Category Archives: GMOs

GMO Pusher Bill Gates Teams Up With Richard Branson, Hopes to End the Meat Industry As We Know It With Lab-Grown Beef

althealthworks.com
4 May 2020
by AltHealth Admin



Meat grown in labs has been a hot topic of conversation for the last seven years, with some media outlets hailing it as the future of food and a “cleaner” way to do meat.

But when the real thing hits supermarket shelves, will customers be kept in the dark about how it’s really made, and perhaps more importantly, will anybody actually want to eat it?

Ready or not, lab-grown meat from stem cells is on its way, and it’s being propped up by one of the most controversial names in the world of genetically modified food (GMOs) — Microsoft founder and long-time Monsanto supporter Bill Gates, along with another wealthy investor, Sir Richard Branson, founder of the Virgin Group.

Just recently, the two famous figures placed a big-time bet on the self-proclaimed “clean” lab-grown meat company Memphis Meats, to the tune of $17 million.

But will customers flock to this new so-called “murder free” meat, or are Gates and Branson making a mistake in betting on a an under-tested technology with big claims and unknown effects on human health?

Startup Companies to Grow Meat in the Lab

Memphis Meats and Hampton Creek (recently accused of labeling lies with its other products aimed at reducing animal agriculture) are the most commonly-heard of, but not the only companies who are working on creating lab-grown meat.

MosaMeat of the Netherlands, founded by Professor Mark Post, first started with a product with a $325,000 price tag.

Today that number has been trimmed to a far more manageable $11.36 per package. The founder hopes to decrease the price even more if it succeeds and goes commercial.

The company also has serious financial weight behind it in Sergey Brin of Alphabet (the parent company of Google), and hopes to develop affordable mass-produced lab-grown meat or “cultured meat” within the next 10-20 years (a ways off from its competitors).

Another company is SuperMeat in Israel. Also founded by a professor, its goal is to create lab-grown chicken meat. The company raised $229,269 on Indiegogo to begin its efforts.

These companies are just the tip of the iceberg for what industry insiders hope becomes the new standard for meat eaters everywhere.

Further Examining Lab-Grown Meat Promises

All of the lab-grown meat companies have a similar mission, as evidenced by these slogans and promises:

  • “A method that doesn’t require raising and slaughtering animals.” – Memphis Meats
  • “Let’s change the way meat gets to the plate.” – Memphis Meats
  • “Eating meat without killing animals.” – SuperMeat
  • “Real meat without harming animals.” – SuperMeat

Besides their pledge to save animals, lab-grown meat companies make big claims when it comes to helping the environment.

Memphis Meats says they expect the following results from their products:

  • An up to 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional meat
  • The same reduction of land and water use
  • Better meat for human health

MosaMeat says they will help solve the food crisis and combat climate change, but doesn’t say much about animal welfare. Their main technique requires one sample of muscle cells to be taken from live animals for every 20,000 tons of lab-grown meat, saying the biopsy is harmless and noting that the animal survives the procedure.

SuperMeat promises to be humane, eco-friendly, to fight world hunger, and to create meat that is supposedly healthier and cheaper.

How the meat is actually grown, however, is another story entirely (and one these companies don’t exactly seem eager to reveal to future customers).

While a humane, environmentally friendly and even “healthy” burger sounds like a dream come true for meat lovers, there are plenty of misconceptions here that the public is being kept in the dark about.

The first issue with lab-grown meat is how the meat cells are being harvested.

What happens is as follows: if a cow in a slaughterhouse is pregnant, when she is slaughtered, the fetus is removed and brought into a blood collection facility. While still alive, the fetus is drained of its blood until it dies by a process of sticking a needle in its heart. It takes about five minutes, and this is what produces FBS, and ultimately, these so-called healthier burgers.

Even though cows and bulls are kept separately, the percentage of dairy cows who are pregnant is between 17 and 31 percent. As a result the number of fetuses being slaughtered is in the millions.

The FBS from these slaughtered fetuses can then be used in the lab, grown in a petri dish into a meat-like substance by feeding the cells nutrients for about a month. Fetal bovine serum is the easiest to grow, because cells when separated from the body are suicidal. The FBS contains growth factors that prevent them from killing themselves.

This process is not the only way to make lab-grown meat, but it is the fastest way. It can be used on other types of meat cells as well, and may be added to a petri dish with chicken cells to create a similar product.

At the end of the day, this reliance on FBS means some animals are still being killed for lab-created meat; cultured meat is definitely not vegetarian as some may hope.

The moral question of killing animals still remains: is slaughtering fetuses to make this highly unnatural product really any better than killing adult farm animals?

The controversial FBS is also used in creating vaccines for people, and it also comes with about a 1 in 40 billion chance of contracting mad cow disease. This low risk is much higher in cultured meat, which is why the Food and Drug Administration discouraged its use for the past 25 years (before wealthy investors like Gates and Branson decided to bring it to the forefront of the food industry, that is).

Is Lab Grown Meat Really A Better Choice?

What will the cultured meat companies do, and can Gates and Branson steer clear of the controversy that is sure to arise when people find out how these meats are actually made (much like genetically modified organisms from Monsanto)?

Each company ends up hiding its true plans because their products have to be licensed, and there are plenty of proprietary issues that come into play. It seems that they are trying to avoid FBS, but there are no conclusions to be drawn yet.

Hampton Creek says they will try to create meat using plant-based products to make the cells grow using bioreactors or giant tanks, using a process that will look similar to beer brewing.

Memphis Meats said they have developed the first product without FBS, and are now working on applying it to all of their products.

Neither company will say what they actually use because of the fear that the idea will be stolen. As a result, transparency goes out the window (sound familiar?), although we do know that there’s a chance the process may end up using GMO yeast, at least according to a representative from the company Finless Fish as quoted by Gizmodo.

The environmental claims made by lab grown meat companies may not be what they seem, either. Hampton Creek for example says its lab-meat will be up to ten times more environment efficient than conventional meat, but the evidence is lacking.

A 2011 study concluded that this type of meat product might produce less greenhouse gas, yet that it uses the same amount of energy as the pork industry. Another 2015 study estimated that it will require the same amount of energy as the conventional meat industry.

Despite the controversies, It seems that many animal rights groups are supporting lab-grown meat.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) offered a one-million dollar prize to the first company who can produce a commercially successful cultured meat. However, the deadline of the contest has passed as commercial lab-grown meat is still in the works.

It seems that company gave up on inspiring everyone to cut out animal products and is willing to compromise.

“People are surprised to learn that PETA is interested in lab-grown meat, but we have overcome our own revulsion at flesh-eating to champion a breakthrough that will mean a far kinder world for animals,” PETA statement said.

Mercy for Animals also supports “meat that is produced through cellular agriculture instead of slaughter.”

It might not be much better for the environment after all.

Meanwhile, the consumers are being fed an eerily-hypnotizing ads to hype up our expectations.

Watch a TV report about cultured meat that includes laboratory footage:

America’s biggest meat corporation is also jumping on the bandwagon:

These are the first genetically modified animals approved for U.S. consumption

marketwatch.com
21 June 2019
Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — Inside an Indiana aquafarming complex, thousands of salmon eggs genetically modified to grow faster than normal are hatching into tiny fish. After growing to roughly 10 pounds (4.5 kilograms) in indoor tanks, they could be served in restaurants by late next year.

The salmon produced by AquaBounty are the first genetically modified animals approved for human consumption in the U.S. They represent one way companies are pushing to transform the plants and animals we eat, even as consumer advocacy groups call for greater caution.

AquaBounty hasn’t sold any fish in the U.S. yet, but it says its salmon may first turn up in places like restaurants or university cafeterias, which would decide whether to tell diners that the fish are genetically modified.

“It’s their customer, not ours,” said Sylvia Wulf, AquaBounty’s CEO.

AquaBounty will be producing the first genetically modified animals approved for human food in the U.S. and one way companies are pushing to transform plants and animals, as consumer advocacy groups call for greater caution.

To produce its fish, Aquabounty injected Atlantic salmon with DNA from other fish species that make them grow to full size in about 18 months, which could be about twice as fast as regular salmon. The company says that’s more efficient since less feed is required. The eggs were shipped to the U.S. from the company’s Canadian location last month after clearing final regulatory hurdles.

As AquaBounty worked through years of government approvals, several grocers including Kroger and Whole Foods responded to a campaign by consumer groups with a vow to not sell the fish.

Already, most corn and soy in the U.S. is genetically modified to be more resistant to pests and herbicides. But as genetically modified salmon make their way to dinner plates, the pace of change to the food supply could accelerate.

This month, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to simplify regulations for genetically engineered plants and animals. The move comes as companies are turning to a newer gene-editing technology that makes it easier to tinker with plant and animal DNA.

That’s blurring the lines around what should be considered a genetically modified organism, and how such foods are perceived. In 2015, an Associated Press-GfK poll found two-thirds of Americans supported labeling of genetically modified ingredients on food packages. The following year, Congress directed regulators to establish national standards for disclosing the presence of bioengineered foods.

But foods made with the newer gene-editing technique wouldn’t necessarily be subject to the regulation, since companies say the resulting plants and animals could theoretically be produced with conventional breeding. And while AquaBounty’s salmon was produced with an older technique, it may not always be obvious when people are buying the fish either.

The disclosure regulation will start being implemented next year, but mandatory compliance doesn’t start until 2022. And under the rules , companies can provide the disclosures through codes people scan with their phones. The disclosure also would note that products have “bioengineered” ingredients, which advocacy groups say could be confusing.

“Nobody uses that term,” said Amy van Saun of the Center for Food Safety, who noted “genetically engineered” or “genetically modified” are more common.

The center is suing over the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of AquaBounty’s salmon, and it is among the groups that asked grocers to pledge they wouldn’t sell the fish.

The disclosure rules also do not apply to restaurants and similar food service establishments. Greg Jaffe of the Center for Science in the Public Interest noted that AquaBounty’s fish will represent a tiny fraction of the U.S. salmon supply, and that many people may not care whether they’re eating genetically modified food. Still, he said restaurants could make the information available to customers who ask about it.

“The information should not be hidden,” Jaffe said.

AquaBounty’s Wulf noted its salmon has already been sold in Canada, where disclosure is not required. She said the company believes in transparency but questioned why people would want to know whether the fish are genetically modified.

“It’s identical to Atlantic salmon, with the exception of one gene,” she said.

____

Follow Candice Choi at http://www.twitter.com/candicechoi

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Monsanto loses millions of dollars after Indian farmers switch to indigenous seeds

nationofchange.org
9 March 2017
Ruth Milka

Monsanto claims that the genetically modified cotton seeds they sell are superior. So why are so many people trying to switch?

Monsanto is losing millions of dollars now that farmers in India are switching to indigenous cotton seeds rather than Bt cotton.

The agrochemical company is known for pushing a form of Bt cotton in India for the last decade. They have been accused of manipulating laws in order to enter the Indian market.

Monsanto’s manipulation and greed in India has caused hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers to commit suicide. Between the years of 1995 and 2013, more than 300,000 farmer suicides occurred, many of which were linked to Monsanto. Farmers are forced to pay for Monsanto’s costly seeds, which then force them to pay for the expensive pesticides to effectively grow them, as Bt cotton’s pest resistant quality fades over time.

These farmers are losing their lands, and their livelihoods, due to the debt they incur trying to afford Monsanto’s products. Many of the farmers drink the chemical insecticides in order to commit suicide.

But recently the Indian government has been promoting the use of indigenous seeds as an alternative. In the past year Monsanto has lost $75 million in royalties from the switch. As Keshav Raj Kranthi of India’s Central Institute for Cotton Research stated, “Just wait for the crucial three to four years to see a complete, natural turnaround. By then most farmers will give up Bt cotton and go for the indigenous variety.”

Monsanto claims that the genetically modified cotton seeds they sell are superior, but places in West Africa, where Monsanto is similarly pushing their Bt seeds, rejected the gm seeds after finding it produced poor quality cotton.

Bill Gates is backing a quest to create a genetically modified Super Cow, hoping to produce four times more genetically modified milk

Natural News
7 February 2018
Isabella Z

(Natural News) Not content with what nature has provided us, Microsoft founder Bill Gates would like to see a cow that can make more milk than European cows yet be able to withstand heat just as well as African cows. As part of this quest, he is now funding genetic research that aims to create what they consider “the perfect cow.”

It’s part of a $40 million investment Gates has made in the Edinburgh-based nonprofit Global Alliance for Livestock Veterinary Medicines. The funding will also be used for pursuits such as developing stronger crops and researching diseases that can devastate African farmers financially. To that end, scientists are trying to identify the specific genes that can make crops grow faster, resist disease better, offer more nutrition, and withstand extreme weather.

While U.K. International Development Secretary of State Penny Mordaunt applauded the effort when she announced the funding, not everyone is on board with the concept. Meat production requires around 15,000 liters of water per kilogram of beef, which is a very high amount given the widespread water access issues currently plaguing the world.

Moreover, livestock farming takes up almost a third of the land available on the surface of our planet. That land could be used for feeding people rather than animals. In addition, estimates show that if all the grains currently given to livestock were instead given to people, it would create enough food to sustain a further 3.5 billion individuals.

It is also interesting to note that the Gates Foundation pledged $300 million in December to support agriculture research that will allow low-income farmers in Africa and Asia to adapt to climate change. Meat production creates a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gases per protein unit when compared to plants, contributing to the very problem Gates purportedly is hoping to solve with the genetically modified cows.

None of this is surprising coming from Bill Gates

Of course, this is the same Bill Gates whose foundation pushed young tribal girls in India to get risky HPV vaccines by calling them “well-being” shots. Five of the girls passed away shortly after getting the shots. The tribes reported that the girls who were injected experienced adverse events for days and even months after getting the shots. The young girls were essentially used like guinea pigs for trialing vaccines under the disguise of being given healthcare, and there was no informed consent.

We shouldn’t be surprised by any of this; Gates has already made his depopulation intentions clear on more than one occasion. Here he is, in his own words, during a 2010 TED Talk in California: “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about 9 billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

In case you wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and pass it off as poor wording, he repeated the sentiment in a 2011 CNN interview, telling Dr. Sanjay Gupta: “The benefits [of vaccines] are there in terms of reducing sickness, reducing population growth.”

Now it all makes perfect sense. Pumping African kids with genetically modified milk should tie in nicely with his stated mission of lowering the world’s population.

Sources for this article include:

DailyMail.co.uk

Futurism.com

UK.BusinessInsider.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

Major Grocery Retailers Across North America Reject Genetically Engineered Fish

Source:Natural Blaze
Date: 17 November 2017

BIG NEWS – despite biotech & the FDA pushing their unlabeled franken-creatures onto dinner plates, major chains have listened to the public and are rejecting sales!

WASHINGTON, D.C., HALIFAX. November 17, 2017 – As the world’s first sale of genetically engineered fish is underway in Canada, the top food retailers across Canada and the U.S. have made public statements that they have no plans to sell the genetically engineered salmon.

Sobeys (TSX:SBY) is the latest and last of Canada’s national retailers to inform customers that it will not be selling the genetically engineered Atlantic salmon.(1) Sobeys joins the two other top retailers Loblaw (L.TO) and Metro (MRU.TO); the three together represent over 50 percent of the Canadian food retail market. The Overwaitea Food Group, along with regional retailers such as Federated Co-operatives Limited and Longo’s have also said they will not sell genetically engineered salmon.

“Now that some genetically engineered salmon is being sold in Canada unlabeled, it is vital that consumers have this information from their grocery stores,” said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of CBAN.

The Canadian stores join major North American chains Walmart (NYSE:WMT), Costco (NASDAQ:COST) and Whole Foods (WFM:US) as well as nearly 80 other U.S. retailers including Kroger (NYSE:KR), Trader Joe’s, Target (NYSE:TGT), and Aldi in making a commitment to not sell genetically engineered salmon.(2)

“People have a right to know where their food comes from and exactly what’s in it, so that they can make informed choices about what they eat,” said Dana Perls, senior campaigner at Friends of the Earth U.S. “Shrouding this genetically engineered fish in secrecy is unfair to consumers, to say nothing of the fact that genetically engineered salmon are unsustainable and pose serious potential health and environmental risks. We thank these forward-thinking retailers for their leadership and for listening to consumers.”

The genetically engineered salmon was first sold into the Canadian market in June of 2017. It remains unlabeled and its sale locations are not disclosed, making it nearly impossible for consumers to make informed purchases.

In the wake of controversy over the U.S. approval, the U.S. instituted an import ban on genetically engineered salmon until labeling standards are established.

A full list of stores that have made commitments to not sell genetically engineered seafood and salmon and letters sent to companies by Friends of the Earth U.S., CBAN and allies, and a list of coalition partners are available at www.gefreeseafood.org and www.cban.ca/retailerstatements

NOTES:
(1) www.cban.ca/retailerstatements
(2) www.gefreeseafood.org

The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) brings together 16 groups to research, monitor and raise awareness about issues relating to genetic engineering in food and farming. CBAN members include farmer associations, environmental and social justice organizations, and regional coalitions of grassroots groups. www.cban.ca/fish

Friends of the Earth fights to create a more healthy and just world. Our current campaigns focus on promoting clean energy and solutions to climate change, ensuring the food we eat and products we use are safe and sustainable, and protecting marine ecosystems and the people who live and work near them.

The Benefits of Organic 003

Infowars reporter Millie Weaver takes us to an organic family farm in Saline County, MO getting a firsthand account of why this family chose ‘organic’ over conventional ‘GMO’ farming. In contrast, Millie interviews other residents living in the surrounding area who detail their own personal experience dealing with the serious consequences of conventional farming and the heavy use of herbicides.

Matthew ConclusionThis let you know that Organic is healthy for every human and healthy for environment. We needs to reject GMOs (genetically modification organism) and round up herbicide; start going organic because healthy soil equals healthy plants; healthy plants equals healthy people. GMOs(genetically modification organism) equals not health but sickness

USDA approves genetically engineered potatoes despite GMO backlash

Main Source:Natural News
Date: 7 November 2016
Author: J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) Once more, the social change engineers and bureaucrats “in charge” of the country are acting like they know best when it comes to the issues of food freedom and food health. Continue reading USDA approves genetically engineered potatoes despite GMO backlash

Corporate Takeover: All signs point to a corporate takeover of the marijuana industry by Bayer, Monsanto

Main Source:Natural News
Date: 19 October 2016
Author:Samantha Debbie

(NaturalNews) Following months of negotiations and various offers, Germany-based Bayer has finally sealed the deal with Monsanto, purchasing the seed giant for $66 billion. The merger is reported to be the largest all-cash deal on record. Continue reading Corporate Takeover: All signs point to a corporate takeover of the marijuana industry by Bayer, Monsanto