(Mercola)—I’ve long warned about the dangers genetically modified organisms (GMOs) pose to human health and the environment, including the possibility of introducing new allergens into the food supply, decreasing biodiversity and increasing reliance on pesticides. Even more troubling is that the long-term health impacts of consuming GMOs remain largely unknown.

Despite these uncertainties, the biotechnology industry and Big Ag continue to push for widespread adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops, often downplaying their risks in favor of touted benefits. Now, a new threat looms over our food supply, as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently approved the first-ever cultivation of genetically modified wheat in the U.S.¹

While proponents described this decision as a “milestone” for the country’s agriculture, it has sparked strong opposition from scientists, environmental organizations and consumer advocates, who argue that this move prioritizes corporate interests at the expense of public health and environmental protection.²

USDA Gives Green Light to Controversial GM Wheat

The world’s first genetically modified wheat, HB4, was developed by the Argentine company Bioceres in collaboration with the French seed company Florimond Desprez. This strain is engineered to be drought-tolerant, and Bioceres claims it’s the only genetically modified wheat variety in the world with such technology.³

HB4 wheat is marketed as a solution to food security challenges, especially in drought-prone regions, where it claims to increase yields and reduce production costs for farmers. However, its cultivation relies heavily on the herbicide glufosinate ammonium, for which it has been engineered for increased tolerance. This chemical has been banned in several countries, including those in the European Union, due to its known health and environmental effects.⁴

The United States, one of the largest wheat producers in the world,⁵ is the fourth country to permit the production of HB4 wheat, along with Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay.⁶ While the USDA has concluded that HB4 can be safely grown and bred in the U.S. without posing significant risks to agriculture or the environment,⁷ consumer advocacy groups have pointed out that these claims are unfounded.

According to a report by Sustainable Pulse,⁸ there are several compelling reasons to question the safety and efficacy of GM wheat. First, there is no publicly available evidence demonstrating its safety for human health or the environment. The studies conducted by Bioceres are confidential, preventing independent scientists and the public from accessing or scrutinizing these findings.

Moreover, despite claims that HB4 wheat is drought-resistant, there are no independent studies to support this. In fact, Sustainable Pulse notes that available research indicates that this GM variety is less productive than conventional wheat, which means that its drawbacks could outweigh its purported benefits.

Argentina Has Become a Testing Ground for GM Wheat

While citizens in Argentina have the right to elect their leaders, they lack the ability to choose non-GMO food options because there is no labeling for genetically modified (GM) products. This allows a select group of individuals in influential positions within the government and scientific communities to make decisions that effectively force the entire population to consume GM products, leaving them with no alternative choices.

Since its approval in 2020, HB4 wheat has been widely cultivated across Argentina. Bioceres reported that by 2021, approximately 55,000 hectares of GM wheat had been harvested in the country.⁹ In the same year, the first shipment of flour made with GM wheat was exported to Brazil, the main export market for Argentinean wheat production.¹⁰

However, the process behind the approval and cultivation of GMOs in Argentina has been questionable. Sustainable Pulse’s report¹¹ points out that Argentina’s National Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology (CONABIA), which oversees GM approvals, is heavily influenced by the very corporations that produce GMOs.

This revolving door between government and corporate interests creates a conflict of interest, where those seeking approval are also involved in the decision-making process. Argentina’s National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) has ties with Bioceres as well, with its senior researcher, Raquel Chan, being involved in the development of GM wheat.

The lack of independent oversight is further compounded by the Argentine government’s reliance on confidential studies from these companies, with no independent research conducted to validate their findings. This has raised alarms in over a thousand scientists affiliated with CONICET and public universities, who have denounced the risks associated with GM wheat and its derivatives.

Widespread Opposition and Concerns Over GM Wheat Approval

There is a strong consensus against GM wheat among Argentinian farmers, indigenous groups and socio-environmental organizations.¹² The campaign “Con nuestro pan, no!” (which translates to “Not our bread!”) emphasizes that GM wheat is not a solution to hunger but rather a means to enhance the profits of the agro-industrial sector.¹³

The coalition also points out that Argentina’s experience with GM soy has yielded no tangible benefits for the public, questioning how GM wheat would be any different. Organizations across Latin America, Africa and Asia have also raised alarms about the dangers of GM wheat.¹⁴ Sustainable Pulse reported:¹⁵

“In a detailed 14-page document, social movements, peasants and indigenous people requested the intervention of United Nations (UN) special rapporteurs because of the risks to food, health and the environment posed by Bioceres’ GMO.

They confirmed that there are no independent studies confirming its harmlessness, denounced the dangerous herbicide glufosinate ammonium and also pointed out that it is less productive than conventional wheat.”

The small international nonprofit organization GRAIN has also voiced its opposition, condemning the irregular approval process for GM wheat in Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay, which, as stated, was based solely on studies provided by the manufacturer and confidential documentation.¹⁶

Health and Environmental Impacts of Glufosinate Ammonium

Glufosinate ammonium, the broad-spectrum herbicide used in the cultivation of HB4 wheat, works by inhibiting glutamine synthetase, an enzyme vital to plant growth.¹⁷ However, its impact is not limited to plants. The herbicide is classified as a neurotoxin, and long-term exposure has been linked to a variety of health issues in humans, including developmental, neurological and reproductive effects.¹⁸

Animal studies have shown that it interferes with the normal functioning of the nervous system¹⁹ and, in fetuses and infants exposed prenatally and perinatally, it has been linked to poor gut health,²⁰ behavioral abnormalities and motor function problems.²¹ This makes pregnant women and children particularly vulnerable to its harmful effects.

Beyond human health, the herbicide also poses significant risks to the environment. It contaminates soil and water sources, affecting non-target species. Aquatic organisms are especially susceptible, as runoff from fields treated with glufosinate pollutes nearby water bodies.^22,23 Despite these concerns, glufosinate ammonium continues to be used in the U.S. for controlling weeds.

The situation is further complicated by the increasing weed resistance to herbicides like glufosinate. As resistance grows, higher quantities of the herbicide are required for cultivation, exacerbating its health and environmental risks. This vicious cycle raises important questions about the sustainability of introducing yet another herbicide-reliant crop into U.S. agriculture.

Steer Clear of GMOs to Protect Your Health

Given these concerns, many health-conscious consumers are seeking ways to minimize exposure to GMOs and associated herbicides. The most effective approach is to make strategic changes to your diet. By prioritizing non-GMO, free-range and organic foods, you will significantly reduce your exposure to these harmful chemicals.

It’s important to be aware of common GMOs lurking in many processed foods without your knowledge. These include corn (often found in processed foods such as cornmeal, corn syrup, corn starch, corn flour, etc.), soy (which is sometimes listed as lecithin or starch, among others), canola and potato. By avoiding processed foods, you also reduce your intake of some of the most common inflammatory ingredients, including gluten, processed sugar and linoleic acid.

Additionally, it’s important to keep in mind that GMOs and pesticides also enter your diet through animal products. Many animals in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are fed herbicide-resistant GE grains like corn and soy. This is one of several good reasons for making sure your meats come from organically raised, grass fed animals.

A Guide to Choosing Organic Food

For a product to be labeled as organic, it must be free from genetic engineering and grown without synthetic pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers.²⁴ Not all organic labels are the same, though. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) outlines four key classifications for consumers to be aware of:²⁵

• 100% organic — Products that have this label must be made with 100% certified organic ingredients. These items can display the USDA organic seal and make the “100% organic” claim.
• Organic — For a product to simply be labeled “organic,” at least 95% of its ingredients must be certified organic, with up to 5% nonorganic ingredients allowed, as long as they are listed on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances.
• “Made with” organic ingredients — These items must contain at least 70% certified organic ingredients but cannot display the USDA organic seal or represent the entire product as organic.
• Specific organic ingredients — Products with less than 70% organic content cannot carry the organic seal or use the word “organic” on the packaging. However, certified organic ingredients can still be listed on the product’s ingredient panel.

Knowing these labels is just the first step. As the demand for organic products increases, some companies have tried to mislead consumers by falsely labeling conventionally grown products as “organic.” From 2020 to 2023, several farmers faced legal consequences for selling nonorganic produce as organic, with one case involving a staggering $71 million in fraud.²⁶

To protect yourself, it’s essential to be a vigilant consumer. Look beyond the label and research the sources of your organic products. The best way to find organic, chemical-free produce is to visit the farmers themselves. Shopping at farmers markets and talking directly to vendors provide valuable insights into their farming practices. Many of these small-scale operations prioritize sustainable methods and try their best to limit chemical use.

Additionally, consider joining a community-supported agriculture (CSA) program.²⁷ This subscription service allows you to receive regular deliveries of fresh produce from local farms that utilize sustainable agricultural practices. Some CSA farmers also offer educational programs to deepen your understanding of sustainable agriculture.

If you can’t join a CSA, the EWG’s “Dirty Dozen” list²⁸ will guide your shopping. This regularly updated list highlights the 12 fruits and vegetables most likely to be contaminated with pesticides, helping you make informed choices. Lastly, consider growing your own food using sustainable methods. By doing so, you’ll be able to ensure your food is as safe and chemical-free as possible.

Resources for Organic, Chemical-Free Produce

If you live in a dense, urban location in the U.S. that doesn’t have any local farmers markets, don’t worry. There are plenty of ways to connect with reputable organic farmers who employ regenerative agricultural practices so you will still be able to purchase their products. Below is a list of websites I recommend:

• American Grassfed Association — The goal of the American Grassfed Association (AGA) is to promote the grass fed industry through government relations, research, concept marketing and public education.

Their website also allows you to search for AGA-approved producers certified according to strict standards that include being raised on a diet of 100% forage; raised on pasture and never confined to a feedlot; never treated with antibiotics or hormones; born and raised on American family farms.

• EatWild.com — EatWild.com provides lists of farmers known to produce raw dairy products as well as grass fed beef and other farm-fresh produce (although not all are certified organic). Here you will also find information about local farmers markets, as well as local stores and restaurants that sell grass fed products.
• Weston A. Price Foundation — Weston A. Price has local chapters in most states, and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase organic foods, including grass fed raw dairy products like milk and butter.
• Grassfed Exchange — The Grassfed Exchange has a listing of producers selling organic and grass fed meats across the U.S.
• Local Harvest — This website will help you find farmers markets, family farms and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass fed meats and many other goodies.
• Farmers Markets — A national listing of farmers markets.
• Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals — The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, hotels and online outlets in the U.S. and Canada.
• Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) — CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
• The Cornucopia Institute — The Cornucopia Institute maintains web-based tools rating all certified organic brands of eggs, dairy products and other commodities, based on their ethical sourcing and authentic farming practices separating CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation) “organic” production from authentic organic practices.
• RealMilk.com — If you’re still unsure of where to find raw milk, check out Raw-Milk-Facts.com and RealMilk.com. They will tell you what the status is for legality in your state, and provide a listing of raw dairy farms in your area. The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws.²⁹ California residents can also find raw milk retailers using the store locator available at RAW FARM.³⁰
• ^1, 7 USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS Issues Regulatory Status Review Responses: University of Florida and Bioceres Crop Solutions
• ^{2, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15} Sustainable Pulse, September 24, 2024
• ³ ISAAA Inc., October 14, 2020
• ⁴ Official Journal of the European Union, May 15, 2020
• ⁵ AgMRC, Wheat
• ⁶ ISAAA Inc., HB4 Wheat
• ⁹ Bioceres Crop Solutions, November 11, 2021
• ¹⁰ USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, December 8, 2023
• ¹³ Biodiversity Alliance, ¡Con nuestro pan NO!
• ¹⁶ GRAIN, January 30, 2024
• ¹⁷ Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Glufosinate Herbicide
• ¹⁸ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Glufosinate (PDF)
• ¹⁹ NeuroToxicology Volume 69, December 2018, Pages 152-163
• ²⁰ J Hazard Mater. 2020 May 5:389:122152
• ²¹ Sci Rep. 2020 Nov 26;10(1):20647 (PDF)
• ²² Science of The Total Environment Volume 769, 15 May 2021, 144396
• ²³ Environmental Pollution Volume 296, 1 March 2022, 118742
• ²⁴ USDA, Organic 101: Can GMOs Be Used in Organic Products?
• ²⁵ USDA, Understanding the USDA Organic Label
• ²⁶ The Organic & Non-GMO Report, September 7, 2023
• ²⁷ GoodFoodCo., What Is CSA?
• ²⁸ EWG, Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce
• ²⁹ The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, State by State Review of Raw Milk Laws
• ³⁰ Raw Farm, Find Raw Dairy Products Near You

The economy ranks as the most important of 22 issues that U.S. registered voters say will influence their choice for president. It is the only issue on which a majority of voters, 52%, say the candidates’ positions on it are an “extremely important” influence on their vote. Another 38% of voters rate the economy as “very important,” which means the issue could be a significant factor to nine in 10 voters.

Voters view Donald Trump as better able than Kamala Harris to handle the economy, 54% versus 45%. Trump also has an edge on perceptions of his handling of immigration (+9 percentage points) and foreign affairs (+5), while Harris is seen as better on climate change (+26), abortion (+16) and healthcare (+10). The candidates are evenly matched on voters’ impressions of who would better address gun policy.

Countless other surveys have told us the same thing.

The American people remember what life was like before the pandemic, and they desperately want to have that back.

In particular, U.S. voters have become deeply frustrated with the cost of living…

“It’s inflation, stupid!” wrote Bernard Yaros, U.S. lead economist at Oxford Economics, in an October 24 report, borrowing from political strategist James Carville’s famous coinage. “Inflation is the foremost issue voters are concerned about, and how it is perceived will determine the election.”

The Biden administration is being blamed for this inflation crisis, and that is going to cost Kamala Harris millions upon millions of votes.

At this moment, demand at food banks is off the charts in many of the key swing states that Harris desperately needs to win.

In Pennsylvania, we are being told that demand “is actually as high as it was at the peak of the pandemic”…

Joe Arthur, who runs the Central Pennsylvania Food Bank, told NBC News the current problem is “a hunger crisis.”

“The need that we’re seeing in our localities is actually as high as it was at the peak of the pandemic, yet there are less resources for those families today.”

At one food bank in Michigan, demand is actually “significantly higher” than it was during the pandemic…

One truck can carry enough food for up to 600 households, but some days even that isn’t enough to meet the demand, which has gone up by 18% over the past 12 months, said Ken Estelle, president of Feeding America West Michigan.

“We have never seen this level of need in the 43 years we have been serving this community. It is significantly higher than during Covid and has pressed us beyond our capacity,” said Estelle. “We’ve just seen this drumbeat increase every month of more people and more people.”

And at one food bank in Wisconsin, demand has more than doubled since 2022…

In the relatively affluent Milwaukee suburbs of Waukesha County, Wisconsin, Rochelle Gamauf said each week she is seeing new faces at her food pantry, Friends With Food, which she started during the pandemic.

The organization has gone from giving out around 420,000 pounds of food in 2022 to over a million pounds in 2023. On a recent week in September, nearly 400 families came through the door, 48 of whom were coming for the first time — a 50% increase in new families compared to last year, she said.

This is the biggest reason why Donald Trump is leading in the polls in all three states.

A lot of the people that are going to these food banks actually have jobs. But they aren’t earning enough to keep up with the rapidly rising cost of living.

If you go to the grocery store and you completely fill up your cart with food, it is going to cost you hundreds of dollars. 25 years ago, I could fill up an entire grocery cart for less than 50 bucks.

Inflation is a hidden tax on all of us, and it is suffocating millions upon millions of households all over the country.

Of course the Biden administration insists that everything is just fine.

For months, the government has been releasing numbers that look great initially, but later they are revised dramatically lower.

Let me give you an example.  Last month we were told that job openings were rising, but now we have learned that they are actually plunging…

Last month, when Kamala Harris still had some chance of winning the election, we were not surprised to learn that according to the extremely political Bureau of Labor Statistics, in August the number of job openings unexpectedly soared from an upward revised 7.7 million to 8.040 million, which was not only a 3-sigma beat to expectations, but was also above the highest Wall Street forecast. Fast forward to today, when Kamala’s chance of winning are effectively zero – as even the suddenly apolitical Jeff Bezos now admits – and shockingly moments ago the BLS reported that in September, the number of job openings  plunged from over 8 million to just 7.4 million, the lowest since early 2021…

This kind of thing has been happening over and over again.

The American people are sick and tired of being fed fake numbers when they can see that economic conditions are clearly deteriorating all around them.

Our standard of living has been steadily declining for years, and most Americans are just barely scraping by at this point.

I am entirely convinced that most of the experts will be completely shocked by the outcome of this election, and our imploding economy will be the number one reason why so many unexpected voters come out of the woodwork.

Michael’s new book entitled “Why” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

While the USDA had previously given the green light for salmon to be vaccinated with the latest mRNA (modRNA) chemicals, this newest scheme is even worse in that it allows even more questionable pharmaceutical chemicals to be administered to animals that people consume as food.

“… the deadly mRNA poison vaccines weren’t enough for the Biden Harris administration,” Renz notes. “They and their big pharma partners are now licensing DNA vaccines for use in our foods.”

Renz shared screenshots from two documents showing that these DNA vaccines not only exist – and the world was not told about them until now – but are already licensed and being used in the U.S. food supply, unbeknownst to most of the country.

“Our food supply is simply NOT safe,” Renz warns.

BREAKING: The USDA is now licensing DNA vaccines in our food!@catsscareme2021 is correct they are vaccinating salmon but what you may not know is that the deadly mRNA poison vaccines weren’t enough for the Biden Harris administration. They and their big pharma partners are now… https://t.co/xF252nZPD5 pic.twitter.com/uvndKC9nBw

— Tom Renz (@RenzTom) October 29, 2024

Check out the following video to see what the salmon industry is already doing to the sea-based food supply:

Would you like some Salmon with your vaccines? I'll pass. pic.twitter.com/t49MA2nkum

— Jessica Rojas (@catsscareme2021) October 28, 2024

(Related: Be sure to also check out our earlier report about how RNA and DNA contamination of the food supply is already much worse than most people realize.)

Beware GMO salmon

Renz’s bombshell so upset Rainmaking CEO Kim Greenhouse (@Rainmaking) that she called on X / Twitter for the USDA to be “charged with crimes, including the FDA.”

“GOD HELP US,” she added in desperation.

Another echoed the sentiment that the USDA – or at least the people running the thing – needs to be taken down as soon as possible because “this is our last chance” to save the country.

“RFK Jr. can’t come on board fast enough as Food Health Czar,” wrote another, desperate for Donald Trump to win reelection and appoint Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the lead guy for cleaning up the nation’s food supply.

The same person who celebrated RFK Jr.’s potential recalled how during a recent trip to the grocery store, she noticed what she described as “an unusually large supply of salmon on sale.”

“Typically it’s so high priced the store doesn’t stock much,” she continued. “Now I know why mass quantities are available at affordable prices.”

It is clear, wrote another, that the powers that be (TPTB) really want to lower the average lifespan to keep their human herd in check.

“It’s time to raise our own food,” wrote another about a possible solution to America’s highly polluted food supply. “Either alone or in communities.”

“I’m not eating poison or having it put in my body by a vax. I’ll raise my own thank you. Or support small organic local farms. Anything but swallow whatever the global elites want us to swallow. Don’t go along. Demand testing of our food. Raise your own. Go to small farms or on line small co-ops. Anything but taking the govt poison.”

Another agreed, noting that this is why TPTB are starting to go so aggressively against small farmers “so that we do not have a choice.”

“They are even passing laws for backyard chickens to be vaccinated,” this person added. “Some places are making it illegal to sell local products to people.”

More related news about how Big Pharma is deliberately poisoning America’s food supply with all sorts of experimental chemical concoctions can be found at Frankenfood.news.

Sources for this article include:

• X.com
• NaturalNews.com

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

During their interview at SiriusXM’s “Megyn Kelly Show,” author and blogger Vani Hari and investigative journalist and filmmaker Grace Price appealed to American food makers to produce foods with the same healthier ingredients the companies use in identical products they sell in other countries.

“We have an opportunity right now to let the American public know about unsafe ingredients in foods sold in the U.S.,” Hari said during the interview. “We are under a massive experiment. If any other country was doing this to us, it would be considered an act of war … We’ve got to do something about it.”

“Right now, American food companies are using toxic ingredients that [in other countries] are either banned or regulated differently, in the same products that they serve American citizens,” Hari added.

According to her, McDonald’s French fries contain 11 ingredients in the U.S., but only three in other countries. Skittles also uses 10 different artificial food dyes in the U.S., as well as titanium dioxide, which is “banned in Europe because it can cause DNA damage.”

Hari also noted that Kellogg’s pledge in 2015 to remove artificial food dyes from its cereal products by 2018 didn’t materialize. She lambasted the food company for lying about it and for creating new cereals that were targeting the smallest of children. She added that they even used popular toddler songs like “Baby Shark” and Disney’s “Little Mermaid” to attract younger consumers.

The nutrition advocates blamed the U.S. government for “negligent” food regulations.

“Almost every single major American food company is doing this because they’re using the lack of regulation in our U.S. food system to their advantage,” Hari further lamented, recalling that in 1958, there were only 800 food additives approved for use. Now, the U.S. has approved more than 10,000, while the European Union has only approved less than 400.

She singled out the Food and Drug Administration for not reviewing thousands of chemicals.

“They’ve been literally just slid right into the food system without anybody knowing what the risks are, what the safety data looks like,” Hari said

She also blamed these additives for the skyrocketing figures of diseases, including cancer. For example, she said, the neon food coloring in Froot Loops cereal is “contributing to obesity.” Hari also cited the dangers of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the widely used herbicide Roundup produced by Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, which has been linked to human health risks.

“It’s pervasive, and unfortunately, it’s making its way into every single thing we eat,” Hari said. “It’s in wheat, it’s in oats, you’re finding it in all major products, like Cheerios.”

Studies indicate that glyphosate has been implicated in causing non-Hodgkin lymphoma, bladder cancer, autoimmune disorders, leaky gut and fertility issues. (Related: Avoid harmful chemicals like glyphosate in food by ALWAYS choosing ORGANIC.)

It’s not too late for manufacturers to promote use of non-toxic ingredients in food

For the two advocates, it is still possible for U.S. food manufacturers to promote the use of non-toxic ingredients in food.

In fact, Hari launched a petition asking Kellogg’s to finally remove artificial food dyes. “I think a lot of lobbying behind the scenes and a lot of front groups behind the scenes, were doing that work,” Hari said. “This is not the nanny state. This isn’t asking for more regulations. This is, ‘You’re already doing this across the pond. Do it for us.'”

Price, meanwhile, urged parents to resist the temptation to buy highly marketed foods targeting children.

“You’ve got to start by giving them something real, because kids – if they’ve been fed all of these crappy ultra-processed foods their whole lives, they don’t desire anything real because that’s what they think food is,” Price said.

According to Price, there is an “ideological dogma” that chronic diseases “are genetic and random and out of our control.” That line of thinking “is sending a message that your health is out of your control, but is in your doctor’s hands,” she said.

Visit FoodScience.news for more stories like this. Watch the video below that talks about how not all healthy food sold in the market is healthy.

This video is from the 100% Clean Food Lifestyle channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

• ABSURD: Age-old Big Food shills at TIME MAGAZINE now trying to flip the script on processed foods.
• Big Food, Big Pharma responsible for creating DANGEROUS U.S. dietary guidelines that actually HARM people.
• Top 6 TRICK PHRASES Big Food and Big Pharma use to sell you toxic products.
• Big Food, Big Pharma colluding to keep Americans DIABETIC and OBESE to maximize profits.

Sources include:

• ChildrensHealthDefense.org
• FoodWatch.org
• Brighteon.com

• In my interview with Calley Means, co-author of the book “Good Energy,” we discuss how tobacco companies bought major food companies in the 1980s, applying addictive strategies to food production and influencing nutritional guidelines, leading to a surge in chronic diseases
• The 1910 Flexner Report, funded by Rockefeller, reshaped medical education, emphasizing pharmaceutical interventions and marginalizing holistic approaches, setting the stage for modern health care’s limitations
• Corruption in health institutions, including conflicts of interest in research funding and guideline committees, perpetuates misguided health advice and hinders effective chronic disease management
• Reforming the health system requires removing conflicts of interest from advisory committees, restructuring financial incentives and empowering patients through grassroots advocacy and education
• A multi-pronged approach to health care transformation is necessary, including individual empowerment, new wellness-focused business models and policy changes to address the chronic disease epidemic

(Mercola)—I recently had the pleasure of interviewing Calley Means, co-author of the book “Good Energy” and a policy advisor to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Our conversation uncovered some shocking truths about the origins of our modern food system and the dire health consequences we’re facing as a result.

However, Means’ insights into the corruption of our health institutions and his ideas for reform leave room for much optimism about the future of health in America.

The Tobacco Industry’s Secret Takeover of Our Food Supply

The tobacco industry’s covert influence on our food system is responsible for many of the processed foods that line grocery store shelves today. As Means explained:¹

“In the 1980s when you looked at the most valuable companies in the world — now it’s Microsoft and Amazon and Google — it was Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds back then. These were two of the largest companies in the world and they had the largest cash piles, the largest balance sheet of any company in human history because smoking was such a profitable business.”

As smoking rates began to decline due to public health warnings, these tobacco giants made a calculated move. With their core business under threat, these tobacco giants used their massive cash reserves to buy up major food companies:²

“They had big piles of cash, cigarette smoking was clearly going to decline, what do they do with that cash? They bought food companies. So, we think about the 1980s as the age of Wall Street, M&A [mergers and acquisitions], Gordon Gekko. When you look at the biggest deals and the biggest Wall Street transactions in the 1980s, the two largest were cigarette companies buying food companies.”

The implications of this shift were profound:³

“By 1990, the two largest food companies in the world were R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris. The book ‘Barbarians at the Gate,’ which is the preeminent book on the M&A deals of the 1980s, was about R.J. Reynolds buying Nabisco. And then you had Philip Morris buying Kraft, US Foods, some of the largest transactions in U.S. history.”

Making Food Addictive: The Cigarette Company Playbook

What happened next was a deliberate effort to apply tobacco industry tactics to food production:⁴

“So, what the cigarette companies did very intentionally is they shifted two departments over, they shifted their scientists over to make food more addictive. And this is an amazing situation, right? And this is documented. This is very clear what they were trying to do.

They’re going from cigarettes, which is becoming a stigmatized industry where it’s not allowed for kids, to something every single American needs — to eat starting basically at birth.”

To push their new addictive foods, the industry employed the same lobbying tactics that had kept tobacco “safe” for decades. They funded biased research from prestigious institutions like Harvard to claim sugar doesn’t cause obesity. But this wasn’t just about changing recipes.

The tobacco industry’s influence extended to shaping nutritional guidelines. This junk science was then used to create the infamous USDA food pyramid, which Means called “the most deadly document in American history.” The goal was clear: “And just as any drug provider, the business is getting people hooked, getting them hooked early, getting them hooked for a long period of time.”⁵

The Health Consequences of a Corrupted Food System

The impact of these changes on public health has been devastating. As Means pointed out:⁶

“Cancer rates actually exploded since the 1980s dramatically. So, I joke, but I’m being somewhat serious, we’d be much healthier if the cigarette companies were back to making cigarettes.

It was actually a total disaster for the metric they were trying to solve with coming down on smoking — cancer rates. By letting the cigarette industry actually get to our food, cancer rates have absolutely just exploded along with every other chronic condition.”

This history has been largely obscured from public view. When I asked how they managed to hide their involvement, Means explained that while it has been reported on, the information hasn’t been widely disseminated. He learned about it through his work in public affairs, where they openly discussed using the “tobacco playbook” for food companies.

Beyond the personal toll, this epidemic of chronic disease is threatening the economic stability of our nation:⁷

“Health care costs are going up at an increasing rate today. They’re at 20% GDP, they’re growing double the rate GDP, health care costs. They’re the largest source of U.S. inflation. They’re going to be 40% GDP … just mathematically, if these trends don’t change, we will be a fat, infertile, sick, depressed and bankrupt population, if these trends aren’t reversed.”

The Flexner Report: How American Medicine Lost Its Way

Our discussion then turned to the historical roots of America’s dysfunctional medical system. I brought up the influential Flexner Report of 1910, which Means agreed was a pivotal moment:⁸

“John D. Rockefeller, and let’s be clear, maybe with some good intentions, the medicine was the Wild West, it wasn’t … I don’t want to get into his psyche, but I want to just say what happened. As he was a top funder of modern medical education, so Johns Hopkins was one of them, and he also was the father of the modern pharmaceutical industry from a lot of his byproducts from oil.”

The Flexner Report, commissioned by Rockefeller, fundamentally reshaped medical education in America and laid the foundations of the modern medical system, dubbed “Rockefeller medicine.” Rockefeller financed the campaign to consolidate mainstream medicine, adopt the philosophies of the growing pharmaceutical industry and shutter its competition.

Rockefeller’s crusade caused the closure of more than half of U.S. medical schools, fostered public and press scorn for homeopathy, osteopathy, chiropractic, nutritional, holistic, functional, integrative and natural medicines, and led to the incarceration of many practicing physicians. It emphasized a reductionist approach that siloed different conditions and focused on pharmaceutical interventions. As Means explained:⁹

“That report said anything about nutrition, anything about holistic, is not serious science. Serious science is siloing a condition, naming it once somebody already got sick, and then drugging it or committing surgery. And then that has really infiltrated medical education.”

Biology didn’t change just because Rockefeller was pressured under monopoly threats from the U.S. government to advert from oil and shift into pharmaceuticals. Biology still remains the same and requires treating the causes of disease, which we in no way, shape or form do with our current medical paradigm.

Further, this paradigm shift left most physicians woefully unprepared to deal with the chronic disease epidemic plaguing the U.S. today. Our medical system excels at acute interventions but struggles to address the root causes of ongoing health issues. A key factor in perpetuating this crisis is the corruption of our health institutions, which leads to dangerously misguided health advice.

“The problem is that the majority of NIH [National Institutes of Health] grants go to conflicted researchers, that the FDA drug approval department is 75% funded by pharma, that the USDA Guideline Committee on Nutrition — 95% of the advisors are funded by food or pharma,” Means says, adding:¹⁰

“The American Diabetes Association, which accepts money from Coca-Cola, is dictating standards of care, saying that Type 2 diabetes is nonreversible and basically just a drug deficiency. It is not. It is reversible and we just need a correct accounting of why people are getting diabetes and how to potentially reverse it.”

Strategies to Transform American Health

Despite the dire situation, Means remains optimistic about our ability to turn things around. He outlined a strategy for transforming American health, including fixing corrupted medical guidelines. Ideally, the first step is to remove conflicts of interest from the bodies that set medical guidelines and research priorities. As Means put it:¹¹

“Within a week we can do this — make it that there cannot be conflicts on these key medical advisory committees. What happens then? We actually get a report on what glyphosate is doing to us, we actually get reports on standards of care and tell the American Diabetes Association to stop dictating completely corrupt guidelines.”

While Means encourages this top-down approach to reforming the system, it’s a challenge because these regulatory agencies have been taken over by the very industries they’re supposed to be regulating. This occurred decades ago, and it’s getting worse as time goes on. Lobbying efforts and new rules, legislation, is controlled.

It’s almost impossible in the current state to defeat this system, so the approach I’ve taken is to go from the bottom up — go to the people directly with solutions. Fortunately, technology is emerging that allows us to have the manpower, or at least the AI power, to help people understand what they need to do to achieve optimal health.

Part of Means’ plan also involves restructuring the financial incentives in health care. Currently, the system profits from keeping people sick and managing chronic conditions rather than preventing or reversing them.

The Power of Grassroots Action

He also emphasizes the need to educate and empower patients directly, which aligns closely with my own approach of providing people with actionable health information, and cleaning up our food supply. Means believes that with the right political will, significant changes could be made quickly:¹²

“The president tomorrow can sign an executive order saying that the USDA Nutrition Guideline Committee can’t take money from food companies. The president tomorrow can sign an executive order saying that NIH cannot go to researchers with conflicts of interest. Tomorrow the FDA can be disentangled from the pharmaceutical industry.”

While I’m skeptical about the ease of implementing such changes given the entrenched interests opposing them, the power of grassroots action remains. Means is working to build grassroots momentum through his nonprofit, EndChronicDisease.org:¹³

“We have thousands of people coming and taking action. You can sign up and email your congressperson and call them. These basics, that’s what pharma does.

When there’s a bill threatening pharma, they do this grassroots advocacy where they have a bunch of old people call members of Congress and say, ‘Don’t take my drugs away.’ That matters … As I meet with members of Congress I hear a lot, ‘Our phones aren’t ringing on this issue.’ So, we’re getting the phones ringing on this issue.”

Means is also taking concrete steps to improve the situation through his company TrueMed. They’re working within the current system to expand access to preventative health measures. This innovative approach allows people to use tax-advantaged health savings accounts to invest in their wellbeing proactively, rather than just paying for drugs and procedures after they get sick.

The Spiritual Dimension of Health

By making chronic disease a politically resonant issue, we can drive real change and create the political pressure needed to enact real reforms. However, a point that’s central to my philosophy is the connection between physical health and spiritual growth. When you’re truly healthy, you’re better able to connect with your intuition and fulfill your higher purpose. It’s difficult to do that when you’re not healthy.

Ultimately, it will take a multi-pronged approach to truly transform our health system — empowering individuals with information, developing new technologies and business models to support wellness, and pushing for policy changes at the highest levels.

If you’re inspired to get involved, I encourage you to check out Means’ work at TrueMed.com and EndChronicDisease.org. By adding your voice to this growing movement, we can build the momentum needed to create real, lasting change in U.S. health care.

Remember, your health is your most valuable asset. By taking control of your own well-being and advocating for systemic reforms, you’re not just improving your own life — you’re contributing to a healthier, more vibrant future for all.

• ^{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13} Brighteon, Mercola, How Big Tobacco Captured and Transformed the Food Industry for Worse — Interview with Calley Means

Health risks posed by GM foods

Some notable issues related to the consumption of GM foods and products include the following:

Allergic reactions

Genetic modifications can transfer allergens from one food to another. For instance, a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) revealed that soybeans engineered with a Brazil nut gene caused allergic reactions in people who are nut-sensitive. This led to the withdrawal of some products due to this serious risk. Without proper labeling, people with allergies can unknowingly consume these harmful ingredients.

New allergens

GM food and products might also introduce new allergens. The genetic changes can create novel proteins not previously in the human diet, potentially triggering allergic responses. Despite warnings from U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists about this risk, mandatory long-term testing for new allergens is not required, leaving many consumers, especially children, at risk of severe allergic reactions.

Antibiotic resistance

GM foods and products could potentially contribute to antibiotic resistance, making it harder to treat infections. According to the Food Standards Agency, most GM foods contain “antibiotic resistance markers,” which help identify successful genetic modifications. However, introducing these markers into the food supply might render essential antibiotics, like ampicillin, ineffective against bacterial infections. This concern led several European countries, including Britain, to ban certain GM crops for fear of the spread of antibiotic resistance. Despite warnings from scientists, the FDA has continued to allow these markers in GM foods even though public health experts view them as a significant threat.

Cancer risk

In 1993, the FDA approved the use of genetically engineered recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) to boost milk production in cows, assuring consumers of its safety. However, Canada and Europe later banned the treatment due to concerns about animal and human health. Research has shown that dairy from rBGH-treated cows has higher levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), a hormone linked to breast, colon and prostate cancers. While the FDA overlooked studies showing that IGF-1 can survive digestion and enter the bloodstream – increasing cancer risk – the American Cancer Society states there is no current evidence linking GMOs to cancer and more long-term research is needed.

Immunosuppression

A study published in The Lancet by Dr. Arpad Pusztai and Stanley W.B. Ewen, funded by the Scottish government, investigated the effects of GM potatoes containing the biopesticide Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) on rats. The research found that rats consuming these potatoes experienced negative impacts on their immune function, metabolism and organ development. Although the biotechnology industry criticized Pusztai’s work, they haven’t provided any studies to disprove his findings. Additionally, 22 leading scientists have supported the validity of animal tests linking GM foods to immuno-suppression.

Loss of nutrition

Genetic engineering can reduce the nutritional value of food. In 1992, FDA scientists warned that altering foods genetically might lead to “undesirable changes in nutrient levels.” They highlighted the risk that these changes could go unnoticed without specific testing. Despite these concerns, the FDA chose not to require mandatory testing for nutritional content in GM foods.

Toxicity

GM foods are unstable by nature. The process of inserting new genes into food is unpredictable, with no way to ensure the added genetic material doesn’t create harmful effects. This randomness means that each gene insertion could potentially turn safe food into something toxic.

FDA scientists were aware of this risk before setting their policy of no mandatory testing. They warned that genetic engineering could increase known toxins, introduce new ones, or cause foods to absorb more environmental toxins, like heavy metals and pesticides. Despite these warnings, the FDA chose to ignore the potential dangers and didn’t require toxicological testing for GM foods, prioritizing industry interests over food safety.

GMOs and their environmental impact

GMOs pose several environmental risks, including:

• Gene transfer outcrossing. There is a risk that genes from GMO crops could spread to wild plants and other crops, potentially creating unintended hybrids that could disrupt ecosystems.
• Impact on wildlife. Introducing GMOs into the environment can harm insects and other species. For example, dominant GMO species may outcompete and displace native species, upsetting the natural balance.
• Loss of biodiversity. The use of GM seeds, like Monsanto’s Roundup-resistant crops, can lead to reduced plant diversity. These GM seeds are designed to survive glyphosate, a pesticide that kills weeds but spares the crops. While this innovation saves farmers time and money by reducing the need for multiple pesticides, it also forces them to buy new seeds every year due to Monsanto’s patent rather than reusing seeds from previous harvests. (Related: GMOs linked to increased pesticide use and loss of biodiversity.)
• Introduction of GM organisms. Releasing GM animals, organisms or plants into the wild can further threaten biodiversity by allowing new, more dominant species to take over. This could lead to the decline or extinction of native species.

Tips to reduce GMO exposure

• Examine labels. While the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS) mandates labels for many GMO products, certain items, like GM animal products and refined ingredients (such as oils and sugars) are not required to be labeled. Instead of relying solely on these labels, look for the Non-GMO Project Verified seal, which ensures that the product has been certified GMO-free.
• Go organic. Opt for organic produce as organic farming regulations strictly ban the use of GMOs in animal feeds, crops and seeds. Choosing organic is a reliable way to avoid GMOs in your diet.
• Cook your meals. Preparing meals at home with organic ingredients allows you to reduce your exposure to GMOs, which are common in processed and restaurant foods.
• Support local farmers. Shopping at local farmers’ markets can help you avoid GMOs, as many small-scale farmers use traditional, non-GMO seeds. However, it is a good idea to ask farmers directly about their farming practices to ensure you’re buying GMO-free produce.
• Limit consumption of processed foods. Processed and ultra-processed foods often contain GMO-derived ingredients, like emulsifiers, oils and sweeteners. To minimize GMO intake, reduce your consumption of these foods which may not disclose their GMO content.
• Stay informed. Refer to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) bioengineered food list to identify foods that are likely to contain GMOs. This can help you to make informed choices at the grocery store or supermarket.

Visit GMO.news for more stories like this.

Watch the following video about “GMOs: Exposing industry and government lies about the safety of the genetically engineered foods you’re eating – Conspiracy Conversations.”

This video is from the Flyover Conservatives channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

• GMOs are harmful, should be avoided at all costs – study.
• GMOs are killing us: Facts you probably don’t know.
• Sneaky QR code labeling HIDES GMOs in food.

Sources include:

• CenterForFoodSafety.org
• NEJM.org
• ACNFP.Food.gov.uk
• Cancer.org
• NCBI.NLM,NIH.gov 1
• GMWatch.org
• NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov 2
• ProTerraFoundation.org
• Harbert.Auburn.edu
• Government.Nl
• NonGMOProject.org
• Brighteon.com

At least according to one registered dietitian nutritionist in Los Angeles, who recently took to Fox News to lay out the risks from ultra-processed foods in the American diet.

Ilana Muhlstein said on Fox news that America’s diet is 60% ultra-processed, but that kids consume even more than that.

“With children, it’s actually over 70%. That is really wild when you think about it,” she said. “What we eat defines how our cells work, how our organs work, and we’re seeing a strong decline in mental health and well-being.”

And a recent BMJ study found that 60% of Americans’ daily calories come from ultra-processed foods (UPFs), which are linked to 32 poor health outcomes, including mental, respiratory, cardiovascular, and metabolic issues like cancer, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, according to Fox.

Muhlstein added: “We’re actually seeing that this next generation might be the first generation to … have a shorter lifespan than their parents due to nutrition and lifestyle factors.”

A nutritious diet boosts children’s mental well-being, behavior, and academic performance, says Muhlstein, a nutritionist and instructor of “Raising Balanced Eaters.”

While cutting ultra-processed foods entirely is unrealistic, Muhlstein advocates for reversing the typical 70/30 ratio of processed to whole foods, recommending an “80/20 rule”—80% whole foods like eggs, fish, and vegetables, and 20% indulgent foods like chips and ice cream.

For healthier options, Muhlstein suggests swapping ketchup for marinara sauce on chicken nuggets and fries, opting for chicken strips over mechanically processed nuggets, and choosing hamburgers over nitrite-laden hot dogs. Each small change reduces the overall level of food processing.

The nutritionist warns that poor eating habits won’t resolve on their own and encourages exposing kids to diverse flavors and textures early on.

The Fox News report says that sitting down for family meals—without screens—can reduce the risk of eating disorders and promote a healthy relationship with food. Just three to five family meals a week can make a positive difference, fostering better eating habits and family connection.

One of the main organizers of the event – Calley Means – urged the Senate to rethink nutritional guidance and distrust almost every institution.

America’s institutions have lied to the public for decades, misleading people on nutrition, healing from chronic illness

Means, a former consultant for Big Food and Big Pharma, emphasized the need for skepticism regarding the advice offered by major institutions on nutrition and chronic diseases. “Life expectancy has not increased in the past century, and we spend 90 to 95% of all medical spending on chronic issues, yet outcomes remain stagnant,” Means stated.

Means highlighted alarming trends, noting, “Heart disease has risen with increased statin prescriptions. Type 2 diabetes has surged alongside metformin use, and ADHD diagnoses have also climbed as more Adderall is prescribed.” He further pointed out that rising rates of depression and suicide correlate with increased prescriptions of antidepressants, while opioid prescriptions have led to greater pain management challenges.

Means criticized the American food system, describing it as “weaponized” due to the influence of the processed food industry. He traced its origins back to the tobacco industry, stating that major cigarette companies strategically acquired food brands and applied their expertise in creating addictive products. “They moved addiction specialists into their food divisions, creating ultra-processed foods designed to be both palatable and addictive,” he explained. Food chemicals such as MSG are used to addict consumers to toxic food-like products that are void of nutrition. Consumers get accustomed to eating ultra-processed foods that do not provide their cells what’s necessary to carry out vital functions.

Means asserted that the standard American diet has not only contributed to public health crises but has also been financially beneficial for the healthcare industry, which profits from treating the chronic conditions stemming from poor nutrition. “The medical industry has been complicit in this issue, benefiting from the rise in chronic diseases,” Means added. It’s true: most of the new drugs manufactured today do not address the root cause of chronic disease. Many of the new drugs actually cause new health problems.

Ultra-processed, food-like items have replaced raw living foods and herbs that people need to thrive

Max Lugavere, a best-selling author and long-time advocate for nutritional awareness, echoed these sentiments. He warned that many items in grocery stores should not be considered food but rather “food-like items” that contribute to an obesity epidemic. “This isn’t just about willpower; it’s about our food system,” Lugavere asserted. He concluded with a poignant observation: “We are not simply living longer; we are dying longer, plagued by preventable illnesses.”

The discussions at the Senate roundtable were deeply distrustful of government guidelines like the USDA’s food pyramid, which ignores essential food groups such as herbs, seeds, roots, barks, berries, seaweeds and healthy fats, to name a few. As health education is dumbed down in school systems and in medical schools, there is growing concern about the effectiveness of current nutritional guidance and chronic disease management strategies. As chronic diseases surface, individuals are finding their own way out of these health struggles by researching and implementing holistic strategies that are dismissed by traditional allopathic doctors — most of which are not trained on nutrition and herbal medicine.

As the panelists called for a re-evaluation of institutional advice, they highlighted the urgent need for systemic change in America’s approach to health and nutrition. Food pantries are void of the raw, living foods, nutrient-dense superfoods, adaptogenic substances and medicinal herbs that can set people free from their chronic diseases.

Sources include:

• Lifesitenews.com
• Rumble.com
• DietaryGuidelines.gov [PDF]
• Naturalpedia.com

The round table, hosted by Senator Ron Johnson, was titled, American Health & Nutrition: A Second Opinion. Those who testified included: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Dr. Jordan Peterson, Calley Means, Dr. Chris Palmer, Dr. Marty Makary, Max Lugavere, Dr. Casey Means, Grace Price, Courtney Swan, Alex Clark, Jason Karp, Brigham Buhler, Mikhaila Fuller, Jillian Michaels, and Vani Hari. The coalition testified about their own experiences taking on personal health challenges while confronting medical orthodoxy and the industries that intentionally poison the food supply for profit.

These are serious discussions that will impact the future of children’s health – discussions that should be expanded and acted upon, to ultimately alter the chronic disease epidemic that is currently ravaging the country.

Toxic chemicals are intentionally put in American products to addict consumers and boost corporate profits

One of the speakers – Vani Hari – talked about overcoming her health challenges and questioning the American food supply. Vani has been a clean food activist for over a decade and started her own company offering clean products. In her speech, she called out American food corporations for manufacturing products that are drastically more toxic in America, while selling the same products in Europe, but with far less toxic ingredients.

Vani called out the “unethical policies of American food companies” that insist on selling “safer versions of their products in other countries, while selling our own citizens ingredients that are heavily regulated or banned abroad.”

The American version of these products often contain artificial dyes, BHT and MSG which are linked to endocrine disruption, infertility, neurological dysfunction and cancer. The American products have a longer shelf life because they contain chemical preservatives. The American products are also intentionally designed to be more addictive, but the chemicals used to trick consumers into eating more are toxic and linked to brain damage.

For example, Gatorade Zero Fruit Punch in the U.S. contains caramel color and Red 40, while the German version doesn’t contain either toxin. The alternative versions sold in Europe are colored with natural pigments from fruits and vegetables.

McDonald’s French fries contain 11 ingredients in the United States, but only contain 3 ingredients in the UK. One of the ingredients in the U.S. version is dimethylpolysiloxane, a foaming agent preserved with neurotoxic formaldehyde. By using this foaming agent, McDonald’s workers do not have to change out the cooking oil as often, boosting corporate profits at the expense of consumer health.

Food corporations should be subject to stringent regulations to protect Americans’ health

With these revelations now going mainstream, American food corporations must consider providing Americans with the same products they sell to Europeans. To hold these corporations accountable, LEGISLATION should be written at the federal level, complete with scientific citations documenting the harms that these dyes, flavor chemicals and preservatives cause. This legislation should mandate that American food products be free of brain-damaging, endocrine-disrupting and cancer-causing ingredients.

A database of all the toxic ingredients could readily be compiled, along with a product list that includes these toxic ingredients. Future regulatory pressure should incentivize sweeping changes to the American food supply, providing strict deadlines for food manufacturers to eliminate toxins and reformulate their products. If mass harm can be proven for an individual ingredient, and a corporation refuses to remove it from their products, then they should be prosecuted in a court of law for injuring Americans’ health. A restructured FDA must be equipped to enforce new regulations on an industry that is causing health problems across generations. These actions could help break up monopolies and allow smaller, clean food companies to compete in the marketplace as well.

Sources include:

• Rumble.com
• Foodbabe.com