Data from AgFunderNews cited by the National Pulse reveals that the industry is in dire straits due to dwindling money. Funding for the lab-grown meat sector peaked at $989 million in 2021 but dipped slightly to $807 million in 2022. This dropped by almost 80 percent to just a mere $177 million last year.

“Industry experts claim they need substantial government assistance to survive, with various sectors within agrifood tech seeing a steep decline in investments since early 2022 and private capital for [lab-grown] meat almost vanishing,” the Pulse pointed out. “The decline in funding has prompted many startups to reduce staff, consolidate operations or, in some cases, cease operations altogether.”

Robert Jones, vice president for global public affairs at Dutch startup Mosa Meat, highlighted this issue during the Future Food-Tech Summit in late September. He told participants: “There’s a valley of death we’re not going to cross as an industry without a massive infusion of public investment.”

Andrew Ive, founder and managing general partner at venture capital (VC) firm Big Idea Ventures, echoed Jones’ sentiments. He emphasized that VC money won’t be funding capital expenses for large-scale commercial facilities for fake meat production.

“I think it’s going to take [a country] like the Netherlands or the [United Arab Emirates],” he told AgFunderNews, stressing the immense capital needed. “Maybe Saudi Arabia. It could be … Japan.”

Ive continued: “For me, what makes sense is [the mix of] cultivated with traditional meat – a bit like adding ethanol to gasoline for cars. So I think the way this will ultimately be rolled out in the marketplace will be where 20 percent of the meat content of a dumpling in China, for example, will end up being cultivated meat as opposed to traditional meat.”

Customers have decided: Fake meat is a NO for them

According to the Pulse, the economic case for lab-grown meat is “deteriorating rapidly.” In the same manner, the environmental and health cases for it are also on a decline.

Recent studies have suggested that fake meat is far from being a green alternative to the traditional livestock farming it ostensibly seeks to replace. One such paper by scientists from the University of California, Davis found that lab-grown meat produces up to 25 times more carbon dioxide (CO2) when scaled up to the current supply in the market.

According to the paper, the environmental impact of fake meat “is likely to be orders of magnitude higher than median beef production.” The increased CO2 levels would be necessary for the purification processes that supply nutrients to cultured cells. The study defines this process as “the removal of cells from an animal or plant and their subsequent growth in a favorable artificial environment.” (Related: CLIMATE FAIL: Study finds lab-grown meat generates up to 25 TIMES MORE CO2 than conventional beef production.)

“The use of refinement methods contributes significantly to the economic and environmental costs associated with pharmaceutical products since they are both energy and resource intensive,” the study authors wrote.

Aside from this, concerns about fake meat being a product of “immortalized cell lines” that replicate in perpetuity – cancer, in other words. A February 2023 op-ed in the Pulse by the Raw Egg Nationalist, which cited a story from Bloomberg, warned of the dangers of eating such edible cancer cells.

“The problem is that the materials used to make the product – ‘immortalized cell lines’ – replicate forever, just like cancer. Which means, in effect, that they are cancer. Although these cell lines are widely used in scientific research, they’ve never been used to produce food before.”

Head over to FakeMeat.news for more stories like this. Watch Jefferey Jaxen and Del Bigtree discussing the free fall of the fake meat industry.

This video is from the HighWire with Del Bigtree channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

• What they don’t want you to know about lab-grown meat.
• Fake meat firms collapsing due to lower sales, anti-woke backlash.
• Study: Vegan FAKE MEAT products linked to cardiovascular issues.
• Immortalized cell lines used in lab-grown meats can cause CANCER.
• Fake meat companies are failing as consumers abandon processed plant-based alternatives to real meat.

Sources include:

• TheNationalPulse.com 1
• AgFunderNews.com
• TheNationalPulse.com 2
• TheNationalPulse.com 3
• Brighteon.com

(Mercola)—A 2024 systematic review¹ of the literature confirmed what multiple studies have shown — the higher your intake of ultraprocessed food, the higher your risk of adverse health outcomes.

The analysis, which included 45 unique pooled analyses and 9,888,373 participants, found direct associations between 32 health parameters and exposure to ultraprocessed food, including metabolic dysfunction, cancer, mental, respiratory, cardiovascular and gastrointestinal issues, as well as all-cause mortality.

Depression and anxiety disorders were also highly correlated with ultraprocessed food consumption. Previous studies have also linked ultraprocessed foods to cognitive decline² and obesity.³

Considering the well-established effects of ultraprocessed foods, it’s only a matter of time before the truth comes out about the health effects of lab-grown and cultured meats, which are the epitome of ultraprocessed food.

The Truth About the Fake Meat Industry

The documentary above, “Beyond Impossible — The Truth Behind the Fake Meat Industry” by Gravitas Documentaries, exposes the corruption and lies of the fake meat industry. As noted in the film, the fake meat industry is an outgrowth of the vegan trend, which eschews any food derived from animals. However, perhaps there’s more to it than that. As noted by Gravitas:⁴

“What do Harvard University, internet vegans and the World Economic Forum [WEF] all have in common? A religious desire for the world to go vegan. But why? Is it an effort to stop global warming? Is it an earnest attempt at making everyone healthier? Is it a desperate plea to end animal cruelty?

The answers may surprise you. ‘Beyond Impossible’ reveals an uncomfortable truth about a world where peoples good intentions are being taken advantage of by everyone from vegan doctors to global elites hellbent on instituting planetary policies that remove all personal choices from the kitchen and beyond …

Joined by experts that include doctors, journalists and even former vegans, [health expert, director and co-producer] Vinnie Tortorich maintains that while we still have the power of free will, it’s only a matter of time before it’s too late.”

Fake Meats Contain Novel Proteins and the Worst Fat Possible

As explained in the film, it’s exceedingly difficult to get all the nutrients you need from a vegan diet, and while you could theoretically supplement yourself out of short-term trouble, you’d need to take a high-quality vitamin B12, iron, calcium, vitamin D, omega-3 and extra protein supplements, at bare minimum, to avoid some of the most common nutritional deficiencies associated with a meat-free diet.

However, as stressed by science journalist Nina Teicholz in the film, “many people cannot absorb B vitamins and minerals in their supplemental forms.” Additionally, plant proteins aren’t equivalent to meat-based protein. They’re not even equivalent to whole plant foods. As noted by Tortorich:

“Here’s the crazy part of all these fake meats. They’re not really made from vegetables. They’re made from monocultured crops … They’re made from starches, fake proteins and seed oils.”

“Plant-based” meat alternatives don’t contain the same amino acids, and they’re not as digestible as meat protein, so meeting your protein requirements for muscle maintenance and everything else could be a challenge.

Instead, fake meats contain novel proteins that no one fully understands yet. For example, the ingredient in Impossible Burger’s meat that makes it taste like meat is genetically engineered soy leghemoglobin, for which there are no long-term health studies. The process to make it also creates at least 45 other proteins as byproducts, which are also consumed and have never been evaluated.

Fake Meats Loaded With Bad Fats

Fake meats also typically contain the absolute worst type of fats possible, namely polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs) that are high in linoleic acid (LA), and/or monounsaturated fats (MUFAs) high in oleic acid.

For example, a half-pound serving of organic grass fed beef will provide less than half a gram of linoleic acid (500 mg). Compare this to a serving of an Impossible Burger or Beyond Meat burger, which have 10 to 20 times the amount of linoleic acid.⁵ So fake meat can only add to the catastrophic metabolic deterioration of your health caused by other processed and ultraprocessed foods.

Some fake meats will incorporate “healthier” oils like olive oil, but that still doesn’t solve the problem, as MUFAs are nearly as bad as seed oils. When consumed in excess, MUFAs like oleic acid will increase insulin resistance, promote fat storage, and decrease your metabolic rate.

I recently interviewed Brad Marshall on reductive stress, and he has done a magnificent job in highlighting the problems with oleic acid and how it increases the risk of obesity and metabolic dysfunction. That interview will be out shortly.

Further exploration into the relationship between olive oil and obesity reveals complex dynamics. Despite high local olive oil consumption, studies suggest that its impact on body mass index (BMI) is negligible.

This challenges the notion that olive oil directly contributes to obesity. However, this narrative took a defensive turn when researchers, rather controversially, attributed obesity rates in Mediterranean regions to lifestyle factors like physical inactivity rather than dietary habits. This perspective was tested in experiments where dietary olive oil was shown to induce insulin resistance in mice, suggesting a potential metabolic concern.

In-depth studies have used animal models to isolate the effects of oleic acid, aiming to control variables present in olive oil like polyphenols and saturated fats. Results indicated that pure oleic acid led to even greater insulin resistance in mice, highlighting concerns over its metabolic impacts when isolated from other components typically found in olive oil.

This points to the complexity of olive oil’s health impacts, suggesting that beneficial outcomes might be more attributable to its polyphenol content rather than the oil itself.

The discourse expanded with studies focusing on how MUFAs influence fat metabolism and storage, particularly through mechanisms involving the desaturase enzymes, which convert saturated fats into MUFAs. These enzymes, upregulated by dietary MUFAs, play a significant role in lipogenesis, the process of converting carbohydrates into fatty acids.

This biological pathway is crucial as it highlights how dietary fats influence lipid profiles and underscores the nuanced interplay between different types of dietary fats and metabolic health.

Side Note About High-Fat, Low-Carb Diets

On a side note, in the film, Tortorich presents the ideal diet as being one that is nearly devoid of carbs, sugars and grains. While I would have agreed with him on that as recently as a year or two ago, I’ve since come to understand that this is a serious mistake, as you absolutely need carbs for optimal metabolism, mitochondrial function, and energy production.

He doesn’t dwell on that in the film, so I won’t go into further detail on this here either. To learn more, see “A Surprising Reason Why You May Need More Carbs in Your Diet.” To his credit, Tortorich correctly stresses the benefits of saturated animal fats, eggs and whole-fat dairy, and the importance of avoiding seed oils and processed foods.

Fake Meat Provides No Collagen

While not discussed in this documentary, one-third of your protein also needs to be collagen, and there’s no plant-based alternative for that. Collagen is the most common and abundant of your body’s proteins, accounting for about 30% of the total protein in your body. One of its primary purposes is to provide structural scaffolding to allow tissues to stretch and flex while maintaining tissue integrity.

Collagen is found in your skin, connective tissues like tendons, ligaments, cartilage and fascia, your bones, organs, blood vessels, musculoskeletal system, hair and nails.

Collagen is also crucial for bone health and recovery from soft tissue injuries, and can help improve sleep, reduce joint pain, improve gut health, glucose tolerance and blood pressure, reduce cardiovascular damage, lower your risk of osteoporosis, and lower inflammation and oxidative damage.

The primary amino acids in collagen — glycine, proline and hydroxyproline — make up the matrix of connective tissue. Beef contains very little of these amino acids, so eating only muscle meat will not provide enough amino acids to allow you to build strong connective tissue and maintain bone strength. A vegan diet will put you at even greater risk, as the amount of these amino acids is even lower in plant foods than red meat.

Dairy Fat May Be Essential

Another animal-based food that cannot be replicated by vegan alternatives is full-fat, raw dairy. According to recent research,⁶ the odd-chain saturated fats pentadecanoic acid (C15:0) and heptadecanoic acid (C17:0) found in whole-fat dairy are likely some of the most important fats in the human diet, and C15:0 may be essential, although it’s not currently recognized as such.

As noted in the 2020 scientific report, “Efficacy of Dietary Odd-Chain Saturated Fatty Acid Pentadecanoic Acid Parallels Broad Associated Health Benefits in Humans: Could It Be Essential?”:⁷

“Dietary odd-chain saturated fatty acids (OCFAs) are present in trace levels in dairy fat and some fish and plants. Higher circulating concentrations of OCFAs, pentadecanoic acid (C15:0) and heptadecanoic acid (C17:0), are associated with lower risks of cardiometabolic diseases, and higher dietary intake of OCFAs is associated with lower mortality.

Population-wide circulating OCFA levels, however, have been declining over recent years. Here, we show C15:0 as an active dietary fatty acid that attenuates inflammation, anemia, dyslipidemia, and fibrosis in vivo, potentially by binding to key metabolic regulators and repairing mitochondrial function.

This is the first demonstration of C15:0’s direct role in attenuating multiple comorbidities using relevant physiological mechanisms at established circulating concentrations.

Pairing our findings with evidence that (1) C15:0 is not readily made endogenously, (2) lower C15:0 dietary intake and blood concentrations are associated with higher mortality and a poorer physiological state, and (3) C15:0 has demonstrated activities and efficacy that parallel associated health benefits in humans, we propose C15:0 as a potential essential fatty acid.”

Meat Alternatives Will Likely Undermine Public Health

But getting back to the issue of fake meat, it’s important to realize that it’s the very definition of ultraprocessed food. As noted by Michael Hansen, Ph.D., a senior staff scientist at Consumer Reports, meat alternatives are all just junk food and GMOs on steroids.⁸ For a more in-depth review of what goes into lab-grown meats and the novel health hazards they present, see “Why Synthetic Food is Very Dangerous.”

Researchers warn that removing real meat and dairy from the human diet would result in significant harm to health.

Nothing good can come from transitioning away from real animal foods to manmade alternatives. As noted in the film, the complete nutritional profile of meat simply cannot be artificially replicated, and research⁹ has warned that removing real meat and dairy from the human diet would result in significant harm to health. As reported by Nutrition Insight in mid-April 2023:¹⁰

“The researchers explain that meat offers a source of high-quality protein and nutrients that are not always easily obtained with meat-free diets and are often suboptimal or deficient in global populations.

‘Animal-sourced foods are superior to plant-sourced foods at simultaneously supplying several bioavailable micronutrients and high-quality macronutrients critical for growth and cognitive development,’ notes co-author Dr. Adegbola Adesogan, director of the University of Florida’s Global Food Systems Institute. Dietary recommendations to eliminate animal-source foods from diets ignore their importance …”

Indeed, as noted in this paper,¹¹ human anatomy, digestion and metabolism indicates that humans are not only compatible with but also reliant upon relatively substantial meat intake, and disconnecting the entire population from our evolutionary dietary patterns raises rather than lowers the risk for nutrient deficiencies and chronic diseases. As noted by the authors:¹²

“As a food matrix, meat is more than the sum of its individual nutrients.”

Research detailed in “Red Meat Is Not a Health Risk” has demonstrated that unprocessed red meat poses a very low-risk for adverse health effects, if any. On the other hand, plant-based meats have been shown to inhibit mineral absorption in humans,¹³ so nutrient deficiencies are entirely predictable.

Fake Meat Industry Is Part of the Controlled Destruction of Our Food Supply

The fake meat industry is also a major part of the controlled destruction of our food supply. Animal farming is being regulated into oblivion in order to be replaced by insect farms (so-called micro livestock), gene-edited food, lab-grown meat and synthetic animal-free dairy products — all in the name of solving hunger, protecting the environment and reversing climate change.

For years, the WEF has promoted the idea that lab-grown animal foods and genetically engineered crops are the only way to feed the world and save the planet. Industrial agriculture uses 75% of available farmland yet produces just 30% of food consumed globally. This shocking statistic is part of the narrative for why we need a new and more sustainable food system.

What’s left out of the conversation, however, is that small biodiverse farms use just 25% of land yet provide 70% of our diet,¹⁴ so eliminating traditional farming is hardly the solution to global hunger.

What’s more, studies have repeatedly shown that regenerative and biodynamic farming practices effectively LOWER demand on valuable resources like water, don’t require synthetic fertilizers and produce greater yields than GMO monocultures. It also rebuilds rather than destroys soil, supports animal welfare and promotes biodiversity of plants and wildlife.

When animals are raised according to regenerative agriculture, a complete ecosystem is created, one that is both healing for the land and productive for the farmers who keep it. Eating meat is not synonymous with harming the environment: It’s industrial farming practices that inflict the damage.

If the goal was to safeguard the environment, combat climate change and optimize food production and human nutrition, then transitioning to biodynamic farming methods would be the obvious solution. Instead, it’s made out to be the enemy of the planet and mankind.

Regenerative Farming Has a Negative Carbon Footprint

Impossible Foods directly attacked regenerative ranching in its 2019 Impact Report,¹⁵ claiming grass fed cattle ranching generates higher amounts of greenhouse gas emissions than cows raised in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

But according to a third-party lifecycle analysis¹⁶ (LCA) performed by the very same company that conducted Impossible Burger’s LCA, the carbon footprint of beef from White Oak Pastures (a regenerative farm) is actually 111% lower than conventional CAFO beef, as the “system effectively captures soil carbon, offsetting a majority of the emissions related to beef production.”

All things considered, including enteric emissions, manure emissions, soil carbon capture, vegetation carbon, miscellaneous farm activities, slaughter and transport, the total net carbon emissions from the beef production on White Oak Pastures was found to be a negative 3.5 kilos (kg) of carbon emissions per kilo of fresh meat, making this integrated, holistic system six times more carbon efficient than the average CAFO production model.

Meanwhile, Impossible Foods’ soy-based fake meat is still a carbon emitter. While grass fed beef has a net carbon sink of 3.5 kg per kg of fresh meat, conventional soybeans produce 2 kg of carbon emissions for each kg of food, and pea protein (which Beyond Burger uses for its meat substitute) produces 4 kg of carbon for every kg of food.¹⁷

So, how can fake meat be considered more environmentally sound than regenerative farming? In addition to still being a carbon emitter, GMO soy does nothing to regenerate and build soils, nothing to protect our insect and wildlife population, nothing to increase plant diversity and nothing to improve human health of consumers.

On the contrary, corn and soy, both conventional and GMO, are rapidly eliminating grasslands and prairies across the U.S. as they’re converted into monocrop farm fields, and this may be one of the worst environmental impacts of all, as prairies help retain water and sequesters carbon in the soil.

Cell-Based Meat Substitutes Aren’t Environmentally Friendly Either

Cell-based meats also fail the test as far as protecting the environment is concerned. According to an Environmental Science and Technology study published in 2015, lab-grown meat where the meat is cultured from stem cells actually requires more energy than conventional agriculture. As explained in the study’s abstract:¹⁸

“Cultured, or in vitro, meat consists of edible biomass grown from animal stem cells in a factory, or carnery. In the coming decades, in vitro biomass cultivation could enable the production of meat without the need to raise livestock.

Using an anticipatory life cycle analysis framework, the study described herein examines the environmental implications of this emerging technology and compares the results with published impacts of beef, pork, poultry, and another speculative analysis of cultured biomass.

While uncertainty ranges are large, the findings suggest that in vitro biomass cultivation could require smaller quantities of agricultural inputs and land than livestock; however, those benefits could come at the expense of more intensive energy use as biological functions such as digestion and nutrient circulation are replaced by industrial equivalents.

From this perspective, large-scale cultivation of in vitro meat and other bioengineered products could represent a new phase of industrialization with inherently complex and challenging trade-offs.”

Culling Cows to Meet Climate Change Goals

As illustrated in the film, cows now stand accused of being one of the primary sources of methane emissions, another greenhouse gas said to drive climate change. So, to meet climate change goals, countries around the world are implementing new emission targets for farmers that will require drastic reductions in herd size.

Yet there’s ample evidence showing that properly raised and grazed livestock have a tremendously beneficial impact on ecological health and local climate.¹⁹ Erratic climate is in large part caused by desertification (when fertile land dries up and turns to desert), which is what current conventional agricultural practices encourage.

This situation can only be effectively reversed by dramatically increasing the number of grazing livestock. In essence, it’s not an excess of livestock that are causing the problem, but that we have far too few, and the livestock we do have, we’ve not managed properly.

The graphic below, which compares the carbon recycling of cows and fossil fuel emissions, is also instructive. The methane cows burp up eventually breaks down into carbon dioxide and water, both of which are taken up by plants. The carbon is then put back into the soil through the roots of the plants. This is the natural cycle, which benefits all life. Yet none of this ever makes it into the climate conversation.

It’s All Part of a Plan

It’s easy to assume that decision makers are simply inept, but that’s letting them off the hook. There’s a cohesive plan behind such seemingly ignorant decisions such as forcing farms to shut down by putting radical restrictions on nitrogen fertilizers or methane emissions from cow farts and paying farmers not to farm even in the face of looming food shortages.

They’re forcing farmers and ranchers out of business because they want them out of business. In their place, they can then introduce their fake meat solution, which will recreate the global control of the food supply that Monsanto and others achieved through patented GMO seed development.

Once living animals are eliminated and replaced with patented alternatives derived from plants, yeast, bacteria, fungi or insects, private companies will effectively control the food supply in its entirety, and those who own the patents will control the people. Ultraprocessed food already make up 58% of the average American’s diet,²⁰ so the globalists have every reason to believe they can get it to 100%.

Synthetic Food Will Never Be Healthier Than the Real McCoy

There are several key take-homes from all of this. First, synthetic food will never be healthier than the real food it’s trying to imitate. Second, a meat-free diet is inadvisable for most people as plant proteins are not identical to animal-based proteins.

Plant proteins also cannot replace your need for collagen. Nor can plant-based fats replace the likely essential fats found in whole dairy. As mentioned, the fat added in the making of many meat alternatives is cheap seed oils, which are a primary driver of chronic diseases as these fats destroy mitochondrial function.

Third, the fanatic push for fake meat has strong geopolitical underpinnings rooted in population control and the implementation of a one world government. The technocratic globalists funding the fake meat industry for their own gain are simply piggy backing on the vegan ideology, which tends to be more fanatical than other dietary trends.

Ultimately, if you want to be healthy, you need to eat real food. You cannot correct the health problems caused by ultraprocessed food with even more ultraprocessed food, which is what all meat alternatives are. And, if we want to be free, and if we want food safety and food security, we must focus our efforts on building a decentralized system that connects communities with farmers who grow real food in sustainable ways and distribute that food locally.

• ¹ The BMJ, 2024; 384:e077310
• ² Alzheimer’s Association, August 3, 2022
• ³ Cell Metabolism 2023;35(4), Summary
• ⁴ YouTube Gravitas Documentaries, Beyond Impossible
• ⁵ Bohrer, GM. Food Science and Human Wellness Volume 8, Issue 4, December 2019, Pages 320-329
• ^6, 7 Scientific Reports 2020; 10: 8161
• ⁸ Organic Insider June 8, 2022
• ^9, 11, 12 Animal Frontiers April 15, 2023
• ¹⁰ Nutrition Insight April 17, 2023
• ¹³ Nutrition Insight December 9, 2022
• ¹⁴ Independent Science News June 18, 2019
• ¹⁵ Impossible Foods 2019 Impact Report
• ¹⁶ Quantis, Carbon Footprint Evaluation of Regenerative Grazing at White Oak Pastures, February 25, 2019
• ¹⁷ Civil Eats June 19, 2019
• ¹⁸ Environmental Science and Technology 2015 Oct 6;49(19):11941-9
• ¹⁹ Cowboy State Daily June 2, 2023
• ²⁰ BMJ Open 2016; 6:e009892

Among the casualties are a growing number of plant-based meat substitute companies that initially garnered substantial investor interest but have since grappled with low and diminishing consumer demand. In June of this year, UK-based Meatless Farm shut its doors not long after Heck, a maker of meatless sausages, announced that it would substantially reduce its consumer offerings. Nestlé-owned Garden Gourmet also pulled its vegan offerings from UK shops in March 2023. Canada’s Very Good Food Company, a vegan food producer which soared 800 percent on the day of its public offering in 2020, recently collapsed after revealing it had never been profitable.

By far the biggest turnabout has occurred in the most prominent plant-meat substitute enterprise, Beyond Meats. The corporate flagship of the sector conducted its IPO in May 2019 priced at $25 per share, opening at $46 and rising to as high as $72 on its first day of trading. By July 2019 the stock price briefly surpassed $230 per share, spiking above $150 per share several times during the pandemic. But since mid-2021, the stock price fell from over $100 to recently close below $6. For six consecutive quarters, the company has reported negative sales growth amid not only a loss of market share but a contraction in the size of the fake meat market. Nearly one-fifth of the firm’s non-production workforce was laid off early in November 2023. Financial analysts have characterized the firm as in survival mode, with its financial deterioration bringing about a “going concern” risk.

So why are so many plant-based “alternative” meat companies faltering at the same time? Part of the answer, we propose, may derive from a pattern of noisy market signals that we dub Conspicuous Production.

Conspicuous Production refers to the creation of goods that are not necessarily sought by a large consumer base, but that are thought to convey certain social signals when they are marketed to the public. It’s a supplier’s counterpart to the more famous concept of Conspicuous Consumption, wherein consumers purchase products to show off the status, wealth, tastes, or social desirability that ownership of a good is perceived to convey. In the case of conspicuously produced goods, the supplier offers a product that caters to certain social trends and causes, whether or not people are willing to purchase it.

It is not difficult to see how artificial “meat” companies fall into a pattern of Conspicuous Production. These plant-based alternatives are presented as more environmentally friendly alternatives to meat. They ostensibly facilitate the reduction of meat-based diets, which is an increasingly vocal political demand of climate activists. Many of these products are also marketed as vegan under an ideological presumption that eating plants is more ethical than eating animals. A retailer might accordingly choose to carry large selections of plant-based “meat” products out of the belief that it will gain them reputational accolades from their shoppers by signaling social responsibility, sustainability, and similar sentiments. Similarly, a restaurant may add a meat-colored congealed vegetable patty to their burger lineup, hoping to garner goodwill from diners who perceive this offering as environmentally ethical.

But what happens if very few people buy these same conspicuously produced food items?

We suspect that many vegan food companies have mistakenly interpreted the social signaling of “alternative meat” store displays and menu items as indicative of a much larger consumer base than they actually possess. It’s only when they unexpectedly encounter financial difficulties due to sluggish sales that the true state of affairs becomes evident. Furthermore, the prolonged shelf life of plant-based alternatives to meat, attributed to the numerous chemicals and binding agents used in their production, could be convenient for those seeking to showcase their company’s social consciousness by stocking their freezers. As we’ve witnessed during events such as hurricanes, COVID-induced grocery store rushes, and similar natural or political crises, what Pete Earle has termed “Magness Effects” are undeniably real.

To elaborate, even in situations where there is a glaring and widespread shortage of essential food items due to emergency circumstances, the vegan section of the freezer aisle often remains largely untouched. The majority of consumers simply have no desire to consume such products (and the small minority that does may already have well-stocked freezers filled with these items, again benefitting from their long shelf lives).

Yet, there is an underlying economic rationale behind the existence of these Magness Effects. Rather than aligning their product offerings with genuine consumer preferences, most grocery stores seem to allocate prime shelf space to faux-meat products as a way of projecting a particular image of social responsibility. They hope that when customers pass by a prominently displayed shelf of vegan goods, they may infer that the store is actively promoting values like saving the planet or protecting animals. It’s akin to establishments that prominently place recycling bins in public view, even though, in reality, the recyclables often end up mixed with regular trash once they’re out of sight.

While the vast majority of shoppers are unlikely to open the vegan freezer door and select a package of artificially colored and molded celery stalks masquerading as chicken tenders, a substantial minority perceives this shelf as a testament to the store’s corporate social responsibility toward the environment. Meanwhile, the subset of the population that does consume these products maintains an ongoing oversupply relative to their market share. Since there’s little demand from others, they can walk into the store during a hurricane, blizzard, or other run on groceries and the artificial meat shelf will appear virtually unchanged from a typical Tuesday.

The news is not encouraging for plant-based meat entrepreneurs. A November 18th Telegraph UK article reports that the plunging fortunes of vegan food makers have occurred alongside the resurgence of interest in real meat. “Smashed burgers” account for a substantial part of the renewed interest, with eateries offering twists on the recipe in towns all across the UK. (Unsurprisingly, it’s a style that originated in the United States.) As for meat consumption trends in the US, the USDA estimates per-capita retail weight consumption of 224.6 pounds of red meat and poultry in 2022: 10.3 pounds higher than the average observed from 2012 to 2021.

The desperation of the grass-meat constituency is clear in the headlines of ideologically aligned media supporters. A widely-syndicated16 November Associated Press article implored readers: “Plant-based meat is a simple solution to climate woes — if more people would eat it.”

Yet despite consumers speaking about as clearly as they ever do, an arrow remains in the quiver of the grass-burger constituency. Impossible Foods CEO (and former Stanford University biochemist) Pat Brown recommends a meat tax, drawing comparisons with the levies currently charged on tobacco, marijuana, and sugar products in various jurisdictions. If consumer tastes won’t salvage the market for animal-part-shaped blocks of dyed soy extract, its boosters and beneficiaries are hoping that government interventions will.

In the meantime, the plant-based alternatives industry appears to be facing its first true market test and doing poorly. True, the consumer base for fake meat is not zero. It’s simply a much smaller market than producers perceived, due to the noisy signals and political distortions of Conspicuous Production. The result is a plant-based alternative food industry that far outpaced the interest in what it had to offer, and is now seeing a rapid contraction as the consumer sovereignty corrects those misread signals.

About the Author

Phillip W. Magness is Senior Research Faculty and F.A. Hayek Chair in Economics and Economic History at the American Institute for Economic Research. He is also a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He holds a PhD and MPP from George Mason University’s School of Public Policy, and a BA from the University of St. Thomas (Houston). Prior to joining AIER, Dr. Magness spent over a decade teaching public policy, economics, and international trade at institutions including American University, George Mason University, and Berry College. Magness’s work encompasses the economic history of the United States and Atlantic world, with specializations in the economic dimensions of slavery and racial discrimination, the history of taxation, and measurements of economic inequality over time. He also maintains an active research interest in higher education policy and the history of economic thought. His work has appeared in scholarly outlets including the Journal of Political Economy, the Economic Journal, Economic Inquiry, and the Journal of Business Ethics. In addition to his scholarship, Magness’s popular writings have appeared in numerous venues including the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Newsweek, Politico, Reason, National Review, and the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Image by Marco Verch via Flickr, CC BY 2.0 DEED.

Numerous recent studies show that lab-grown synthetic meat of the kind being promoted by billionaire eugenicist Bill Gates is triggering the formation of turbo cancers in humans – Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “vaccines” are doing the same thing, by the way.

In contrast to a recent decision by the Biden regime to fast-track the approval of synthetic meat here in America, Italy is taking the opposite approach by banning the stuff outright before it gets the chance to harm the Italian people.

“Italy is the first nation to say no to synthetic food, to so-called ‘synthetic meat,'” announced Health Minister Orazio Schillaci. “It does so with a formal and official act.”

“The resolution calls for a commitment to ban the production, marketing, and import of synthetic foods within our territory.”

According to Schillaci, Italy’s new regulations against synthetic meat aim to protect the general public against any situation in which “the environmental public health could be at risk, or when there is uncertainty regarding the effects of certain products that are being or will be introduced to the market or consumed.”

“It is crucial to have measures in place to address these potential risks and ensure the safety of the environment and public health in such cases,” he added – watch the video below:

Italy becomes the First Nation to BAN synthetic meats. pic.twitter.com/dfOOPXdKny

— Stew Peters (@realstewpeters) October 20, 2023

Biden regime fast-tracks approval of synthetic meat, including Gates’ lab-grown “chicken meat”

Much of the push in favor of synthetic meat comes not only from Gates but also other globalists such as Klaus Schwab, the goon in charge of the World Economic Forum (WEF), who claim it is necessary to stop “global warming” and “climate change.”

Back in 2021 in promotion of his book “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster,” Gates told MIT Technology Review that “all rich countries should move to 100 percent synthetic beef.”

Gates’ dream for the world probably will not come to fruition, at least as he envisioned it, because science continues to show that synthetic meat consumption is linked to cancer via the immortalized cell lines that the body uses to manufacture cancer cells in the presence of a provoking substance, in this case fake meat.

Fake president Joe Biden’s regime has so far indicated its full support for the unleashing of fake meat here in the U.S., where private corporate interests seem to control just about everything.

In an unprecedented move, Biden’s U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the sale of Gates’ lab-grown “chicken meat” back in late June. This approval from regulators will allow fake meat companies everywhere to flood the U.S. food market with their toxic, deadly products.

“Now we need to ban any WEF and NOW (new world order) product or message,” one commenter wrote in response to the good news out of Italy.

“Back in old blighty, our bribery whores in UN parliament will happily push this crap on us,” wrote another, presumably from the United Kingdom where, like in the U.S., fake meat and other garbage is more easily approved and pushed on the public due to government corruption.

“Expect widespread BS plus a taxpayer-funded ad campaign to promote this new highly toxic product.” The latest news about the world’s growing rejection of the fake meat scam can be found at FakeMeat.news.

Sources for this article include:

• Expose-News.com
• NaturalNews.com

The global food supply is being “reset” by insidious globalists who fund the creation of gain-of-function viruses, deadly blood-clotting “vaccines” for those viruses, and Franken-meat for all the infected-and-injected zombies to sink their eye teeth into like drooling werewolves. According to climate change enthusiasts and extremists, humans are ending all earth life in the next few years by driving fuel-based vehicles, flying anywhere in a plane, using plastic straws at Starbucks, and wait for it… eating land animals.

Supposedly, according to the fake news and pharma-controlled mass media “green machine,” it’s perfectly sustainable to eat cockroaches, grub worms, and fake-meat made from chicken cells that’s grown in a test tube and injected with God-knows what to make it jiggle and bleed like real meat.

So far, only Singapore and US “regulators” have approved sale of Franken-meat

Do the new lab-concocted MUTANT CHICKEN CHUNKS contain spike proteins to further clog the vascular systems of all the Covid-injected masses and anyone else who isn’t paying attention to what goes into their mouth? Forget about all that farm-to-table eating, the globalists want everyone engaging the new lab-to-toilet meat, where there’s no safety regulations or clinical trials for the short or long-term, to find out how this fake meat will affect the human body.

It’s all one big globalist experiment on the sheeple, just like the lab-to-human Wuhan Flu, and the lab-to-human clot shot injections of the 2019-to-forever scamdemic.

Get ready for “Upside Foods” and “Good Meat” companies to slip lab-concocted mutant-chicken-chunks into all the corporate franchised and big chain restaurants very soon. Will they have to carry a warning label of any kind? Of course, they’re already allowed to call it “meat,” but don’t dare call hemp milk or oat milk “milk.”

Will “Upside Foods” and “Good Meat” grow the test-tube meat in a lab, use food processers to blend and press it, then slice it with ridges to make it appear like it’s real chicken breasts, and then have restaurants serve it up, all baked and broiled to perfection for the gullible US Franken-food-eaters to chow down on?

Yes, the Agriculture Department has approved the dietary blueprint plan by the freaky globalists

“Sir and ma’am, would you care for a side of barbecue-fried roaches or spicy jalapeno grub worms to go with your medium-rare, cell-cultivated, charbroiled lab-steak?” Later on during the meal, “Just so you know, all of our Franken-meat is stamped ‘sustainable’ by the World Economic Forum climate change agenda and by the Bill Gates Society for Population Reduction.”

Good Meat brand touted their own Franken-meat lab concoction in a recent statement, “Today’s a watershed moment for the burgeoning cultivated meat, poultry and seafood sector, and for the global food industry.” Then Upside Foods had to chime in, claiming how cultured meat in the USA will “fundamentally change how meat makes it to our table.”

It’s all supposedly about lowering the temperature on Earth because the oceans are gobbling up the shorelines everywhere, as beaches look exactly the same as they did five years ago, when the Queen of Climate Change, Greta something, said we would all be either drowned by the oceans or burned alive after bursting into flames by now.

The fake chicken chunks will first be served at UNDISCLOSED Washington DC and San Francisco restaurants, to test out the freaky-meat on sheeple in Democrat-run metro cities, then on into grocery stores in other zombie-infested (extreme liberal) cities of America. So far, “plant-based” Franken-foods have been a complete disaster in this country, called out for what they really are by every natural health advocate on the planet.

Tune your food news frequency to FoodSupply.news and get updates on experimental meat chunks coming from laboratories to corporate-run meat hubs near you.

Sources for this article include:

• NaturalNews.com
• ZeroHedge.com
• TheGatewayPundit.com
• NATURAL NEWS

• While the fake meat industry is being touted as an environmentally friendly and sustainable way to feed the world, the true intent is to recreate the kind of global control that Monsanto and others achieved through patented GMO seed development
• Researchers at UC Davis warn there are major environmental downsides to lab-grown meat. According to their “cradle-to-gate life cycle” analysis, the lab-grown meat industry produces up to 25 times more CO2 than traditional animal husbandry, which nullifies the core ideological foundation upon which the industry is built
• Each kilo of cultured meat produces anywhere from 542 pounds (246 kilos) to 3,325 pounds (1,508 kg) of carbon dioxide emissions, making the climate impact of cultured meat four to 25 times greater than that of conventional beef
• At present, most cultured meat companies still use fetal bovine serum (FBS) as the growth medium, which is obtained from unborn calves that are cut out of the womb and drained of their blood while still alive. Hence, most claims of cultured meat being animal-free or free of animal cruelty are false
• Mission Barns is developing imitation bacon made from a mix of cultured meat, cell-cultured pork fat and pea protein. Have the pigs from which the cell samples are taken been treated with mRNA “vaccines,” and if so, is the cultured pork and pork fat safe to eat?

While the fake meat industry is being touted as an environmentally friendly and sustainable way to feed the world, the true intent is to recreate the kind of global control that Monsanto and others achieved through patented GMO seed development. In the end, lab-created meats are worse for the environment than livestock and will undoubtedly deteriorate human health to boot, just like GMO grains have.

Lab-Grown Meat Is Worse for Environment Than Cattle

As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle,¹ researchers at UC Davis warn there are major environmental downsides to lab-grown meat that aren’t part of the conversation or the decision-making process.

According to their “cradle-to-gate life cycle” analysis,^2,3,4,5 the lab-grown meat industry produces up to 25 times more CO₂ than traditional animal husbandry, which nullifies the core ideological foundation upon which the industry is built.

As noted by the authors, investors have poured billions of dollars into animal cell-based meat (ACBM) sector based on the theory that cultured meat is more environmentally friendly than beef. But that hype is primarily based on flawed analyses of carbon emissions.

The primary sources of CO₂ emissions are the purification processes, which require fossil fuels. The bacteria used to produce the “meat” releases endotoxins, and these must be eliminated from the growth medium or else the cells won’t reproduce properly. As noted by the authors:⁶

“Animal cell culture is traditionally done with growth medium components which have been refined to remove/reduce endotoxin. The use of these refinement methods contributes significantly to the economic and environmental costs associated with pharmaceutical products since they are both energy and resource intensive.”

Based on this assessment, each kilo of cultured meat produces anywhere from 542 pounds (246 kilos) to 3,325 pounds (1,508 kg) of carbon dioxide emissions, making the climate impact of cultured meat four to 25 times greater than that of conventional beef.

Sham Claims Based on Nonexistent Technologies

The UC Davis life cycle analysis also points out that several estimates of ACBM climate impacts are dependent on novel technologies that either do not exist yet or are unlikely to work.

For example, some have proposed growing cyanobacteria hydrolysate in open concrete ponds to then be “harvested, sterilized, hydrolyzed and used as an animal cell growth medium.” The problem is that this technology is not currently used, “nor is it one that is currently near feasibility,” the authors note.

In short, the claims propping up the cultured meat industry are a sham, as the idea that cultured meat is a greener option is based on nonexistent technologies rather than the technologies that are in use.

Previous Research Also Pokes Holes in Environmental Claims

Other studies have also been critical of the ACBM industry’s claims. For example, a 2019 article⁷ in the journal Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems found that were the world to make the transition to cultured meat, its impact on global warming might initially appear to be beneficial. However, over time, cultured meat production would result in greater warming. As concluded by the authors:⁸

“Under continuous high global consumption, cultured meat results in less warming than cattle initially, but this gap narrows in the long term and in some cases cattle production causes far less warming, as CH₄ emissions do not accumulate, unlike CO₂ …

We conclude that cultured meat is not prima facie climatically superior to cattle; its relative impact instead depends on the availability of decarbonized energy generation and the specific production systems that are realized.”

False Claims Are Par for the Course

Despite analyses such as these, you’d be hard-pressed to find a cultured meat company that doesn’t claim to generate less greenhouse gas emissions than animal agriculture, although some simply talk in circles around it. Take Mission Barns, for example.

Mission Barns makes imitation bacon and meatballs by mixing pea protein with cultured meat and pig fat produced by cell culture to give the “meat” the flavor and aroma of real pork. Its website makes the following sustainability claim:⁹

“Animal agriculture generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all transportation combined and is a major driver of deforestation and waterway pollution. Cultivated meat is much kinder to nature — using less resources to preserve our planet.”

Note that they’re not actually making any direct environmental claims about their own cultured meat. Instead, they argue that animal farming generates more greenhouse gases than transportation, which is irrelevant when it comes to determining which of two options — farming or lab-created meat — is better for the environment.

If animal farming generates more greenhouse gases than transportation, then lab-created meats generate more greenhouse gases than transportation as well, and likely several times more. It sounds good, though, and it’s confusing enough that most readers won’t realize that they just told you nothing about their own sustainability.

Are Animals Harmed in the Making of Fake Meat?

Mission Barns also claims that no animals are ever harmed in its cultured meat process. All that is required to grow the meat, they say, is a “small sample [of fat cells] from a pig,” which isn’t harmed by the biopsy and goes on to live a normal, healthy life. The question is, what are the collected cells grown in?

Cultured or cell-based meats must be grown in a nutrient-rich media, and most are still using fetal bovine serum (FBS), which is obtained from unborn calves that are cut out of the womb and drained of their blood while still alive.

FBS has long been used in science as it’s the perfect growth medium. So far, FBS has been considered a byproduct of conventional meat production. Supposedly, cows are not specifically impregnated to harvest the calves for FBS; rather, the calves are sacrificed whenever a random pregnant cow is slaughtered for meat.

However, unless FBS is abandoned across the cultured meat industry, it’s easy to foresee a future in which cows are raised and impregnated simply to supply the fake meat industry with FBS, which takes both food waste and animal cruelty to entirely new levels.

Animal Cruelty on Steroids

One could argue that the fake meat industry is already promoting a more obscene form of animal cruelty than animal farming in general, seeing how the increased need for FBS will require more pregnant cows to be slaughtered. Are we absolutely sure that cows aren’t being impregnated and calves sacrificed just to satisfy this ever-growing need for FBS? As reported by Nutraceuticals World:¹⁰

“Given the essential role of FBS in the production process, many of the soon-to-market cultured meats will not truly be completely animal-free or cruelty-free. Rapid growth of cultured meat would drive greater demand for FBS.

Several companies, notably Meatable and Future Meat, have introduced alternative growth techniques that do not require FBS. For now, however, FBS-based growth stimulation is still the norm, and it somewhat taints the claim that cultured meat is totally humane.”

In 2018, Mission Barns CSO David Bowman argued that “fetal bovine serum is a non-starter” because the process is unsustainable. It requires the slaughter of “at least as many cows as are slaughtered now,” he said.¹¹

At the time, Bowman predicted that Mission Barns would, in due time, “have media recipes developed in-house that are patented.” The question is, has the company invented a new media or are they still using FBS? Its “no animal harm” claim really hangs on that detail, and I’ve not been able to confirm it either way.

What ChatGPT Says About FBS and Its Use

On a side note, a member of my team recently chatted with ChatGPT about the use of FBS in the cultured meat industry. Here are a few of the Q & A’s from that session.

Question — There are many articles about cultured meats utilizing serum from bovine fetus to grow the cultures, is that true?

ChatGPT — As of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, the information regarding the use of bovine fetal serum in the production of cultured meats is accurate. Traditional methods of cultivating animal cells for laboratory purposes, including the production of cultured meats, often rely on the use of fetal bovine serum (FBS) or bovine serum as a growth medium. FBS contains various growth factors and nutrients necessary for the cells to proliferate.

However, it’s important to note that the field of cultured meat is rapidly evolving, and researchers are actively exploring alternative methods to reduce or eliminate the dependence on animal-derived components. The use of FBS raises ethical concerns, as it involves extracting blood from unborn calves. Moreover, it adds to the cost and scalability challenges of cultured meat production.

In recent years, significant progress has been made in developing serum-free or animal-free alternatives for cell culture in the cultured meat industry. Scientists are exploring plant-based and synthetic growth media that can provide the necessary nutrients for cell growth. These efforts aim to make cultured meat production more sustainable, scalable, and free from animal-derived inputs.

Question — What is the process used to purify the serum from the fetal blood?

ChatGPT — The process of purifying fetal bovine serum (FBS) from fetal blood typically involves several steps to separate and isolate the serum from other components. While specific protocols may vary, here is a general overview of the process:

1. Collection — Fetal bovine blood is collected from the fetuses of slaughtered cows. The blood is typically obtained by dissecting the fetus and collecting it through a process called exsanguination.
2. Clotting and Separation — The collected blood is allowed to clot at room temperature or in refrigerated conditions. During this time, the blood naturally coagulates, forming a gel-like substance known as a clot. The clot contains red blood cells, white blood cells, and other cellular components.
3. Centrifugation — The clot is then subjected to centrifugation, a process that involves spinning the sample at high speeds. This separates the serum, which is the clear, liquid portion, from the clot and cellular debris. The centrifugation process relies on the principle of density differences to isolate the serum.
4. Filtration — To further remove any remaining cellular debris or impurities, the serum is often filtered through fine filters. This step helps achieve a more purified serum by removing particulates and unwanted substances.
5. Sterilization — The purified serum may undergo sterilization processes, such as filtration through sterilizing-grade filters or heat treatment, to ensure the removal of any potential microorganisms or contaminants that could compromise the quality and safety of the serum.

The resulting purified fetal bovine serum is then typically processed into small aliquots, frozen, and stored at low temperatures to maintain its stability and quality until it is ready for use as a growth medium in cell culture, including cultured meat production.

It’s important to note that specific protocols and variations can exist depending on the manufacturer or supplier of FBS. The purification process may also include additional steps or modifications based on the intended use and quality requirements of the serum.

Question — Are the calves aborted?

ChatGPT — In the context of using fetal bovine serum (FBS) for cell culture, the serum is typically collected from bovine fetuses obtained from pregnant cows at slaughterhouses. The fetuses are not intentionally aborted for the purpose of FBS production. Instead, they are collected as a byproduct of the meat industry.

During the process of slaughtering pregnant cows, the fetuses are removed and their blood is collected. This blood is then processed to extract the serum, which contains the necessary growth factors and nutrients for cell culture. The use of FBS has been a longstanding practice in biomedical and biotechnological research.

Question — So in order to create cultured meats, they are dependent on the meat industry to process aborted fetal calves to extract blood from them?

ChatGPT — I apologize if my previous response caused any confusion. To clarify, the use of fetal bovine serum (FBS) in cell culture, including the production of cultured meats, does involve obtaining blood from bovine fetuses. However, the collection of fetal bovine serum is not directly linked to intentional abortions.

The source of fetal bovine serum is primarily derived from pregnant cows that are already being slaughtered for meat production purposes. The collection of FBS occurs during this process as a byproduct, rather than being the primary objective. The fetuses are not intentionally aborted for the sole purpose of FBS extraction.

Question — How is the abortion not intentional if the mother of the calf is killed?

ChatGPT — I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous responses. When pregnant cows are slaughtered for meat production, the collection of fetal bovine serum (FBS) occurs as a result of that process. The intent of the slaughter is to obtain meat from the cows, not specifically to harvest the fetal blood. The fetuses are not intentionally aborted in order to collect FBS.

During the slaughter process, if a cow happens to be pregnant, the fetuses are removed as part of the overall procedure. It is this fetal blood that is then collected and processed to obtain FBS. The intention behind the slaughter is for meat production, and the collection of FBS is a byproduct of that process.

Question — So, it’s an accidental abortion?

ChatGPT — Yes, in the context of FBS collection, it could be referred to as an accidental abortion … The collection of fetal bovine serum (FBS) from these fetuses is considered a byproduct of the meat industry, rather than an intentional abortion for the purpose of FBS extraction.

Question — So, the cultured meat industry is dependent on the accidental abortions of calves in the meat processing industry?

ChatGPT — In the current state of the cultured meat industry, the use of fetal bovine serum (FBS) as a growth medium does rely on the collection of fetal blood from pregnant cows slaughtered for meat production.

However, it’s important to note that this reliance on FBS and its association with the meat industry is a matter of convenience and tradition rather than a fundamental requirement for cultured meat production … While FBS is currently commonly used, the industry is actively seeking alternatives to move towards a more sustainable and ethical approach.

Question — It sounds like alternatives for FBS don’t currently exist, so that is all hypothetical.

ChatGPT — While alternatives to fetal bovine serum (FBS) are being actively researched and developed, it is true that as of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, serum-free or animal-free alternatives for FBS in cultured meat production are not yet widely available or commercially implemented.

However, it’s worth noting that scientific advancements are being made in this area … Although the widespread adoption of these alternatives may still be in progress, it is not accurate to say that all efforts to find alternatives to FBS are purely hypothetical. There is ongoing research and development in this field, and the cultured meat industry is actively working towards reducing reliance on animal-derived inputs such as FBS.

It’s advisable to consult more recent sources or updates in the cultured meat industry for the most up-to-date information on the progress of serum-free or animal-free alternatives to FBS in cultured meat production.

Question — Ongoing research is still a hypothesis and no alternative currently exists.

ChatGPT — You are correct that ongoing research and development of alternatives to fetal bovine serum (FBS) in cultured meat production does not guarantee the immediate availability of viable alternatives. While efforts are being made, the implementation and commercialization of these alternatives are still in progress.

As of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, serum-free or animal-free alternatives to FBS are not yet widely utilized in the cultured meat industry. While there are promising developments and ongoing research, it is accurate to say that no widely accepted and commercially available alternative to FBS currently exists.

Question — What viable options are close?

ChatGPT — Since my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, there have been advancements in the research and development of alternatives to fetal bovine serum (FBS) in cultured meat production. While no widely accepted and commercially available alternative exists yet, several potential options have shown promise and are being actively explored. Here are a few notable examples:

1. Plant-based media — Researchers are investigating the use of plant-based extracts and formulations as a substitute for FBS. Plant-derived growth factors and nutrients can provide the necessary components for cell culture. Examples include soy protein, yeast extracts and plant-derived growth factors.
2. Animal-free synthetic media — Synthetic media formulations, composed of chemically defined nutrients, are being developed to support cell growth in cultured meat production. These synthetic alternatives aim to provide precise control over nutrient composition and eliminate the need for animal-derived components.
3. Recombinant proteins — Recombinant proteins, produced through genetic engineering techniques, are being explored as a potential alternative to FBS. These proteins can be designed to mimic the growth factors present in FBS and support cell growth in a serum-free environment.
4. Cell-based approaches — Another avenue of research involves developing cell-based approaches to generate the necessary growth factors and nutrients. This includes genetically engineered cells that produce the required factors or utilizing animal cells that can secrete the necessary components for culture media.

Are mRNA-Treated Swine Used in Cultured Pork?

One last question I have is, are the pigs from which Mission Barn takes its samples treated with mRNA “vaccines”? In a May 11, 2023, article, I pointed out that pork producers in the U.S. and Canada have been using customizable mRNA-based “vaccines” on their herds since 2018, and the only part of this gene-based “vaccine” technology that has been approved is the mRNA platform itself.

All customized mRNA injections created using this platform are untested. The safety is assumed, based on a single study¹² involving 748 piglets, which were given two doses of an unspecified mRNA Sequivity injection. Of those, 29.8% suffered a serious adverse event, including 24 deaths.

When adding together death, anorexia (wasting) and unthrifty (failure to thrive), 11.5% of the animals were lost to vaccine injury. That’s a loss of more than 1 out of 10 animals, which hardly seems safe.

Moreover, there are no safety studies at all related to human consumption of Sequivity-treated animals, let alone meat grown from mRNA-treated cells. Health authorities insist there are no problems associated with eating mRNA-treated meat, but they have absolutely no evidence to back that up. It’s pure conjecture based on unproven assumptions.

Meanwhile, recent research^13,14,15,16 shows Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA COVID shots are heavily contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40) promoters that, for decades, have been suspected of causing cancer in humans, and theoretically can modify the human genome.

Are animal mRNA shots also contaminated with SV40? If so, is it possible that these and/or other DNA contaminants might modify the swine genome? And if so, what do we end up with if cells from genetically modified swine are used to grow meat? I have no answers to any of these questions at the moment, and that’s why Mission Barns fake bacon concerns me, even if they don’t use FBS.

Mission Barns states that no antibiotics were ever used, but what about vaccines, mRNA gene therapies in particular? Overall, the fake meat industry has a long way to go before all relevant questions are answered. Until then, I recommend avoiding not only all cultured meats but all conventional pork as well, seeing how mRNA gene therapy is allowed even in organic pork.

• ¹ San Francisco Chronicle May 22, 2023
• ^2, 6 BioRxiv April 21, 2023
• ³ New Scientist May 9, 2023
• ⁴ Interesting Engineering May 14, 2023
• ⁵ Watts Up With That? May 12, 2023
• ^7, 8 Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems February 19, 2019; 3
• ⁹ Mission Barns
• ¹⁰ Nutraceuticals World April 27, 2023
• ¹¹ Food Dive July 18, 2018
• ¹² USDA Summary of Studies Supporting USDA Product Licensure, P. 17-18
• ¹³ OSF Preprints April 10, 2023, Edited April 11, 2023 DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/b9t7m
• ¹⁴ Twitter KanekoaTheGreat May 20, 2023
• ¹⁵ Anandamide (Kevin McKernan) Substack May 20, 2023
• ¹⁶ The Healthcare Channel May 22, 2023

Article cross-posted from Dr. Mercola’s site.

Now, corporations and governments are working toward a future that does NOT include natural animal meat. Multiple mRNA experiments are currently underway in the beef, poultry, and pork indsturies. Furthermore, there are global plans to strictly limit the availability of meat through tax schemes, carbon taxes, coercive labels, agricultural subsidies, and trade laws. Meat consumption is being vilified for being a major contributor to “climate change” and the destruction of the planet. There are even calls for an outright ban on meat consumption.

There’s a global agenda to pollute, ban, and make meat less accessible

The Guardian reported in September 2019: “The barrister Michael Mansfield has suggested that we should have new laws against ecocide — practices that destroy the planet — and that under them, meat could be targeted. ‘I think when we look at the damage eating meat is doing to the planet, it is not preposterous to think that one day it will become illegal,’ he said.”

Research published by Oxford University in 2018 claimed that meat and dairy production are responsible for 60 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions produced by the agricultural sector, and are therefore destroying the planet. The report lambasted cattle ranches for consuming up to 83 percent of available farmland, while providing very little benefit to the human diet.

However, meat is a critical source of nutrition, and has become an evolutionary source of sustenance for mankind. Dr. Adegbola Adesogan, director of the University of Florida’s Global Food Systems Institute, wrote about the importance of animal-sourced foods in the human diet.

“Dietary recommendations to eliminate animal-source foods from diets ignore their importance,” Dr. Adesogan wrote. “Animal-sourced foods are superior to plant-sourced foods at simultaneously supplying several bio-available micro-nutrients and high-quality macro-nutrients critical for growth and cognitive development.” He pointed to research explaining the importance of meat in the evolutionary dietary patterns of humans throughout history. “The researchers explain that meat offers a source of high-quality protein and nutrients that are not always easily obtained with meat-free diets and are often sub-optimal or deficient in global populations,” he said.

Plant-based “meats” and other synthetics do not provide adequate nutrition suitable for digestion and metabolism

There are many fake food projects and synthetic meat investments currently in the works. The Impossible Burger contains a protein called soy leghemoglobin (SLH for short), derived from genetically modified (GM) yeast. Studies show that this protein does not metabolize well and causes weight gain, inflammation, kidney disease, and anemia. Furthermore, plant-based meats do not contain essential amino acids that the body needs and may contain anti-nutrients that prevent the body from absorbing minerals such as iron and zinc. Natural animal meat is more than the sum of individual nutrients and is designed to incorporate with human digestion and metabolism. People who eat a meat-free diet struggle to obtain and metabolize what the body needs, including B vitamins, (B12 especially), retinol, long chain omega-3 fatty acids, iron, zinc, taurine, creatine, and carnosine.

There is no research to support the nutritional benefits of cultured, lab grown meats. In the study, “The role of meat in the human diet: evolutionary aspects and nutritional value” researchers speak out against the global plot to eliminate meat intake for environmental reasons.

“As a food matrix, meat is more than the sum of its individual nutrients. Moreover, within the diet matrix, it can serve as a keystone food in food-based dietary interventions to improve nutritional status, especially in regions that rely heavily on cereal staples,” the researchers wrote. “Efforts to lower global meat intake for environmental or other reasons beyond a critical threshold may hinder progress towards reducing under-nutrition and the effects this has on both physical and cognitive outcomes, and thereby stifle economic development.”

The real problems with today’s meat supply come down to factory farming and the overuse of antibiotics. If regenerative farming practices and permaculture were incentivized over factory farming, then there would be both an environmental benefit and a human health benefit. The soils would regenerate, the diversity of plants would flourish, and the animals would be able to live healthy lives, providing nutrient dense sources of meat for a growing population. There are ways to protect the environment, animal health, and promote nutrition and disease prevention for humans, but these solutions are not being considered on a large scale. Instead, meat itself is being vilified, polluted with mRNA experiments, and restricted. As corporations and governments pretend to save the planet, they will continue to plunder the planet’s natural resources, as they seek to re-engineer life itself and take more profit and control over the food supply.

Sources include:

• WhiteHouse.gov
• ChildrensHealthDefense.org
• NaturalNews.com
• TheGuardian.com
• JosephPoore.com [PDF]
• NutritionInsight.com
• GMWatch.com
• Academicoup.com
• TakeControlSubstack.com
• NATURAL NEWS

• September 12, 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden signed an “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy.” This executive order makes biotechnology a national priority across agencies and branches of government. Similar legislation has been introduced in the U.K.
• In late March 2023, Biden expanded on this premise in a “Bold Goals for U.S. Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing” report. According to this plan, the food industry is now to be led by biotech, and the “improvements” we can look forward to are more lab-grown meats and bioengineered plant foods
• Rather than investing taxpayer dollars in regenerative agriculture, which is what could really solve our problems, government is instead backing a whole new industry of fake foods, from lab-grown meats to large-scale insect production
• Two cell-based lab-grown meat companies have now received the green light to produce and sell fake chicken in the U.S.
• Meanwhile, a Food Hazards Identification report by the British Food standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland, published in March 2023, warns there are “considerable gaps in knowledge” when it comes to cell-based meat production, and many potential hazards

September 12, 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden signed an “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy.”¹

This executive order makes biotechnology a national priority across agencies and branches of government. As noted in this order, biotechnology will also be used to “improve” food security, sustainability, and agricultural innovation in the U.S.:

“The Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the heads of appropriate agencies as determined by the Secretary, shall submit a report assessing how to use biotechnology and biomanufacturing for food and agriculture innovation, including by improving sustainability and land conservation; increasing food quality and nutrition; increasing and protecting agricultural yields; protecting against plant and animal pests and diseases; and cultivating alternative food sources.”

Support of Bioengineered Fake Food Is Now White House Policy

In late March 2023, Biden expanded on this premise in a “Bold Goals for U.S. Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing” report.² According to this plan, the food industry is now to be led by biotech, and the “improvements” we can look forward to are more lab-grown meats and bioengineered plant foods.

In the featured video above, I discuss this rapidly advancing trend, and the true geopolitical incentives behind it, because the U.S. is not alone in moving in this direction. A similar plan is detailed in the U.K.’s Genetic Technology and Precision Breeding Act of 2023.³ Specific goals highlighted in Biden’s “Bold Goals” report include:⁴

• Increasing agricultural productivity by 28% in the next decade
• Reducing food waste by 50% by 2030
• Reducing methane emissions from agriculture by 30% by 2030 by:

1. Capturing biogases from manure management systems
2. Reducing methane emissions from ruminant livestock
3. Reducing methane emissions from food waste in landfills

As reported by Food Dive:⁵

“While advocates and some companies have been working to reduce methane emissions from food, cut down on food waste, increase capacity for producing alternative proteins and use bioengineering to make healthier and hardier crops and animals, goals like these have never before come from the White House …

The federal government is providing more evidence that it intends to do more than just talk about big goals. A day before the report came out, FDA gave its second tacit approval to a company using biotechnology to grow meat from cells in bioreactors.

While neither … is creating meat for consumers yet, this action shows that the federal government is moving toward making cultivated meat a reality.”

Government Supports a Failed Strategy

Among the many problems with this plan is the fact that taxpayers will now be paying for government’s funding of private corporations involved in the fake food industry. The end result is predictable. What we’ll have is a repeat of what happened with farm subsidies.

Rather than subsidizing the most nutritious foods, government farm subsidies go almost exclusively to large monoculture farms growing genetically engineered corn, soy and other basic ingredients used in processed foods. As a result, the processed food industry has grown on our dime while public health has deteriorated.

The same thing will happen here. Instead of investing in regenerative agriculture, which is what could really solve our problems, government is backing a whole new industry of fake foods, from lab-grown meats to large-scale insect production.

Cultivated Meats Get Green-Light

At present, two cell-based lab-grown meat companies have received the green light to produce and sell fake chicken in the U.S. The first, Upside Foods (previously Memphis Meats), received FDA approval for its cell-based lab-grown chicken in November 2022.⁶ According to the FDA’s November 14, 2022, memo:⁷

“We have no questions at this time about UPSIDE’s conclusion that foods comprised of or containing cultured chicken cell material resulting from the production process … are as safe as comparable foods produced by other methods.”

Dr. Uma Valeti, CEO and founder of Upside Foods, called the approval “a watershed moment in the history of food” and a “major step toward a new era in meat production.” The company has a 53,000-square-foot facility in the San Francisco Bay Area capable of producing 400,000 pounds of fake meat per year.

In March 2023, Eat Just — which has been selling its lab-grown chicken in Singapore since 2020 — also received FDA approval. The company is currently building a commercial-scale facility in the U.S. that will house 10 250,000-liter bioreactors.⁸ Vítor Espírito Santo, senior director of Eat Just’s cellular agriculture division, told Food Dive:⁹

“The Singapore approval was a big, big deal. But it’s undeniable that the U.S., the FDA approval, is something that we were looking forward [to] for many years, and I think it’s a big game changer for the industry.

We have two countries now. Hopefully now this keeps happening in more and more jurisdictions, and cultivated meat can become a reality worldwide.”

Safety Data Is Sorely Lacking

While the U.S. government is moving full speed ahead with approvals for lab-grown meats, a Food Hazards Identification report¹⁰ by the British Food standards Agency (FSA) and Food Standards Scotland, published in March 2023, warns there are “considerable gaps in knowledge” when it comes to cell-based meat production. As reported by Food Safety News March 24, 2023:¹¹

“The purpose of the report was to identify hazards in the cultivated meat production process to help inform the FSA risk assessment process for authorization. It was also important that products do not pose any microbiological or chemical concerns. The research was based on a review of scientific literature in 2020.

There was little or no data on the final analytical composition of products, key toxicology data, nutrition profiles, product stability, allergy risk, and any recorded adverse effects when consumed by animals or humans …

The FSA report found there are several stages of development for producing cultured meat and at each one, different chemicals, biologics, media formulations, additives, and supplements are used. The contamination risk of each input needs to be assessed, as any undesirable components that remain in the final product need to be at an acceptable exposure level or be food-grade and safe.”

Examples of Potential Hazards

Potential problem areas identified by the FSA include:^12,13

• Contaminated reagents, air or water baths
• Poorly cleaned or maintained equipment
• Failing to follow cleaning protocols when culturing cells
• Failing to follow good laboratory practices (GLP) and/or good manufacturing practices (GMP)
• Use of antibiotics, fungicides and/or chemicals that are toxic to humans in the production
• Consumption of viruses used in the manufacturing process
• Cross-contamination of one cell line into another due to concomitant use of multiple cell lines
• Other cross-contamination risks, such as “poor maintenance of equipment, poor cleaning regimes, incorrect storage of cells, working with multiple cell lines in one area, using the wrong cells and incorrect labeling”
• New diseases and/or allergic reactions to new proteins due to using cell lines of animals not common in the local diet
• Nutritional deficiencies, “as the nutrition profile could be different from what it is replacing”

As noted in the report:¹⁴

“There are many stages of development for producing cultured meat … from taking a cell line from a small vial or biopsy and increasing the culture volume stepwise in stages (proliferation), until a commercial sized bioreactor can be seeded, to differentiating the cells to final desired cell type.

Then [they are] maturing them, usually on a scaffold, to increase the protein content, and then detaching/grinding the cells with/from their scaffold to produce a final product that can be used to make meat like cells. At each stage, different chemicals, biologics, media formulations, additives and supplements are used to ensure a successful culture.”

Contamination can occur at any of these steps. Each additive also poses potential risks, both known and unknown, as various byproducts are created in the process. In the video above, I review some of the many potential dangers associated with fake meats.

Considering the multistep processing cultivated meats undergo, it’s simply not possible for it to be as safe as conventional meat, where the primary contamination risks are limited to slaughter, processing, packaging, distribution and storage. With fake meats, hazardous contamination can occur at any point during manufacturing, in addition to these conventional “weak points.”

Fake Meat Is Ultraprocessed Greenwashed Junk Food

Synthetic meat is the epitome of ultraprocessed food,¹⁵ and it seems naïve to think it won’t have health effects similar to other ultraprocessed junk foods. Obesity,¹⁶ Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer and depression are but a few examples of conditions known to be promoted and exacerbated by a processed food diet.^{17,18,19,20,21}

Synthetic foods will likely be an even bigger driver or chronic ill health and early death. Ultraprocessed foods are also completely counterproductive to environmentally “green” and sustainable goals.

For example, ultraprocessed foods already account for 17% to 39% of total diet-related energy use, 36% to 45% of total diet-related biodiversity loss and up to one-third of total diet-related greenhouse gas emissions.²² So, how is expanding the manufacturing and consumption of even more ultraprocessed foods going to lower greenhouse gas emissions? As noted in a September 2022 Journal of Cleaner Production paper:²³

“Ultraprocessed foods are fundamentally unsustainable products; they have been associated with poor health and social outcomes and require finite environmental resources for their production … are responsible for significant diet-related energy, [and] greenhouse gas emissions.”

And, for all the lip service paid to “equity,” increasing consumption of processed foods will actually worsen economic inequalities, as it redirects money away from small farmers and independent homesteaders to transnational corporations that rely on underpaid workers.

Be Part of the Solution

Ultimately, the answer to food safety and food security lies not in a biotech-centered food system that is controlled from the top down, but rather in a decentralized system that connects communities with farmers who grow real food in sustainable ways and distribute that food locally.

Strategies that can get us there were covered in the Children’s Health Defense’s March 4, 2023, Attack on Food symposium (video above). Food Sovereignty was primarily covered in Session 3, which begins at three hours and 45 minutes.

For example, Dr. John Day and Beverly Johannson shared tips on how to grow your own food and preserve the food you grow. Other helpful strategies include buying food from local farmers and farmers markets, and creating independent food hubs that cut out the middlemen.

The final session of the symposium dealt with larger societal solutions to fight back against the war on food. U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie highlighted core vulnerabilities in the U.S. food supply, which fell apart during the pandemic when farmers had to euthanize animals because they couldn’t get them processed.

Four meatpackers control 85% of the meat that’s processed in the U.S. One of them is owned by China, one by Brazil and the other two are multinational corporations. Food prices are going up while farmers are going broke. In 2017, Massie introduced the Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption (PRIME) Act,²⁴ but the bill hasn’t moved since its introduction in the House.

The PRIME Act would allow farmers to sell meat processed at smaller slaughtering facilities and allow states to set their own meat processing standards, because small slaughterhouses do not have an inspector on staff — a requirement that only large facilities can easily fulfill — they’re banned from selling their meat. The PRIME Act would lift this regulation without sacrificing safety, as random USDA inspections could still occur.

“If a farmer wants to sell pork, beef or lamb to a consumer, as long as that consumer and that farmer and that processor are all in the same state, they’re not crossing state lines, they keep the federal government out of that transaction,” he said.

Massey has also introduced legislation to protect access to raw milk (HR 4835, the Interstate Milk Freedom Act of 2021²⁵).²⁶ The bill was introduced at the end of July 2021, as an amendment to the 2018 Farm bill. Contact your representatives and urge them to support these bills.

• ¹ White House Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology September 12, 2022
• ^2, 4 Bold Goals for US Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing March 2023
• ³ Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023
• ⁵ Food Dive March 23, 2023
• ⁶ Food Dive November 16, 2022
• ⁷ FDA Memo November 14, 2022
• ^8, 9 Food Dive March 21, 2023
• ^10, 12 Food standards Agency Hazards Identification Report November 2022
• ^11, 13 Food Safety News March 24, 2023
• ¹⁴ Food standards Agency Hazards Identification Report November 2022, Page 8
• ¹⁵ Friends of the Earth, From Lab to Fork, June 2018 (PDF)
• ¹⁶ Cell Metabolism, 2019; doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008
• ¹⁷ JAMA Internal Medicine February 11, 2019;179(4):490-498
• ¹⁸ BMJ February 14, 2018; 360
• ¹⁹ JAMA 2017;317(9):912-924
• ²⁰ BMJ, 2019;365:I1451
• ²¹ BMJ, 2019;365:l1949
• ^22, 23 Journal of Cleaner Production September 25, 2022; 368: 133155
• ²⁴ HR 2657 PRIME Act
• ²⁵ HR4835 Interstate Milk Freedom Act 2021
• ²⁶ Thomas Massie Press Release July 30, 2021

As much as 60 percent of the physical inputs into the entire global economy, the group found, “could, in principle, be produced biologically…” This means that not only will there be fake meat on the market, but also fake milk, fake fat, and pretty much fake everything.

“.. about one-third of these inputs are biological materials (wood or animals bred for food) and the remaining two-thirds are nonbiological (plastics or fuels) but could potentially be produced or substituted using biology,” McKinsey wrote in a report about the fake food industry.

Many of our readers are already well aware of companies like Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat, these being the two major players dominating the fake meat industry. Now, the world’s first fake fat, called “cultured oil,” has also been released.

Billionaire eugenicist Bill Gates also unveiled fake milk back in June 2020 while the world was distracted with covid, George Floyd, Black Lives Matter (BLM), and other manufactured crises. Gates launched the synthetic, laboratory-made “human” milk product for babies as a startup company under the ticker BIOMILQ.

“Using mammary epithelial cells placed in flasks with cell culture media, the cells grow and are placed in a bioreactor that the company says ‘recreates conditions similar to in the breast,’” The Defender reported about the product.

Beware of “precision fermentation,” a deceptive technology that’s NOT the same as traditional food fermentation

In order to trick as many people as possible into eating these lab-made chemical concoctions, those behind them are having to come up with tricky terminology that makes them sound more natural.

One popular industry buzzword currently being thrown around is “precision fermentation,” which piggybacks on the popularity of truly health-promoting natural fermentation.

“It’s a form of synthetic biology that’s been around for at least 20 years,” explains Dr. Joseph Mercola about precision fermentation and what it actually entails.

“It uses genetically engineered (GE) microorganisms, such as yeast and bacteria, that are fermented in brewery-style tanks under high-tech, pharmaceutical-grade sterile conditions. This is because these cultures are highly susceptible to contamination which would ruin the entire batch.”

“And, contamination can happen easily, so billions of dollars have been poured into this technology, which is using biological pathways that have never existed in nature before.”

In other words, much like Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines,” precision fermentation “foods” are entirely experimental. Nobody knows what they really do to the human body, but that does not matter when a potentially $3 trillion industry awaits.

“They’ve obliterated the precautionary principle, as the long-term outcomes are completely unknown, to produce fake meats, fake fats and fake milk,” Mercola warns about the greedy entities behind the fake food movement.

“But it’s all serving the underlying agenda, which is total control and world domination. There’s no easier way to achieve this than by taking control of the food supply … These fake, ultra-processed foods give the globalists unprecedented power and control over human health, and they’re using stealthy marketing techniques.”

Keep in mind that the food items these fake food products aim to replace are, in many cases, just as unhealthy. Mercola points to the seed oils commonly used in processed foods, which are health-destroying all on their own even without precision fermentation.

More related news can be found at FoodEvolution.news.

Sources for this article include:

• ChildrensHealthDefense.org
• NaturalNews.com
• NATURAL NEWS

• The Attack on Food Symposium brought together experts, including me, to discuss the pressing topic of food security and provide solutions at the individual and societal levels
• My presentation focused on the fake food agenda and synthetic foods, which are threatening human health and the environment
• Fake food is predicted to become a $3 trillion market; consulting firm McKinsey & Company predicted that 60% of all materials in the economy could be produced this way, including fake meat, fake milk and fake fat
• Be on the lookout for industry buzzwords like precision fermentation, a term the biotech industry is using to piggyback off the popularity of truly health-promoting natural fermentation
• Fake, ultraprocessed foods give the globalists unprecedented power and control over human health; the symposium goes into detail on how farmers, individuals and society can fight back

The food supply is under attack. Whether it be from technocrats waging a war against real food, regulations that threaten food sovereignty or the use of toxic chemicals, humans’ right to access unadulterated, healthy food is slipping away.

The Attack on Food Symposium, hosted by Dr. Meryl Nass and presented by Children’s Health Defense TV, brought together experts, including me, from a variety of disciplines to discuss the pressing topic of food security and provide solutions at the individual and societal levels. You can view the seven-hour event in its entirety above and my individual presentation below.

The Fake ‘Food as Medicine’ Agenda

Beginning at 3:30 in the video above, my presentation — “The Fake ‘Food as Medicine’ Agenda & Synthetic Foods” — focused on attacks on food and agriculture. There’s an impending crisis coming with The Great Reset, and food is going to be a real issue — even more so than it is now.

The globalists behind The Great Reset have long had a monopoly on food with their patented genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The primary purpose of GMOs was to facilitate the use of the toxic herbicide glyphosate,¹ which Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), presents in the next section of the symposium video. But to understand what’s coming, it’s important to understand the past.

The biotech industry used lobbying to ensure GMOs would be treated as substantially equivalent to real food, essentially bypassing the requirement to do safety testing before releasing them on the market. Their playbook is reminiscent of Big Tobacco’s tactics for a product that doesn’t harm you immediately but is detrimental gradually over time. An equally serious threat as GMOs has now emerged, however — synthetic food.

Fake food is predicted to become a $3 trillion market.² Sometimes referred to in industry jargon as “the bio revolution” or synbio (short for synthetic biology), consulting firm McKinsey & Company predicted that 60% of all materials in the economy could be produced this way, including fake meat, fake milk and fake fat. Their report noted:³

“As much as 60 percent of the physical inputs to the global economy could, in principle, be produced biologically — about one-third of these inputs are biological materials (wood or animals bred for food) and the remaining two-thirds are nonbiological (plastics or fuels) but could potentially be produced or substituted using biology.”

Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat are the major players in the fake meat marketplace. The first fake fat, Cultured Oil, has also been released. In June 2020, Bill Gates also announced startup company BIOMILQ, which is using biotechnology to create synthetic lab-made human milk for babies. Using mammary epithelial cells placed in flasks with cell culture media, the cells grow and are placed in a bioreactor that the company says “recreates conditions similar to in the breast.”⁴

Watch Out for ‘Precision Fermentation’

Fake food companies want you to believe their products are natural because they’re made with components of plants, even though nothing like them exists in nature. Be on the lookout for their industry buzzwords like precision fermentation, a term the biotech industry is using to piggyback off the popularity of truly health-promoting natural fermentation.

Precision fermentation, however, is nothing like its natural counterpart. It’s a form of synthetic biology that’s been around for at least 20 years. It uses genetically engineered microorganisms, such as yeast and bacteria, that are fermented in brewery-style tanks under high-tech, pharmaceutical grade sterile conditions. This is because these cultures are highly susceptible to contamination which would ruin the entire batch.

And, contamination can happen easily, so billions of dollars have been poured into this technology, which is using biological pathways that have never existed in nature before.

They’ve obliterated the precautionary principle, as the long-term outcomes are completely unknown, to produce fake meats, fake fats and fake milk. But it’s all serving the underlying agenda, which is total control and world domination. There’s no easier way to achieve this than by taking control of the food supply.

These fake, ultraprocessed foods give the globalists unprecedented power and control over human health, and they’re using stealthy marketing techniques. I was approached by Zero Acre Farms about their Cultured Oil, which they’re promoting to restaurants as an inexpensive alternative to seed oils.

Fake ‘Cultured Oil’ Isn’t Natural

Many know I’m passionate about raising awareness of seed oils’ devastating health effects, as they contain about 75% linoleic acid and are contributing to rising rates of chronic disease. This new Cultured Oil contains less than 1% linoleic acid, so it sounds great — except it’s made using precision fermentation.

The term has even fooled many experts in the health industry, who believe it’s safe and natural. Instead, it’s another form of deception, changing the meaning of some of the most basic words in our vocabulary, like fermentation.

The industry wants people to believe that products produced with precision fermentation are no different than other fermented foods, like kimchi and yogurt. But what they fail to disclose is that the most often used organism in precision fermentation is the common bacteria E. coli. The E. coli is likely creating any number of non-targeted metabolites that have completely unknown environmental consequences.

The waste products created by natural fermentation are nonhazardous and actually edible and beneficial in many cases. It also is compostable and not a biohazard. In contrast, the biowaste from GE synthetic biology fermentation products can’t go into a landfill.⁵

Because this has been going on for decades, the laws are already in place to allow these products to bypass any safety testing, as they’ve been labeled as biologically equivalent to real food. I recommend staying as far away from fake food as you can and focusing on foundational human nutrition. This is what will get us through The Great Reset.

The Global War on Food

Other speakers in the symposium included Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director for the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), who summed up the evidence that food from real farms is being replaced with fake food. From Haiti and Sri Lanka to Indonesia, Holland and Canada, “the story is the same.”⁶

Corporate interests with global trade prerogatives collaborate with government, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or World Bank, which offered debt relief in the form of grants or low-interest loans to countries collapsing economically during the pandemic, but with strings attached.

“They drive the family farmers off of their land and into the city,” Baden-Mayer said.⁷ Benjamin Dobson, who spoke about the history of incursions on small farms, noted that independent farmers and people who grow herbal medicines are a threat to a centralized economic system.⁸

Seneff shared how the use of chemicals like glyphosate is also threatening the future of food.⁹ The amount of glyphosate used annually in the U.S. is equivalent to 1 pound for every man, woman and child, she said. It’s the most used herbicide on the planet.

While it’s common on GMOs, she pointed out that the highest residues are showing up in non-GMO foods such as wheat, oats, barley and rye, because it’s used as a desiccant, or drying agent, on these crops right before harvest. Glyphosate inhibits the shikimate pathway, which is involved in the synthesis of the essential aromatic amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan.¹⁰

Seneff used Florida manatees as an example of glyphosate’s toxicity. The chemical is ubiquitous in the state’s waterways, particularly during the sugar cane harvest. Manatees have increased body burdens of glyphosate and have become sick, plus they’re starving because seagrass is dying off in the waterways’ disturbed ecosystems.¹¹

Solutions for Farmers

Session 2, which begins around 2:40 in the full-length video, offers solutions for farmers. Ronnie Cummins, OCA cofounder and director, noted that among the world’s small farmers, fewer than 1% are certified organic. However, there are 60 million small and medium farms that could become certified organic if it weren’t for all the regulatory hurdles in place.¹²

“If you look at the amount of farmland and the amount of food that these people are producing, it’s substantial. The global food market is about $10 trillion, but it’s estimated that a good $1.5 trillion of that is being produced in an organic or nearly organic manner,” he says.¹³ Since many organic farmers are able to find and flourish with local markets, this is one strategy to keep afloat.

Meanwhile, food sovereignty naturally leads to complete ecosystems that support human and planetary health, according to Mark Fulford, an independent farmer and farm consultant.¹⁴ He advocates for independent food hubs, which cut out the middle man, and using strategies like reading the landscape, using fungal or bacterial composts and embracing bees and other pollinators.

Gardening — A Solution for Individuals

You can take action on an individual level by building your own food security safety net. Starting a garden and learning some basic food production skills is essential and discussed in Session 3, at 4:10 in the full-length video.

Dr. John Day shares how to prepare a kitchen garden that’s as close to your kitchen as possible. He recommends choosing a spot that’s at least 400 square feet and 20 feet away from trees, because their roots will take the water from your garden. Southern exposure is ideal to get adequate light for your plants. “During hard times, and for food security, having your own vegetable garden and already knowing how to work it is really helpful.”¹⁵

Beverly Johannson, another gardener, advocates for no-dig gardening, another strategy you can use to grow vegetables. When you till the land, it stimulates the earth to initiate repairs, which it does by increasing weed growth. Tilling also destroys vital microbes and fungal mycelium, which helps to mobilize nutrients in the soil. With a no-dig garden, you’ll experience fewer weeds, higher yields and healthier plants, with less watering.¹⁶

She points out that storage is a key element of gardening, as you’ll want produce not only during the growing season but during the winter as well. Johannson has a root cellar where potatoes and other root vegetables are stored and another area for winter squash and onions, so she has access to fresh food year-round.

Protecting Food as a Society

The final session deals with societal solutions to fight back against the war on food. U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie highlighted the vulnerabilities in the U.S. food supply, which fell apart during the pandemic when farmers had to euthanize animals because they couldn’t get them processed.¹⁷

Four meatpackers control 85% of the meat that’s processed in the U.S. One of them is owned by China, one by Brazil and the other two are multinational corporations. Food prices are going up while farmers are going broke. Massie introduced the Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption (PRIME) Act, which would allow farmers to sell meat processed at smaller slaughtering facilities and allow states to set their own meat processing standards.

Because small slaughterhouses do not have an inspector on staff — a requirement that only large facilities can easily fulfill — they’re banned from selling their meat. The PRIME Act would lift this regulation without sacrificing safety, as random USDA inspections could still occur.¹⁸

“If a farmer wants to sell pork, beef or lamb to a consumer, as long as that consumer and that farmer and that processor are all in the same state, they’re not crossing state lines, they keep the federal government out of that transaction,” he says.¹⁹ He’s also introduced legislation to protect access to raw milk, which he calls fresh milk.

Ultimately, the answer to food safety and security lies in a decentralized food system that connects communities with farmers growing real food sustainably and distributing it locally.

• ¹ The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 2:03
• ² The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 2:04
• ³ McKinsey & Company, The Bio Revolution May 13, 2020
• ⁴ BIOMILQ, Our Science
• ⁵ The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 2:11
• ^6, 7, 8 The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 2:16
• ⁹ The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 2:22
• ¹⁰ Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry January 2015, 15(3):121-159
• ¹¹ The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 2:36
• ^12, 13 The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 2:55
• ¹⁴ The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 3:44
• ¹⁵ The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 4:44
• ¹⁶ The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 5:00
• ¹⁷ The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 6:14
• ¹⁸ Human Events May 6, 2020
• ¹⁹ The Attack on Food Symposium March 4, 2023, 6:17