This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website.

Agribusiness watchdog OrganicEye today demanded the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) hold a public hearing — or face litigation — on the use of mRNA and other genetically engineered vaccines in organic livestock production. The use of such genetically modified products violates the legal definition of “organic,” the group said.

The request comes after reports that the USDA and some organic certifiers have “quietly looked the other way” as commercial livestock producers have begun using genetically engineered vaccines in animals producing organic-certified meat, eggs and dairy products, according to OrganicEye.

One of the most important differences — perhaps the key difference — between conventional and organic food is the organic label’s strict prohibition on genetically modified farm inputs and ingredients, as laid out in the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990.

OrganicEye said that rather than enforcing this rule, the USDA has sanctioned a “don’t ask, don’t tell” protocol — pushed by Big Ag — that allows producers to administer genetically engineered vaccines to animals and still label them “organic.”

The issue is urgent, according to Mark Kastel, executive director of Wisconsin-based OrganicEye, because of the imminent use of mRNA vaccines for livestock, which are currently being developed with massive funding from government and industry.

“The impetus for us to act now is the impending introduction of vaccines for livestock produced using mRNA technology similar to that used by Pfizer and Moderna to produce their respective versions of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine,” Kastel stated.

“There is a continuing controversy in the country concerning this new technology and we should work to preserve organics as the last safe haven for eaters who want to secure a truly ‘natural’ diet,” he added.

It is “unacceptable,” the nonprofit stated, for the USDA to “kick the can down the road” on this highly controversial issue.

OrganicEye is calling on the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to convene a meeting of all stakeholders, not only with industry interests who want these vaccines, Kastel told The Defender, but also with “people who have a concern — whether they’re farmers that don’t need them and feel they’re being competitively injured by competing against these livestock factories, or whether they’re consumers who have a general concern about genetic engineering and the food supply.”

“They have a right to be heard,” he said.

A corrupted oversight process

Synthetic materials are by default banned in organics, unless they have been explicitly permitted because they are deemed “essential” to production and have been evaluated and determined to be safe for human health and the environment.

Congress created the NOSB in the 1990s to recommend industry standards for regulating such materials. It is a powerful advisory board — the USDA cannot allow any synthetic substances in organic production unless the NOSB has explicitly approved and recommended them.

The board was designed to represent stakeholders from across the organics industry, including small farmers and consumers, but it has increasingly become dominated by powerful agribusiness lobbyists — and as a result, increasingly subordinate to agribusiness’ dictates.

The first question that must be investigated, Kastel said, is whether vaccines are “essential” for livestock at all. They are generally not required in livestock production “other than some state regulations pertaining to interstate transportation of livestock,” he said.

But many producers, particularly in industrial agriculture, vaccinate their animals anyway to “mitigate risks.” Kastel said a hearing would allow the public to investigate whether “there’s any good justification coming from anybody other than people involved in conventional livestock production for the use of vaccines.”

Or, maybe animals “maintained in a healthy environment with plenty of outdoor access and pasture for ruminants like beef and dairy cows on family-scale farms,” don’t need any vaccines at all — let alone genetically modified ones, he said.

Many vaccines previously approved for organic production have been phased out and replaced with vaccines produced through genetic modification.

At recent NOSB meetings, accredited organic certifiers admitted that they do not check to see whether vaccines used violate the prohibition against genetic engineering — despite the fact that federal regulations mandate their review.

In response, the NOSB recommended the USDA approve a regulatory amendment allowing for the use of these genetically modified vaccines in organic production in cases where the traditionally produced vaccine was no longer available.

In a policy brief also released today, OrganicEye called this move “likely illegal” because “in all cases, vaccines produced using methods of genetic engineering/modification are clearly forbidden by the national organic standards and are currently excluded from use.”

The USDA did not enact that recommendation and has stated it won’t act in this regulatory area. In other words, Kastel said, the USDA is saying they “have no intention to do new rulemaking,” and are instead letting things stand — taking a “don’t ask, don’t tell,” approach to regulating GMO vaccines.

Dr. Hubert Karreman, doctor of veterinary medicine, North Carolina dairy farmer, charter fellow of the American College of Veterinary Botanical Medicine and former NOSB member, said that instead, the USDA could and should “create a very clear, easily understandable categorization system such that organic farmers don’t use a genetically engineered vaccine by mistake.”

OrganicEye charges the USDA’s reluctance to create that system is due to the influence of “powerful lobbyists and industry interests, mostly with expertise in conventional livestock production as in the case of vaccines,” who have an interest in producers continuing to rely on vaccines, rather than “providing more healthful and secure living environments for domesticated animals.”

In its policy brief, OrganicEye proposed the USDA create a clear categorization for vaccines, review all vaccines for safety prior to approval — including for the persistence of “foreign” DNA, RNA and antibodies in meat — and develop a way to deal with concerns that arise from that review, including removing such vaccines from the market if need be.

OrganicEye is also promoting a campaign to put pressure on the Biden administration to reduce its dependence on political appointees from corporate agribusiness in organic regulatory oversight — a practice that has resulted in the legally questionable conduct the group is protesting.

Veterinarians: ‘Not enough known’ about long-term effects of mRNA vaccines for livestock

“The successful application of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 has further validated the platform and opened the floodgates to mRNA vaccine’s potential in infectious disease prevention, especially in the veterinary field,” according to a study published last year in the journal Viruses.

But, Kastel said another reason for holding a public hearing is that there are many open questions about the safety of mRNA vaccines for animals and humans.

Dr. Max Thornsberry, R-CALF USA animal health committee chair, said in an April briefing for R-CALF USA, a nonprofit representing the interests of independent U.S. cattle producers, that research has shown mRNA likely passes to humans who have consumed products from an mRNA-injected animal.

Research published in JAMA also shows the persistence of COVID-19 antibodies in the human breast milk of vaccinated mothers. And recent research showed that Moderna recommended against vaccination of nursing mothers.

This raises questions, Kastel said, about how animals injected with GMO vaccines, particularly for diseases that don’t even affect humans, might introduce new antibodies into the human food supply. The associated risks need to be studied and evaluated, he said.

Thornsberry added that mRNA research is “still in its infancy, no one really knows the full impact it has on either humans or animals, particularly its long-term impact,” and that it, therefore, warrants greater research on safety and greater transparency.

Holistic veterinarian Dr. W. Jean Dodds told The Defender in January that, “Not enough is known at this time if mRNA vaccines can generate any long-term effects on reproduction or lifespan of domestic farm stock.”

“As livestock become part of the human and animal food chain, we need to be sure that no abnormal cellular or molecular changes to the animal could be induced by this type of vaccine,” Dodds added.

GMO vaccines already in use, but ‘no way for consumers to know’

Concerns that mRNA injections could end up in animal products meant for human consumption prompted warnings from cattle producers and calls for mandatory country of origin labeling so consumers can choose meat from countries that don’t allow mRNA shots in meat animals.

Backlash quickly ensued, with legacy media painting the concerns as “conspiracy theories,” “fearmongering” and “misinformation,” and issuing a series of misleading “fact checks.”

But several new government- and industry-funded studies are, in fact, already underway to develop mRNA vaccines for livestock, part of the massive expansion of the animal vaccine industry projected to be worth at least $26.12 billion by 2030.

Researchers at Iowa State University are undertaking a project funded by the USDA to develop mRNA vaccine technology to prevent bovine respiratory syncytial virus.

Pharmaceutical company Zoetis developed an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for animals that was administered to animals at zoos throughout the country.

And researchers in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service experimented with vaccinating captive-bred black-footed ferrets against COVID-19. They also experimented with social distancing and quarantine of ferrets.

“Third-generation vaccines,” including DNA, RNA and recombinant viral vector vaccines, are not only currently administered to livestock — they also are being developed for companion animals and wild animals.

Merck Animal Health has for several years marketed a “customizable vaccine” made with “RNA particle technology” to make swine flu and other virus vaccines customized to specific animal herd needs. And the USDA allows two “DNA” novel vaccines and avian influenza vaccine for poultry and a swine influenza vaccine.

Citing the need for biosecurity, in September 2022, the New South Wales government fast-tracked the world’s first mRNA vaccines for foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy-skin disease, in a five-year multimillion-dollar deal with U.S. biotech company Tiba Biotech.

There is no way for consumers to know whether genetically engineered vaccines are being used in livestock to produce USDA-certified organic meat, eggs or milk. People have a right to this information, Kastel insisted. They also need to know, he said:

“Is there any deleterious impact? Is it essential? Is it safe? And right now, because GMO vaccines are not legal [in organics], is there really no alternative to them?

“Or is that just the spin from the livestock and biotech industry that wants to change over to GMO vaccines?”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

Messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines became a household term during the COVID-19 pandemic. But many are unaware that these experimental shots may be used in livestock intended for food.

Concerns that mRNA injections could end up “in the global protein supply chain” prompted warnings from cattle producers and calls for mandatory country of origin labeling (MCOOL) so consumers can choose meat from countries that don’t allow mRNA shots in meat animals.¹ Backlash quickly ensued, with media spinning a familiar tune and trying to paint the valid concerns as “conspiracy theories,” “fearmongering” and “misinformation.”²

Cattle Groups Calls for Caution Over mRNA in Beef

In an April 2023 news release, Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA), a nonprofit that represents interests of independent U.S. cattle producers, shared concerns about the use of mRNA shots in meat animals.

Max Thornsberry, DVM, R-CALF’s animal health committee chair, met with medial doctors and a molecular biologist before briefing the R-CALF USA board:³

“Thornsberry reported that some researchers have found that mRNA and its coded virus is likely passed from an injected human to a noninjected human, and to humans who have consumed dairy products or meat from an mRNA-injected animal.

He said that because the research on mRNA is still in its infancy, no one really knows the full impact it has on either humans or animals, particularly its long-term impact. He said this itself warrants more extensive mRNA research focused on safety, heightened public vigilance, and greater transparency.”

In a commentary, R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard also urged caution regarding mRNA injections, stating:⁴

“It’s not a vaccine as we typically understand vaccines. So, for the rest of this discussion, I’ll refer to it as an injection. It’s an injection of a laboratory-produced substance into humans or livestock that is coded with a particular virus, such as COVID-19, that produces an immune response against the particular virus.

And what does mRNA do? Well, it hijacks living cells, tricking them into producing some level of immunity against human viruses like COVID-19 and livestock viruses such as foot-and-mouth disease or lumpy skin disease. It does this by rewriting the instructions from the body’s DNA. And what are the potential risks to humans and livestock?

The truthful answer is we don’t yet know the long-term effects of mRNA injections in either humans or livestock.

… There is great concern that living cells excrete the mRNA over time and the mRNA can then be transferred to animals and humans that have never received the mRNA injection. It is believed, for example, that humans can contact mRNA by eating meat from livestock that have received the injection.

The reason mRNA is an issue today is that pharmaceutical firms have found that it takes very little of it to hijack a cell, and it can be produced cheaper than typical virus vaccines.”

mRNA Persists in the Body, Absorbed Through Stomach

Proponents have argued that mRNA is “removed by normal cellular mechanisms” and therefore wouldn’t be present in meat intended for consumption. Dr. Penny Riggs, associate research professor of functional genetics at Texas A&M, stated, “The estimate is that half of the mRNA from a vaccine is gone in about 20 hours, and completely destroyed within a few days.”⁵

But Thornsberry cited⁶ one study, published in Biomedicines, that found mRNA from injections can be detected in blood 15 days post-shot.⁷

Another study found “full-length or traces of SARS-CoV-2 spike mRNA vaccine sequences” in blood up to 28 days post-injection,⁸ while another revealed “abundant spike protein in GCs [germinal centers in lymph nodes] 16 days post-second dose, with spike antigen still present as late as 60 days post-second dose” of mRNA COVID-19 shots.⁹

As for whether mRNA could potentially be absorbed via the gastrointestinal tract, after consuming tainted meat, 2022 research demonstrated just that, finding “orally dosed milli-injector capsules enable nucleic acid delivery to swine stomachs.”¹⁰

The study, published in the journal Matter, further stated, “Evidence from small and large animal studies demonstrates that this form of administration enables both gastric and systemic uptake and transfection.”¹¹ Other concerns raised by Thornsberry include mRNA shedding and gene editing. He told R-CALF:¹²

“A recent review paper¹³ written by Helene Banoun, a pharmacist biologist from France, raises alarms about the shedding of COVID-19 coded mRNA from vaccinated to unvaccinated close associates. Banoun is quoted as stating, ‘Vaccine mRNA-carrying lipid nanoparticles spread after injection throughout the body according to available animal studies and vaccine mRNA … is found in the bloodstream …’

Based on her findings, Banoun stated, ‘It is urgent to enforce the legislation on gene therapy that applies to mRNA vaccines and to carry out studies on this subject while the generalization of mRNA vaccines is being considered.’

… Swedish researchers published in Current Issues Molecular Biology¹⁴ … their findings that directly dispute the claim that mRNA injections do not enter the nucleus of the cell where our DNA (genetic material) is located.

While their study was performed utilizing liver cancer cells in culture, within 6 hours of exposing the liver cells to COVID-19 spike antigen coded mRNA, reverse transcription occurred, placing the mRNA carried genetic code into the nuclear DNA of the cells.”

Industry Attacks mRNA Shot Concerns as ‘Conspiracy Theories’

In response to R-CALF’s warnings, Drovers, “the nation’s oldest livestock publication,” published an article titled, ‘mRNA Conspiracy Theories: Ranch Group Offers ‘Fearmongering’ and ‘Misinformation.’¹⁵ It’s the same old story we saw throughout the pandemic. If it goes against the standard narrative, label it “misinformation” and try to discredit its source, via name-calling, reputation destruction or whatever means necessary.

Drovers cited Riggs, who called R-CALF’s press releases “fearmongering and misinformation” and stated, “No food safety risk exists for meat from animals that have received any vaccination” and “mRNA from a vaccine will NOT be passed along in meat.”¹⁶ In response, R-CALF wrote:¹⁷

“With so many unknowns, just how should a responsible ranch group respond amidst this ongoing battle between scientific experts regarding the short and long-term safety of mRNA injections for cattle?

Should we simply trust the pharmaceutical companies and the government as Riggs suggests when she advised that ‘we should be celebrating the advances in technology that enable more precise and effective strategies for ensuring animal health and well-being in order to continue producing the nutritious and safe meat, milk, and other animal source products that sustain life and good health’?

R-CALF USA disagrees. Instead, we intend to learn the truth by continuing to disclose differing scientific findings, seeking more research into the long-term effects of mRNA injections for cattle, and demanding more transparency from pharmaceutical companies and the government.”

mRNA Shots Already Used in Pigs — Cattle Are Likely Next

While the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association states “there are no current mRNA vaccines licensed for use in beef cattle in the United States,”¹⁸ the key missing word is “yet.” In October 2021, Iowa State University began a study on “Novel mRNA Vaccine Technology for Prevention of Bovine Respiratory Syncytial Virus,” with a project end date of September 30, 2026.¹⁹

“Our overall goal is to test a novel mRNA system for inducing immunological protection from bovine RSV infection,” the team explained. “… Here, we will optimize our vaccine further and then test for potential correlates of protection to examine for in eventually challenged cows.”²⁰

So, while critics suggest it’s pointless to worry over mRNA in cattle, since no such shot has been approved, “It would be naïve not to assume that such a research project signals an effort to obtain approval for mRNA injections in U.S. cattle,” R-CALF noted.²¹

“It [mRNA] is being used in humans as a means of controlling COVID-19. It is also being used under limited conditions for swine. But it has not yet been approved in the United States for cattle,” R-CALF’s Bullard added.²²

More Reasons to Avoid Eating Pork

However, the first RNA-based livestock vaccine, a swine influenza (H3N2) RNA shot developed by Harrisvaccines was licensed in 2012.²³ The company followed up with an avian influenza mRNA shot in 2015.²⁴ Harrisvaccines was acquired by Merck Animal Health later that year.²⁵

Further, since 2018, pork producers have been using customizable mRNA-based “vaccines” on their herds — and this has slipped completely under the radar.²⁶ This issue really only rose to the surface after attorney Tom Renz started promoting new legislation in Missouri (House Bill 1169,²⁷ which he helped write) that would require labeling of mRNA products.²⁸ In an April 1, 2023, tweet that was, unfortunately, not an April Fool’s joke, Renz stated:²⁹

“BREAKING NEWS: the lobbyists for the cattleman and pork associations in several states have CONFIRMED they WILL be using mRNA vaccines in pigs and cows THIS MONTH. WE MUST SUPPORT MISSOURI HB1169. It is LITERALLY the ONLY chance we have to prevent this … NO ONE knows the impacts of doing this but we are all potentially facing the risk of being a #DiedSuddenly if we don’t stop this.”

The pushback by industry against this bill has been enormous, which should tell you something. It doesn’t ban anything; it only requires transparency. That, apparently, is a serious threat to industry, and the most obvious reason for that is because they’d have to admit that all sorts of foods can have gene altering effects.

In the meantime, I recommend avoiding all pork products, including organic ones, as they not only have high levels of the omega-6 fat, linoleic acid, because of the grains they are fed, but virtually all have been contaminated with the mRNA vaccines for the past five years.

Calls for Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling

In addition to calling for support of HB1169, R-CALF is calling for mandatory country of origin labels — under the American Beef Labeling Act, S.52, so consumers know where the beef they’re eating came from.

“We understand that mRNA is in use or about to be in use in cattle in foreign countries, Australia, New Zealand and China have been mentioned. We understand that China is injecting mRNA coded for the spike protein in the COVID-19 virus into dairy cows for the purpose of exposing consumers of dairy products to the mRNA,” Bullard said.³⁰ He further explained:³¹

“Even though the United States has not approved mRNA injections in cattle, if we import beef from countries where such injections are allowed, then it’s possible that the meat from those animals are making their way into U.S. grocery stores. But people have no way of knowing where the meat was produced because Congress repealed the law that once required country of origin labels on all beef sold in grocery stores.

This is why people should contact their congressional delegations to urge them to enact mandatory country of origin labeling, or MCOOL, so they can begin choosing whether to purchase beef from a foreign country where mRNA injections are being given to cattle and other livestock. Only with mandatory country of origin labeling can consumers distinguish from which country their beef was produced.”

• ^{1, 3, 4, 22, 30, 31} R-CALF USA April 20, 2023
• ^2, 15, 16 Drovers April 24, 2023
• ⁵ Tri-State Livestock News June 16, 2023
• ^{6, 12, 17, 21} R-CALF USA May 22, 2023
• ⁷ Biomedicines. 2022 Jul; 10(7): 1538
• ⁸ Journal of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology January 17, 2023
• ⁹ Cell. 2022 Mar 17; 185(6): 1025–1040.e14
• ^10, 11 Matter March 2, 2022, Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 975-987
• ¹³ Infectious Diseases Research 2022, Vol. 3, Issue (4): No.22
• ¹⁴ Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2022, 44(3), 1115-1126; doi: 10.3390/cimb44030073
• ¹⁸ NCBA Statement April 6, 2023
• ^19, 20 USDA, Iowa State University, Novel mRNA Vaccine Technology for Prevention of Bovine Respiratory Syncytial Virus
• ²³ Watt Poultry October 2, 2012
• ²⁴ Merck Animal Health September 21, 2015
• ²⁵ Merck November 12, 2015
• ²⁶ YouTube Global Ag Media 2018
• ²⁷ Missouri House bill 1169
• ²⁸ Conservative Treehouse April 9, 2023
• ²⁹ Twitter Tom Renz April 1, 2023

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