(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

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

With claims of heightened antioxidant levels and potential health benefits, this novel creation has stirred both excitement and controversy among consumers and scientists alike. Biotech investors hope it can usher in a new era of public trust in genetically engineered foods while skeptics worry the tomatoes’ near-total lack of regulation or review may hide dangers to human health and/or the environment.

Development

The GM Purple Tomato was engineered by scientists at Norfolk Plant Sciences in the UK. Led by biochemist Cathie Martin and her team, the project aimed to harness the natural properties of anthocyanins, compounds found in blueberries and blackberries, to enhance the nutritional profile of tomatoes.

Using genetic engineering techniques, Martin and her colleagues inserted two genes responsible for purple coloration in edible snapdragon flowers into tomato plants. This process enabled the tomatoes to express the genes from the snapdragon and, subsequently, produce high levels of anthocyanins, thereby imbuing the tomatoes with a distinct purple hue and potentially enhanced health benefits.

According to Norfolk Healthy Produce, the U.S. subsidiary of Norfolk Plant Sciences, the Purple Tomatoes are a “rich source of antioxidants” due to the increased content of anthocyanins. Unlike domesticated tomatoes which contain anthocyanins in the skin, the Purple Tomato contains anthocyanins throughout the whole tomato.

The genesis of the GM Purple Tomato marks a significant milestone in agricultural biotechnology. Unlike previous GM crops primarily targeted at commercial producers, this tomato is the first GM food crop directly marketed to home gardeners in the United States, offering an opportunity for individuals to engage with biotechnology in their own backyard.

According to Norfolk Healthy Produce, more than 13,000 Purple Tomato seed orders have already shipped.

Regulatory Approval

The GM Purple Tomato was deregulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 2022. According to a statement from the USDA, the GM Purple Tomato is not subject to regulation by the USDA because it does not pose a plant pest risk:

“With respect to Norfolk Plant Sciences’ purple tomato, we did not identify any plausible pathways to increased plant pest risk compared to other cultivated tomatoes and issued a response letter indicating the plant is not subject to regulation.”

In 2023, the Purple Tomato received a “no questions” letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which means the Purple Tomato is considered “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) and, therefore, does not require premarket review or approval by the FDA.

To qualify for GRAS status, Norfolk Plant Sciences submitted data from tests conducted internally.

The lack of safety testing by the USDA and FDA, as well as reliance on data generated by the company that will profit from approval of its own product, has led to some experts calling for a more comprehensive safety assessment.

Safety Concerns and Health Claims

Data provided to the FDA by Norfolk Plant Sciences demonstrates the company conducted various safety tests. However, critics argue the tests are insufficient to guarantee the safety of the Purple Tomato for human consumption.

According to an FDA memo dated June 13, 2023, tests conducted by Norfolk Plant Sciences mainly focused on six areas. Of those, four were relatively straightforward while two have raised safety concerns among experts, according to GM Watch.

The Straight Forward Tests

1. PCR and Southern blot analysis were conducted by Norfolk Plant Sciences to determine if the snapdragon foreign DNA was inserted into the tomato DNA.

• The company (Norfolk Plant Sciences) stated that insertion of the foreign DNA was confirmed.

2. PCR and sequence comparison of DNA samples were conducted to confirm the stability of the inheritability of the insertion across generations. Plants were bred to determine if the purple phenotype was inherited in a Mendelian segregation fashion.

• The company stated the purple phenotype was inheritable.

3. Compositional analysis was conducted to determine if the Purple Tomato contained similar nutrients at similar levels compared with non-GMO tomatoes, including protein, fat, carbohydrate, fiber, minerals, carotenoids, vitamins, and alpha-tomatine.

• The company determined the levels of most of the nutritional components to be similar or with “minor differences.”

4. Norfolk Plant Sciences assessed dietary exposure levels assuming the complete replacement of red tomatoes in the human diet with the Purple Tomato for two days.

• The company concluded the level of dietary exposure to anthocyanins is the same as consuming high-anthocyanin foods.  For example, 8 ounces of Purple Tomato juice is equivalent to consuming 1 cup of blueberries.

The Controversial Tests

1. Bioinformatic analyses were utilized to determine if any open reading frames were generated or disrupted by inserting the foreign DNA. Norfolk Plant Sciences searched the DNA sequences flanking the insertion sequence in the tomatoes.

• The company reported no open reading frames flanking the insertion location.

Since Norfolk Plant Sciences did not assess possible damage to the entire genome using advanced laboratory techniques, geneticist Michael Antoniou expressed concern in a statement published by GM Watch.

“There’s no evidence that the developers of the GM purple tomato have carried out the kind of molecular analyses (proteomics and metabolomics) that could help establish whether they only got the change they want, with no unintended changes. As a result, we don’t know if these tomatoes are safe to eat,” said Mr. Antoniou.

“We must also bear in mind that the GM transformation process (plant tissue culture and plant cells transformation) will inevitably give rise to hundreds if not thousands of sites of unintended DNA damage (mutations). These wide scale mutations can change patterns of gene function and alter biochemistry and composition, with unknown downstream health consequences,” he said.

2. Assessment of new peptides of equal or greater than 30 amino acids at the insertion site of the foreign DNA was conducted to rule out toxicity or allergenicity concerns.

• The company identified one “putative” peptide, however, they stated, “this peptide has no homology to any known allergen or protein and there was no evidence this sequence is transcribed in tomato.” They concluded the results “do not raise food safety concerns.”

Allergenicity is an ongoing concern regarding the genetic modification of food. For example, a study published in Nature in 1999 reported that bean plants were genetically modified to produce higher levels of methionine and cysteine but were discarded because the expressed protein of the transgene was highly allergenic.

While Norfolk Plant Sciences did not identify a match with any known allergens, that does not guarantee the peptide formed through the process of gene modification is not an allergen. Given that nearly 11 percent of adults and 5.6 million children in the United States have food allergies, it may be prudent to apply the precautionary principle when modifying our food’s genetic makeup.

The Test That Everyone Talked About

Although not included in the 2023 FDA memo, Norfolk Plant Sciences, in conjunction with Cathie Martin, published a pilot feeding study in 2008 in Nature Biotechnology that examined the effects of Purple Tomato supplementation on the life span of cancer-susceptible mice.

According to the study, mice fed the GM tomato lived longer—by an average of 40 days than those fed non-GM red tomatoes.

Publication of the pilot study prompted the John Innes Centre to publish a press release titled, “Purple tomatoes may keep cancer at bay.” (Norfolk Plant Sciences is a spinoff company from the John Innes Centre.)

That unsubstantiated health claim led to a frenzy of media headlines perpetuating the “cancer-fighting tomato” narrative, including, “Purple tomato can beat cancer,” published by the Daily Express, and “Scientists develop cancer fighting purple tomato,” published by Reuters.

With the launch of the GM Purple Tomato in 2024, unsubstantiated health claims have resurfaced. For example, Maddie Hall, chief executive officer (CEO) of Living Carbon, posted on Twitter/X:

“BigPurpleTomato helps prevent cardiovascular disease and fight cancer in humans.”

The UK’s National Health Services (NHS) stated the health claims are not based on benefits documented in humans, but instead are from “a small-scale study of mice,” according to an article published in NHS Choices.

According to the NHS:

“… the small sample sizes used mean the results may have occurred by chance. Also, until the tomato is tested in humans, we cannot be sure that it will offer the same benefits, or that there will not be any unexpected harms.”

Excessive consumption of anthocyanin may pose an unexpected harm. While it is commonly believed that antioxidants are beneficial and more is preferable, Cancer Research UK suggests this assumption lacks scientific support.

“There’s a fair amount of evidence that some antioxidants in our foods can help prevent some kinds of cancer in some people. But the complexity of this evidence often gets translated in the media and in advertising to ‘antioxidants prevent disease’. And that’s not what the science says.”

The Antioxidant Paradox

While anthocyanins have been linked to potential health benefits due to their antioxidant properties, the notion of “more is better” fails to account for the delicate balance within the human body.

The need for nutrient balance is documented for other common nutrients. For example, vitamin A plays a critical role in eyesight, but high levels of vitamin A can be toxic, leading to hair thinning, blurred vision, headaches, weakness, and bone pain, according to a 2022 article published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences.

Likewise, iron is required for oxygen transport and DNA synthesis, however, too much iron can lead to tissue damage, according to a 2014 review in the Journal of Research in Medical Sciences.

Anthocyanins may follow the same pattern of “some is good but too much can be bad.”

According to a 2022 article written by Ray Seidler, a former scientist for the Environmental Protection Agency:

“When consumed in moderation, anti-inflammatory compounds like anthocyanins can have health benefits. But too much of a good thing may not be good. It has been demonstrated that over-consumption of anthocyanins (e.g. when taken as pill supplements) may cause kidney, liver, and thyroid hormone health effects. Anthocyanins are part of a group of compounds called polyphenols, which may also limit or interfere with iron absorption.”

Antioxidant supplementation can also increase risk of cancer, according to a 2023 review in the scientific journal Antioxidants.

Antioxidants work, in part, by neutralizing reactive oxygen species (ROS), such as superoxide anion, hydrogen peroxide, and hydroxyl radicals. These ROS are produced naturally during oxygen-based respiration in all living organisms.

ROS can harm molecules, including DNA, proteins, and cell membranes, contributing to the formation of diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, depression, diabetes, and aging, according to a 2023 study published in Archives of Toxicology.

However, ROS also play a crucial role in combatting disease and maintaining overall health. For instance, certain immune cells generate ROS to eliminate invading bacteria, fungi, and yeasts, thereby reducing their harmful effects. Additionally, ROS act as signaling molecules, activating essential biochemical pathways and regulating gene expression.

It is essential to strike a balance—producing enough ROS to regulate vital functions in the body without generating excessive amounts that lead to damage or disease.

Consequently, Mr. Seidler has raised concern over the quantity of anthocyanins Americans might consume if the GM Purple Tomato replaces its conventional counterpart.

“The average American consumes around 12.5 milligrams of these antioxidants per day. The anthocyanin content from the GM tomato averages about 500mg/100g of fresh fruit, some 40 times more than the daily average consumption. One hundred grams of tomato is less than half a cup. Other naturally purple coloured fruits (sweet cherries, blackberries, strawberries, red raspberries, black grapes) contain anthocyanins in the range of 3-143mg/100g, up to 160-fold less than the GM purple tomato.”

Mr. Antoniou echoed the same reservation in the statement published by GM Watch, “I’m concerned that ingesting megadoses of antioxidants, such as anthocyanins from even a modest portion of the GM purple tomatoes, could interfere with the delicate balance between too much and too little ROS, leading to negative health outcomes.”

A Solution: Traditionally Bred Alternatives

Traditional plant breeding techniques have already produced a variety of purple tomatoes boasting elevated levels of anthocyanins, without resorting to genetic modification.

Growers already have access to a diverse array of heirloom purple tomato varieties, including the esteemed Black Zebra and Black Beauty.

Furthermore, in 2011, Jim Myers, a plant breeder and professor at Oregon State University, released the first traditionally bred purple tomato with boosted levels of anthocyanins, according to an article published by Oregon State University.

Unlike their domesticated counterparts, which typically harbor anthocyanins in their plant structures and sometimes skin, wild tomatoes employed in the breeding program exhibit these beneficial compounds within their fruits, as highlighted by Mr. Myers. Year after year, Mr. Myers and his team crossed genes, often by hand, from wild tomatoes with modern varieties, until higher levels of anthocyanins could be found in the fruit.

Over two decades since the inception of this breeding program, the “Indigo” cultivars have proliferated to over 50 variants worldwide, finding homes in both small-scale farms and corporate agricultural enterprises.

These alternatives currently on the market underscore the power of traditional breeding methods in addressing nutritional needs and enhancing agricultural diversity without recourse to genetic modification.

Broader Implications

The first waves of GM crops were predominantly marketed with the goal of helping farmers feed the world. Food security was at the forefront as crops were engineered to increase yields, resist herbicides, and become more resistant to environmental stressors, such as insect damage and disease.

Historically, most crops have not been genetically engineered to increase nutrient density, but rather to better withstand herbicides and pests. One of the few exceptions was golden rice, engineered in the 1990s to contain higher levels of beta-carotene to combat vitamin A deficiency. That crop never gained traction.

Pink pineapple was created in 2020 by Fresh Del Monte, a California-based company. The rosy flesh contains high levels of lycopene—an antioxidant that gives peaches, tomatoes, and watermelon their rosy hues. However, only Fresh Del Monte is allowed to grow the pink pineapple whereas the Purple Tomato can be grown by farmers or consumers in the United States.

Unlike most of its GM predecessors, the Purple Tomato is marketed as a nutrient-dense food designed to improve health. Why are we witnessing a marketing shift away from food security toward individual health?

According to a 2019 Pew Research Center survey, 51 percent of Americans view GMOs as worse for their health compared with foods that are not genetically modified. Furthermore, only 7 percent of Americans who were polled viewed GMOs as being healthier.

Nathan Pumplin, CEO of Norfolk Healthy Produce, stated, “We aim to show with this product and with this company that there’s a lot of benefits that can go to consumers through biotechnology, better taste, better nutrition as prime examples.”

Nathan added, “Then it [the GM Purple Tomato] chips away at this negative perception of GMOs and that will enable other products to get out to market that deliver really solid benefits.”

Could the Purple Tomato be a Trojan horse, boasting claims of improved health for the individual while trickling GM seeds into gardens to gain acceptance of GMOs among consumers? Only time will tell.

In the meantime, if gardeners want to avoid the GM Purple Tomato, it may prove to be challenging. Once GM seeds are planted by backyard gardeners, seed drift becomes a concern. According to personal communication with Norfolk Health Produce:

“You can cross pollinate [the Purple Tomato] with other varieties. As tomatoes generally only self-pollinate, you will need to pollinate manually. Our purple trait will segregate. Depending upon what you cross to, you may not know which plants are carrying the trait until they bear fruit.”

In a statement to Epoch Times, Joel Salatin, regenerative farmer and co-owner of Polyface Farm, expressed concern about seed drift and patent infringement:

“One of the biggest concerns for gardeners is adulteration due to pollen drift. Seed companies often advise up to a mile of distance between varieties to maintain cultivar purity. If you are in an urban or suburban setting, and especially if you do not know all your neighbors or their activities, this kind of distance would be virtually impossible to guarantee. Suddenly you have a being in your garden that you don’t want. And the way courts have ruled, if the cultivar patent owner finds one of your tomatoes with adulterated DNA, you can be liable for patent infringement. What a mess.”

Cathie Martin and her colleague Jonathan Jones from Norfolk Healthy Produce hold active and pending patents on methods to genetically engineer plants with higher antioxidant compounds, as well as the plants made using those methods.

Conclusion

The unveiling of the GM Purple Tomato represents a watershed moment in agricultural biotechnology as the first GM seed marketed to gardeners. Yet, amid the fervor and excitement, we must not lose sight of the complexities and uncertainties that accompany such innovation. Questions remain regarding its safety, efficacy, and long-term implications for human health and the environment.

As scientists, policymakers, and consumers navigate the complex terrain of GMOs, transparency, evidence-based decision-making, and public engagement are essential to fostering informed dialogue as we shape the future of agriculture and our food supply.

Increasingly more doctors are warning their patients about the “hidden harms” of transgenic foods, which in addition to being tainted with dangerous crop chemicals like glyphosate (Roundup) are also likely toxic in and of themselves.

Many people who eat GMOs, often unknowingly since most are still not labeled, report allergic reactions, antibiotic resistance, and other health problems that did not exist prior to the advent of biotechnology.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), bioengineered food constitutes any consumable good that “contains detectable genetic material that has been modified through certain lab techniques that cannot be created through conventional breeding or found in nature.”

Manufacturers are now required to label such foods as “bioengineered” or “derived from bioengineering,” usually in very small fine print, in accordance with a new disclosure requirement from the USDA that came into effect on Jan. 1, 2022. Despite this, few people are aware of these disclosures and what they mean.

“The possible effects on the human body when bioengineered foods are consumed is unknown,” warns Dr. Syed Haider, one such doctor who continues to warn that GMO foods are toxic, and have not even been fully vetted by the government that approved them for use in the food supply.

“The food itself could be toxic. It could cause allergic reactions or promote antibiotic resistance. It could also trigger immunosuppression or cancer, and there’s evidence that all of these are happening.”

“The way bioengineering technology for food works is you take a gene from some other organism, and you insert it, kind of at random, into the genetic code of the food you want to engineer.”

(Related: Did you know that billionaire eugenicist Bill Gates is spending tens of millions of dollars to try to create genetically engineered pigs and other livestock – transgenic meat, anyone?)

Full impact of GMOs still not known – will biotechnology eventually lead to an extinction-level event?

As Dr. Haider rightfully points out, there is no knowing what these bioengineered “foods” are doing to people’s bodies, and particularly to the human genetic code. Are they rewriting people’s DNA to turn them into human hybrids, much in the same way that Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “vaccines” destroy human DNA?

“The problem is we don’t really understand the way the genetic code of anything works, and we could be changing the way that food grows,” Dr. Haider says. “It could create new toxins in the food, it could increase toxins that were already present in the food, and it can even increase the amount of external toxins the food soaks up.”

“We’re at the infancy of this technology. We’re fiddling around with things that we don’t fully understand, which I think is really scary, especially when you don’t check to see what the ultimate effects are. This is a progression of what’s been going on with the green revolution for decades.”

One thing that really upsets Dr. Haider is a newfound trend that tries to claim that GMO food is safer and healthier than organic food grown and produced the way nature intended.

“There’s a narrative that we’ve all been spoon-fed that this is necessary, that we would starve without this green revolution and genetically modified foods – but it’s not true,” Dr. Haider warns.

“We’re introducing technology into things that never needed it in the first place, and there are a lot of side effects that we’re going to see and hidden harms.”

According to the American Cancer Society, consuming GMO products “might create substances that could cause reactions” in people who suffer from allergies, potentially resulting “in high levels of compounds that could cause other health effects.”

The latest news about the dangers of GMOs can be found at Frankenfood.news.

Sources for this article include:

• GreatGameIndia.com
• NaturalNews.com

With the announcement of another two billion mosquitoes being put forth to bite us, actor Rob Schneider expressed his concerns:

What could go wrong with releasing 2 BILLION GMO mosquitoes?! When they bite people what exactly is going to be mosquito-injected into people? Don’t worry… I’m sure the Government and Bill Gates have our best interests in mind.

What could go wrong with releasing 2 BILLION GMO mosquitoes?! When they bite people what exactly is going to be mosquito-injected into people?
Don’t worry…
I’m sure the Government and Bill Gates have our best interests in mind. https://t.co/VZw3kCEwYU

— Rob Schneider (@RobSchneider) August 10, 2023

He was referencing an article by Dr. Joseph Mercola published at Children’s Health Defense. Here are the highlights:

• Genetically engineered (GE) mosquitoes created by biotechnology company Oxitec have been released in the U.S. in Florida and Texas.
• In March 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted Oxitec a two-year extension of its experimental use permit, or EUP, which would allow the biotech company to release additional GE mosquitoes in Florida as well as in four counties in California for the first time.
• While the EPA extended Oxitec’s EUP both the Florida Department of Agriculture and California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) must approve Oxitec’s testing in order for it to move forward in their states.
• Following pushback from legislators, California’s DPR announced Oxitec voluntarily withdrew its research authorization application to test its GE mosquitoes in California.
• Locally acquired malaria has been nonexistent in the U.S. for the last 20 years, but five such cases have recently been diagnosed — four in Florida and one in Texas.

As Schneider asked, “What could go wrong?” Of course, the answer is, “everything, just as they have planned.”

Beef, poultry, fish, and dairy products are all on the chopping block as the architects behind the Great Reset shift society away from real, nutritious food and straight into laboratory abominations from hell.

Using technologies like synthetic biology and precision fermentation, mad scientists are concocting cultured “meat” synthetics along with other cell-based and gene-edited parodies of real food.

“Transitioning to cultured meat, made from animal cells grown in a petri dish, is a Great Reset goal for the global food industry,” warns Dr. Joseph Mercola. “The aim is to control populations by creating dependence on private companies that control the food supply.”

The Wellcome Trust co-founded what is known as the “EAT Forum,” which developed a concept called “The Planetary Health Diet” that will be forced on the global population – at least that which remains following the great fulling.

“It entails cutting meat and dairy intake by up to 90%, and replacing it largely with foods made in laboratories, along with cereals and oil,” Mercola further explains.

Aborted baby cows are used to create fake cell-based “meat”

Back in 2017, we reported about the launch of Impossible Foods, a fake meat corporation backed by Bill Gates and Google.

Not surprising was the revelation at that time that each glob of Impossible Foods fake meat mush is packed with GMOs, monosodium glutamate (MSG) derivatives, and other chemical horrors.

It turns out that Impossible Foods had been just the start of a global transition effort to eradicate real food from animals and replace it with chemical “foods” from a laboratory – and more importantly to the globalists, chemical “foods” that enrich wealthy billionaires at the expense of family farms.

Creating cultured meat, also known as cell-based meat, involves a disturbing process by which fetal bovine serum (FBS), or the blood of cow fetuses – aborted, of course – is extracted and placed in petri dishes to grow what looks and supposedly tastes like real meat.

“So, cultured beef relies on the slaughter of both cows and unborn calves, which are drained of their blood while still alive,” Mercola writes.

The end product is nothing close to the real meat, bearing a composition that is unhealthy and, quite frankly, toxic. And this is exactly what the globalists want: a sick and dying human “herd” that is easily manageable and unable, both physically and cognitively, to resist their own tyranny and enslavement.

We are almost there as our society has been drenched in toxic industrial seed oils and so-called “plant-based” foods, which contain no animal fats. These processed food products contain high levels of linoleic acid (LA), which is now understood to be a primary driver of chronic disease.

None of this would be possible without private central banks and the fraudulent stock market pumping up these endeavors with endless fiat cash infusions, by the way. The “investments” that go into creating fake meat do not reflect what actual humans want, but rather what the powers that be want for all of humanity – except for themselves, of course (assuming the globalists are even really human…).

The really disturbing part is that many of these toxic, lab-centric “foods” are being marketed as “natural.” Plant-based has become part of the healthy eating vernacular, even though it represents the opposite of real health.

“It seems that even with all the smarts and savvy in the natural products community, we have failed to understand that we are being targeted by a coordinated global campaign to force the adoption of synthetics in natural channels,” warned Alan Lewis, vice president of advocacy at Natural Grocers.

“The campaign is a spawn of the notorious GMO lobby, now emboldened and backed by technology moguls.”

More stories like this one can be found at Frankenfood.news.

Sources include:

• Mercola.com
• NaturalNews.com
• NATURAL NEWS

• The GMO industry — which is funded, propped up and defended by the tech and chemical industries — is now seeking to replace beef, poultry, dairy and fish with synthetic biology, cultured meat, precision fermentation, cellular-based and gene edited foods
• Transitioning to cultured meat, made from animal cells grown in a petri dish, is a Great Reset goal for the global food industry. The aim is to control populations by creating dependence on private companies that control the food supply
• The EAT Forum, cofounded by the Wellcome Trust, has developed what they call “The Planetary Health Diet,” designed to be applied to the global population. It entails cutting meat and dairy intake by up to 90%, and replacing it largely with foods made in laboratories, along with cereals and oil
• Cultured meat (cell-based meat) is produced from animal tissue cells that are grown in fetal bovine serum (FBS) made from the blood of cow fetuses. So, cultured beef relies on the slaughter of both cows and unborn calves, which are drained of their blood while still alive
• Plant-based meat alternatives contain no animal fats, only industrial seed oils that are loaded with linoleic acid (LA). Excessive consumption of LA in the modern diet is already one of the key drivers of chronic disease, and plant-based meat substitutes will only worsen the situation

As reported by Organic Insider,¹ the GMO industry — which is funded, propped up and defended by the tech and chemical industries — is now seeking to replace animal products such as beef, poultry, dairy and fish with synthetic biology, cultured meat, precision fermentation, cellular-based and gene edited foods.

Companies involved in creating these kinds of fake foods even participated in this year’s Natural Products Expo West, which has historically been reserved for all-natural and organic companies. Alan Lewis, vice president of advocacy at Natural Grocers commented on the presence of food-tech companies at the 2022 Expo:²

“It seems that even with all the smarts and savvy in the natural products community, we have failed to understand that we are being targeted by a coordinated global campaign to force the adoption of synthetics in natural channels. The campaign is spawn of the notorious GMO lobby, now emboldened and backed by technology moguls.”

The Great Reset in Action

A food goal of The Great Reset was even declared during that Expo. In his keynote presentation, Nick McCoy of Whipstitch Capital stated that “The only way we are going to meet demand, as a planet, is through cultured meat.” It’s an outright lie, but one that works well for those pushing The Great Reset agenda. Key arguments for synthetic meats include:

• Sustainability — Raising livestock is unsustainable as it requires large amounts of land. Synthetic meats can be produced using a small land footprint, and it can be produced far faster, to keep up with growing food demands
• Combating climate change — It’s environmentally friendlier than raising livestock, which are a source of methane gas
• Animal welfare — It’s humane, as no animals are killed for human food

These arguments are all provably false, however, and nothing more than a flimsy veneer to cover the truth, which is that the shift to patented foods is all about creating population control through dependency.

The EAT Forum, cofounded by the Wellcome Trust, has developed what they call “The Planetary Health Diet,”³ designed to be applied to the global population. It entails cutting meat and dairy intake by up to 90%, and replacing it largely with foods made in laboratories, along with cereals and oil.

Their largest initiative is called FReSH, which aims to transform the food system by working with biotech and fake meat companies to replace whole foods with lab-created alternatives. Once tech giants have control of meat, dairy, cereals and oils, they will be the ones profiting from and controlling the food supply, and the private companies that control the food supply will ultimately also control countries and entire populations.

Biotech will eventually push farmers and ranchers out of the equation, thereby eliminating any hope of food security. So, the work being done in the name of sustainability and saving the planet is really all about shifting control over populations to private corporations.

Those corporations, in turn, are funded and/or owned by the same globalist cabal that is trying to “reset” everything else in society. And, just as all the rest of The Great Reset agenda, the planned changes to the food supply are to the detriment of the global population. It’ll cause lower levels of health, more chronic disease and, ultimately, lower life spans.

Synthetic Biology Is GMO Junk Food on Steroids

As noted by Michael Hansen, Ph.D., a senior staff scientist at Consumer Reports, meat and dairy alternatives are all really just junk food and GMOs on steroids. Nothing good can come from transitioning away from real animal foods to manmade alternatives:⁴

“Companies call these things ‘synthetic biology’ and ‘fermentation technology,’ but these foods are all just GMOs. They are using terms people do not understand, so that people will not realize these are GMO ingredients.

These are often highly processed foods, which are associated with increased calorie intake and weight gain, according to a study⁵ from the National Institute of Health.

And while these companies may be perceived as tech start-ups, the products they produce are designed to fit into an industrial food system, and society is clearly moving against this trend and toward a more agroecological-based food system.

Additionally, they are introducing novel, genetically-engineered proteins into the food supply that will have unknown potential impacts on the human microbiome and the environment, and these companies are self-affirming GRAS status with the FDA, a voluntary process that is incredibly problematic and falls very, very short of protecting the consumer.”

Cultured Meat Does Not Spare Lives of Animals

Cultured meat,⁶ or cell-based meat, is produced from animal tissue cells that are then grown into larger slabs. One of its main selling points is that you can eat your beef without harming an animal.

What the PR leaves out, however, is that a key ingredient to grow the cells is fetal bovine serum (FBS), which is made from the blood of cow fetuses. FBS is used because it’s a universal growth medium (meaning any cell can grow in it, whereas other mediums are cell-specific) and contains growth factors that prevent cell death. In 2017, Slate magazine detailed the gruesome process of FBS extraction:⁷

“If a cow coming for slaughter happens to be pregnant, the cow is slaughtered and bled, and then the fetus is removed from its mother and brought into a blood collection room.

The fetus, which remains alive during the following process to ensure blood quality, has a needle inserted into its heart. Its blood is then drained until the fetus dies, a death that usually takes about five minutes. This blood is then refined, and the resulting extract is FBS.”

This is false advertising at its finest. Eating cultured meat means you’re not merely eating an animal that was killed at the end of its life, you’re eating food made from an animal that was sacrificed before it was even born. That’s a pretty bizarre way to promote animal welfare, if you ask me.

The reality is they need both cows and calf fetuses to make cultured beef. According to Christiana Musk, founder of Flourish*ink, cultured meat is “meat without slaughter.”⁸ But clearly, that is a lie, seeing how it’s meat involving the slaughter of baby calves.

Just because you’re not eating the meat from that calf does not mean it didn’t die in order for you to eat meat. What’s worse, the meat from that calf was thrown away and its life sacrificed just to drain it of its blood, which strikes me as far more barbaric and inhumane than slaughtering and eating a full-grown cow.

Aside from general ethics considerations, cultured beef does not meet vegetarian requirements,⁹ and one could raise religious objections as well. Jews and Christians, for example, are prohibited — Biblically speaking — from consuming the blood of any animal, and in cultured meat, blood is a key ingredient.

Beyond Meat Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Bogus Claims

At present, Singapore is the only country that has approved cultured meat for commercial sale but, so far, it’s a losing venture. As reported by the Daily Mail,¹⁰ FSB sells for $1,000 per liter, so cultured meat would have to sell at $200,000 per pound to break even.

In the U.S. and elsewhere, another type of beef alternative that doesn’t cost a fortune to make has taken the market by storm, namely plant-based meat substitutes such as Impossible Burger and Beyond Meat. I’ve previously exposed the heavy processing and questionable ingredients that go into these products.

Beyond Meat — the primary ingredients¹¹ of which include pea protein, canola oil and rice protein — is now facing a class action lawsuit that alleges the company has been misrepresenting the protein content and/or quality, and the overall nutritional benefit, of nine different products. As reported by ClassAction.org:¹²

“According to the proposed class action, a number of claims made by the company concerning both protein and nutritional benefits are ‘false and misleading.’

Specifically, the 46-page complaint out of Illinois alleges that the plant-based meat substitute company ‘miscalculates and overstates’ its products’ protein content and protein quality.

The suit also alleges Beyond Meat misleads consumers into believing that its products provide equivalent nutritional benefits to those afforded by traditional meat-based foods …

The case claims that industry-standard testing done by the six plaintiffs revealed that many Beyond Meat items contained less protein than indicated on their respective product labels … Even worse, the suit says, the daily value percentage of protein in each of the items is ‘a small fraction’ of what Beyond Meat claims …

‘For example, Defendant’s Beyond Beef Plant-Based Ground 16oz Patties, which is labeled as ‘20G Per Serving’ and ‘40% DV’ for protein, actually contains 19G Per Serving by nitrogen testing, and 7% DV for protein. This represents an underfill of 5% for protein content and an underfill of 33% for %DV for protein.’”

Beware Unhealthy Fats

Aside from the fact that you don’t get the amount of protein you think you’re getting from Beyond Meat, a far greater concern has to do with the fats it contains — canola oil. There is no animal fat in these plant-based meat substitutes. Instead, you’re getting industrial seed oil, which is the worst fat possible.

High amounts can cause severe problems, as it acts as a metabolic poison that stays put in your cells for up to seven years. I’m convinced excessive LA in the modern diet is a key contributor to all chronic diseases.

To be clear, LA is the one fat you absolutely want to minimize in your diet. Anything above 10 grams a day is likely to cause ill health. To learn more about the harmful mechanisms of LA, see “How Linoleic Acid Wrecks Your Health.” In my view, replacing real animal foods with fake substitutes, regardless of how they’re made, is one of the worst ideas in human history.

Simply put, there are no benefits — not for the environment, human nutrition or animal welfare — only hazards and false claims. So, if you value your health, you would do well to stay clear of animal food substitutes, be they beef, poultry, fish or dairy substitutes.

• ^1, 4 Organic Insider June 8, 2022
• ² Organic Insider March 16, 2022
• ³ EAT Forum Planetary Health Diet
• ⁵ NIH May 16, 2019
• ⁶ Food Science of Animal Resources May 2021; 41(3): 355-372
• ⁷ Slate July 11, 2017
• ⁸ CNN June 6, 2022
• ^9, 10 Daily Mail March 10, 2022
• ¹¹ Beyond Burger Ingredients
• ¹² Classaction.org Beyond Meat Class Action