dinner!
Climate Change Propaganda
The road paved with crickets is filled with lies, from global war to global warming.
Climate Change legislation called “Global Warming Solutions” in California is tied directly to international influences of U.N. Agendas 21 and 2030 for Sustainable Development. Yet, impacts from the government’s cloud seeding and geo-engineering programs continue unabated and suppressed from people who make decisions about their food.
The U.N. narrative suggests that eating less meat is essential to curb Climate Change. However, the fact that the climate changes every day appears to have little to do with eating meat or anything else, for that matter. Choosing to eat meat should be based on the quality of the meat, how the animal was raised, what it ate during its life, and whether it was healthy and happy.
The Climate Change deception is alive and well as long as you believe it. Yet, doing away with the abusive industry of feedlot animals may not be a bad thing if humanity wants to improve the quality of life for all. After all, it is not only what you eat, but the energy of what you eat, that matters.
United Nations Smart Cities, with stack-N-pack housing, will alter growth patterns, and redesign cities, to herd people, like crickets, through behavior modification, zoning and land use controls, and tax on toll roads.
Cricket Sickness
Even if you go along with the Climate Change modifications, can you digest crickets?
The exoskeleton of insects contains chitin. When you eat insects you eat chitin, which cannot be processed by the human body. So if you’re eating insect burgers, then you are going to make yourself sick.
According to a 2009 medical journal, World J Gastroenterol, chitinase causes inflammation that leads to health problems, from asthma to tumors (glioblastoma), and changes in epithelial cells:
CHI3L1 may be highly involved in the chronic engagement of inflammation which potentiates development of epithelial tumorigenesis presumably by activating the mitogen-activated protein kinase and the protein kinase B signaling pathways. Anti-CHI3L1 antibodies or pan-chitinase inhibitors may have the potential to suppress CHI3L1-mediated chronic inflammation and the subsequent carcinogenic change in epithelial cells.
According to a 2019 article in PLoS ONE,parasites were found in livestock of 81% of insect farms, where 30-35% of these parasites are pathogenic to humans.
Edible insects are an underestimated reservoir of human and animal parasites. Our research indicates the important role of these insects in the epidemiology of parasites pathogenic to vertebrates.
Perhaps a whole new industry of cricket enzymes to help you digest your dinner, and anti-parasitics, to keep you alive, is just around the corner. In the meantime…
What happens when farming becomes centralized on a global scale?
Crickets!
What happens when fewer people are growing their own food?
Crickets!
What happens when flour, burgers, pasta, and fillers, and all foods are tied to Climate Change?
Crickets!
What happens when you ask your government officials for proof that crickets will save the world?
Rare bird and bee species do it—that is, flock more prominently to urban areas that have an abundance of rare plant species, according to a new study.
When looking into how the biodiversity of plant life in urban gardens impacts the biodiversity of species, the study, conducted by Dartmouth College researchers and published in Ecological Affairs, showed that rare plant species often attract rare bird and bee species.
“There appears to be a cascading effect of people planting uncommon species on the accumulation of other uncommon bee and bird species,” says lead author Theresa Ong, an assistant professor of environmental studies at Dartmouth.
For the study, researchers visited 18 community gardens in Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and Monterey counties in California, over two summers in 2015 and 2017. They found that more than 50 percent of the plants in the gardens were considered rare.
Rare, in the urban sense, doesn’t necessarily mean an uncommon plant variety. Instead, in urban gardens, a “rare” plant may be one which is less common to grow in a garden, not as adapted to urban environments or has a potentially higher risk for extinction.
And these plants are bringing birds and bees into areas they may not normally frequent. The purple finch, not necessarily an uncommon bird everywhere, is one example of a species that plant species drew into urban cities—where the bird would not typically be spotted. Researchers cited urban gardens providing tree cover that city space may normally lack as one potential reason the curated gardens are attracting rare species.
Another instance of a rare plant attracting a rare species noted in the study is a plant called Bachelor’s button, a flowery ornamental plant related to the thistle aster, attracting the leafcutting bee, a pollinator whose females cut leaves neatly to craft nests for their babies.
Researchers suspect the rare plant prominence may be purposeful on the part of some urban gardeners.
The study showed that the people crafting the “rare” urban gardens are often older women. Ong theorizes that this may be, in part, due to the fact that previous research has shown that women tend to adopt more pro-environmental practices. Alternatively, she says in the study, it may be just a product of people taking pride in the landscape of their community, which often bolsters the biodiversity of a region.
Not all the plants considered rare in the study were put there on purpose, however. In fact, the research showed that a lot of the “rare plants” were actually weeds—making a case for gardeners to leave some of the otherwise unwanted growth in their gardens.
A correlation between agricultural pesticides and cancer in western states has been found by University of Idaho and Northern Arizona University researchers. Two studies were conducted, one that examined correlating data in 11 Western states and one that took a closer look at data in Idaho specifically.
The studies found a possible relationship between agricultural pesticides, particularly fumigants such as metam, and cancer incidences through analyzing data. For the larger study, pesticide data was pulled from the U.S. Geological Survey Pesticide National Synthesis Project database and cancer data was gathered from National Cancer Institute State Cancer Profiles, according to the study.
The other study examined Idaho specifically, and found similar trends in data as the first study saw across the West of the lower 48.
Alan Kolok, a UI professor and director of the Idaho Water Resources Research Institute, led both studies and said the correlation between the sets of data on multiple population scales gives him a reason to want to look into the matter further.
“We’re not trying to be alarmist, and we’re not trying to say, ‘Oh, look, there’s a direct relationship between (the data),’” Kolok said. “That’s not at all what they’re saying. But at the same time, it would be disingenuous of us to not recognize that in a darkened room, we keep seeing a shiny object. It really is a call to action of let’s do more research and let’s elaborate on what’s going on relative to that shiny object.”
Kolok and fellow UI researcher Naveen Joseph said there have been many studies examining correlations between socioeconomic factors, like poverty, and cancer incidents, but theirs takes a step further by looking for an initiating factor. In this case, the data suggested a higher usage of fumigants like metam is correlated with higher cancer incidence rates.
Idaho is the only state Kolok has taken a close look at, and his colleague and co-author at Northern Arizona University, Cathy Propper, said she didn’t know if the right data was available in other states like it was in Idaho.
“If we wanted to look just within states, like Alan did within Idaho, it might be possible to extract similar kinds of information,” Propper said. “But as you can see when you take a look at the statewide analysis within the joint paper, every state’s different. As you go into each individual state, you start getting different kinds of scaling issues. So unless the data are fine grained enough to be able to extract that kind of information, it becomes difficult to interpret within states.”
The team of researchers was also concerned about breaching people’s privacy when it came to looking at specific data too closely. Rural areas, where agricultural practices and low populations dominate, could pose issues with privacy when the sample size becomes too small. To avoid this, the research was conducted by looking at all incidences of cancer in adults and children across the 11 states compared to pesticide use.
Kolok said the next steps they hope to take include expanding their data research to a nationwide scale and further examining whether there is a cause behind the correlation between pesticides and cancer. While neither UI or NAU have the laboratory capabilities to prove or disprove the correlation, Kolok is hoping to eventually find a lab to collaborate with and get funding to continue the research.
“It is absolutely striking how different states are from each other and counties are from each other,” Kolok said. “Which begs the question of if the pesticide load is different that’s being used in the state, does that cascade to a potential exposure to people? And the answer, from our two papers, is that there is suggested information that argues that it very well may. It’s a first step down that road, but it’s a significant first step.”
Judge says GMO wheat could cause “serious and irreversible damage” to human health and the environment
by Tierra Viva (in Spanish)
English version sourced from GM Watch
July 11, 2022
Bioceres – the “Argentine Monsanto” – is racing to get its GMO HB4 wheat accepted by regulators around the world. It has already got food approval in Australia and partial approval in the US – from the FDA but not yet the USDA. And, according to the Argentine journalist Patricio Eleisegui, Bioceres is also heavily targeting the countries of Latin America, where it has already obtained partial approvals in Colombia and Brazil.
But while Bioceres is rushing to create markets for its GMO wheat abroad, within Argentina itself its commercialisation is facing widespread resistance. And it appears to have received a major setback in the province of Buenos Aires, the very heart of agribusiness in Argentina.
A judge in Mar del Plata has issued a precautionary ruling that suspends the use and release of GMO HB4 wheat in Buenos Aires until a commission is formed to evaluate its effects, reports the news agency Tierra Viva. The ruling responds to a collective suit brought by farmers, social and environmental organisations and Indigenous peoples. They emphasise that the action could be replicated in other provinces where this GMO wheat is already being grown.
The temporary measure is in place until an Agricultural Biotechnology and Biosafety Commission is formed, which will be responsible for preparing a report on the introduction and release of the GMO crop and its effects on natural resources, health, production and marketing. The precautionary measure was issued by the Juvenile Criminal Responsibility Court No. 2 of Mar del Plata.
The decision of the Buenos Aires judge Néstor Adrián Salas is relevant because it confirms that although the national State has the authority to approve the commercialisation of GMOs and agrochemicals, it is the provinces that retain the authority for their effective release in the territories because they have control over natural resources.
For Judge Salas, the release of the first GMO wheat approved in the world could cause “serious and irreversible damage” to human health and the environment. He refers to both the crop itself and the associated agrochemicals; in this case, glufosinate ammonium, a herbicide that is more toxic than glyphosate.
“If the material is released in Buenos Aires territory, this being the first GMO event to be applied to wheat seed, the crossbreeding of the material with non-GMO wheat can be irreversibly introduced,” Salas warned. To support his decision, he cited – among others – a document from the National Biotechnology Commission (Conabia) that details “the potential horizontal transfer or exchange of genes” between GMO wheat and other seeds.
The precautionary measure is based on the precautionary principle present in the General Law of the Environment, which establishes that in the face of danger of serious or irreversible damage, measures to avoid it should not be delayed on the grounds of lack of information or scientific certainty.
The Commission for Biotechnology and Agricultural Biosafety of the Province, which the judge ruled must be put into operation, should have been formed more than 20 years ago, when Law 12.822 was approved. However, no provincial administration implemented the law and formed the commission.
Lawyer Lucas Landivar, who represents the group of organisations, producers and Indigenous peoples who brought the suit, stressed the importance of complying with article 124 of the National Constitution. This establishes that the provinces are responsible for the natural resources in their territory. “The provinces cannot allow their cultural heritage and biodiversity to be affected,” he noted. In this sense, he stressed that the seeds used in agriculture are a cultural heritage of the people, which the provinces must preserve.
Fernando Cabaleiro, a lawyer for the organisation Nature of Rights, which is also involved in the suit, stressed that this same action can be replicated in different provinces. “There is the General Environmental Law and at the same time, each province has its legislation on this matter. This is environmental pollution and it is the duty of the provinces to protect their natural assets,” he said.
Provincial law 12.822 of 2001 ordered the creation – 90 days after it came into effect – of the Agricultural Biotechnology and Biosafety Commission. The objective of this body is to prepare a report with its recommendations regarding the introduction and release of GMOs and their effects on natural resources, health, production and marketing.
In writing this law, the legislators at that time considered, “Given the vertiginous increase in the use of GMO seeds, we believe it is necessary that there should be a provincial body that has the function of controlling their use.”
Likewise, they understood that this commission had to answer a series of questions that Judge Salas transcribed verbatim in his resolution:
* Have enough tests been done with these organisms so that we will not have to repent in the near future?
* What are the mechanisms that different countries have to assess their danger to the ecosystem and to human health?
* Why do some countries accept GMOs and others do not?
* Has the Ministry of Health or another official body certified the harmlessness of GMOs to human beings? Has the risk to human or animal health been assessed, such as the danger of antibiotic resistance?
* Should the release of GMOs undergo a mandatory environmental impact study?
* Is the introduction of GMOs in Argentina assimilated from a public debate, or is it a simple concept of genetic innovation to reap greater profits through patents in some countries?
* Does the new technology commonly called terminator affect traditional crops and biodiversity in general? [GMW: Terminator seeds are genetically engineered to be sterile after first harvest. Thus far this GMO technology has not been commercialised due to overwhelming public and scientific opposition. More information is here.]
Lawyer Landivar argued that it is very striking and worrying that the Provincial Executive has spent so many years without enforcing a decision of the Legislative Power. “This omission violates the precautionary preventive regime and deepens a practice that has generated adverse consequences and negative effects on health and the environment for 20 years,” he warned.
The marketing of HB4 wheat, from Bioceres – owned by Hugo Sigman and Gustavo Grobocopatel, among other businessmen – was authorised on May 12 by the National Ministry of Agriculture. The decision ignored the claims of hundreds of social and peasant organisations and thousands of scientists who denounced the lack of transparency in the approval procedure for HB4 wheat, the contamination it will produce on other non-GMO wheats and the increased use of agrochemicals that it will entail. its cultivation.
On May 19, federal prosecutor Fabián Canda reiterated before federal judge Santiago Carrillo the request to urgently suspend the authorisation of HB4 GMO wheat due to “the irreparable damage” it could cause to the environment and the health of the population.
Dutch farmers are protesting new climate policies they say will force them to kill off livestock and drive them out of business — policies which some argue also will drive up consumer food prices and contribute to the global hunger crisis.
Dutch farmers are protesting new climate policies they say will force them to kill off livestock and drive them out of business — policies which some argue also will drive up consumer food prices and contribute to the global hunger crisis.
The new Dutch policy stems from a 2019 court order that nitrogen-compound pollution in the Netherlands “will have to be cut by 70% to 80%.”
“The government’s strategy to take a regional approach to the issue will lead to major problems in parts of Gelderland and Noord-Brabant, where livestock farming is concentrated and a number of vulnerable habitats are being seriously damaged.
“To meet the new rules, the amount of livestock farming will have to be reduced drastically, and that means some farmers will have to be bought out and shut down their operations.”
According to a recent report by journalist Kim Iversen, “the farmers in the most regulated areas would essentially be put out of business.”
Iversen said farmers who do not “voluntarily” accept the government’s proposal may have their land seized outright.
“With the latest round of tightening of regulations, the Dutch government has announced more multi-billion-dollar buyout arrangements but has also stated they will expropriate the land from farmers who do not comply,” Iversen said. “They’ll take their land.”
Iversen quoted Henk Staghouwer, the Dutch minister of agriculture, nature and food quality, who said, “There is not a future for all farmers within this approach.”
Staghouwer offered to begin negotiations with the farmers, Iversen said, “but only on the condition the participants condemn the demonstrations” taking place in response to the new policies.
But as Iversen reported, the protests haven’t died down.
Others have blocked roads and highways, causing “major traffic jams,” and blockaded parts of the German-Dutch border, with help from freight and dock workers and fishermen.
In response, police fired tear gas on demonstrating farmers and military tanks were brought in to try and clear the blockades.
Similar to events that transpired in Canada during the truckers’ convoy there earlier this year, the Dutch government also called in tow truck companies to remove tractors, but according to Iversen, “they’re refusing to get involved.”
Meanwhile, Dutch media described the protests as “extremist” and the work of “militants,” Iversen said, leading farmers to also blockade the headquarters of media outlets.
In the midst of the protests, the country’s Farmer-Citizen political party has soared to second place, according to a recent poll. The party, which holds one seat in the Dutch parliament today, would increase its share to 11 seats if elections were held today, Iversen said.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. With Christian Westrook: Manufactured Food Shortages — The Transhumanist/Eugenicist Coup D’Etat on Our Food Supply | The Globalist War Against Humanity & All of Nature
Since the “bird flu outbreak” first hit the headlines OffG has been predicting how the inevitable agenda would unfold.
The first impact was as obvious as it was predictable – the price of chicken and eggs went up, this was just another front in the war on food.
The second planned impact was less immediate, but just as predictable if you know how to read the media, and potentially far more harmful in the longterm – clamping down on alternative chicken farming. This includes both organic farms and individuals keeping their own chickens in their garden.
It didn’t take long for the media to prove us right. In fact the Guardian has done it twice in the last ten days.
Firstly, last Thursday, the Guardian ran this article: “Spread of ‘free-range’ farming may raise risk of animal-borne pandemics – study”
Sponsored by the NGO Open Philanthropy, this piece reports that organic and free-range farming could increase the risk of a zoonotic disease outbreak, and quotes the authors of this new study:
If we can’t dramatically cut meat consumption then intensive ‘factory farming’ may be comparatively less risky
…yes. they’re actually arguing that the corporate mega-farms are better at preventing pandemics than free-range or organic farms because they have “tighter biosecurity controls” (meaning their animals never go outside or interact with nature in anyway whatsoever).
Back in January, when there were barely any bird flu cases to report, The Conversation was already hosting articles claiming…
Bird flu: domestic chicken keepers could be putting themselves – and others – at risk
And calling for a new policy on backyard chickens:
This is why it will be important in the future for Defra and APHA to provide specific policy for backyard chicken keeping.
It’s pretty easy to see where this is going, isn’t it?
But why take aim at ordinary people keeping a handful of chickens in their back garden?
Well, partly because they simply want to cut the amount of natural food people eat – most especially meat, but also eggs and other dairy produce. They want people entirely reliant on mega-corporations for their processed cubes of “food”.
But they also want people entirely reliant on the state for permission to do…almost everything. And in, some ways, the Covid pandemic narrative was counterproductive in that cause.
One of the unintentional effects of Covid in general and lockdown specifically was re-awakening in people an urge to go their own way. The powers-that-be are keen to reverse that trend.
As the above Guardian article points out [emphasis added]:
This may be due to the growing number of people keeping chickens or ducks, Brown said. Many of these keepers do not have to register with any authority because of the small numbers of birds involved.
During lockdown there was a spike in people keeping their own chickens.
Under UK law, it is illegal to keep a flock of fifty or more chickens without obtaining a license from the Poultry Register (yes, that’s a real thing) – but the vast majority of private flocks are much less than fifty birds, and therefore totally unregistered.
This scare-mongering on “spreading disease” is preparing the ground for “regulation” of these small private flocks.
Will that mean an outright ban? Maybe. But at the very least, I would expect the minimum number requiring a license to begin dropping from 50, and the cost of obtaining a license to rise.
We have already seen an example of this process with homeschooling.
Tens of thousands more people are homeschooling in the UK than were before the lockdown started. The government response has been to re-open their years-old war on homeschooling by creating a national register of homeschooled children, and threatening parents with fines or unspecified “sanctions” for refusing to sign-up for it.
The same exact process will likely be seen with backyard poultry.
That’s the specific and practical part of it.
More poetically put, the state resents them because they are free.
Keeping a few chickens in your garden may be a small, fragile, kind of freedom…but its freedom nonetheless, and power structures are easily petty enough to destroy even that modicum of independence.
At its heart, self-reliance of any kind is the antithesis of everything driving us toward the “new normal”.
No freedom. No independence. No living outside the carefully controlled machinery of the state. That’s their aim.
As we phase out of “Covid time” and career towards “world war 3 times” or “climate change times” or whatever the next stage of the grand narrative is, the gears of the state are intent on grinding up those pockets of resistance their relentless overreach has accidentally cultivated.
The good news here is that their ever-more tyrannical efforts to control people will only end up driving more and more people away.
To quote the philosopher Lucas, the more they tighten their grip, the more people will slip through their fingers.
‘World Localization Day’ will be celebrated on 20 June. Organised by the non-profit Local Futures, this annual coming together of people from across the world began in 2020 and focuses on the need to localise supply-chains and recover our connection with nature and community. The stated aim is to “galvanize the worldwide localization movement into a force for systemic change”.
Local Futures, founded by Helena Norberg-Hodge, urges us to imagine a very different world, one in which most of our food comes from nearby farmers who ensure food security year round and where the money we spend on everyday goods continues to recirculate in the local economy.
We are asked to imagine local businesses providing ample, meaningful employment opportunities, instead of our hard-earned cash being immediately siphoned off to some distant corporate headquarters.
Small farms would be key in this respect. They are integral to local markets and networks, short supply chains, food sovereignty, more diverse cropping systems and healthier diets. And they tend to serve the food requirements of communities rather than the interests of big business, institutional investors and shareholders half a world away.
If the COVID lockdowns and war in Ukraine tell us anything about our food system, it is that decentralised, regional and local community-owned food systems based on short(er) supply chains that can cope with future shocks are now needed more than ever.
Localization involves strengthening and rebuilding local economies and communities and restoring cultural and biological diversity. The ‘economics of happiness’ is central to this vision, rather than an endless quest for GDP growth and the alienation, conflict and misery this brings.
It is something we need to work towards because multi-billionaire globalists have a dystopian future mapped out for humanity which they want to impose on us all – and it is diametrically opposed to what is stated above.
The much-publicised ‘great reset’ is integral to this dystopia. It marks a shift away from ‘liberal democracy’ towards authoritarianism. At the same time, there is the relentless drive towards a distorted notion of a ‘green economy’, underpinned by the rhetoric of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘climate emergency’.
The great reset is really about capitalism’s end-game. Those promoting it realise the economic and social system must undergo a reset to a ‘new normal’, something that might no longer resemble ‘capitalism’.
End-game capitalism
Capital can no longer maintain its profitability by exploiting labour alone. This much has been clear for some time. There is only so much surplus value to be extracted before the surplus is insufficient.
Historian Luciana Bohne notes that the shutting down of parts of the economy was already happening pre-COVID as there was insufficient growth, well below the minimum tolerable 3% level to maintain the viability of capitalism. This, despite a decades-long attack on workers and corporate tax cuts.
The system had been on life support for some time. Credit markets had been expanded and personal debt facilitated to maintain consumer demand as workers’ wages were squeezed. Financial products (derivatives, equities, debt, etc) and speculative capitalism were boosted, affording the rich a place to park their profits and make money off money. We have also seen the growth of unproductive rentier capitalism and stock buy backs and massive bail outs courtesy of taxpayers.
Moreover, in capitalism, there is also a tendency for the general rate of profit to fall over time. And this has certainly been the case according to writer Ted Reese, who notes it has trended downwards from an estimated 43% in the 1870s to 17% in the 2000s.
The 2008 financial crash was huge. But by late 2019, an even bigger meltdown was imminent. Many companies could not generate enough profit and falling turnover, squeezed margins, limited cashflows and highly leveraged balance sheets were prevalent. In effect, economic growth was already grinding to a halt prior to the massive stock market crash in February 2020.
Fabio Vighi, professor of critical theory, describes how, in late 2019, the Swiss Bank of International Settlements, BlackRock (the world’s most powerful investment fund), G7 central bankers, leading politicians and others worked behind closed doors to avert a massive impending financial meltdown.
The Fed soon began an emergency monetary programme, pumping hundreds of billions of dollars per week into financial markets. Not long after, COVID hit and lockdowns were imposed. The stock market did not collapse because lockdowns occurred. Vighi argues lockdowns were rolled out because financial markets were collapsing.
Closing down the global economy under the guise of fighting a pathogen that mainly posed a risk to the over 80s and the chronically ill seemed illogical to many, but lockdowns allowed the Fed to flood financial markets (COVID relief) with freshly printed money without causing hyperinflation. Vighi says that lockdowns curtailed economic activity, thereby removing demand for the newly printed money (credit) in the physical economy and preventing ‘contagion’.
Using lockdowns and restrictions, smaller enterprises were driven out of business and large sections of the pre-COVID economy were shut down. This amounted to a controlled demolition of parts of the economy while the likes of Amazon, Microsoft, Meta (Facebook) and the online payment sector – platforms which are dictating what the ‘new normal’ will look like – were clear winners in all of this.
The rising inflation that we currently witness is being blamed on the wholly avoidable conflict in Ukraine. Although this tells only part of the story, the conflict and sanctions seem to be hitting Europe severely: if you wanted to demolish your own economy or impoverish large sections of the population, this might be a good way to go about it.
However, the massive ‘going direct’ helicopter money given to the financial sector and global conglomerates under the guise of COVID relief was always going to have an impact once the global economy reopened.
Similar extraordinary monetary policy (lockdowns) cannot be ruled out in the future: perhaps on the pretext of another ‘virus’ but possibly based on the notion of curtailing human activity due to ‘climate emergency’. This is because raising interests rates to manage inflation could rapidly disrupt the debt-bloated financial system (an inflated Ponzi scheme) and implode the entire economy.
Permanent austerity
But lockdowns, restrictions or creating mass unemployment and placing people on programmable digital currencies to micromanage spending and decrease inflationary pressures could help to manage the crisis. ‘Programmable’ means the government determining how much you can spend and what you can spend on.
How could governments legitimise such levels of control? By preaching about reduced consumption according to the creed of ‘sustainability’. This is how you would ‘own nothing and be happy’ if we are to believe this well-publicised slogan of the World Economic Forum (WEF).
But like neoliberal globalization in the 1980s – the great reset is being given a positive spin, something which supposedly symbolises a brave new techno-utopian future.
In the 1980s, to help legitimise the deregulated neoliberal globalisation agenda, government and media instigated an ideological onslaught, driving home the primacy of ‘free enterprise’, individual rights and responsibility and emphasising a shift away from the role of state, trade unions and the collective in society.
Today, we are seeing another ideological shift: individual rights (freedom to choose what is injected into your own body, for instance) are said to undermine the wider needs of society and – in a stark turnaround – individual freedom is now said to pose a threat to ‘national security’, ‘public health’ or ‘safety’.
A near-permanent state of ‘emergency’ due to public health threats, climate catastrophe or conflict (as with the situation in Ukraine) would conveniently place populations on an ongoing ‘war footing’. Notions of individual liberty and democratic principles would be usurped by placing the emphasis on the ‘public interest’ and protecting the population from ‘harm’. This would facilitate the march towards authoritarianism.
As in the 1980s, this messaging is being driven by economic impulses. Neoliberalism privatised, deregulated, exploited workers and optimised debt to the point whereby markets are now kept afloat by endless financial injections.
The WEF says the public will ‘rent’ everything they require: stripping the right of personal ownership under the guise of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘saving the planet’. Where the WEF is concerned, this is little more than code for permanent austerity to be imposed on the mass of the population.
Metaverse future
At the start of this article, readers were asked to imagine a future based on a certain set of principles associated with localization. For one moment, imagine another. The one being promoted by the WEF, the high-level talking shop and lobby group for elite interests headed by that avowed globalist and transhumanist Klaus Schwab.
As you sit all day unemployed in your high-rise, your ‘food’ will be delivered via an online platform bought courtesy of your programmable universal basic income digital money. Food courtesy of Gates-promoted farms manned by driverless machines, monitored by drones and doused with chemicals to produce crops from patented GM seeds for industrial ‘biomatter’ to be engineered, processed and constituted into something resembling food.
Enjoy and be happy eating your fake food, stripped of satisfying productive endeavour and genuine self-fulfilment. But really, it will not be a problem. You can sit all day and exist virtually in Zuckerberg’s fantasy metaverse. Property-less and happy in your open prison of mass unemployment, state dependency, track and chip health passports and financial exclusion via programmable currency.
A world also in which bodily integrity no longer exists courtesy of a mandatory vaccination agenda linked to emerging digital-biopharmaceutical technologies. The proposed World Health Organization pandemic treaty marks a worrying step in this direction.
This ‘new normal’ would be tyrannical, but the ‘old normal’ – which still thrives – was not something to be celebrated. Global inequality is severe and environmental devastation and human dislocation has been increasing. Dependency and dispossession remain at the core of the system, both on an individual level and at local, regional and national levels. New normal or old normal, these problems will persist and become worse.
Green imperialism
The ‘green economy’ being heavily promoted is based on the commodification of nature, through privatization, marketization and monetary valuation. Banks and corporations will set the agenda – dressed in the garb of ‘stakeholder capitalism’, a euphemism for governments facilitating the needs of powerful global interests. The fear is that the proposed system will weaken environmental protection laws and regulations to facilitate private capital.
The banking sector will engage in ‘green profiling’ and issue ‘green bonds’ and global corporations will be able to ‘offset’ (greenwash) their environment-degrading activities by, for example, protecting or planting a forest elsewhere (on indigenous people’s land) or perhaps even investing in (imposing) industrial agriculture which grows herbicide-resistant GMO commodity crop monocultures that are misleadingly portrayed as ‘climate friendly’. Imperialism wrapped in green.
Relying on the same thinking and the same interests that led the world to where it is now does not seem like a great idea. This type of ‘green’ is first and foremost a multi-trillion market opportunity for lining pockets and part of a strategy that may well be used to secure compliance required for the ‘new normal’.
The future needs to be rooted in the principles of localization. For this, we need look no further than the economics and the social relations that underpin tribal societies (for example, India’s indigenous peoples). The knowledge and value systems of indigenous peoples promote long-term genuine sustainability by living within the boundaries of nature and emphasise equality, communality and sharing rather than separation, domination and competition.
Self-sufficiency, solidarity, localization and cooperation is the antidote to globalism and the top-down tyranny of programmable digital currencies and unaccountable, monopolistic AI-driven platforms which aim to monitor and dictate every aspect of life.
*
Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) in Montreal.
The author receives no payment from any media outlet or organization for his work. If you appreciated this article, consider sending a few coins his way: colintodhunter@outlook.com
Terra Madre, Gaia, Pachamama, Vasundhara… The Living Earth is a self-organised, self-regulating living system. She is autopoeitic, writing the poetry of life, creating the symphony of life, through the harmony of every participating living organism, from the microbes to the mammals.
From the molecule, to the cell, to the organism, to ecosystems, and the planet, life is based on non-separation, harmony and quantum coherence. Self-organised resonance with other beings who are self-organised.
“Life, in the ideal, is a domain that captures and stores energy and mobilises its quantum coherently in perfectly coupled cycles that generate no entropy… In a quantum coherent universe, all beings are both localised as particle/solid objects and delocalised as quantum wave functions spread ultimately throughout the universe. Hence all beings are mutually entangled and mutually constitutive. Thus harming others effectively harms ourselves, and the best way to benefit oneself may be to benefit others”. – Mae Wan Ho[1]
The Living Earth has evolved the biodiversity of our living planet, from viruses and biomes, to ecosystems, and species for over 4 billion years. Gaia weaves the web of life, the threads and relationships that connect the biodiversity of her Earth Family– Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam. Through her biodiversity and biosphere the Living Earth has self regulated her climate, cooling temperatures down from the 290 degree hot planet without life, to 13 degrees. Through the processes of life, the Earth reduced the 98% carbon dioxide rich atmosphere with 4000 ppm carbon dioxide, to 0. 03% at 270 ppm.[2]
Mother Earth evolved her sophisticated “carbon capture and sequestration” technology of photosynthesis which allows plants and microbes to capture the sunlight and the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and transform it into oxygen, our breath. Oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere and the earth was transformed from the original heat-trapping CO2 rich atmosphere to the reduced CO2 atmosphere through the oxidising process of plants and living organisms. This allowed temperatures to be regulated at levels that support human and other biological life on earth.
Through her biodiversity and biosphere she creates, maintains and sustains, regenerates and renews her Infrastructure of Life including the Climate System. Mother Earth is inviting us to participate in her biosphere of microbes and plants, animals in co-creating the harmony that is the symphony of life.
We are a strand in the Web of Life.
We are Children of the Earth, Not her Masters and Owners.
We are members of One Earth Family.
200,000 years ago, the living Earth created the conditions for our species to evolve, sustain ourselves and provide for our basic needs of food, clothing and shelter as members of the biosphere.
We are alive because the Earth is Alive. Learning to live as part of the biosphere as indigenous people, women, small peasants have done is our work for the Earth, for the human future.
Mother Earth is Living and Has Rights.
“Mother Earth is an indivisible community of diverse and interdependent beings with whom we share a common destiny and to whom we must relate in ways that benefit Mother Earth”.[3]
Diversity is nature’s organising principle, the basis of emergence, evolution, and resilience. Diversity in forms and expressions, flows and relations are how nature creates value and strength. Nature does not create monocultures and uniformity. Nature does not create fences and walls of division and separation, of ownership and private property.
We are a living, conscious strand in the pulsating web of life. We are all members of One Earth Family, interconnected through life. We are part of the Earth, and not separate from her. We are children of Mother Earth, not her masters and owners. We are among the youngest siblings in the Earth family and have much to learn from our elders, the microbes, and plants.
Nature’s gifts are for the sustenance of all beings in the Earth Family, not just for humans. All beings have a right to the Earth’s Gifts of sustenance. We are not a privileged species who can take others’ share and drive other species to extinction, or deprive our fellow human beings of food and water.
Nature’s Economy and the ecological processes of Regeneration that sustain life, is a Commons of Life.
The Earth’s biodiversity and soil, land, and water are not “human inventions”, they are not the “private property” of a few billionaires and their corporations. They are the commons, the infrastructure of life, not industrial “raw material” to be extracted for profits, or financial assets to be traded.
Every organism, from the smallest microbe to the largest mammal is part of the web of life. All living beings are sentient beings and have intrinsic value and worth. They are not objects to be owned and manipulated. Their value does not come from the market and cannot be reduced to money.
Earth-centred paradigms and worldviews do not put humans at the centre. They do not put the dis-economy of extractivism at the centre. They put life and the living processes that support life at the centre. They put the currencies of life at the centre.
Giving back to the Earth for regeneration, and sharing her gifts among others is at the heart of being members of one Earth family.
Life is a Circular Regenerative Flow. Living is participating in the cycles of life. Caring and Sharing is the Regenerative Economy – Oikonomia, or the Art of Living
Nature’s Economy is the economy of life, nourishing all in permanent renewal and regeneration.
Participating in nature’s Cycles of Renewal and Regeneration based on the living currencies and flows of energy, food, water, air, life is Oikonomia, the Art of Living.
Nature does not work in linear extractive flows of one way taking. Mother Earth works in complex, multiple Living Circular Economies based on ecological cycles of renewal, recycling and the law of return, the law of giving. Living circular economies create economies of permanence through regeneration and renewal. The Earth’s gifts do not get exhausted. Seed becomes plants, plants give seeds. Food is the currency of the nutrition cycle, nourishing all beings in the web of life. Water is the currency in the hydrological cycle, quenching the thirst of the soil, the plants, the animals, the atmosphere.
Nature’s Economy is an autopoietic, negative entropy economy, unlike mechanical, industrial systems which are allopoetic, based on external inputs of energy and resources and create wasted energy as entropy.
Nature’s cycles are zero waste and zero pollution systems, unlike the waste and pollution creating industrial systems driven by external energy.
Care for the Earth and her biodiversity is the Real Economy in which we participate, providing for the needs of others in our Earth Family who provide for us.
Cooperation, Mutuality, Synergy are the principles of Nature’s Economy, not competition and extractivism. Scarcity is a construct that is used to grab people’s lands and resources. The construct of scarcity and greed are the basis of conflicts and wars. Peace flows when all beings cooperate in mutuality and Gift Giving to create abundance and sustenance for all, making conservation and regeneration the basis of living economies and livelihoods.
That is why we pray, “May the peace of the earth, the air, the atmosphere, the waters, the plants, the trees … May that peace be with you”.
Cocreating nonviolently with Mother Earth is weaving peace, and providing for the basic needs of food and water, life and livelihoods of the last person. As Gandhi said: “The Earth has enough for everyone’s needs, not for a few people’s greed.”
We have a duty to protect the Earth‘s living systems and the infrastructure of life that provides us clean air, clean water and clean food. All beings have the right to the gifts of the Earth. All beings have a right to be alive, and to their share of ecological space. No person, no matter how rich they have become through extractivism, has the right to appropriate the share of others in participation in Nature’s Economy, the Economy of Life.
Living is participating in the processes of life.
Living is Commoning. Living is Reclaiming the commons of life and resisting the new enclosures through the financialisation of nature.
“The Currency of Life is Life, not Money”
Mother Earth connects us to her life and the Earth Family through flows of living currencies of energy and breath, water and nourishment.
Currency means flow. It is the flow of life and love through the web of life in nature and society which sustains us as one. As I have often repeated: “The currency of life is life, not money”. Food is the currency of life. Water is the currency of life. Breath is the currency of life. Living energy is the currency of life. Care is the currency of life. The diverse currencies of life grow the infrastructure of life so all lives thrive.
The ecological emergency is a consequence of the economy of Greed, of extractivism to make money, and making money the measure of value, and even the measure of being human. It is the basis of inhumanity, of violence and wars against the Earth and against people, in the name of grabbing resources for the market.
Colonial commerce was based on commodification and commercialisation of nature, leaving nothing for nature and local communities. Colonisers grew richer. Nature and colonised people became poorer.
The disease is now being offered as the cure. Markets and money are being offered as the solution to the ecological catastrophes they have caused. Economic growth, which is merely a measure of how much was extracted from nature and society to convert into money, capital, finances, is being offered as a solution to the ecological crises money-making and extractivism has led to.
The laws of Gaia are the basis of life on earth. They precede production, they precede trade, and they precede the market. The market depends on Gaia. Gaia does not depend on the market. Both the earth and society come first. They are sovereign and autonomous. They cannot be commoditised, and reduced to the market.
In a short 500 years of colonialism, the Robber Barons reduced Terra Madre, Mother Earth to Terra Nullius, dead, Empty Earth, property to be owned, raw material to be exploited. Earth centred communities living in peace with the Earth as part of the Earth were declared “primitive”. Oikonomia, the Art of Living was violently transformed into Chrematistics, the Art of Money Making.
They made the currencies of life disappear and replaced it with money and finance.
In 100 years of the Age of Oil, the Robber Barons displaced the living carbon of biodiversity with the counterfeit energy from fossilised dead carbon, disrupting the self regulation of Earth Systems, giving us pollution, wars and climate catastrophe.
Climate Change, the Extinction Emergency, the economic catastrophes and wars are rooted in greed and wars against the Earth and her Peoples. They are rooted in control of life by controlling the flow of seed going from farmer to farmer, the flow of water in a river, the flow of food to nourish all beings in the food web, the flow of money reflecting embodiment of real goods and resources, the flow of freedom and democracy, of knowledge and information. Controlling the flow is controlling life and freedom. This is how money is made, and power accumulated in the hands of a few.
Now the Robber Barons who gave us oil want to create new markets of carbon, new property in nature’s ecological services, by reducing Biodiversity and Nature into financial assets to be owned and traded[4].
In 2021, Rockefeller and the New York Stock Exchange launched Intrinsic Exchange Group (IEG)[5] whose mission focuses on “pioneering a new asset class based on natural assets and the mechanism to convert them to financial capital”[6]. A new colonialism, a new ownership, a new enclosure of the commons is being worked out by the Robber Barons who do not merely want to own nature, but also her ecological services. The assets include “Biological systems that provide clean air, water, foods, medicines, a stable climate, human health and societal potential”[7].
The Robber Barons of today, the philanthrocapitalists, the Blackrocks and Vanguards, are trying to own and privatise all of nature and our lives. They are mutating into life lords to whom we will have to pay rents to breathe, eat, drink. What nature provides for free as a Gift will now be a commodity we “buy” at high cost and through digital social credits in the new economy which builds on the old colonisation.
The money machine is trying to own the last seed, the last drop of water, the last river, extinguish the last forest and last farm, the last insect and blade of grass. Creating fictitious currencies, and fictitious finance, nature is being reduced to a “financial asset”, to be miraculously multiplied to $4000 trillion.
The 2008 financial crisis was the result of the financial Robber Barons magically expanding the $90 trillion economy of real goods and services like homes and food into a fictitious $512 trillion financial economy. The financial economy grew at the cost of millions who were unhoused and unfed as a result. The more the real world is turned into a financial asset, the more homelessness and hunger grows.
Wall Street and the financial asset companies are now seeing a $4000 trillion fictitious economy of finance by extracting profits from “Nature’s assets”, or the goods and services that the Earth produces. This commodification is an enclosure of the commons of life. It is an attempt to own the last river, the last forest and the last acre of land. It is a recipe to displace and dispossess the real custodians of nature, the indigenous people and small farmers leaving them without access to land, forests and water and their Earth-centred cultures and livelihoods. Hunger, poverty, disposability, and dispossession will grow. This is a violation of Nature’s Economy, Rights of Mother Earth, Rights of all beings and Human Rights.
Creating new algorithms to multiply finances and increase financial resources cannot regenerate the life lost in nature through ecological destruction. You can convert nature into cash through extractivism. But you cannot turn cash into nature.
An African peasant captured the ontological and ecological difference between money and life with a simple metaphor:
“You cannot turn a calf into a cow by plastering it with mud”[8]
Financialisation of Mother Nature, reducing her to an “asset” and commodity for sale continues the ontological blindness to how Mother Earth creates and sustains life through her auto-poetic currencies and life flows.
Money is a mere means of exchange of real goods and services produced through real work. Money mutated into the mysterious construct of “capital”, which could create wealth by denying the creativity of nature, women, farmers, workers, could enclose the commons and own the commons as private property. “Capital” then mutated into “investment”. Investment mutated, through multiple constructions into “returns on investment”, where those who do no real work but control wealth created by exploitation of nature and people accumulate more wealth, and use the wealth to further exploit nature and society. The ecological crisis grows. Poverty, misery, exclusion grows.
Financialisation of Nature is the latest step in the mutation of “invest” from giving care to profits and money making.
The original meaning of “invest” was to make something beautiful, to clothe. A mere ten years after the creation of the East India Company by 1610 the meaning of investment changed from being diverse ways of “clothing “ and “surrounding” to “use money to produce profit” in connection with corporate colonial trade.
It was John Locke who extended it to “circulation of money” to suit the needs of private property, money-centred structures being built by colonial commerce. And the delusion that money is the currency of life has allowed money-making and money-makers to be rewarded and even worshipped, while our sense of interconnectedness is extinguished, and with it our potential for compassion.
For them ‘Invest in the planet” means extract the last drop of life from the Earth Systems, extract the last freedom from humans and other species to be sustained by the earth, her flows, her currencies.
We need to return to the original meaning of “invest”, as clothing, and making beauty. We need to clothe the Earth with biodiversity of trees on our farms and forests, biodiversity of crops in our fields and gardens. We need to intensify biodiversity, to intensify photosynthesis, to intensify nature’s flows of life. We need to plant seeds and care for the living soil so the seed, soil and sun can intensify the flow of their living energies, healing broken cycles. We need to invest Love, Care and Compassion to Regenerate the Earth and stop the wars against the Earth and her peoples.
Peace, sustainability and justice call for an end to wars against the Earth in our minds, our lives.
The Colonial Age has enslaved our minds and broken our relationship with the Earth. The Fossil Fuel Age has fossilised our minds and hearts, making us helpless cogs in the oil machine, the money machine, cogs the machine is ready to substitute with robots and AI.
Mother Earth is waking us up to break free of the anthropocentric arrogance that makes rich and powerful humans blind to nature’s life, creativity, technologies, economy and allows them to deny us our rightful share and place as Earth Beings in Mother Earth’s Economy of Life to ensure life and well being, food and water for all.
As money and finance becomes more removed from nature’s economy and the real economies of sustenance that people create, as finance multiplies mysteriously, gets concentrated in the hands of a few billionaires, their Asset Management Funds, and the corporations they own, it is time to remember the prophecy of the Cree Native Americans.
“When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned, you will realise that you cannot eat money. ”
Seeding Our Common Future with Mother Earth
We are biological beings, ecological beings, earth beings, inter beings, spiritual beings. We are one Earth Family. Seeds are not machines. Plants are not machines. Animals are not machines. We are not machines. Our minds are not machines. We are conscious, intelligent caring beings with a potential to imagine and cultivate a future of peace and non violence, of abundance and well being.
Life is self-organised complexity and intelligence in constant evolution, interaction, change and emergence. From the seed I have learnt the power of autopoiesis, organised from within. Biodiversity of Seeds and Plants have been my teacher of abundance and freedom, of cooperation and mutual giving.
Seed, uncontaminated seed, Bija, Seme, Semilla- is the source of life, of regeneration and abundance. Seed renews and multiples. Seed Regenerates. On its own. Forever and ever and ever… Seed embodies the continuity of evolution.
From the Seed we can learn self-organisation, co-creation, regeneration. We can return to Earth to grow life in diversity and participate in the flow of life to provide for our needs. At a time when the Robber Barons have plans to own all of nature, all of the Earth, and force us to buy our needs, we need to follow the example of my sisters in Chipko who reminded us that the forests were not timber mines, they were sources of soil, water, and oxygen. They declared they would hug the trees to protect them and not let them be cut.
On Mother Earth Day and every day we live and breathe, whoever we are, where we are, let us hug Mother Earth in gratitude for the breath, food, water, life she gives and declare our deep love for life.
Mother Earth is Not for Sale
When I started the movement for Seed Freedom for saving seeds I travelled the country to create awareness about the Intellectual Property laws of Gatt/WTO through which corporations wanted to own seed as property. The tribals of Chattisgarh who evolved 200,000 varieties of rice told me how seed is a commons which has to be regenerated through sharing. Rice is called Akshat, the unbroken, the timeless, the breath of life. They asked me to return and join them for the festival of Akti, Akshaya Tritiya, a festival for celebrating the unbroken cycle of life, not as observers, but as participants in the cycle of regeneration and care. In a prayer that is said at Akshaya Tritiya, Mother Earth gives us instruction that the purpose of our lives is love and compassion for all beings.
“Relating to all living beings through love and compassion is the purpose of life”
सभी जीवों ( विविध जीवों) के प्रति सहृदयता का परिचय देना ही जीवन का लक्षण है।
David Korten awakens us to the potential we have to participate in the, “joyful exhilaration that comes from fulfilling our responsibility to share in the care of life”[9]
References
[1] A late and dear friend and a geneticist who worked on a quantum theory of biology.
Hunt, Tam. (2013). The rainbow and the worm: Establishing a new physics of life. Communicative & integrative biology. 6. e23149. 10.4161/cib.23149.
[2] Prentice, IC, Farquhar, GD, Fasham, MJR, Goulden, ML, Heimann, M, Jaramillo, VJ, Kheshgi, HS, Le Quere, C, Scholes, RJ & Wallace, DWR 2001, The carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon dioxide. in JT Houghton, Y Ding, DJ Griggs, M Noguer, PJ van der Linden, X Dai, K Maskell & CA Johnson (eds), Climate change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
How can we heal our relationship with food in the age of artificial food? In response to the crises in our food system we are witnessing the rise of technological solutions that aim to replace animal products and other food staples with lab-grown alternatives.
Artificial food advocates are reiterating the old and failed rhetoric that industrial agriculture is essential to feed the world. Real, nutrient-rich food is gradually disappearing, while the dominant industrial agricultural model is causing an increase in chronic diseases and exacerbating climate change.
The notion that high-tech, “farm free” lab food is a viable solution to the food crisis is simply a continuation of the same mechanistic mindset which has brought us to where we are today – the idea that we are separate from and outside of nature.
Industrial food systems have reduced food to a commodity, to “stuff” that can then be constituted in the lab. In the process both the planet’s health and our health has been nearly destroyed.
Industrial agriculture is re-inventing its future based on “fake farming” with “fake food”, with chemicals and GMOs, surveillance drones and spyware. Farming without farmers, farming without biodiversity, farming without soil, is the vision of those who have already brought us to the brink of catastrophe.
This is why artificial meat, invested in by the giant tycoons of factory farming, are not viable alternatives. They are just additional sources of profit for the same players and take political power away from regenerative farmers and local communities.
These modes deny the essential symbiotic relationships between humans, plants, animals and microorganisms and, in turn, deny their potential to maintain and regenerate the web of life. Food is the web of life and we cannot separate food from life. Similarly, we cannot separate ourselves from the Earth.
Solutions to our global crises already exist and they come from building cultures of interconnection and regeneration, as well as healing our relationships with food, nature and community. We need to become aware of the connections that hold the opportunity to regenerate the earth, our health, our food economies and food cultures through a real agriculture that cares for the earth and for people. Real food is not created in a laboratory, but comes from biodiverse farms that take care of the land by embracing a regenerative agriculture model.
We must therefore work actively to renew and regenerate the Planet by participating in ecological processes of reciprocity and restoring biodiversity. For this to happen, the act of eating must once again become an ecological act, so that the false solutions proposed by the advocates of artificial food, which do nothing to counter the profit-driven agri-food industry, do not create further crises.
Fully artificial food is an increasingly popular trend focused on developing a new line of synthetically produced, ultra-processed food products by using recent advances in synthetic biology, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology. These new products seek to imitate and replace animal products, food additives, and expensive, rare, or socially conflictive ingredients (such as palm oil). Biotech companies and agribusiness giants are seeing the opportunity to move into this promising market of “green” consumption and hence these products are marketed to a new generation of environmentally conscious consumers who are growing critical of the grim realities of industrial food production. As a result, meatless burgers and sausages, as well as imitations of cheese, dairy products, seafood, and others, have begun to flood the market, being found anywhere from fast food chains to local grocery stores.
Although these products market themselves as ‘eco-friendly’, ‘healthy’, and ‘sustainable’, they are no such thing as they do little to truly address the root problems of industrial agriculture and its environmental, and health consequences. Consequences that can be largely blamed on the same circle of businessmen who today finance the development of this biotech industry. These products instead represent the next generation of ultra-processed junk foods that work to further entrench industrial agriculture models due to their direct dependence on globalized commodity chains, agrochemicals, GMOs, monocultures, and even conventional animal production. In other words, synthetic foods are quickly becoming a next means to consolidate even more power and profit into the hands of a few food giants without facing the implications of ecological devastation, worsening human health, and exacerbated climate change.
One of the key differences between conventional junk food products and these new synthetic foods is the use of new technological innovations such as synthetic biology and genetic engineering. Synthetic biology is a new type of biotechnology which is now creating entirely new organisms and microorganisms through the genetic modification or engineering of an organism’s internal genetic parts to reconfigure them in new ways. By implanting pieces of other organisms’ DNA into microorganisms, or reconfiguring internal genetic information, these new technologies trigger microorganisms, cells, or other forms of genetic material to ‘ferment’ and reproduce in order to trigger them to create new, completely synthetic ingredients. The use of the word ‘fermentation’ in synthetic biology hence creates a false analogy between traditional forms of natural microbial fermentation and these new, completely artificial biotechnologies.
These new technologies are now being used by companies such as Beyond Meat, Motif Foodworks, Ginkgo Bioworks (custom-built microbes), BioMilq (lab-grown breast milk), Nature’s Fynd (fungi-grown meat and dairy alternatives), Eat Just (egg substitutes made from plant proteins), Perfect Day Food (lab-grown dairy products) or NotCo.
Companies such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods use a DNA coding sequence derived from soybeans or peas to create a product that looks and tastes like real meat. Imitations of cheese and dairy products are also starting to pop up. For instance, companies like Formo are using synthetic biology to synthesise milk proteins through fermentation for mozzarella and ricotta cheeses without cows.
Filler ingredients for these products also still rely heavily on the extensive processing of conventionally cultivated and mostly GMO crops. For instance, the Impossible Burger is made almost entirely from industrially produced wheat, maize, soya, coconut and potato, in addition to additional bioengineered ingredients. Proteins, carbohydrates from these conventional crops are chemically extracted, cooked and then extruded through machines that blend and shape them into strands resembling short muscle fibers, allowing manufacturers to convincingly imitate a range of processed meat products[1].
Cell-Cultured Synthetic Meat and Dairy
Lab-grown or cultured meat and dairy products are now also being marketed as yet another alternative to animal products, with many companies investing in cell-culturing or ‘fermentation’ of foods made from real animal cells. In the case of cell-based meat, tissue is taken from a living cow and combined with extracted stem cells to grow into muscle fibers in the lab. Once enough (over 20,000) have been obtained from this process they are colored, minced, mixed with fats, and shaped into burgers.
For instance, Upside Foods (previously known as Memphis Meats) produces meat through this method, by using self-reproducing animal cells. The rationale is that such an approach would eliminate the need to breed and slaughter a huge amount of animals, thus ironing out many ethical and ecological concerns along the supply chain. While lab-grown meat is not yet available to the public, companies like Upside Foods are heavily investing in research and development in order to make their products economically affordable over the long term to compete with commercial meat options. The Canadian company Better Milk, for instance, is also investing heavily in the production of cow’s milk using bovine mammary cells.
Yet, whether upscaling lab-grown food will one day be economically viable remains very doubtful. An article from the Counter reflects on the limits of the transformative potential of this emerging technology, with particular attention to the many obstacles faced by cultured meat companies. Through a rigorous review of scientific data, the article demonstrates that cultivated meat gives rise to a lot of inefficiencies and limitations in scalability, embodied by the need for intensive and sophisticated machinery, structural limitations on cell metabolisms and immunity to foreign contaminants, and a series of complex processes that all place a strict limit on the expansion of production. These factors contribute to a lack of cost competitiveness in comparison with the conventional meat products they wish to replace, as cultured meat production would amount to far less than conventional slaughterhouses. Especially when cell-culturing facilities at the scale needed have previously never been made viable.
Who is behind the surge of fake food and who benefits?
Over the last couple of years, and following the relentless emergence of new startups, the market for synthetic and plant-based alternatives has been rapidly expanding, with financial backing skyrocketing in 2020. The Good Food Institute, a lobby advocate group for the adoption of animal product alternatives, reports that in the United States, the plant-based market has already grown from 4.9 billion in 2018 to 7 billion in 2020, which represents an overall increase of 43% in dollar sales over the last two years. Similarly, the plant-based meat market is also booming, having reached a value of 1.4 billion and registered a growth of 72% by 2020. Beyond Meat has been one of the “hottest” stocks in 2019. The plant-based meat company’s shares grew a whooping 859% during its first three months.
The synthetic biology industry is also right behind. It has reached a value of $12 billion in the last decade and is expected to double by 2025, and to reach $85 billion in 2030. Companies specializing in this field have also grown six-fold in the last ten years.
Clearly it is agribusiness that stands to profit from this lucrative and quickly expanding market. Therefore, It should not come as a surprise that a lot of meat industry giants like Tyson foods, JBS, Cargill, Nestlé, and Maple Leaf Foods are investing in this blossoming market. Moreover, high profile big tech investors such as Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos have also joined in by providing substantial financial backup to startups and biotechnology companies pursuing innovations in the sector. In fact, Bill Gates alone has already invested 50 million dollars in Impossible Foods and actively finances Beyond Meat, Ginkgo Bioworks, BioMilq, Motif Foodworks, C16 Biosciences, and Memphis Meats (now Upside Foods) through his Breakthrough Energy Ventures investment fund.
Other prominent start-ups funded by this billionaire investment include- Eat Just (egg substitutes made from plant proteins), Perfect Day Food (lab-grown dairy products), and NotCo (plant-based animal products made through AI), to name a few.
Given the widespread success of the plant-based industry, it is not surprising that big plant-breeding companies like Bayer also see a great opportunity for investment and expansion in this market. As put by Bob Reiter, Bayer’s head of research and development at the company’s crop science division, in reference to plant based-meat companies: “They are sourcing different types of crops and that could also create opportunity for us, being a company that is a plant-breeding company”.
An ecological choice or a wolf in sheep’s clothing?
Many studies are questioning the alleged sustainability of this industry, which now comprises a constellation of new ‘green-conscious’ start-ups. It is not surprising that the tremendous rise of synthetic foods is happening at a time when ethical concerns linked to the meat and dairy industry are increasingly under the spotlight. As the industrial agrifood industry is threatened by consumer apathy, big companies that stand to lose significant profits are trying to tap into a new market of environmentally aware consumers looking for alternatives. Hence, the promotion of these synthetic foods is nothing more than a clever way to reorient profits back to the same old companies by re-purposing the destructive technologies of the Green Revolution combined with new biotechnologies as a well-disguised ‘sustainable alternative’.
This reinforcement of the industrial agriculture production model becomes evident when one looks at the ingredients that make up these synthetic foods. Primarily made up of conventionally grown peas, potatoes, soya, coconut, and maize, these products rely on heavy processing, monocultures, agrochemicals, GMOs, deforestation and a contaminating global-supply chain.
Yet, companies remain adamant in their claims that their plant-based meats require less water, less land, and produce less greenhouse gases than their counterparts, as well as simultaneously ironing out animal welfare concerns. In so doing, they deliberately sidestep the impacts of the toxic industrial supply chain their products depend on.
Most significantly, to run, these bioreactors require large amounts of nutrients for cells to grow and reproduce. Given the limited production of individual amino acid formulations suited for cell culture globally, one hope is to use soy to derive the full amino acid profile necessary for cell growth. This would work to only further entrench the already destructive cultivation of soy.
Gruesomely and ironically, other parts of the nutrient broth used to culture cells also directly derive from current industrial animal production, as some of them are made using fetal cow’s blood obtained from conventionally slaughtered pregnant cows. Stem cells necessary for cell reproduction during the cell culturing process also come from fetal cows. Without the mass abundance of slaughtered fetal cows, can cell-cultured meat scale up? And so, can lab-grown meat be considered to solve the problem of animal welfare and environmental degradation if it is completely dependent on ingredients that derive from industrial beef production? This gruesome reality says otherwise.
Meat analogs and cell-based meats are also much more carbon intensive than we are led to believe. A recent study has shown that the fossil fuel energy required for the production of lab meat is not sustainable and could by far surpass the output of livestock like pigs and poultry.
Vast amounts of energy are required for the production of synthetic foods. These include several energy intensive steps such as the operation of the bioreactors, temperature controls, aeration, and mixing processes. Thus, on the basis of these indicators, the sector is in no position to claim that synthetic meat production is inherently more sustainable than traditional production systems. Studies like these further point to how upscaling synthetic meat production is not the way towards a carbon free society, especially when we consider the scaling needed to match current consumption levels of the products this industry is trying to replace.
Are plant-based foods healthier? Not if they are ultra-processed
It is now widely known how industrial processing can make food less nutritious and thus harmful to human health, and according to a recent report, the latest generation of junk synthetic foods is no exception. In order to make their products, chemically extracted protein isolates from commodity crops such as soy, peas and potatoes are used and mixed in with added flavorings, food additives, and now, perhaps most dangerously, genetically engineered artificial ingredients to try to approximate the taste and texture of real animal products. As a result, these ultra-processed foods typically contain high levels of sodium, fats and artificial food enhancers in order to be palatable, placing them under the same categories as junk foods.
Moreover, ultra processed foods are made from refined ingredients which means that they lack many of the nutrients found in traditional animal products such as zinc, iron and vitamin B-12. These nutrients and fortifiers thus need to be added as separate ingredients in synthetic meat, but cannot be absorbed as effectively as they would from whole foods, and can cause harmful interference with other nutrients. As a result our bodies may derive less health benefits from them and therefore they should not be part of a nutritious and environmentally friendly diet.
The safety of new ingredients and additives used is also a cause for concern. For example, to make the Impossible Burger appear to “bleed” like real meat, a synthetically produced “heme” molecule is added which comes from soy leghemoglobin, a colorant produced in genetically engineered yeast. The adoption of this patented new ingredient has been nothing short of controversial. According to the Center for Food Safety, the FDA did not conduct adequate long-term testing before approving the additive in 2019, and after a short-term rat trial, several potential adverse effects were detected like changes in weight gain, changes in the blood that can indicate inflammation or kidney disease, disruptions in the reproductive cycle and possible signs of anemia. Despite the lack of evidence that the additive is safe, Impossible Foods’ products containing genetically engineered heme are now being sold in supermarkets across the United States, exemplifying the lack of testing and regulation for these new products and technologies.
Highly toxic glyphosate has also been found in the Impossible Burger with amounts being more than enough to have a variety of negative health effects.This is also not mentioning synergistic effects this might have with the variety of toxic food additives these companies mix in to mask flavors, and the unknown health effects of synbio-produced additives.
Profitable Patents
Synthetic foods symbolize yet another profit-making machine used by billionaires and big corporations to capitalize on proprietary technology and increase their control over the world’s resources. This is reflected in companies’ ceaseless pursuit of patents for anything from novel processes of synthetic biology, genetically engineered ingredients like soy leghemoglobin, protein texturizing processing and even the patenting of genetic materials used as raw materials. As was shown in the Navdanya International Gates to a Global Empire report, 27 patents have been assigned to Impossible Foods, with over 100 additional patents pending for other fake meat proxies, from chicken to fish.
The patenting logic that underlies the synthetic food movement, sees animals and nature as disposable elements that can simply be replaced by more efficient technologies such as lab-engineered products. This dangerous way of thinking reduces animals to mere inputs in a production system, thus completely ignoring our relationship with nature and further creating a rift separating humans from nature and food from life.
Handing over control of our food to a handful of multinational companies does not only make us increasingly dependent on them, it can also have detrimental consequences on local food systems and erode the food sovereignty of organic farmers.
International appetites for ultra-processed foods
In addition to conquering our plates and diets, synthetic food is slowly starting to take over multi-level governance arenas. This was most apparent in last years’ UN Food Systems Summit, as well as the COP26. Both serving as forums to showcase the true intentions of agribusiness and food giants– namely, to keep the system unchanged. As anticipated, both summits marked yet another failed attempt at addressing power imbalances in the food system, with sustainable farming practices like agroecology only playing a marginal role. The summits were thus met with resounding backlash from environmental associations and civil society organizations.
Reflected in the themes and proposals of both international events was the willingness to keep business as usual and continuing to rely on the failed industrial agricultural model by allowing big actors to dictate terms. For instance, during both the UNFSS and the COP26 there was explicit promotion of artificial and ultra processed plant-based foods, under the language of achieving ‘protein diversification’ and ‘sustainable diets’. During the COP26 the “Plant-Based Treaty” was promoted and backed by all the above-mentioned actors, and during the UNFSS under similar initiatives were promoted in Action Track 2 led by Nestlé, Danone and the controversial EAT organization.
There are many dangers associated with the above discourses of these ultra-processed, synthetic foods being cornerstones of ‘sustainable diets’ entering the global governance arena. This is especially true if they are further consolidated into policies that shift attention and resources away from organic farmers and local markets toward a handful of biotech companies. Despite food advocates’ claims that the proliferation of synthetic alternatives to animal products can resolve animal welfare concerns and solve many of our ongoing crises, the ‘plant-based’ label means very little if it is based on industrial models, monocultures, GMOs, pesticides, and other chemically intensive agricultural practices that lead to biodiversity loss and ecological degradation.
Which future for our food?
There are many dangers associated with the above discourses entering the global governance arena. Especially if they mean a further consolidation of policies that shift attention and resources away from organic farmers and local markets toward a handful of biotech companies. Despite food advocates’ claims that the proliferation of synthetic alternatives to animal products can resolve animal welfare concerns and solve many of our ongoing crises, the ‘plant-based’ label means very little if it is based on industrial models, monocultures, GMOs, pesticides, and other destructive agricultural practices that lead to biodiversity loss, ecological degradation and worsening health.
Synthetic food is thus nothing more than a fake solution that aims to replace products without challenging the power structures that underlie the corporate agricultural model. Moreover, it completely ignores the solutions offered by the growing regenerative agriculture movement and completely disregards the role of small producers and food communities in shaping our food systems. This mindset explains why we will soon see Beyond Meat burgers in McDonald’s plant-based menus when we should instead focus on the necessity for real regenerative agriculture and systemic change to protect nature and people’s health.
What We Need is Real Food
In the end, these artificial, synthetic foods dismantle our connection with nature and in doing so, they completely disregard the role of natural processes and the laws of ecology that are at the heart of real food production. By promoting the illusion that we live outside of nature’s ecological processes, this new technology will only serve to increase corporate control over food and health, accelerate the collapse of local food economies and further destroy food democracy. The real solution to the environmental, and health crises should be based on an active rejuvenation and regeneration of the planet by working with ecological processes through agroecological and regenerative farming practices.
Contrary to the claims of the agro-industry and food tech companies, food cannot be reduced to a commodity to be put together mechanically and artificially in labs and factories. Food is the currency of life and it holds the contribution of all beings involved at all stages of production. Claiming otherwise would be a negation of local indigenous knowledge and pastoralist cultures that have evolved alongside diverse ecosystems over the centuries to regenerate biodiversity and contribute to the diversity of farming systems.
Animals, humans, and nature have always lived in interconnected, symbiotic relationships which in turn regenerate all systems that support life. This synergy is vital to the renewal of soil fertility, the creation of habitat for biodiversity, and the rejuvenation of Earth’s water, carbon, and nutrient cycles. While concerns about the meat industry are legitimate, animals integrated into a biodiverse, agroecological system can provide a viable alternative to an agricultural system based on exploitation and environmental destruction. Animals have always held a central function in agroecological systems, since when they feed on grass, pests, and weeds, they, in turn, fertilize the soil, improve biodiversity at all levels, and help sequester carbon back into the earth. Animals in symbiotic and balanced relationships with plants, soils, and humans have also formed central parts of cultural and agricultural reproduction for millennia, contributing to much more than just meat production.
On the other hand, the industrial raising of animals through CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Farm Operations) who are force-fed industrially grown grains and soy, contribute to the expansion of GHG-emitting industrial agriculture, causing a greater release of methane and the pollution of air and water sources. It is important to emphasize how these two systems are not at all alike, as meat consumption per se is not the problem, rather it is the industrial meat production model hand in hand with the industrial agriculture model that is responsible for the majority of GHG emissions, animal suffering, and environmental degradation. Therefore, the real solution does not lie in creating substitutes for food, it lies in understanding the needs of the ecosystems we are embedded in and healing our connection with nature.
Real food made through real farming is the direct result of a process of care for the land, animals, and fellow humans that celebrates the connection between food and life. It protects the life of all beings on Earth while also nourishing our health and wellbeing. Artificial food is a direct manifestation of years of food imperialism and colonization that has denied our diverse food knowledge, food cultures, and disregarded the biodiversity of the earth and its ecosystems.
Hope does not lie in pursuing technological innovations such as lab-grown synthetic foods that see nature as a dead and unimprovable technology, but in participating and rejuvenating the earth’s natural processes. The question of what we eat, how we grow the food we eat, and how we distribute it has become a survival imperative for the human species and all beings that make up the web of life. When we farm with real knowledge of how to care for the Earth and her biodiversity, when we eat real food which nourishes the biodiversity of the Earth, our cultures, and our gut microbiome, we are then participating in real and living economies that regenerate the well-being of all. All over the world, small farmers and gardeners are already preserving and developing their soils and their seeds through the practice of agroecology. They are feeding their communities with healthy and nutritious food while also rejuvenating the planet.
[1] Kyriakopoulou, Konstantina, et al. “Plant-Based Meat Analogues.” Sustainable Meat Production and Processing, edited by Charis Galanakis, Academic Press, 2019, pp. 103–126. Science Direct. doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814874-7.00006-7.
Jim Gale is the founder & CEO of Food Forest Abundance, a company & movement that is revolutionizing gardening & food independence by bringing a simple but effective solution for our most complex problems.
Climate engineering researcher Dane Wigington contends the coming food shortage that President Biden recently mentioned is not because of the Ukraine/Russia conflict. Wigington explains, “The bottom line is we have crops collapsing all over the globe. Although the causes are many . . . climate engineering must be considered a core causal factor at this point. The assault against food producing regions has been relentless. . . . We can only consider it an assault against food production at this time.”
Wigington says time is short and predicts, “Based on the current rate of UV (ultraviolet) increase, it appears we may have a functional Ozone layer collapse in as little as 18 months. Nothing grows then. The heat in California is relentless, as well, because climate engineers are keeping a high pressure heat dome over the western U.S. For photosynthesis, as we approach 104 degrees, photosynthesis tapers off, and at 104 degrees, it stops completely. To blame the food shortages coming on the Russia/Ukraine scenario is to simply scapegoat it. . . . Climate engineering is the single biggest factor in the equation for the destruction of food production.”
It’s not just food production that is going to take a hit, but coastal communities and cities could be facing massively rising sea levels in a relatively short amount of time. Wigington says, “As we lose the Cryosphere, there is enough ice in Antarctica to raise sea levels 197 feet. In Greenland, there is enough ice to raise it another 21 to 24 feet. As the ice slides off these land masses, the land begins to rise up out of the ocean. That is called ‘glacial rebound,’ and that can raise the seal levels even further. . . . When the power structure cannot hide the severity of what is unfolding, you just can’t shut off this kind of thermal inertia. When they just can’t hide it and people panic, that’s when the law of the jungle will truly prevail. We are perilously close to that point.”
The planet is in total meltdown right now. It is melting down at a rate of seven Hiroshima bombs per second. It’s not just crops collapsing, but oceans are collapsing. We have ocean ecosystems all over the globe collapsing. . . . If you watch the mainstream media, it is a total distraction, and people are totally missing the point. Who cares about the price of gas if you have nothing to eat, and we are almost there. . . . We simply have to stop geoengineering very soon or we are not going to have anything to salvage. . . . If everyone can work together to reach a critical mass awareness, we can wake up our military brothers and sisters and those participating with private defense contractors. We have a chance of stopping these programs from the inside out. Then, we can allow the planet to respond on its own. We need to convey that blaming Russia on the coming food collapse is not reality. . . . If we can pull back the curtain . . . we may have a chance to salvage at least part of what remains of the planet’s life support system.”
Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with climate researcher Dane Wigington, founder of GeoEngineeringWatch.org for 3.29.22. (There is much more in the 41 min. interview.)
In an interview on “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast” with John Roulac, founder of Nutiva, a natural products company, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Roulac connected the dots between corporate influence over agricultural policies and Big Pharma’s dominance over medical standards and practices.
In an interview on “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast” with John Roulac, founder of Nutiva, a natural products company, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Roulac connected the dots between corporate influence over agricultural policies and Big Pharma’s dominance over medical standards and practices.
Kennedy introduced Roulac as a “serial entrepreneur, investor, writer, philanthropist, and filmmaker.” Roulac is the executive producer of “Kiss the Ground,” a Netflix documentary about regenerative agriculture.
Roulac told Kennedy:
“The fertilizer companies had a real problem. People didn’t want to buy industrial foods that were killing bees, destroying topsoils and causing death zones in the Gulf of Mexico. So they came up with a new term. How can you repackage a dysfunctional degenerative system? The new term is called ‘plant-based.’”
Roulac described how new commercial plant-based meats are made. He said these products are based on GMO soy and corn that still have toxic chemical pesticide residues — and they are colored with fake blood made in a laboratory.
Kennedy and Roulac also discussed how chemical fertilizers and pesticides affect humans, insects and birds — and eventually are deposited in the oceans, where they cause further harm.
Kennedy said:
“Shellfish can no longer mobilize calcium to create their shells. And so you’re seeing a collapse of shellfish fisheries because the ocean is becoming acid … it’s the most frightening thing … we’re going to kill the oceans.”
Roulac and Kennedy agreed that a large part of the problem is the disconnect between various areas of concern and oversight.
“In our generic kind of top-down view, we have people who are in charge of oceans, protecting the oceans, and they never talk to the agricultural people and the people who are protecting our [agriculture] … they never talk,” Roulac said. “They never deal with the ocean, but it’s one system.”
Kennedy pointed out the ongoing problems with water contamination with chemicals and industrial farm sewage.
Although Kennedy and Roulac described the problems at hand as challenging, they also agreed there are solutions.
Roulac said:
“If we don’t take care of nature, if we don’t take care of our water systems, and if we don’t restore our soils and natural systems, climate change and environmental collapse are going to destroy our entire civilization.”
Roulac described his support of organic permaculture, saying, “The solution is regeneration. That’s our opportunity. That’s our path forward.”
He described a technique involving planting fruit trees interspersed with other food crops to create a model for reforestation and thriving family farms. “[The farmers] don’t require fertilizers and they get food every month of the year, depending on the crop. And it’s not that expensive,” he said.
Kennedy and Roulac discussed how the COVID pandemic has been a challenge for those countering corporate influence on government, and how many environmentalists didn’t recognize that Big Pharma’s tactics were no different than the agricultural industry’s polluting practices.
Kennedy commented on Roulac’s bravery in speaking out against the chemical giants and Big Pharma, and on the importance of his film, “Kiss the Ground”:
“That movie, I cannot recommend it enough… If you want to have hope on the issue of climate change and food and agriculture, if you want to look at a film where there is a very, very exciting solution that is cheap, that is easy — that provides and nurtures communities of human dignity, of democracy — it’s all in that film. And it’s a beautiful, beautiful film … Thank you so much for helping to make that, John.”
Since it first went on the market in 1974, glyphosate has been used for weed control, as an exfoliant to eradicate unwanted vegetation and illegal crops, and as a crop desiccant—a chemical applied to crops to dry them out more quickly before harvest.
What is glyphosate?
As a non-selective herbicide, it kills most plants. Scientists now link glyphosate to a number of human health problems, from cancer and neurological diseases to endocrine disruption and birth defects. But the full range of glyphosate’s health effects remains unknown.
What is glyphosate used for?
Various formulations of glyphosate-based herbicides, like Monsanto’s Roundup, are used in agriculture and forestry. Since the mid-1990s, global use has risen dramatically, thanks to the introduction of genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” crops like corn, soybeans, cotton, and alfalfa that resist damage from the herbicide. Today, Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides are also frequently used on lawns, gardens, parks, and school grounds for weed control.
Where is glyphosate?
Glyphosate not only enters our bodies when we come in direct contact with it, but when we breathe, eat, and drink.(Credit: summerbl4ck/flickr)
The widespread use of glyphosate makes it ubiquitous in the environment. Researchers have found it in our food, soil, air, groundwater, surface waters like lakes and rivers, and even in rainwater. That means glyphosate not only enters our bodies when we come in direct contact with it, but when we breathe, eat, and drink.
As worldwide use of glyphosate has increased during the past 25 years or so, human exposures to glyphosate-based herbicides have also risen significantly. A 2017 study found that human glyphosate exposure increased more than 500% in two decades.
Why is glyphosate a health concern?
Emerging research suggest glyphosate could be associated with shorter pregnancies, which can be detrimental to maternal health and increase the risk of infant mortality and learning problems in children. (Credit: Anna Carolina Vieira Santos/flickr)
Recent health studies are prompting calls for more scrutiny of glyphosate toxicity. Research now links glyphosate to health problems including cancer, reproductive problems, neurological diseases like ALS, endocrine disruption, and birth defects. Researchers are also beginning to explore potential impacts of glyphosate on pregnancy. Emerging findings suggest glyphosate could be associated with shorter pregnancies. Shorter pregnancies can be detrimental to maternal health and increase the risk of infant mortality and learning problems as children develop.
In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has long maintained that glyphosate poses no risk for human health when used according to the manufacturer’s instructions—a finding criticized by many scientists.
While most health research on glyphosate to date focuses on cancer, there is much that science doesn’t yet know about its other potential impacts on human health. Much more research is needed to understand the full range of effects, how they may differ in children and adults, and the extent of glyphosate’s environmental impacts. Leading environmental health researchers, including EHN’s chief scientist Pete Myers, have called for more investigation and better monitoring of glyphosate in water, food, and human bodies.
In addition, scientists have raised concerns about the other ingredients in glyphosate-based herbicides. While glyphosate is the active ingredient, companies don’t have to publicly disclose other proprietary chemicals in these herbicide formulations. Consequently, regulators and researchers can’t fully study these “inert” chemicals to determine their health effects—alone and in combination with each other. Some scientists and activists want to reform the regulatory system so that companies can’t keep these chemicals secret.
Why are there so many glyphosate lawsuits right now?
Tens of thousands of lawsuits have been filed by people claiming that Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides caused their cancer. (Credit: Mike Mozart/flickr)
The World Health Organization’s 2015 declaration that glyphosate probably causes cancer opened the floodgates to litigation. The German company Bayer A.G. bought Monsanto in 2018, and tens of thousands of lawsuits have been filed against the company by people claiming that Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides caused their cancer, especially non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Most claimants in these lawsuits worked in jobs like agriculture, maintenance, landscaping, and other professions with significant exposure risk, or used the products long-term on their lawns and gardens. They say the companies failed to adequately warn the public about health risks.
In 2021, Bayer announced it would replace glyphosate in all lawn and garden products sold in the United States by 2023. The company said the removal of glyphosate from these products is “exclusively to manage litigation risk and not because of any safety concerns,” and indicated it has no plans to remove glyphosate from professional and agricultural market products in the U.S.
One group that’s been largely excluded from glyphosate lawsuits is migrant farmworkers, who are on the front lines when it comes to glyphosate exposure. EHN found that fear of retaliation, and a lack of legal resources and legal immigration status, has diminished migrant farmworkers’ ability to seek justice and compensation.
Where is glyphosate used most?
Glyphosate is the most used pesticide on agricultural crops in the U.S., according to a 2019 analysis by the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting. The Midwest, California, and Texas represent about three-quarters of agricultural glyphosate use in the U.S., with the Midwest alone comprising a full two-thirds of total use.
Glyphosate’s popularity comes in part from the fact that it is effective and relatively cheap. Low-cost versions from China and other countries with relatively lax environmental and health regulations flooded the market as glyphosate patents expired in the 1990s, making it even cheaper. This helps explain why its use has increased so dramatically in the past two decades. But some local, state, and national governments are bucking that trend.
Where is glyphosate banned?
Glyphosate has been or will soon be banned in at least 10 countries, including Mexico, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam, and at least 15 others have restricted its use, according to Human Rights Watch. Individual cities and counties, including Los Angeles, Seattle, Miami, Baltimore, Austin, and Portland, have taken action to restrict or ban glyphosate, as have some states.
Unfortunately, glyphosate is hard to avoid. We can’t stop breathing, eating, or drinking water.
However, avoiding GMO foods and eating more organic foods when possible can help. Choosing non-toxic methods of weed control for your lawn and garden also limits exposure. Joining with others to ban glyphosate-based products (and other pesticides) in schools, parks, and your community at large are other effective ways to reduce local exposures.
Ways to take action on glyphosate
Farmers from the Ecuador-Colombia border region voice concerns about economic and health impacts of aerial glyphosate spraying. (Credit: Cancillería del Ecuador)
EHN has been reporting on glyphosate since we started 20 years ago. Monitoring our coverage of glyphosate legislation, litigation, and health research is a great way to stay informed on the latest developments. Check out our extensive story archive: You’ll find dozens of glyphosate stories by EHN as well as other leading news organizations. All of EHN’s stories are free to read, share, and republish with attribution.
Link up with other concerned residents in your community to share information and take action.
Here are a few links to organizations keeping track of the latest science on glyphosate and working to hold regulators, politicians, corporations, and employers accountable for protecting human health:
In part 2, we will examine the history of modern agribusiness, Bill Gates’ plan to centralize control of the world’s seed supply and the depopulation threat posed by gene drive technology.
Every day we consume food grown in the toxic chemicals produced by the global agriculture conglomerates, who, like their pharmaceutical compatriots, may be described as profit-hungry monstrosities, well versed in the art of killing.
As explained by Dr Vandana Shiva in her book Oneness vs the 1%, the agrichemical industry we know today is nothing more than a continuation of the toxic tools and poisons from the post World World 2 labs of IG Farben.
A century ago, the money and oil of the Robber Barons came together with the finances and toxic technologies from the labs of IG Farben to form the Toxic Cartel that evolved the tools of killing. This is how a century of ecocide and genocide through poisons and toxic chemicals began. Chemicals developed to kill people in Hitler’s concentration camps during WWII became the agrichemicals for industrial agriculture when the war ended. This industrial agriculture was then forced on people everywhere.”[1]
Interessengemeinschaft Farbenindustrie AG, more commonly knows as IG Farben was a German chemical and pharmaceutical giant formed in 1925. IG Farben was formed from a merger of 6 separate chemical companies – BASF, Bayer, Hoechst, Agfa, Chemische Fabrik Griesheim-Elektron, and Chemische Fabrik vorm.
Two years later in 1927, IG Farben partnered with Standard Oil (one of the largest oil refiners in the world, founded by John D. Rockefeller) to exchange patents and dominate economies on both sides of the Atlantic.
Standard Oil sent IG Farben their patents regarding the coal hydrogenation process and IG Farben reciprocated by offering up their own patents on the process of manufacturing synthetic rubber.
Some years after partnering with Standard Oil, IG Farben helped found the Auschwitz concentration camp, where they used Jewish prisoners as slave labour to produce synthetic rubber and liquid fuels.
At the end of the war, the Nuremberg War Criminal Tribunal convicted 24 IG Farben executives for crimes against humanity including mass murder and slavery. However, most of them were released within 2-6 years and immediately began consulting for American agritech companies.
IG Farben and its partner corporations, which included Bayer, were Hitler’s suppliers of Zyklon-B, a cyanide-based pesticide that was used to murder Jews in the extermination camps.
In 1948, IG Farben bigwig and Nazi party member, Fritz ter Meer, was convicted of “mass murder and enslavement” and sentenced to 7 years in prison. After his early release in 1950, he became chairman of the board of directors for Bayer, a position he held until 1964. What is today called the “Bayer Science & Education Foundation”, an initiative that awards scholarships to chemistry students, was originally set up to honour ter Meer.
After merging with Monsanto in a $62 billion dollar deal, Bayer became the largest agrichemical company in the world (The takeover was financed by European taxpayers without them even knowing about it).
Monsanto, an American agrichemical giant and mass-producer of genetically modified crops, was founded in 1901 by John Francis Queeny.
The company’s first product was the artificial sweetener, saccharin, which it sold to Coco-Cola. In 1977, the FDA proposed restricting the use of Saccharin on account of research suggesting its consumption was associated with an increased risk of cancer, primarily of the urinary bladder.
Not only is saccharin associated with an increased risk of cancer, but artificial sweeteners of all kinds have been linked with increased rates of diabetes, obesity, intestinal dysbiosis as well as an acceleration of atherosclerosis and ageing.
During World War 2, Monsanto contributed to research for the Manhattan project, which would eventually lead to the creation of the atomic bombs that were used to murder thousands of innocent people in Japan.
Around the same time, Monsanto became one of the leading manufacturers of polystyrene – a synthetic, non-biodegradable plastic whose production generates massive amounts of hazardous waste.
Moreover, styrene has been linked to adverse health effects in humans, including cancer. The styrene molecule is metabolized to styrene oxide, a highly reactive (and toxic) epoxide that can interact with DNA, causing harmful mutations.
Monsanto was also known for producing DDT, a highly toxic insecticide that played a serious role in the 20th-century polio epidemics.
Despite years of Monsanto propaganda, insisting that DDT was perfectly safe, by 1972 the research indicating its toxicity had mounted to the point that it was banned throughout the US. But this did not dissuade Monsanto from its goal of poisoning the world, for, in the 1960s, they became one of the principal producers of Agent Orange, a herbicide used for chemical warfare during the Vietnam war.
During the 10-year aerial bombardment that saw gallons of Age Orange rain from the Vietnamese skies, millions of innocent people were seriously poisoned, resulting in deaths, disabilities, birth defects, and widespread, irreversible environmental destruction.
Spina bifida, cerebral palsy, missing or deformed limbs and intellectual disabilities were some of the serious birth defects caused by Agent Orange that are still affecting Vietnamese children today. Agent Orange is also responsible for killing an estimated 300,000 US veterans.
These days, most people know Monsanto as the producer of glyphosate (the active ingredient in “Roundup”, a highly toxic herbicide promoted heavily around the world). Glyphosate has been implicated in the rise of food allergies, including “celiac disease”, a severe intolerance to gluten causing skin rashes, gut dysbiosis, nausea, diarrhoea, and depression.
Unsurprisingly, there have been virtually no studies conducted in the US, the largest consumer of GMO frankenfoods (Americans eat their bodyweight in GMOs each year), to assess glyphosate levels in human blood or urine.
However, a large study in Europe found quantifiable levels of glyphosate in the urine of nearly half of the participants, all of which were city dwellers who could only have been exposed to glyphosate through food consumption.
The merger of Bayer and Monsanto came alongside the merger of Dow Chemical and Dupont, as well as Syngenta and ChemChina. These mergers placed the vast majority of the global agriculture industry in the hands of just three corporations.
Through these various mergers and acquisitions, the biotech industry has become a modern-day IG Farben – functioning as a singular global chemical-military-industrial complex, the real owners of which are the investment firms like Vanguard and Blackrock.
The mergers are more like musical chairs, organised by the real owners, investment funds like Vanguard, Blackrock, Capital Group, Fidelity, State Street Global Advisors, Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), and others. This game of musical chairs has two objectives—to expand markets and shrink liability.”[1]
Three-fourths of the world’s GMO seeds come from Monsanto labs. Monsanto extracts royalties for its seeds and the high cost of the seed and chemicals push farmers into a debt trap.
As farmers fall deeper into debt, the wealth of Monsanto grows. There have been cases of GMO seeds blowing over onto the land of unsuspecting farmers who are then sued and forced to surrender their produce. Monsanto illegally introduced its Bt cotton in India in 1995, leading to an epidemic of suicide in regions along India’s cotton belt.
ROCKEFELLER AGRICULTURE
The role of the Rockefellers in the rise of chemical farming and GMOs is not to be understated, for they were instrumental in the promotion of new agricultural technologies that resulted in modern “agribusiness”.
This began during the early days of World War 2 when the Rockefeller Foundation funded a secret policy group called the War and Peace Study Group of the New York Council on Foreign Relations. The purpose of this group was to shape the US post-war economy in order for it to replace the British Empire as the new global superpower[2].
It was within this context that John D. Rockefeller III was pursuing his eugenics agenda through the American Eugenics Society as well as his Population Council. At the same time, his brother Nelson was seeking new methods to increase worldwide food production.
One of the post-war goals of the War and Peace Study Group was for the US to dominate global agriculture and food production. This led to the infamous “green revolution” promoted in India and other developing countries in South America and parts of Asia.
One of the results of this increased agricultural efficiency was the mass exodus of peasants from the farmlands to the city slums where they were exploited for cheap labour by various US multinational companies[3].
This elite propensity for experimenting on more “primitive” communities represents the occult contempt for the “lower” orders of society.
Nowhere is this contempt more obvious than in the “philanthropy” of Bill Gates who, in 2019, unleashed genetically modified mosquitos in Burkina Faso under the fallacious pretext of “fighting malaria”. But more on Gates and his gene drive technology later.
Before moving on, it’s important to consider the parallels between eugenics and genetics, which, some researchers have branded the “new eugenics”. In the 1980s, researchers at the Rockefeller Foundation were determined to map the structure of the gene and, according to Philip Regal, the ultimate motivation behind this quest was “to correct social and moral problems including crime, poverty, hunger and political instability”.
As William Engdahl notes, research into genetics was carried forward by generous grants given to up and coming scientists, eager to make a name for themselves in a new and exciting field:
Many of the younger generation of biologists and scientists receiving Rockefeller research grants were blissfully unaware that eugenics and genetics were in any way related. They simply scrambled for scarce research dollars, and the dollars all too often had the name and strings of the Rockefeller Foundation attached.”[3]
Perhaps a fuller understanding of the Rockefeller pursuits in eugenics and genetics is gained by seeing the two as separate but related parts of a materialist agenda mirroring the alchemical pursuit for the transformation of man. Regal describes this alchemical pursuit as follows:
From the perspective of a theory reductionist, it was logical that social problems would reduce to simple biological problems that could be corrected through chemical manipulations of soils, brains, and genes. Thus the Rockefeller Foundation made a major commitment to using its connections and resources to promote a philosophy of eugenics.”[3]
In relation to this Rockefeller initiative, Regal goes on to mention Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis, a highly esoteric work that speaks of a hidden scientific elite with the goal of “enlarging of the bounds of human empire, to the effecting of all things possible”.
In Bacon’s work, “Atlantis” refers to America. Therefore, as noted by Dr Farrell and Dr. De Hart in their book “Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas”, according to Bacon, America “was to become the great laboratory for a grand esoteric experiment being run by a hidden and ancient elite.”[2]
Now let us return to the history of Rockefeller involvement in global agriculture…
It was in 1941 when Nelson Rockefeller and then US vice president, Henry Wallace sent a group to Mexico to meet with the Mexican government regarding the possibility of increasing food production. Noteworthy is that Henry Wallace was a high-ranking Freemason who convinced fellow Freemason, President Franklin D. Roosevelt to place the occult symbol of the uncapped pyramid and the eye of Horus on the US one-dollar bill[2].
The Rockefeller take over of global agriculture involved the promotion and spreading of genetically modified crops around the world. But in order for their GMOs to catch on, the Rockefellers needed to manipulate the perceptions of scientists engaged in genetic and environmental research.
They did this by deploying US university professors to select Asian universities to train a new generation of scientists. The best of these graduates were then sent to the US to pursue a doctorate in agricultural sciences, ensuring they were wholly indoctrinated into the Rockefeller outlook on agriculture and food production[2].
In the 1970s, the Rockefeller Foundation, with aid from the World Bank, FAO and UNDP, established a worldwide network of agricultural research centres, called CGIAR (“Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research”). The alleged goal behind the creation of CGIAR was to coordinate global agricultural research in an effort to reduce poverty and improve food security in developing countries.
Thus, the Rockefellers constructed a global network of scientists and institutions ready to play their part as ambassadors of this new agricultural paradigm. This had the result of “socially engineering” a scientific culture that promoted the use of genetically modified crops and new agriculture technologies.
The Rockefellers went on to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into genetic research that would further the development of GMO crops and increase their uptake around the world. Thanks to patent law, this transformed many a humble farmer into a captured slave, indebted to big agribusiness conglomerates.
The CAS is linked to the Open Forum on Agriculture Biotechnology (OFAB) which in turn is an offshoot of the African Agriculture Technology Foundation (AATF), an organization founded by the Rockefellers.
Perhaps the biggest boon for the agribusiness industry came n 1986, when US Vice President Herbert Bush hosted a “special White House strategy meeting”, inviting executives from Monsanto to discuss plans relating to the deregulation of agritechnologies.
This meeting resulted in the adoption of “substantial equivalence” – the erroneous notion that agronomy (traditional methods of animal/plant breeding) was “substantially equivalent” to genetic modification – thereby evading the increasing pressure from scientists calling for more rigorous testing of GMO crops[3].
Thanks to the Rockefellers, the US people are now the largest consumers of GMO foods. In fact, the research literature clearly indicates that large populations around the world have been forced to consume GMO toxins despite a complete lack of any reliable safety data, and overwhelming evidence to suggest that such toxins cause biological harm.
Animal studies have demonstrated that exposure to GMO toxins causes an increase in inflammatory cytokines associated with nearly all human diseases. If these changes also occur in humans then this would go some way towards explaining the massive increase in autoimmunity, autism, and other chronic and allergic diseases[4].
Both the WHO and the American Medical Association (AMA), which, ironically, claims to “promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health” have been utterly complicit in allowing this global experiment to take place[4].
Though this shouldn’t come as a surprise considering the profound early influence that the Rockefeller Foundation had on the AMA and their role in the capture of American medical education.
This began with the publishing of the “Flexner Report” in 1908 which lay the groundwork for a reformation of medical education, encouraging the acceptance of a drug-based curriculum. Universities that failed to conform to the tenets of drug-based medicine and research were deprived of their funding and eventually forced to close down[5].
BILL GATES AND THE AGENDA FOR CONTROL
Since 2003, the Gates Foundation has poured nearly $6 billion into global agriculture. In 2017, Gates became the largest funder of CGIAR, which now holds the largest and most widely used collections of seed crops in the world. Gates’ interest in world agriculture serves two purposes:
To centralize control of the world’s seeds supply and,
To shift global farming towards a reliance on technology and external inputs, sold to farmers by the agritech conglomerates in which he holds stock.
By far the largest funder of the CGIAR, Gates has successfully accelerated the transfer of research and seeds from scientific research institutions to commodity-based corporations, centralizing and facilitating the pirating of intellectual property and seed monopolies through intellectual property laws and seed regulations.”
The impetus for this restructuring came from the organization’s largest funders, notably the Gates Foundation. CGIAR claims the change is necessary because,
“A unified and integrated CGIAR will be much better equipped to tackle threats to food, nutrition and water security posed by climate change.”
The recommendation for this dramatic restructuring came from CGIAR’s System Reference Group (SRG), at the time co-chaired by Tony Cavalieri, Senior Program Officer at the Gates Foundation, and Marco Ferroni, ex-head of the Syngenta Foundation.
In other words, the CGIAR reformation will result in greater centralization of the global agriculture industry, with a greater blurring of lines between the private and public sectors.
In direct contradiction to Gates’ claims of helping smallholder farmers, a detailed analysis of the grants given by the Gates Foundation revealed that the majority went to research institutes and not farmers.
These grants were also directed towards lobbying groups that pressure government to institute policies that favour big agribusiness such as introducing laws allowing the privatization of seeds.
One of Gates’ primary objectives is to open up the African market and institute a corporate takeover of the region. In aid of this goal, he founded AGRA (The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa) in 2006. Through the promotion of commercial seeds and inorganic fertilizers, AGRA set out to double crop productivity, increase incomes and halve food insecurity by 2020.
In July 2020, Timothy Wise of Tufts University published an analysis of AGRA’s impact in Africa. His research found that not only did AGRA fail in reaching a significant number of smallholder farmers (a finding that is consistent with the analysis on Gates Foundation grants, the majority of which are directed towards scientists, not farmers), but that undernourishment increased by a startling 30% in AGRA countries.
Overall staple crop yields have grown only 18% over 12 years. Meanwhile, undernourishment (as measured by the FAO) has increased 30% in AGRA countries. These poor indicators of performance suggest that AGRA and its funders should change course.”
Many Africans are now beginning to question Gates’ involvement in the region, calling for the end of his industrial agriculture model. In September 2020, SAFCEI (Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute) sent an open letter to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation warning that the Foundation’s current approach to food security will do more harm than good. The letter states that
The Gates Foundation promotes a model of industrial monoculture farming and food processing that is not sustaining our people”.
In June 2021, AFSA (The Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa) wrote to AGRA’s major institutional donors calling for them to shift their support away from big agribusiness and towards sustainable, agroecological approaches to farming.
Together, AFSA’s member network represents millions of African citizens across 50 countries. AFSA stated that they received very few responses to their letter and that none could provide any evidence that AGRA had achieved any of its stated aims.
In the shadow of AGRA’s failure, in 2020, the Gates Foundation launched “Gates Ag One”, a subsidiary of the Gates Foundation. The alleged aim of Gates Ag One is to “Advance innovations that improve agricultural outcomes for smallholder farmers”.
Gates Ag One is headed up by Joe Cornelius, a former executive at Bayer, and Al Gallegos, who has previously held positions at both DuPont and Monsanto.
Thus “Gates Ag One”, though claiming to empower small farmers will actually lead to the further enrichment of corporations. As Navdanya writes:
They are hoping to artificially accelerate the process of introducing “new technologies” to farmers through increased investment and public and private partnerships while having total freedom in their business model as a separate entity to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.”
The rhetoric expounded by Gates and his posse of corporate backers is that smallholder farmers are unproductive and unable to provide for a rapidly evolving world. Gates claims that what they really need is “new digital tools and technologies”.
However, considering the failure of the Green Revolution, the soil crisis and the widespread health effects of chemical inputs, is that really true? Or is Gates Ag One simply the latest attempt to bring world agriculture firmly under the control of Big Agribusiness?
GENE DRIVE ORGANISMS AND SCULPTING EVOLUTION
The Gates Foundation, along with US military group DARPA, has been the driving force behind the development of gene drive technology. Gates’ funding of gene drive technology began in 2005 with an $8.5 million grant given to Austin Burt and Andrea Chrisanti, biologists working at Imperial College, London.
This line of development eventually led to the invention of CRISPR in 2015, a genetic engineering tool that allows scientists to cut, insert and replace genes in a DNA sequence. According to a report by ETC Group (Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration),
Gene drive organisms are created by genetically engineering a living organism with a particular trait, and then modifying the organism’s reproductive system in order to always force the modified gene onto future generations, spreading the trait throughout the entire population.”
As mentioned earlier in this article, one of Gates’ initiatives led to the release of genetically modified mosquitos in Burkina Faso. However, this was but the first phase in a long-term project, the third phase of which is the release of GDO mosquitos (modified via gene drive technology). ETC Group explains the significance of this [emphasis added]:
…A a gene drive is designed to interfere with the fertility of the mosquito: essential genes for fertility would be removed, preventing the mosquitoes from having female offspring or from having offspring altogether. These modified mosquitoes would then pass on their genes to a high percentage of their offspring, spreading auto-extinction genes throughout the population. In time, the entire species would in effect be completely eliminated.”
Following calls in 2016 for a global moratorium on the use of gene drive technology, the Gates Foundation paid $1.6 million to Emerging Ag (a private PR firm) to coordinate the push-back against proponents of the moratorium.
Emerging Ag recruited and coordinated over 65 experts, including a Gates Foundation senior official, a DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Project Agency) official, and government and university scientists, in an attempt to flood the official UN process with their coordinated inputs.”
Another group developing gene drive technology is the Sculpting Evolution group, run out of the Gates-funded MIT Media Lab, the same institution that received donations from Jeffery Epstein, and the same institution that houses Robert Langer, co-founder of the controversial biotech company, and Covid-19 “vaccine” manufacturer, Moderna.
The leader of Sculpting Evolution is Kevin Esvelt, one of the pioneers of CRISPR and (allegedly) the first person to identify the potential for gene drive systems to alter wild populations of organisms.
Esvelt’s lab seeks to apply “robotics and machine learning to evolve new molecular tools and techniques”. Another of their aims is to “Work with the guidance of interested communities to safely and humanely edit wild populations and ecosystems”.
The Sculpting Evolution Group also advises governments on “pressing issues of biodefense”.
Our challenge is to prevent the immense power of biotechnology from being misused. Historical pandemics killed tens of millions of people, and engineered agents could be even more destructive.”
One of the ways Sculpting Evolution proposes thwarting future pandemics or bioweapon attacks is by the construction of a “Global Nucleic Acid Observatory” (NAO) to “monitor humanity and the environment for any and all biological threats”. The group claims that by continual genomic testing at sites around the world, the “NAO could detect any virus or invasive organism undergoing exponential growth”.
In support of this radical proposal, the group references a case study from Israel [emphasis added]:
In 2013, Israel’s poliovirus-specific environmental monitoring program detected a nascent outbreak in wastewater samples from the town of Rahat using plaque assays and swiftly initiated mass oral vaccination, eliminating the virus before even a single child came down with paralytic symptoms”.
The disturbing nature of such a system thus becomes immediately apparent: governments would be able to initiate vaccination programs and institute other pandemic measures without the need for, or proof of, an actual threat, only the claimed “detection” of one. This begs the all-important question: who would decide when a “threat” is detected, and on what basis?
While virologists expound on the dangers of zoonotic coronaviruses and climate scientists rage on about the evils of carbon dioxide, the real environmental crises go largely unnoticed. And perhaps that is the point. We will explore these other crises – crises that threaten our very existence as a species – in part 3.
[1] Shiva, V., Shiva, K. Oneness vs the 1%. 2018.[back][back]
[2] Farrell, P., J., de Hart, D., S. Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas. 2011.[back][back][back][back]
[3] Engdahl, W. Seeds of Destruction. 2007.[back][back][back][back]
[4] Vasquez, A. Inflammation Mastery (4th ed). 2016.[back][back]
[5] Griffin, G., E. World Without Cancer, the Story of Vitamin B17. 2001.back
Ryan Matters is a writer and free thinker from South Africa. After a life-changing period of illness, he began to question mainstream medicine, science and the true meaning of what it is to be alive. Some of his writings can be found at newbraveworld.org, you can also follow him on Twitter and Gab.
The volume of pesticide use and exposure is occurring on a scale that is without precedent and world-historical in nature. Agrichemicals are now pervasive as they cycle through bodies and environments. The herbicide glyphosate has been a major factor in driving this increase in use.
The authors state that when the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared glyphosate to be a “probable carcinogen” in 2015, the fragile consensus about its safety was upended.
They note that in 2020 the US Environmental Protection Agency affirmed that glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) pose no risk to human health, apparently disregarding new evidence about the link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as well as its non-cancer impacts on the liver, kidney and gastrointestinal system.
The multi-authored paper notes:
In just under 20 years, much of the Earth has been coated with glyphosate, in many places layering on already chemical-laden human bodies, other organisms and environments.”
However, the authors add that glyphosate is not the only pesticide to achieve broad-scale pervasiveness:
The insecticide imidacloprid, for example, coats the majority of US maize seed, making it the most widely used insecticide in US history. Between just 2003 and 2009, sales of imidacloprid products rose 245% (Simon-Delso et al. 2015). The scale of such use, and its overlapping effects on bodies and environments, have yet to be fully reckoned with, especially outside of countries with relatively strong regulatory and monitoring capacities.”
According to Phillips McDougall’s Annual Agriservice Reports, herbicides made up 43% of the global pesticide market in 2019 by value. Much of the increase in glyphosate use is due to the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant soybean, maize, and cotton seeds in the US, Brazil and Argentina.
The global pesticide industry is valued at over $50 billion (Phillips McDougal 2018).
Eating Poison
In December 2021, a piece appeared in the prominent Danish newspaper Weekendavisen. Written by Niels Bjerre, agricultural affairs manager at Bayer CropScience in Copenhagen, ‘Thank goodness for pesticides’ set out to convince readers that sustainable modern agriculture cannot be done without using pesticides.
Mason lists many pertinent studies. For instance, a French team has found heavy metals in chemical formulants of GBHs in people’s diets. As with other pesticides, 10–20% of GBHs consist of chemical formulants. Families of petroleum-based oxidized molecules and other contaminants have been identified as well as the heavy metals arsenic, chromium, cobalt, lead and nickel, which are known to be toxic and endocrine disruptors.
In 1988, Ridley and Mirly (commissioned by Monsanto) found bioaccumulation of glyphosate in rat tissues. Residues were present in bone, marrow, blood and glands including the thyroid, testes and ovaries, as well as major organs, including the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys, spleen and stomach. Glyphosate was also associated with ophthalmic degenerative lens changes.
A Stout and Rueker (1990) study (also commissioned by Monsanto) provided concerning evidence with regard to cataracts following glyphosate exposure in rats. It is interesting to note that the rate of cataract surgery in England “increased very substantially” between 1989 and 2004: from 173 (1989) to 637 (2004) episodes per 100,000 population.
A 2016 study by the WHO also confirmed that the incidence of cataracts had greatly increased: ‘A global assessment of the burden of disease from environmental risks’ says that cataracts are the leading cause of blindness worldwide. Globally, cataracts are responsible for 51% of blindness. In the US, between 2000 and 2010 the number of cases of cataract rose by 20% from 20.5 million to 24.4 million. It is projected that by 2050, the number of people with cataracts will have doubled to 50 million.
The authors of ‘Assessment of Glyphosate Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Pathologies and Sperm Epimutations: Generational Toxicology’ (Scientific Reports, 2019) noted that ancestral environmental exposures to a variety of factors and toxicants promoted the epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of adult-onset disease.
They proposed that glyphosate can induce the transgenerational inheritance of disease and germline (for example, sperm) epimutations. Observations suggest the generational toxicology of glyphosate needs to be considered in the disease etiology of future generations.
In a 2017 study, Carlos Javier Baier and colleagues documented behavioural impairments following repeated intranasal glyphosate-based herbicide administration in mice. Intranasal GBH caused behavioural disorders, decreased locomotor activity, induced an anxiogenic behaviour and produced memory deficit.
The paper contains references to many studies from around the world that confirm GBHs are damaging to the development of the foetal brain and that repeated exposure is toxic to the adult human brain and may result in alterations in locomotor activity, feelings of anxiety and memory impairment.
Highlights of a 2018 study on neurotransmitter changes in rat brain regions following glyphosate exposure include neurotoxicity in rats. And in a 2014 study which examined mechanisms underlying the neurotoxicity induced by glyphosate-based herbicide in the immature rat hippocampus, it was found that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup induces various neurotoxic processes.
In the paper ‘Glyphosate damages blood-testis barrier via NOX1-triggered oxidative stress in rats: Long-term exposure as a potential risk for male reproductive health’ (Environment International, 2022) it was noted that glyphosate causes blood-testis barrier (BTB) damage and low-quality sperm and that glyphosate-induced BTB injury contributes to sperm quality decrease.
The 2020 paper ‘Glyphosate exposure exacerbates the dopaminergic neurotoxicity in the mouse brain after repeated of MPTP’ suggests that glyphosate may be an environmental risk factor for Parkinson’s.
In the 2019 Ramazzini Institute’s 13-week pilot study that looked into the effects of GBHs on development and the endocrine system, it was demonstrated that GBHs exposure, from prenatal period to adulthood, induced endocrine effects and altered reproductive developmental parameters in male and female rats.
Aside from glyphosate, Mason also notes that in 1991 Bayer CropScience introduced a new type of insecticide into the US: imidacloprid, the first member of a group now known as neonicotinoids.
Imidacloprid was licensed for use in Europe in 1994. In July of that year, beekeepers in France noticed something unexpected. Just after the sunflowers had bloomed, a substantial number of their hives would collapse, as the worker bees flew off and never returned, leaving the queen and immature workers to die. The French beekeepers soon believed they knew the reason: a brand new insecticide called Gaucho with imidacloprid as active ingredient was being applied to sunflowers for the first time.
In the 2022 paper ‘Neonicotinoid insecticides found in children treated for leukaemias and lymphomas’ (Environmental Health), the authors stated that multiple neonicotinoids were found in children’s cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), plasma and urine. As the most widely used class of insecticides worldwide, they are ubiquitously found in the environment, wildlife and foods. The data revealed multiple neonicotinoids and/or their metabolites in children’s CSF, plasma and urine.
Bottom Line
If the ‘Monsanto Papers’ told us anything, it is that a corporation’s top priority is the bottom line (at all costs, by all means necessary) and not public health. A CEO’s obligation is to maximise profit, capture markets and – ideally – regulatory and policy-making bodies as well.
Corporations must also secure viable year-on-year growth which often means expanding into hitherto untapped markets. Indeed, in the previously mentioned paper ‘Growing Agrichemical Ubiquity’, the authors note that while countries like the US are still reporting higher pesticide use, most of this growth is taking place in the Global South:
For example, pesticide use in California grew 10% from 2005 to 2015, while use by Bolivian farmers, though starting from a low base, increased 300% in the same period. Pesticide use is growing steeply in countries as diverse as China, Mali, South Africa, Nepal, Laos, Ghana, Argentina, Brazil and Bangladesh. Most countries with high levels of growth have weak regulatory enforcement, environmental monitoring and health surveillance infrastructure.”
And much of this growth is driven by increased demand for herbicides:
India saw a 250% increase since 2005 (Das Gupta et al. 2017) while herbicide use jumped by 2500% in China (Huang, Wang, and Xiao 2017) and 2000% in Ethiopia (Tamru et al. 2017). The introduction of glyphosate-tolerant soybean, maize, and cotton seeds in the US, Brazil, and Argentina is clearly driving much of the demand, but herbicide use is also expanding dramatically in countries that have not approved nor adopted such crops and where smallholder farming is still dominant.”
In response to the increasing use of GBHs in India, the influential Swadeshi Jagaran Manch recently demanded a complete ban on the use of glyphosate in the country. A petition with more than 201,000 signatories favouring a complete ban on glyphosate was submitted to the minister for agriculture.
The minister was also informed that the herbicide is blatantly being used for illegally grown genetically engineered herbicide tolerant (HT) cotton. He was told that “miscreant seed companies” are trying to illegally spread HT Bt cotton on hundreds of thousands of acres of land to promote the use of glyphosate.
In a 2017 paper, academics Glenn Stone and Andrew Flachs describe how cotton farmers in India have been encouraged to change their ploughing practices, leading to more weeds. The outcome in terms of yields (or farmer profit) is arguably no better but the change (conveniently) coincided with the appearance of an increasing supply of these illegal HT cotton seeds. Farmers are being pushed onto herbicide-intensive treadmills.
Industry figures like Niels Bjerre claim pesticide use is necessary in ‘modern agriculture’. But this is not the case: there is now sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise. It is simply not necessary to have our bodies contaminated with toxic agrochemicals, regardless of how much the industry tries to reassure us that they are present in ‘safe’ levels.
There is also the industry-promoted narrative that if you question the need for synthetic pesticides in ‘modern agriculture’, you are somehow ignorant or even ‘anti-science’. This is simply not true. What does ‘modern agriculture’ even mean? It means a system adapted to meet the demands of global agrocapital and its international markets and supply chains.
“Meeting the needs of modern agriculture – growing produce that can be shipped long distances and hold up in the store and at home for more than a few days – can result in tomatoes that taste like cardboard or strawberries that aren’t as sweet as they used to be. Those are not the needs of modern agriculture. They are the needs of global markets.”
What is really being questioned is a policy paradigm that privileges a certain model of social and economic development and a certain type of agriculture: urbanisation, giant supermarkets, global markets, long supply chains, external proprietary inputs (seeds, synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, machinery, etc), chemical-dependent monocropping, highly processed food and market (corporate) dependency at the expense of rural communities, small independent enterprises and smallholder farms, local markets, short supply chains, on-farm resources, diverse agroecological cropping, nutrient dense diets and food sovereignty.
The effects of this paradigm has had devastating ecological, environmental, social, economic and agronomic consequences on highly productive traditional agrarian systems (see Bhaskar Save’s 2006 open letter to Indian officials).
Furthermore, despite claims to the contrary, it is not as though the chemical-intensive Green Revolution actually led to increased food production per capita in the first place (see Glenn Stone’s paper ‘New Histories of the Green Revolution’).
Nevertheless, predatory agri-food conglomerates have been driving this policy paradigm. In doing so, they have actively consolidated their position throughout the entire global food system while promoting the false narrative that they and their inputs are necessary for feeding the world.
In their petition, advocates argued that it is “deeply inappropriate” for the UN agency to partner with CropLife, whose member companies (Bayer, Syngenta, Corteva Agriscience, FMC and Sumitomo) make around one-third of their sales from Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs), or pesticides that pose the highest levels of risk to health and the environment.
Recent estimates show that there are 385 million cases of acute unintentional pesticide poisonings each year, up from an estimated 25 million cases in 1990. “This means that about 44% of farmers and agricultural workers around the world are poisoned each year by an industry dominated by CropLife members,” the petition said.
PAN Europe, along with other organizations, held a mobilization in front of the FAO headquarters in Rome to accompany the petition delivery and to mark the anniversary of the Bhopal tragedy, also commemorated as World No Pesticide Use Day. Advocates from around the world also participated in a Global Day of Action, including placard protests and a social media rally urging the FAO to stop the #ToxicAlliance.
“Pesticides have disastrous consequences on people’s health and biodiversity, while science shows agroecology can feed the world in a pesticide-free manner. There is no way FAO can justify its collaboration with CropLife. We will make sure the European Union reacts to this intolerable situation,” stated Martin Dermine, Policy officer at PAN Europe, who were among those gathered in Rome to urge the FAO leadership to abandon its controversial pesticide industry partnership.
“More than 187,000 people think that getting into bed with the pesticides industry is a bad move for the FAO. This partnership would turn the FAO into a marketing arm for these toxic companies whose products poison millions of farmers every year,” added Keith Tyrell, Director of PAN United Kingdom.
“The partnership between the FAO and CropLife will undermine all efforts made in Africa to ban dangerous pesticides, and will leave the door open to the export of pesticides banned in Europe such as atrazine, paraquat etc. We denounce and strongly reject this ‘Toxic Alliance’ as it is beset with conflict of interests not known to the public, to the detriment of health protection and environmental preservation,” said Maimouna Diene, coordinator of PAN Africa.
“The alliance between FAO and CropLife implies a greater influence on public policies by the companies that manufacture and sell pesticides, especially in the most vulnerable countries where the expansion of monocultures and the use of Highly Hazardous Pesticides is favored, which impacts socio-environmental health. On the contrary, FAO and governments should favor agroecological production as the basis of a comprehensive link with the environment to achieve food sovereignty,” commented Javier Souza, Regional Coordinator of PAN Latin America (RAPAL).
“FAO should not jeopardise its integrity and its achievements in agroecology by cooperating with the very industry that is responsible for the production of HHPs that are known to cause severe or irreversible harm to peoples’ health or the environment worldwide. We need a strong FAO, independent from the market interests of global corporations, and which supports the establishment of safe, healthy and sustainable food and farming systems,” said Susan Haffmans, Pesticides Officer at PAN Germany.
“We cannot expect that partnering with an association of hundreds of subsidiaries to multinational giants like Bayer and Syngenta –who have vested interests in increasing the sales of their products– will support FAO’s own goals of reducing reliance on pesticides. It is incompatible with FAO’s mandate as a UN institution to protect human rights, including the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, which the UN Human Rights Council just recently recognized,” stated Simone Adler, Organizing Co-Director of PAN North America.
The global petition delivery follows letters of appeal submitted by over 350 international civil society and Indigenous peoples’ organizations and 250 scientists and academics last year, after the signing of the partnership agreement between FAO and CropLife in October 2020. A coalition of 11 global organizations, including PAN, followed up with a formal request to meet with Director-General Qu to discuss their concerns, but has not received a response to date.
“It is alarming how big business dominates in setting the direction of policymaking, as we have seen with the corporate capture of the UN Food Systems Summit. We expect that CropLife will take full advantage of this partnership with FAO to expand and consolidate corporate control over food and agriculture. We cannot just take it sitting down,” concluded Sarojeni Rengam, Executive Director of PAN Asia Pacific.
On Friday, civil society and indigenous peoples organizations delivered more than 187,300 petition signatures from over 107 countries to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Director-General Qu Dongyu, demanding that the FAO end its partnership with CropLife International, an association representing the world’s largest agrochemical companies. The global petition was facilitated by Pesticide Action Network (PAN), Friends of the Earth, SumOfUs, and the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).
Independent small and medium sized farms have been handed a death sentence by Klaus Schwab head of The World Economic Forum. Schwab, and fellow architects of top-down control, have officially let it be known that under the policy known as ‘Green Deal’ traditional family farms are no longer wanted and the foods they produce are to be replaced by laboratory and genetically engineered synthetic lookalikes. This policy is spelled-out in the pages of Klaus Schwab’s book ‘The Great Reset’ which is part of the envisaged ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’.
The British government and the European Commission are committed to adopting this insane agenda in which working farmers are to be replaced by digitalised precision robots, as part of a so called Global Warming mitigation crusade. When properly analysed, this is revealed as a totalitarian programme for complete corporate and banking control of the food chain. A programme that is designed to eliminate the independent farmer.
What Are We Going to Do About It?
There is a very straight forward answer to this question. We are going come together at the local level and launch a mutually supportive initiative which will guarantee both the farmer and the purchaser of the farmer’s food a fair and mutually beneficial exchange.
How does it work?
Very simple. The purchaser (consumer) approaches his or her local responsible farmer and asks to buy some fresh produce. The farmer considers this proposition. Some may decline, but this will be because it has not occurred to them that the future of their current dependency on a corporate controlled marketing regime is completely untenable under the programme proposed by Mr Schwab.
Any good farmer will not turn down an opportunity to do business with near neighbours who are in search of positive and value-for-money farm-raised foods. Especially once the farming community realises that their future income will depend more and more upon establishing a market place amongst those in the immediate vicinity of his/her farm. Those who do not wish – or cannot any longer – purchase their staple food requirements from corporate owned super and hyper market food chains.
The Savvy Farmer
The savvy farmer can see the writing on the wall. Can see that slavery to a system of national and global manipulation – totally out of his/her hands – is a recipe for disaster. Such a farmer will be on the look-out for a secure local market; one where purchasers want to buy direct from the farm with no middle-man taking a cut. This must be the way forward if a secure future on the land is the desired outcome. Any intelligent farmer will recognise this and will take seriously a bona fide request to supply farm-raised produce to those eager to buy it.
The Savvy Consumer
The savvy consumer will be looking for fresh, healthy, flavourful good quality foods upon which to raise their family, or simply to feed themselves. They will recognise that the chance to acquire such food ‘direct from the farm’ represents the best possible outcome. A bond built-up with a local farmer, via regular purchasing of their farm raised products provides a powerful ally for times ahead when the commercial food chain is subjected to the brutal intervention of the architects of global control and shortages become the norm. Such times are no longer speculative. They are on our doorstep.
The Savvy Farmer and the Savvy Consumer – getting together
Either the consumer or the farmer can can take the initiative of bringing both parties together.
How?
By calling a ‘round table’ meeting in the local village/town hall or simply in your home. Invite one or two farmers to sit round that table with some individuals eager to obtain food direct from the farm. Some might even be ready to discuss contracting a farmer to grow the staple foods they require. Good quality food grown without recourse to chemical pesticides.
Farmers need a secure income and the buyers a secure local source of nutritious food. Fair prices for both parties and delivery or ‘pick-up from the farm’ can be negotiated in a friendly and informal manner. This is not purely ‘business’ in the old sense of the term; it is forming a common bond in a time when such bonds have been tragically neglected and supermarket convenience cultures have destroyed the links that hold communities together.
A new trading, bartering and sharing practice will be built around the adoption of this ‘proximity principle’. This is the one sure way of effectively resisting the Klaus Schwab farm killer and the New World Order plan for global domination of the food chain.
Other ways of supporting local trading include: farm shops, farmers markets, box schemes, food cooperatives. Get onto the front foot and regenerate your community – from the ground up!
On “The Defender Show,” Dr. Zach Bush, triple-board-certified physician, and host Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., discussed immunity, herbicides, gut health and the need to end chemical food systems “extremely quickly.”
To explain why the shikimate pathway is so vital to our microbiome, Bush described the process of a ripple effect. By adding glyphosate, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and other environmental toxins to soils, air and water, the shikimate pathway, which contains the 22 amino acids that exist for all proteins, can no longer utilize most of those amino acids.
“The way glyphosate injures people is really by the microbiome,” Kennedy clarified. “And by rewarding the bacteria that caused inflammation and making a much more hostile environment in your gut and in your body.”
You are “removing the police force for the invaders,” Kennedy said, allowing inflammation to take over the body.
Bush likened the 22 amino acids in the body to the alphabet. “You’ve only got these few letters that produce hundreds of thousands of words.”
In the same way vowels are critical to the English language, the 22 essential amino acids are critical for the shikimate pathway. Without vowels most words will be misspelled. By eliminating four or more of the critical amino acids, the body is “misspelled” at the protein level.
“And when we miss the proteins, we lose detoxification capacity,” Bush said. He described the ripple effect, adding that without repair capacity, people age at an accelerated rate, which leads to the emergence of diseases such as sarcomas.
“And so in just a single generation, by deleting the alphabet of human biology, we ended up with a chronic disease epidemic on a grand scale,” he said.
Glyphosate “breaks the tight junctions of the Velcro between our body and the outside world,” Bush said. “And, when you lose the tight junctions, you turn into a leaky sieve. And what you’ve just destroyed is the very front line of a whole category of human immunity that we call the innate immune system.”
Bush shared an uplifting story about working with pre-diabetic children in a classroom in Hawaii, and how eating food grown from a regenerative school garden rebalanced their bodies so they no longer were predisposed for diabetes. His nonprofit focuses on planting regenerative gardens in food desert environments.
Kennedy told Bush he’s glad his work addresses both policy and practical solutions. “I wish you were secretary of HHS [Health and Human Services] and you were redirecting this thing to actually saving humanity,” Kennedy said.
“We can do it faster than HHS can,” said Bush. We need to end chemical food systems and we have to do it “extremely quickly,” he added.
“Now it’s time for mobilization and a coherent plan for the public,” said Bush, who has great faith in the power of our innate immune system. “It’s so easy to get stressed out over the powers that be when you hear things about the ‘deep state’ or a ‘cabal,’ but we’re in the driver’s seat — literally, we can go into their fear and guilt paradigm and play into the whole thing, or we can just create an alternative pathway.”
Watch the interview here:
“The Defender Show” is hosted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., founder, chairman and chief legal counsel of Children’s Health Defense, and author of multiple books, including the New York Times bestseller, “Crimes Against Nature.” Kennedy was named one of Time magazine’s “Heroes for the Planet” for his success helping Riverkeeper lead the fight to restore the Hudson River. He is founder of Waterkeeper Alliance, and of counsel to Morgan and Morgan, a nationwide law firm.
The energy crisis is quickly becoming a food crisis: China’s harvest is faltering without electricity.
Dutch are unable to heat their greenhouses, which are empty and cold. The UK’s meat production
is curtailed by a lack of CO2. The world’s food supply chains are deteriorating rapidly — but the
tide is turning! People are more receptive to creative ideas than ever — build and invest in YOUR
food production and local food systems NOW!
It is now one year since controversial farm bills were passed into law in India in September 2020. The three bills and the subsequent legislation have triggered a massive 15-month farmers’ protest that has attracted worldwide attention and support.
Farmers, farmers’ unions and their representatives demand that the laws be repealed and state that they will not accept a compromise. Farmers’ leaders welcomed the Supreme Court of India stay order on the implementation of the farm laws in January 2021 which remains in effect. However, based on more than 10 rounds of talks between farmers representatives and the government, it seems that the ruling administration will not back down.
In November 2020, a nationwide general strike took place in support of the farmers and in that month around 300,000 farmers marched from the states of Punjab and Haryana to Delhi for what leaders called a “decisive battle” with the central government.
But as the farmers reached the capital, most were stopped by barricades, dug up roads, water cannons, baton charges and barbed wire erected by police. The farmers set up camps along five major roads, building makeshift tents with a view to staying for months if their demands were not met.
Today, thousands of farmers remain camped at various points on the border. They have been there for nine months throughout the cold, the rain and the searing heat. In late March 2021, it was estimated that there were around 40,000 protestors camped at Singhu and Tikri at the Delhi border.
On 26 January, India’s Republic Day, tens of thousands of farmers held a farmer’s parade with a large convoy of tractors and drove into Delhi.
In September 2021, tens of thousands of farmers attended a rally in the city of Muzaffarnagar in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh (UP). Hundreds of thousands more turned out for other rallies in the state.
These huge gatherings come ahead of important polls in 2022 in UP, India’s most populous state with 200 million people and governed by Prime Minister Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). In the 2017 assembly polls, the BJP won 325 out of a total of 403 seats.
Speaking at the rally in Muzaffarnagar, farmers’ leader Rakesh Tikait stated:
“We take a pledge that we’ll not leave the protest site there (around Delhi) even if our graveyard is made there. We will lay down our lives if needed but will not leave the protest site until we emerge victorious.”
Tikait also attacked the Modi-led government for:
“… selling the country to corporates… We have to stop the country from getting sold. Farmers should be saved; the country should be saved.”
Farmers’ leaders are now calling for a nationwide general strike on 27 September.
Police brutality, the smearing of protesters by certain prominent media commentators and politicians, the illegal detention of protesters and clampdowns on free speech (journalists arrested, social media accounts closed, shutting down internet services) have been symptomatic of officialdom’s approach to the farmers’ struggle which itself has been defined by resilience, resoluteness and restraint.
But it is not as though the farmers’ struggle arose overnight. Indian agriculture has been deliberately starved of government support for decades and has resulted in a well-documented agrarian – even civilisation – crisis. What we are currently seeing is the result of injustices and neglect coming to a head as foreign agricapital (facilitated by the government’s farm laws) tries to impose its neoliberal ‘final solution’ on Indian agriculture.
A year on from the farm bills being passed into law, readers can access my articles on the farmers’ struggle below, which discuss the significance of the farm legislation, who is behind these laws, who will benefit and who will lose out. They also describe the implications for cultivators and the more than 60% of the nation’s population who rely on agriculture for a living as well as the health, social and economic consequences of displacing an indigenous agrifood system with one dominated by global players.
The farmers’ struggle represents a battle for the heart and soul of the nation and its future.
Illustration
The illustration that accompanies this article was created by artist Isa Esasi and is based on a photograph by Ravi Choudhary, a photojournalist with the Press Trust of India (PTI), which went viral in November 2020. The original image showed a paramilitary policeman raising his baton and about to bring it down on an elderly Sikh farmer.
Source: Isa Esasi
Despite claims that the photo was ‘fake’ and attempts to discredit it, not least by Amit Malviya, head of the BJP’s IT cell, India-based Boom, which describes itself as “an independent digital journalism initiative with a mission to fight misinformation”, tracked down Sukhdev Singh, the farmer in the photograph, and interviewed him. The farmer was targeted by two security personnel and he sustained injuries to his forearm, back and leg.
Street and online people’s protests against the ‘global corporate food empire’ greeted the opening of the UN Food Systems Summit (UN FSS), as the Global People’s Summit (GPS) on Food Systems launched a Global Day of Action on the third and final day of its counter-summit to the UN FSS happening virtually and in New York.
The International League of People’s Struggles (ILPS), International Women’s Alliance, and International Migrants Alliance protested in front of the UN headquarters in New York to denounce the corporate capture of the UN and the “global corporate food empire” led by agrochemical, food and agribusiness transnational corporations and multi-billionaire Bill Gates. The UN FSS is being criticized by people’s movements and civil society as a platform for consolidating corporate control over food and agriculture and perpetuating neoliberal food systems that have wreaked havoc on the lives of small food producers, especially from the Global South, who supply 80% of the world’s food.
“We are here to bring the demands of peoples from the Global South for just, equitable, healthy and sustainable food systems to the doorstep of the world’s policymakers. For over a year, the UN has ignored the people’s calls to sever its ties with the World Economic Forum. Instead, it has worked ever closer with the global elite and has co-opted policy frameworks to serve corporate interests. We are here to say, enough! The people will resist this path to greater destruction of our livelihoods, health, cultures and the planet,” said Nina Macapinlac, ILPS North America coordinator.
In Jakarta, eight activists were arrested while holding a rally in front of the presidential palace. Led by the Front Perjuangan Rakyat (FPR), Aliansi Gerakan Reforma Agraria and ILPS Indonesia, the protesters from workers, peasants, youth and the urban poor slammed policies that worsen hunger amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The Indonesian government must be responsible for sufficient and affordable food in villages and cities, support for production by peasants, and fair prices. The government must stop the construction of the Food Estate to fulfill national food supplies. Our food must be produced by our peasants and not foreign corporations,” said Dimas Symphati, FPR secretary general.
Symphati was among the activists arrested, along with Kurniawan Sabar, executive director of people’s research group INDIES and steering council member of People’s Coalition for Food Sovereignty (PCFS)-Asia. The activists are still detained at the Central Jakarta Police Station.
According to FPR coordinator Rudi HB Daman, the arrest is a prime example of how power relations are at play when it comes to food systems. “How are we assured that the UN FSS will hear our demands when political repression, like this very experience, is not even discussed as an issue in our current food systems?” he said.
“We appeal to the Indonesian government to immediately release the activists who were merely exercising their rights to free speech and assembly. We are protesting precisely this kind of suppression of the people’s will. The world is watching. We hope that the Indonesian authorities realize that arresting people for joining a global action to assert the people’s right to food and development amid worsening hunger will only bring them condemnation and shame,” said Razan Zuayter, global co-chairperson of PCFS, in behalf of the GPS Organizing Committee.
In the Philippines, fishing communities led by PAMALAKAYA held a die-in protest in front of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources against an impending demolition of mussel farms by small fisherfolk in Cavite province. “If we are to transform food systems for the benefit of food producers, the UN FSS must address the issue of land and resource grabbing by big corporations. Governments like that of Duterte’s, which are hell-bent on destroying sources of food and livelihood in the name of profit, must be stopped,” said Ronnel Arambulo, PAMALAKAYA spokesperson.
International groups behind the GPS that are based in the Philippines also joined the protest. According to Beverly Longid, global coordinator of the International Indigenous People’s Movement for Self- Determination and Liberation (IPMSDL), “The role of the Global People’s Summit is to tackle the core problem of neoliberal attacks on people’s right to food and to produce food. We in the GPS believe that only farmers, not corporations, have the power to genuinely change our food systems. The hungry and marginalized are hungry for change!”
National People’s Food Systems Summits were also held in Pakistan, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Indonesia on September 22, which came up with demands and action plans for radical food systems transformation. “The UNFSS is reinforcing corporate control over food and agriculture through advancing neoliberal policies and false solutions (e.g. food fortification, genetic modification, industrial meat production systems, monocultural food production) to climate change, hunger and malnutrition. These corporate-driven approaches are marginalizing, criminalizing and co-opting indigenous knowledge as well as eroding biodiversity,” said Wali Haider of the Asian Peasant Coalition.
Meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu Women’s Forum held community mobilizations and an organic millets food festival led by Dalit women in Tamil Nadu, India. In Svay Rieng, Cambodia, farmer mobilizations at the village-level were held by the Coalition of Cambodian Farmer Community.
Hundreds of people from around the globe participated in online Global People’s Summit side events that discussed people’s food sovereignty, people-led agroecology, and localization of food systems as among the pillars of food systems transformation.
Citizens from around the globe are also participating in a social media rally using the hashtags #OurFoodSystems and #Hungry4Change.
At the closing session of the GPS, representatives of people’s movements from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and West Asia-North Africa will present action plans drawn from the thematic, regional, sectoral, and national events held since early this year. A People’s Declaration for the radical transformation of food systems will also be adopted.
Environmentalist and campaigner Dr Rosemary Mason recently wrote an open letter to the head of the Pesticides Unit at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Jose Tarazona.
(Since this article was written, Jose Tarazona has stepped down from his position and the letter has been forwarded to his successors, Manuela Tiramani and Benedicte Vagenede.)
Mason wrote to Tarazona because the licence for glyphosate is up for renewal in the EU in 2022 and the Rapporteur Member States (France, Hungary, the Netherlands and Sweden), tasked with risk assessing glyphosate and appointed by the European Commission in 2019, said in June 2021 that there was no problem with glyphosate-based herbicides, the world’s most widely used weedkillers in agriculture.
Mason informs Tarazona that the European Commission has colluded with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow Bayer to keep glyphosate on the market. A substance that is toxic to both human health and the environment.
To set out her case, Mason enclosed a 5,900-word report informing Tarazona of the malfeasance and corruption that have resulted in environmental devastation and a severe, ongoing public health crisis. Her report brings together key research and analyses into the toxicity of glyphosate and industry dominance over regulatory processes.
What appears below is the second part of an article based on Mason’s report. Part one can be read here. This second part questions why a proven toxic substance like glyphosate is still sanctioned for use in the EU.
Industry PR and reality
Although the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Committee for Risk Assessment agreed that glyphosate causes serious eye damage and is toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects, in December 2017 the then European Commissioner Jean-Claude Juncker still reauthorised glyphosate use in the EU for five more years.
The European Glyphosate Renewal Group (GRG) has lobbied hard to ensure that the licence for glyphosate will again be renewed in 2022. The GRG is a collection of companies that have prepared a dossier with scientific studies and information on the supposed safety of glyphosate. This dossier was submitted to the evaluating member states and the EFSA as part of the EU regulatory procedure to evaluate whether glyphosate and glyphosate-containing products should be kept on the market in the EU.
Current members of the GRG are Albaugh Europe SARL, Barclay Chemicals Manufacturing Ltd., Bayer Agriculture bvba, Ciech Sarzyna S.A., Industrias Afrasa S.A., Nufarm GMBH & Co.KG, Sinon Corporation and Syngenta Crop Protection AG.
Cristina Alonso is the chair of the GRG and is also the head of Regulatory Affairs Crop Protection at Bayer AG. On the GRG website, Alonso writes:
“As GRG Chairman, I am personally committed to ensuring the decisions made during the regulatory process are based on sound science and supported with transparent, honest and cooperative dialogue among all stakeholders, while also respecting different viewpoints.”
Based on what is set out in this article, it could be concluded that Alonso’s notion of “sound science” has little to do with the regulatory process that she refers to.
Bayer CropScience was also part of the European Glyphosate Task Force (GTF) which lobbied for the reauthorisation of glyphosate in the EU back in 2017. Mason argues that the GTF conveniently overlooked many critical papers from South America in its submission as part of the EU glyphosate reapproval process. She fears that what we are currently seeing is a repeat of the previous process which led to the reauthorisation of glyphosate.
It raises the question, do sound science, honesty and transparency really govern how Bayer et al act in general and, more specifically, where the glyphosate regulatory process is concerned?
“In the last 25 years, the consumption of pesticides increased by 983%, while the cultivated area increased by 50%. A production system based on the systematic application of agricultural poisons means, inevitably, that nature responds by adapting, forcing farmers to apply greater quantities of pesticides in the field to achieve the same objectives. Over the years, a system has been created by and for sellers of pesticides, who every year increase their net sales (in 2015, the increase was 9%) while our patients, too, year after year are being exposed to this pesticide pollution more and more.”
The doctors stated that the massive and growing exposure to pesticides has changed the disease profile of Argentine rural populations and that cancer is now the leading cause of death. They noted that exposure to glyphosate or agricultural poisons in general leads to increases in spontaneous abortions and birth defects as well as increased endocrine disorders such as hypothyroidism, neurological disorders or cognitive development problems and soaring of cancer rates to a tripling of incidence, prevalence and mortality.
The physicians warned about the toxic nature of modern agriculture which results from the immense influence of large multinational pesticide companies.
As explained in part one of this article, this public health crisis is not limited to South America. People elsewhere, not least in the US and UK, are experiencing the devastating health impacts because of the huge increase in glyphosate-based herbicides being sprayed on food crops in recent decades.
The agrochemical conglomerates are more concerned with increasing their sales regardless of the damage to the environment and public health. No number of sound-bites about sound science or transparency can disguise their genuine motives and the impacts of their actions.
Glyphosate is a multi-billion-dollar cash cow for these companies and protecting that revenue stream is their priority. In 2015, for example, Monsanto made nearly $4.76 billion in sales and $1.9 billion in gross profits from herbicide products, mostly Roundup.
Sound science?
A new scientific analysis confirms the dominance of industry in driving policy and its reliance on selective science and dubious studies when lobbying to keep glyphosate on the market.
‘Evaluation of the scientific quality of studies concerning genotoxic properties of glyphosate’, by Armen Nersesyan and Siegfried Knasmueller of the Institute of Cancer Research at the Medical University of Vienna, concludes that the claim of glyphosate not being genotoxic cannot be justified on the basis of manufacturers’ studies. (Genotoxic substances induce damage to the genetic material in cells through interactions with the DNA sequence and structure.)
Of the 53 industry-funded studies used for the EU’s current authorisation of glyphosate in 2017, the evaluation concluded that some 34 were identified as “not reliable”, with another 17 as “partly reliable” and only two studies as “reliable” from a methodological point of view.
In response to this new research, Angeliki Lyssimachou, environmental scientist at the Health and Environment Alliance, says:
“This new scientific analysis shows yet again that the European Union’s claim to having the most rigorous pesticide authorisation procedure in the world has to be taken with a heavy grain of salt. The authorisation procedure in place is evidently not rigorous enough to detect errors in the execution of the regulatory studies that are blindly considered the gold standard. Yet these were at the heart of the 2017 EU market approval of glyphosate, and they have now been submitted again in an effort to water down scientific evidence that glyphosate may cause cancer and is a danger to human health.”
Helmut Burtscher, biochemist at GLOBAL 2000, argues that if you subtract from the 53 genotoxicity studies those studies that are not reliable and those studies that are of minor importance for the assessment of genotoxicity in humans, then nothing remains. He asks on what basis are the EU authorities claiming that glyphosate is ‘not genotoxic’?
According to Peter Clausing, toxicologist at Pesticide Action Network Germany, in 2017, EU authorities violated their own rules to ensure an outcome that pleased the chemical industry.
A point reiterated by Nina Holland, researcher at Corporate Europe Observatory, who argues that national regulators and EU authorities alike do not seem to pay close scrutiny when looking at the quality of industry’s own studies.
Holland states that regulators exist to protect people’s health and the environment, not serve the interests of the pesticide industry.
Eoin Dubsky, Campaigner at SumOfUs, goes a step further by saying that people are sick of glyphosate and of being lied to.
Dubsky asks:
“How could EFSA give glyphosate a thumbs-up based on such shoddy scientific studies when IARC warned that it is genotoxic and probably cancer-causing too?”
The IARC is the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Unsound studies aside, there is sound scientific research that should be driving the risk assessment but which seems to have been overlooked. A point not lost on Dr Mason.
She asks why key scientific studies have been side-lined, especially those from Latin America where Monsanto has grown GMO Roundup Ready crops since 1996 (glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weedicide).
She also asks why was a 2010 groundbreaking study showing that Roundup causes adverse impacts on embryonic development and produces birth defects side-lined? Why have scientific studies that show that glyphosate is an endocrine-disrupting chemical that causes infertility been overlooked? Why have papers that show that glyphosate causes cancer been missed? And why have the effects of exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides on the brain not been properly considered?
Some key studies documenting the adverse effects of glyphosate are listed at the end of this article.
Ban Glyphosate Now!
In April 2017 (before Bayer purchased Monsanto), Bart Elmore, assistant professor of environmental history at Ohio State University, wrote a telling piece for Dissent Magazine that pointed out some of the real costs of producing glyphosate. These included radioactive waste piles, groundwater pollution, mercury emissions and poisoned livestock.
Glyphosate is derived from elemental phosphorous extracted from phosphate rock buried below ground. Monsanto got its phosphate from mines in Southeast Idaho near Soda Springs, a small town. The company has been operating there since the 1950s.
Elmore visited the site and watched as trucks dumped molten red heaps of radioactive refuse over the edge of a mountain of waste. The dumping happened about every 15 minutes. Horses grazed in a field just a few dozen yards away and rows of barley waved in the distance.
When phosphate ore is refined into elemental phosphorous, Elmore explains, it leaves a radioactive by-product known as slag. Monsanto’s elemental phosphorous facility, situated just a few miles from its phosphate mines, produces prodigious quantities of slag that contains elevated concentrations of radioactive material.
In the 1980s, the EPA conducted a radiological survey of the community and warned that citizens might be at risk from elevated gamma ray exposure and thus cancer.
Of course, the cancerous effects of glyphosate are not restricted to the community of Soda Springs. Due to its prevalence in agriculture and its use by municipal authorities, glyphosate is in our food and in our bodies. Marius Stelzmann of the Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren (CBG), refers to the ongoing court cases in the US regarding glyphosate use and cancer.
Marius says:
“… despite more than a year and a half of negotiations for a settlement in the glyphosate affair, the global player (Bayer) still cannot present a solution. It still has not reached agreements for compensation with all of the 125,000 US plaintiffs who accuse the herbicide of being responsible for their cancers. As a response to these actions, the CBG has launched the campaign ‘Carcinogen. Climate killer. Environmental toxin. Ban glyphosate now!’”
In a recent press release, the European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions (EFFAT) demanded an immediate ban on glyphosate. It also called for more investments in the promotion of alternatives to the use of glyphosate and other harmful pesticides and urges a clear governance in charge of a smooth transition with the involvement of trade unions.
The EFSA, ECHA and the European Commission should carry out their current assessment of glyphosate in a transparent and reliable way. Instead, it seems that, as in 2017, the agrochemical industry is still manipulating and driving the process.
The EFFAT says that alternatives to the use of glyphosate and other harmful chemicals already exist and must be further promoted, not least appropriate agronomic practices, mechanical and biological weed control, animal grazing and natural herbicides.
Selected key studies documenting serious adverse health impacts of glyphosate
How the widespread use of weedkillers and an over-reliance on antibiotics compromise our ability to stay healthy, naturally.
A new generation of superweeds have been identified that are resistant to pesticides to which they have never been exposed; antibiotic resistant bacteria and fungi threaten to kill millions of people worldwide in a few years’ time. Established authorities are responding to these threats with more of the same: new weedkillers! New drugs! New Antifungals! We must pivot to sustainable approaches grounded in regenerative health and regenerative agriculture; that is, rather than treating sickness and destroying weeds with chemicals, we create healthy, resilient environments in the soil and the human body.
Weeds are evolving faster than the biotech industry can come up with new products, and in just ten years’ time we may be at a point when weed killers cease to be effective. A New York Times Magazine article provides stunning details of the explosive growth of Palmer amaranth, some populations of which are resistant to at least six different herbicides. Scientists think this is a new type of resistance. These weeds have developed enzymes that are able to break down weed killers immediately, a process called metabolic resistance. This enables the weeds to resist weedkillers they have never been exposed to.
The writing is on the wall that we’re nearing the end of the “pesticide treadmill,” a term coined decades ago referring to the slow escalation in the strength and quantity of the chemicals needed to control pests. A new chemical is developed to kill weeds, weeds become resistant to that chemical, so a new, more potent chemical is developed, and so on and so on.
The consequences of industrial agriculture and the “pesticide treadmill” are enormous. Resistant weeds have been estimated to cost $43 billion in crop losses each year for corn and soybeans alone. This has a cascading effect that drives up food prices: more expensive corn means more expensive feed which means more expensive meat, and on and on.
There is a striking similarity between the “pesticide treadmill” and the crisis of antibiotic resistance—when bacteria and fungi develop the ability to defeat the drugs designed to kill them. Antibiotic-resistant illnesses currently kill an estimated 700,000 people a year globally. By 2050, these illnesses are expected to kill 10 million people.
Both pesticides and antibiotics kill the microorganisms that are critical to human health and soil health. Antibiotics profoundly impact the gut microbiome, which is implicated in many health processes including aging. Antibiotic use in infancy, for example, can alter the gut and negatively impact immunity for years. Similarly, pesticides are harmful to the organisms that are critical to maintaining healthy soils, like ground beetles, ground-nesting bees, and worms. Antibiotics and weedkillers drive us away from the healthy balance that brings resilience.
Many current practices make antibiotic resistance much worse. Microplastics, which are ubiquitous in our waterways, are hubs for bacteria and antibiotic waste to attach and comingle; certain strains of bacteria elevated antibiotic resistance by up to 30 times while living on microplastic biofilms. Antibiotics are overused in many settings. The CDC has said that about a third of antibiotic prescriptions are unnecessary. They are misused and overused on factory farms to speed the growth of animals and protect them from the unsanitary conditions in the feeding lots. The use of weedkillers also increases the prevalence of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the soil relative to other soil bacteria.
Antifungal medications are becoming less effective for many of the same reasons—except that there are only three types of antifungal medicines, so options are much more limited. We reported previously on the use of triazoles to protect plants from fungal diseases, noting that these are the same medicines humans use. Fungi in the soil are exposed to triazoles through the agricultural use of the compounds in this fungicide, making the spores resistant. Then when triazoles are used in patients with a fungal infection, the drugs don’t work.
So, what’s the answer? To control weeds, scientists have been urging farmers to engage in practices that are commonplace in regenerative agriculture: rotating crops, hand-pulling weeds, composting, avoiding artificial and synthetic fertilizers, and shifting from feeding lots to well-managed grazing practices. These practices rebuild soil health, restore plant nutrient density, and sequester carbon in the soil. Such a transition obviously requires major changes in how large-scale farming operations are conducted. These practices are labor intensive and account for much of the premium we pay for organic produce. But farmers, in the end, may be forced to “return to their roots,” so to speak, to continue farming as chemical weedkillers become obsolete.
We’ve covered the alternatives to antibiotics for many years (see here and here). There are many natural medicines that have shown their ability to fight off these infections, from essential oils, vitamin D, ozone therapy, and nanosilver. It is maddening to see conventional medicine continue to rely on drugs when there are potent natural options available to fight these deadly illnesses. We’ve also reviewed how to use natural medicines to shore up immunity to resist infections.
All of this supports a view of regenerative agriculture and regenerative health. There are similarities between the overuse of pesticides driving resistant weeds and the overuse of antibiotics driving “superbugs,” or the idea that we can vaccinate our way to health during COVID, staying ahead of the mutating virus with ever more booster shots rather than creating health by building immune resilience. Natural, regenerative health is about creating a healthy environment in the body through proper nutrition, lifestyle, and supplementation, just as regenerative agriculture is about creating a healthy environment for plants to grow and thrive. We abandon these principles at our own peril.
Few of us were born when the forces for milk pasteurization launched the first major attack on Nature’s perfect food. In 1945, a magazine called Coronet published an article, “Raw Milk Can Kill You,” blaming raw milk for an outbreak of brucellosis in a town called Crossroads, U.S.A., killing one-third of the inhabitants. The Reader’s Digest picked up the story and ran it a year later.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
