The European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, and other countries have also approved certain insects for human consumption, with clear labeling requirements for food products containing insects.

Gaps in US regulations have enabled “alternative protein” startups to enter the insect food market – with the backing of figures such as Bill Gates and government agencies including the United Nations (“UN”), the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (“DARPA”) and the National Science Foundation.

The trend towards insect-based foods is linked to the UN’s Agenda 2030 SDGs, promoting sustainability and forced behavioral modifications.

“The insect craze is intimately connected to the UN’s Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),” said Michael Rectenwald, author of ‘The Great Reset and the Struggle for Liberty: Unravelling the Global Agenda’.

“The World Economic Forum – perhaps the largest driving force behind so-called ‘alternative proteins’ – frequently touts Singapore’s compliance with Agenda 2030, so the decision to prioritize insect-based foods is not surprising,” Seamus Bruner, author of ‘Controligarchs: Exposing the Billionaire Class, their Secret Deals, and the Globalist Plot to Dominate Your Life’ and director of research at the Government Accountability Institute, said.

Proponents of insects as food for humans, including the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (“FAO”), claim that they are more sustainable and have a lower carbon footprint compared to traditional livestock. However, animal-based foods like beef, pork, and poultry are more efficient and healthy sources of protein.

“The truth is that beef, pork, poultry and other animal-based foods are the most efficient and healthy sources of protein. These climate fanatics pushing insect-based foods are scaring people into adopting less healthy diets,” Bruner told The Defender.

While advocates see insects as a viable protein source for the future, there are concerns about safety and health risks, such as parasites and allergies, and it raises questions about the motives behind promoting insect-based foods.

“The justification for insects is to produce protein using fewer inputs: to save the planet by reducing climate change, methane from cows, less pollution,” Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, said. “But just because it is protein doesn’t mean it’s good for us.”

Nass cited parasites that could be spread by insects, difficulties in digesting insects, and common allergies to chitin – commonly found on the exoskeleton of insects.

She suggested that one reason behind the shift to insects as food is “to cause emotional harm: to degrade, debase, downgrade human beings” and that beef is “being demonized,” potentially to “weaken the species.”

Dutch journalist Elze van Hamelen told The Defender that using insect ingredients for pet food also poses a risk to public health, citing a 2019 study that found parasites in 244 of 300 insect farms and pet stores that were investigated.

In Singapore, local businesses are embracing insect-based foods, with some already offering insect-infused dishes. Educational programs are being implemented to inform consumers, including children, about the benefits of consuming insects.

Some educational programs began before approval had been obtained.  For example, Singapore’s first start-up to make food from insects conducted workshops and educational sessions at almost a hundred schools before the Singapore Food Agency approved insects for human consumption. Surveys conducted after the program found that about 80% of students would be willing to try the insects after they are approved.

Educational programs are part of the psychological techniques deployed to get people to accept insects as food.  Several studies in 2020, 2021, and 2022 suggested that behavioral science concepts like nudging should be used to influence public acceptance of insect-based foods. The truth is that nudging is already being widely used to implement the UN’s Agenda 2030.

According to Rectenwald, “sustainability” is code language for coerced reductions in consumption and forced behavioral modifications.

In addition to debasing people and so gaining psychological power over them, there is enormous financial gain to be had for those driving the insect-based diets agenda.

“Bill Gates claims his investments in alternative proteins are to save the planet,” Bruner said. “What he does not say is that they are part of a strategy to monopolize the protein industry – for profit – as he lobbies to ban animal-based competition.”

The above is summarised from the article ‘Sign of Things to Come: Singapore Approves 16 Insects for Human Food’ by Michael Nevradakis, PhD, as published by The Defender.  You can read the full article HERE.

Featured image: Fried silkworm pupas in Thailand. Silkworms are among the species on Singapore’s list of insects approved for human consumption. Source: The Guardian.

The document explains how governments used an unjustifiable state of emergency as a legal instrument to deny people basic human rights and freedoms and to grant themselves extraordinary powers.

The authors of the Legal Brief maintain that had people across the board been properly informed about the requirements of International Human Rights Law and the prerequisites necessary to declare a legitimate state of emergency, gross violations of fundamental human rights would not have been possible.

There is also deep concern that this was just a trial run and that the imminent promulgation of the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) “Pandemic Treaty” and amended International Health Regulations will take these tyrannical measures to an entirely different level.

The World Council for Health (“WCH”) has published a ‘Legal Brief on Preventing the Abuse of Public Health Emergencies’ in response to these concerns.

This document explains how governments used the declaration of an unjustifiable state of emergency as a legal instrument to deny people their basic human rights and freedoms and to grant themselves extraordinary powers.

The critical question that should have been addressed at the time was whether the threat posed by COVID-19 represented a public health emergency that threatened the life of the nation. The Legal Brief presents four criteria to be used to determine if a state of emergency should be declared. These criteria state that the threat should:

• be actual or imminent;
• involve the whole nation;
• place the continuation of the organized life of society at risk of extinction; and,
• be so extraordinary that ordinary measures for protecting public health and order are clearly inadequate.

The arguments presented in this document show that the COVID-19 event never met any of these criteria. Thus, as it did not meet the legal conditions of an emergency ‘threatening the life of a nation’, all derogation measures such as lockdowns, mask mandates, school and small business closures, travel restrictions, and harmful vaccine mandates, were illegal breaches of International Human Rights Law (“IHRL”).

All States have a legal obligation to enact public policy that protects, respects, and ensures fundamental human rights. Furthermore, certain norms and fundamental human rights exist that can never be violated, not even during a declared state of emergency. Instead, during the COVID era, governments around the world chose to follow the recommendations of WHO, ignore the rights of citizens, and enact oppressive public health actions. It is also of huge concern that human rights organizations failed to hold governments to account for their abuse of emergency measures.

The authors of the Legal Brief maintain that had people across the board been properly informed about the requirements of IHRL and the prerequisites necessary to declare a legitimate state of emergency, these gross violations of fundamental human rights would not have been possible.

To prevent future public health emergencies resulting in similar human rights abuses, the Legal Brief therefore recommends the following actions:

• to educate the public regarding the criteria to declare a legitimate state of emergency;
• to establish panels to monitor adherence to IHRL and communicate violations; and,
• to establish activist groups to take necessary proactive legal action.

You can listen to Dr. Tess Lawrie explain this in the 5-minute video embedded in her Substack article.  You can read the Legal Brief HERE.