And Now, They Created Ticks To Make You Allergic to Meat

Bioengineered Ticks Make You Allergic To Red Meat To Fight Climate Change!? There May Be Hope

The CDC says up to 400,000 Americans may suffer from alpha-gal syndrome, which presents an allergic reaction to meat and is said to be caused by bites from the lone star tick.

The alpha-gal allergy may have been intentionally cooked up in a lab to combat global warming by stopping red meat consumption.

College of Global Public Health Center for Bioethics at New York University Director, Dr. Matthew Liao, speaking at the 2016 World Science Festival, openly advocated artificially inducing a red meat allergy in the entire human population, using an analog of the algha-gal molecule found in the Lone Star Tick.

Most people think of tick bites as nuisances or, at worst, vectors for Lyme disease. But imagine waking up in the middle of the night with hives, your throat closing up, all because you ate some pork hours earlier.

That was Cathy Raley’s reality, according to reports from Science News, after a single tick bite left her with a severe red meat allergy, a condition known as alpha-gal syndrome.

Alpha-gal syndrome isn’t your typical food allergy. It’s caused by a sugar molecule found in most mammalian meat, and this strange condition begins with a tick bite. The tick’s saliva introduces alpha-gal into the bloodstream, which can trigger a chain reaction in the immune system.

Weeks or even months later, eating beef, pork, lamb, or even dairy or gelatin, can provoke anything from an upset stomach to full-blown anaphylaxis. Until recently, the lone star tick was considered the only U.S. species capable of triggering alpha-gal syndrome.

However, new cases in Washington and Maine suggest otherwise. Scientists now believe that other tick species, like the blacklegged tick and the western blacklegged tick, may also be to blame. These findings could expand the map of risk far beyond the lone star tick’s southeastern stronghold, raising new concerns for hikers, campers, and even pet owners across the country.

This growing awareness is important because alpha-gal syndrome often goes undiagnosed. Its symptoms are delayed and can vary wildly from person to person. Many healthcare providers have never even heard of it, leading to frustrating misdiagnoses and prolonged suffering for patients.

There’s no cure for the condition, and while some people may eventually tolerate red meat again, the best protection remains prevention. That starts with avoiding tick bites altogether by wearing long sleeves and light-colored clothing when hiking.

Researchers also recommend that you treat your gear with permethrin, and always check yourself (and your pets) for ticks after spending any time outdoors. Even a tick that’s quickly removed can spark the syndrome, since the reaction isn’t caused by bacteria but by allergens in the tick’s saliva.

Read full article here…

“Life-changing”: Allergy treatment helps alpha-gal patients find relief

A growing number of people in Central Virginia are being diagnosed with Alpha-Gal Syndrome. It’s an allergy caused by tick bites that makes eating—or even being near—meat or dairy dangerous.

More than 80-thousand people viewed our earlier story about alpha-gal on our website—and we even heard from some who say they were just diagnosed because of it.

WDBJ7 spoke with a doctor and patient who say a therapy called SAAT is offering hope and changing lives.

“When we finally figured out that it was when I was eating beef or pork… she did, she ordered blood work and the next day the bloodwork came back and voila, that was it,” said Nanci Bell, diagnosed with alpha-gal.

Bell was diagnosed two years ago—after years of unexplained reactions, including severe hives.

“It was comforting because I thought I was going crazy. I couldn’t understand why I was randomly getting these awful, awful hives that were so itchy,” said Bell.

After getting the SAAT treatment—short for Soliman Auricular Allergy Treatment—Nanci says her life changed.

“It’s been life-changing, definitely. And I know that does sound strange, but take one of your favorite meals out of your diet forever and imagine what that would feel like,” said Bell.

She was able to eat steak just four days after treatment—with no reaction. That treatment was performed by Dr. Cheryl Hanly, a chiropractor and owner of Creedmoor Wellness Center, in Bracey, Virginia. Hanly was certified in SAAT after seeing more and more patients suffering.

“This training was something that came at the perfect time because so many people are suffering,” said Hanly.

SAAT uses tiny acupuncture needles placed in the ear. There’s no pain, and the needles stay in for a few weeks. Each treatment is tailored to the individual, using homeopathic filters to locate the allergy in the body.

Read full article here…

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2025/05/bioengineered-ticks-make-you-allergic-to-red-meat-to-fight-climate-change-there-may-be-hope/

What’s Going on with the South Atlantic Anomaly?

NASA Is Growing Concerned As A Massive Anomaly Spreads Across Earth, Scientists Believe It’s Linked To Deep Earth Forces.

6480846130354 2025 04 28t091835.031

At the heart of the US  agency’s concerns is a geomagnetic phenomenon that is as fascinating as it is worrying: the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA). This immense region is characterised by a significantly reduced magnetic intensity compared with the surrounding areas. Far from being a mere scientific curiosity, this weakness acts like a breach in our natural protective shield, allowing high- solar particles to come dangerously close to the Earth’s surface.

To understand AAS, we need to delve deep into the heart of our planet. Its origin is closely linked to geodynamics, the complex process that takes place in the Earth’s outer core. There, the movement of molten iron and nickel generates the magnetic field that envelops us. However, this generation is not uniform.

Two main factors contribute to the formation of the AAS. Firstly, the inclination of the Earth’s magnetic axis in relation to its axis of rotation plays a role. Secondly, the influence of a gigantic, dense structure known as the African province with low shear velocity, located almost 2,900 kilometres beneath the African continent, disturbs the generation of the magnetic field in this region. NASA geophysicists explain that the anomaly is also associated with a  polarity inversion within the Earth’s magnetic field, which further weakens the overall strength of the dipole field in this specific area. As Weijia Kuang from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center explains, a field of reversed polarity has developed in the region, creating a sort of “pothole” in the Earth’s magnetic armour.

A danger for space technology

This magnetic vulnerability is not without consequences. Satellites passing through the AAS are exposed to high levels of high-energy protons. These particles can cause what engineers call Single Event Anomalies (SEUs). These incidents can lead to temporary malfunctions, data corruption or even permanent damage if a critical system is affected.

Faced with this risk, many satellite operators are taking preventive measures, in particular by shutting down non-essential systems as they pass through the anomaly. The International Space Station (ISS) itself passes through the AAS during each orbit. While its shielding effectively protects the astronauts, the external instruments are more exposed. Bryan Blair, deputy principal investigator for the Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) instrument installed on the ISS, reports occasional “misfires” and resets, resulting in a few hours of data loss each month, an impact deemed manageable. Other missions, such as the Ionospheric Connection Explorer (ICON), are also closely monitoring the AAS and adapting their operations.

Far from being static, the South Atlantic Anomaly is a dynamic phenomenon. Recent data, notably from ESA’s Swarm constellation and historical measurements from NASA’s SAMPEX mission, confirm a number of worrying trends. The anomaly is slowly drifting north-westwards, expanding at the surface and, most notably since 2020, it is splitting into two distinct lobes, creating two centres of magnetic minimum. This bifurcation, corroborated by various studies, increases the number of dangerous zones for spacecraft and complicates the task of scientists developing predictive models of geomagnetic conditions. Understanding the changing morphology of the AAS is crucial for the safety of current and future satellites,” stresses NASA’s Terry Sabaka.

To refine their understanding and forecasts, NASA combines satellite data with simulations of the dynamics of the Earth’s core. This information is fed into global models such as the International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF), which tracks changes in the Earth’s magnetic field. These models are essential not only for planning space missions, but also for gaining a better understanding of our planet’s internal structure. The approach is similar to weather forecasting, but on much longer time scales, making it possible to estimate Secular Variation, i.e. slow but persistent changes in the magnetic field over years and decades.

While the current evolution of the AAS is unprecedented on the scale of the space age, the geological record suggests that such anomalies are not exceptional over long periods of time. A 2020  even suggests that similar anomalies may have existed 11 million years ago. It is important to stress that, according to the scientists, the current AAS is not a precursor of a magnetic pole reversal, a natural but rare phenomenon that takes place over hundreds of thousands of years. The study of the AAS therefore remains an active area of research, essential to protect our technologies in orbit and to deepen our understanding of the deep forces that drive our planet.

from:    https://farmingdale-observer.com/2025/04/29/nasa-is-growing-concerned-as-a-massive-anomaly-spreads-across-earth-scientists-believe-its-linked-to-deep-earth-forces/

Some Hints for Dealing WIth Supply Problems

Strategies and Supplies for Retail Scarcity

Author of How to Prep When You’re Broke and Bloom Where You’re Planted online course

We recently looked into the economic crisis that’s bearing down on us fast and discussed the factors at play to cause problems for consumers. Now, let’s discuss what we can do about it the looming retail scarcity.

It would be easy to say “just stock up on everything” but many of us are already staggering under the increased expenses. For us, that isn’t really practical. When money is limited it must be spent thoughtfully.

Below are some areas where you may soon see shortages, along with ideas for addressing them. To get hundreds more ways to save money, check out our Money Mojo Bundle for as low as $2.

Electronics

When I say “electronics” I’m not specifically speaking of high-ticket items like computers and televisions. Things like replacement accessories could be in short supply as well, and that is something we can get ahead on far more affordably.

I got a generic charger for my Apple devices. I bought a total of 4 to stash away because if my computer isn’t working, then neither am I.

If you have multiple different computers in the house, you can consider a few of these universal chargers with various extra plugs to work on different machines.

Whatever charger your phone needs, you may wish to go ahead and purchase new charging cords now. This is especially true for people who are notoriously rough on their cables. I just picked up a couple of packs so that I’d have half a dozen spares for my phone and a couple of 2-packs for my Kindle. These replacement accessories for electronics are pretty important for lots of people. Make sure you have chargers that are compatible with all the devices in your house.

If you use earbuds or headphones, you might want to consider an inexpensive backup for your main set. I use noise-cancelling headphones every day because I share a small space, and it helps me prevent being distracted.

When you go about your day today, really think about the things you are plugging into the charger and consider what may need replacement sooner rather than later.

Plastics

A shortfall of plastics could cause difficulty in several different sectors. Toys (many of which are also imported) and parts for manufacturing are two places we could see the effects of failing trade with China.

For many things such as toys, I suggest buying used in the future. People will be anxious to sell things that their children are no longer using and replace them. You may also want to buy a couple of Christmas presents early if it’s within the budget.

I have personally stocked up on the following:

If you use those plastic food storage containers for leftovers, now would be the time to make a purchase of them if you need more. I use Mason jars and jars from groceries I’ve purchased for leftovers.

How is your stash of disposable razors? Here’s an inexpensive bulk pack with decent reviews that you can get for a reasonable price now.

Footwear

Are your shoes in shape to last? If you wear specialty shoes for work, such as steel-toed boots or shoes with non-slip soles, you’ll want to get at least one pair ahead. Winter boots are essential if you live in a cold, snowy climate.

For children, getting the next size up in sneakers might be a good idea. I picked up several pairs of cheap flip flops from the dollar store for my daughters for this summer, too.

Clothing

Apparel could be hard to come by, at least for reasonable prices. Think about essential clothing needs and shop ahead of time. Winter coats, jackets, umbrellas, and outerwear are important for all ages.

We’ve taken a few trips to the thrift store recently to grab some outerwear. Right now, there’s a great selection. If the racks at the stores are empty, this may change.

Consider getting a size or two up in clothing for any children in your family.

Fast fashion items like tee shirts, leggings, and socks may be the first to disappear. Think about back to school basics now.

Home goods

Items such as furniture and less expensive home goods like decor may also slow to a trickle, which will drive up the cost. If there’s a purchase you need to make, such as a mattress or a sofa, or bedding and towels, you’d be wise to do it sooner rather than later if you can at all.

Automotive parts

Have you been putting off a repair on your vehicle? You’ll want to get going on that because the slowing of imports could make replacement parts difficult or even impossible to find for a while. If your tires are shot, you’ll want to replace them now while the prices are a bit more reasonable.

Food

If you purchase processed food for your stockpile, consider hitting up the stores now to add some supplies. This isn’t just for things packaged in China – much of the packaging used domestically is imported. (Plastic, remember?)

Toilet paper and Covid flashbacks

Remember the Great Toilet Paper Crisis of 2020? So does everyone else.  Think back to 2020 – the items that were in shortage then will most likely be the first to go now. Be sure to check your supplies of toilet paper, bottled water, bleach, and cleaning items and stock up if needed.

Medical needs

An alarming amount of our over-the-counter and prescription medications come from China. This article has suggestions for stocking up on over-the-counter goods, and this one has ideas for getting ahead on your prescription medications.

Strategies

A flurry of activity now can help you push back the day that you are forced to move on to other strategies, but personally, I have used many of the following strategies for my entire adult life.

  • DIY: You can make your own cleaning supplies and laundry supplies for a fraction of the cost. Be sure to grab the raw materials you need for this now.
  • Learn to make repairs: The book, How to Fix D*mn Near Everything, is a classic for a reason. It’s an older book and may not provide guidance on recent “smart” purchases, but I’ve used my copy regularly for almost 30 years. Whenever possible, repair instead of replace.
  • Second-hand is grand: Thrift stores, yard sales, Facebook Marketplace, and your local neighborhood app could be great sources for second-hand goods. Clothing, shoes, toys, books, and household items can often be acquired for a fraction of their value when purchased from someone who no longer needs them.
  • Make do: Learn to manage with what’s available. We may not have the option of buying new due to either budget constraints or merchandise scarcity. We’ve all grown accustomed to such abundance that making do has become a lost art for many.
  • Keep a positive attitude. Financial problems are stressful, and so are shortages. However, remember that many of the things that feel so vital now are relatively recent additions to our lifestyles. Look to the past to make a more comfortable future by researching how our grandparents lived without all the thingamajigs and whatchamacallits.

While the concept of scarcity is alarming, going back to basics may not be all bad. You may find that the time you spend making things from scratch and repairing items you already have is pleasant, and you’ll be passing down these important skills to your children, too.

from:  https://www.theorganicprepper.com/strategies-supplies-scarcity/

The “Bird Flu”

(Ask yourself Why aren’t turkeys getting it?  Why aren’t ducks getting it?  And wild birds – certainly they are avians?)

Unmasking the Great Avian Influenza Scam

Exploring the simple but forgotten treatments for colds, flus and animal pandemics

Story at a Glance:

  • A massive industry exists to prevent pandemics, but despite receiving billions each year, it routinely fails to prevent pandemics or provide viable ways to address those which emerge.
  • This industry rests upon the lie that viral diseases cannot be treated, when in reality there are many effective over-the-counter, and unpatentable treatments for viral illnesses.
  • The industry engages in cruel and unnecessary animal experimentation, which wastes billions each year and repeatedly creates the pandemics it is supposed to prevent due to how frequently lab leaks occur.
  • The “war against bird flu” highlights key issues within the pandemic prevention industry, where billions have now been spent killing over 100 million birds, yet all that has accomplished is raising egg prices.
  • This article explores how many forgotten therapies can treat both severe viral illnesses and rapidly address common conditions like colds and flus.

Almost every year, it seems a pandemic is hyped up. I would argue that’s because:

•They give federal agencies (e.g., the CDC) a way to justify their necessity and get Congressional funding.

•The media thrives off of hooking the public through fear and appeasing its sponsors (e.g., the pharmaceutical industry).

•It sustains a biodefense industry that uses fear to get a lot of money (e.g., 27.7 billion dollars in 2023) to “prevent” pandemics.

•Tackling many of the real health issues facing our country requires confronting the vested interests responsible for them and addressing the underlying causes of chronic illnesses in the country. In contrast, going to war against a disease is far easier and receives minimal pushback but allows the government to present the facade of safeguarding our health.

As such, we will frequently see a myriad of dubious pandemic preventatives be pushed on us (e.g., the mass slaughter of livestock, the newest “emergency” vaccine, or ineffective and unsafe antivirals like Tamiflu). However despite the pandemic failing to materialize or the preventatives failing to work, no one remembers, and before long the cycle begins anew.

In a previous article, I discussed how the biodefense industry regularly cultivates bioweapons in labs to “protect” us from them. Before COVID-19, this industry had been under great scrutiny as many within the scientific community were worried its risky actions could lead to a catastrophic lab leak. However, once SARS-CoV-2 leaked, the entire scientific establishment chose to double down on this research and label any insinuation lab leaks could occur “a conspiracy theory” or “a danger to science.”

Note: this characterizes Peter Hotez, who in 2012 secured a 6.1 million grantfrom the NIH to develop a SARS vaccine with the stated aim of responding to any “accidental release from a laboratory,” some of which was then used to fund gain-of-function research conducted by the leader of the Wuhan lab in 2017, but after people became aware of the 2019 lab leak, Hotez switched to denying lab leaks and attacking those who discussed them.

These leaks are alarmingly common and remarkably, the industry has not addressed it, as its funding is contingent on a threat continuing to exist (rather than it being eliminated).
Furthermore, many of these lab leaks are quite consequential such as:

Note: a more detailed list of consequential lab leaks can be found here.

Vivisection

One of the major sources of extreme and unnecessary animal cruelty is the animal research industry, which sacrifices over 100 million animals each year, frequently in horrific ways that have no scientific value whatsoever.

Vivisection (first used in 1707) describes the practice of cutting open animals with a central nervous system and has been integral to biomedical science. Since this was quite cruel, divided opinions emerged. One school believed medical science must be objective, rational, and dispassionate so it was unethical to be squeamish or sentimental about hurting conscious animals if that “advanced medical science,” while the other believed there was no ethical justification for knowledge gained from vivisection—highlighting the divide in medicine between doctors being technicians who inflicted “necessary treatments on patients” regardless of the suffering it caused and doctors being compassionate healers who made an effort to connect with their patients and their values.

While vivisection gained prominence in the 1800s, its advocates were so cruel they caused a widespread movement against it to emerge and numerous animal welfare laws to be passed.Nonetheless, vivisection persisted (with many of its medical advocates holding the same contempt towards the “anti-vivisectionists” as we see now directed at “anti-vaxxers”) and the opposition to it has become a forgotten chapter in our history.

This in turn touches upon one of the most important points those activists raised—many of the cruel (and often unnecessary) practices in modern medicine arose from the mentality that gave rise to vivisection, so a good case can be made it is in our own interest to eliminate this malignant foundation modern medicine rests upon.

Dangerous and Wasteful Spending

Following the COVID-19 lab leak, the White Coat Waste Project (WCW) discovered an effective way to stop vivisectionist practices by highlighting not only the cruelty involved but also how much money was being wasted on that risky research. As a result, WCW has repeatedly gotten many stories to go viral (e.g., Fauci spending millions on studies where beagles were restrained so they could be eaten alive by sandflies).

WCW’s work touches on a key point—the primary reason much of this research occurs is so that everyone can feed off the grants for it, not because it offers any value to society. For example I recently covered:

A Colorado University constructing a bat lab to study dangerous infectious diseases which has been widely protested by the community (as they do not want a Wuhan in their backdoor—particularly since FOIA documents showed accidents happened there one to three times a month). However, since that University has received 393 million dollars from the NIH since 2014 and a 6.7 million dollar NIH grant for the lab, Colorado’s government has shut down all attempts to stop the lab.

•Hawaii (particularly Maui) deploying billions of lab-modified mosquitos (that leave unpleasant bites) to reduce mosquito populations, despite there being no evidence this approach works or is safe for the ecosystem. Like Colorado, despite widespread protest (and lawsuits) against it, Hawaii’s government has shut down all attempts to stop the program as over 33 million dollars in federal grants are financing it.

Fortunately, now that D.O.G.E. is auditing the U.S. government’s spending, many of these wasteful (or fraudulent) grants are being exposed, and it is quite likely this dangerous research will greatly decrease (particularly since the NIH just stopped sponsoring Universities from being able to pocket most of the funding for themselves).

Pumping and Dumping Vaccines

The annual flu vaccines have a rather poor track record as:

•It is frequently for the “wrong” strain, which beyond it not working, impairs the immune response to the circulating strain as the immune system is already locked onto the non-existent strain. As such, studies have shown flu shots make you more likely to catch colds and flus.

The rest of the article is here:  https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/unmasking-the-great-avian-influenza?publication_id=748806&post_id=158363078&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

How Organic is your Organic?

You pay more for your organic foods.  How certain are you that it is truly organic?

Organic Food Safety: Navigating Labels and Finding Local Sources

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

VIDEO LINK:    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VApvWG9gpk8&t=1341s

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • In my interview with organic industry watchdog Mark Kastel, we discuss how the organic food industry has grown significantly, but challenges remain with labeling integrity. Local, direct-from-farmer organics are generally more reliable than large-scale commercial organics sold in supermarkets
  • Imported organic products face issues of fraud and regulatory loopholes. “Group certification” allows large agribusinesses to avoid proper inspection, particularly affecting products like hazelnuts from Turkey
  • Nutritional considerations extend beyond organic certification. Even organic practices may not align with optimal nutrition, as seen in chicken feed choices and the debate between brown and white rice
  • Consumers can find authentic organic products by buying local, using online resources, checking certifier names, and looking for 100% grass fed and finished meat. OrganicEye provides valuable information for making informed choices

The organic food industry has grown tremendously over the past few decades, but concerns remain about the integrity of organic labeling and certification. In my eye-opening interview with organic industry watchdog Mark Kastel, he discusses the challenges facing organic consumers and farmers, offering insights on how to find truly healthy, ethically produced food.

Kastel co-founded The Cornucopia Institute, which celebrates its 20th anniversary in 2024, and is also executive director and founder of OrganicEye. He notes that while the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act was well-intentioned, its implementation has been problematic:1

“Congress, in 1990, passed the organic foods production act. It gave the USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture] the responsibility to protect industry stakeholders, so farmers, ethical business people and eaters, consumers, protect them from unfair competition and fraud. And the legislation itself is really pretty solid and well-intended.

Unfortunately, like a lot of things that happen, it gets handed over to the bureaucrats in Washington and the political appointees of both parties. Something gets lost in translation.”

Kastel explains that, initially, the USDA was resistant to regulating organic food, viewing it as just a “marketing scheme.” However, as the U.S. organic food industry has grown to $61.7 billion annually,2 large agribusiness corporations have bought out many pioneering organic brands.

This has led to efforts to make organic certification less rigorous and more profitable. Globally, the organic industry is now a $205.9 billion industry, projected to reach a worth of $532.72 billion by 2032.3

The Two Faces of Organic

organic industry structure

According to Kastel, there are essentially two organic labels consumers encounter:

1.Local, direct-from-farmer organics — These include farmers markets, community-supported agriculture (CSAs) and independent local retailers who source directly from farms they know. Kastel states he’s found “virtually no fraud on that local level.”

2.Large-scale commercial organics — This includes major brands sold in supermarkets and big box stores. These products may come from overseas or large industrial operations with less oversight.

The graphic above, created by Phil Howard, a professor with Michigan State University,4 illustrates how big business has taken over many smaller organic brands. “It really is almost every major brand, and it’s very deceptive,” Kastel explains.5

“You’ll never see General Mills on Cascadian Farms breakfast cereals or Muir Glen tomato products, you’ll see Small Planet Foods. Doesn’t that sound nice? But Dean Foods bought the Horizon label that’s now been sold off a couple of different times … Smuckers is a giant. They own Santa Cruz juices and Knudsen juices.”6

Kastel emphasizes the benefits of buying local organic food: “You’re getting food that’s more nutritionally dense, fresher, more flavorful and your dollars stay in your food shed, they’re recirculating … we call this the multiplier effect.”7

The Challenge of Imported Organics

One of the biggest concerns in the organic industry is the integrity of imported organic products. Kastel explains, “We’ve helped break some major import fraud partnering with the Washington Post at one point. We’ve partnered with The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal.”8 He describes two main types of fraud:

1.Outright fraud or “organic alchemy” — Conventional products are relabeled as organic during shipping.

2.Regulatory loopholes — Large industrial farms exploit weak oversight, especially for animal products like dairy.

Kastel is particularly concerned about a practice called “group certification” for imports:9

“Instead of certifying every farm, instead of inspecting every farm, they will allow a group to band together and when that was conceived, even though it was still illegal when it was conceived, it was for very small landholders doing things like bananas, or chocolate or coffee on a half an acre.”

Now, he says, large agribusinesses are using this loophole to avoid proper inspection of their suppliers. Grower/producer groups started out as a way to help small farmers or indigenous groups in developing countries but have morphed to include commercial-scale farms that are escaping USDA oversight.

Only about 2% of the farmers involved in these grower/producer groups are being inspected annually, which means the vast majority — 98% — are not being inspected as frequently, if at all.

“Although almost universally complied with in domestic production, that system has completely broken down for imports,” Kastel said in a news release. “A large percentage of all foreign imports, making up a sizable amount of the organic food Americans eat, are coming from ‘producer groups,’ whose grower-members the USDA has exempted from the requirements to be certified.”10

For instance, an investigation revealed the USDA’s Organic Integrity Database lists no certified organic hazelnut growers in Turkey. Yet, the country is the leading importer of organic hazelnuts into the U.S., at prices close to conventionally grown hazelnuts.11

“We can grow hazelnuts in the U.S.,” Kastel says, “but they can’t compete with hazelnuts from Turkey, which come from these group certifications, where the farms are not even being inspected, and it’s forcing our Oregon nut growers out of business.”12

Nutritional Insights: Beyond the Organic Label

While organic certification is crucial, even organic practices may not always align with optimal nutrition. It’s important to look beyond the organic label to truly understand the health impacts of your food choices. This includes feeding practices, even within organic systems. For instance, feeding grains to chickens is a common practice on organic farms, but the ideal food for them would be insects and bugs.

It can be difficult to find enough insects for this purpose, but many organic farmers supplement with grains that are loaded with damaging omega-6 polyunsaturated fats. Truly health-conscious organic farmers should consider alternatives like sprouted peas or barley, which result in eggs with healthier fat profiles. Ideally, organic standards need to evolve based on our growing understanding of nutrition.

I don’t generally recommend consuming chicken, even if it’s organic and locally produced, due to its typically high linoleic acid content — the result of being fed grains high in omega-6 fatty acids. Ruminants (like cattle and sheep) are a better choice for meat consumption because ruminants have an additional digestive compartment with bacteria that can saturate polyunsaturated fats.

This allows ruminants to eat grains without accumulating high levels of linoleic acid in their tissues. Even a food as seemingly simple as rice has important nuances you should be aware of for optimal health. Kastel mentions eating brown rice, but I recommend white rice instead.

This is because the fiber in brown rice can negatively impact your gut microbiome, especially for people with insulin resistance, which is 99% of the population. Insulin resistance causes mitochondrial dysfunction, decreasing intracellular energy, which then impacts the ability of your gut to stay healthy.

White rice is a healthier option because it lacks the problematic fibers found in brown rice. However, no matter which rice you eat, it should be organic. As Kastel notes, rice cultivation is often chemically intensive. He also points out that both organic and inorganic arsenic can be present in rice, depending on the soil it’s grown in and past agricultural practices in the area.

How to Find Truly Organic Food and Take Control of Your Food Choices

By integrating these nutritional insights with broader discussions about organic certification and farming practices, you can make more informed dietary choices that support both your health and sustainable agricultural systems. The key takeaway is that while organic certification is a valuable starting point, truly health-conscious consumers need to dig deeper to understand the full nutritional impact of their food choices.

Generally, be cautious about embracing trendy alternatives like fake meat and instead focus on whole, organically produced foods. That being said, how can you find authentic organic products?

OrganicEye is an invaluable resource for anyone interested in making healthier food choices and understanding the organic food industry. The website offers a wealth of resources on organic food, farming practices, and industry regulations. Kastel and his team are not selling products; their mission is purely to educate and inform consumers. In addition, Kastel suggests doing the following to find organic, high-quality food:

1.Buy local whenever possible — Farmers markets, CSAs and independent stores that source directly from farms offer the highest integrity.

2.Use online resources — Websites like Local Harvest, Eat Wild and state agriculture department databases can help you locate nearby farms and markets.

3.Check certifier names — Cornucopia Institute plans to publish a list ranking organic certifiers by trustworthiness.

4.Look for 100% grass fed and finished meat — Be wary of misleading “grass fed” claims that don’t guarantee full grass finishing.

While the organic landscape can be confusing and sometimes deceptive, you have the power to make informed choices. By seeking out local sources, understanding labels, and staying informed about industry practices, it’s possible to find truly healthy, ethically produced food.

Take Action to Protect Organic Farmers and US Organics

After OrganicEye backed a federal lawsuit demanding that the USDA discontinue their practice of allowing foreign agribusinesses to inspect their own suppliers (a profound conflict of interest), the industry’s corporate lobby group, the Organic Trade Association (OTA), suggested that, if the USDA loses the lawsuit, they will simply go to Congress and lobby to change the law to legalize “group certification.”

Don’t let that happen! Federal law currently requires every organic farm to be certified and inspected annually by independent, accredited, third-party certifiers — not foreign corporations with a financial interest.

Please click the button below and invest two minutes of your time in sending a personal message directly to your congressperson and two U.S. senators, asking them to respect the spirit and letter of the law protecting organic farmers, ethical businesses and consumers. To leverage your voice even further, please forward and/or share this action alert with your friends, family and business associates on social media.

take action

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/08/04/organic-food-safety.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20240804&foDate=true&mid=DM1611167&rid=89601619

Green Policies – OOPS – Not SO Much

NASA Scientists: Green Agenda Policies May Be Causing ‘Global Warming’

NASA scientists published a study in Nature claiming to have discovered the primary cause of (alleged) global warming in the past few years and attributed it to a climate/ green policy that decreased sulfur dioxide emissions. In 2020, the International Maritime Organization forced the sulfur content in shipping fuel to drop from 3.5% to no more than 0.5%. The process involved sulfate particles, formed from sulfur dioxide, which can mix with clouds and make them brighter, reflecting the sun’s rays back into space instead of heating the Earth. With a reduction in sulfur dioxide, there is less cloud brightening. The NASA researchers attribute 80% of recent global warming to the drop in sulfur dioxide emissions.

A group of NASA scientists is raising the alarm after a study found that globalist green agenda policies to supposedly fight “climate change” may actually be causing “global warming.”

The NASA scientists believe that efforts to supposedly cool the Earth, such as Bill Gates’s atmospheric aerosols experiments, are having the reverse effect and are dangerously warming the planet.

For decades, globalists have been promoting conflicting narratives in an effort to use the environment to push the public into accepting a collectivist agenda.

The 1970s saw scientists warning of a coming Ice Age in which “arctic cold and perpetual snow could turn most of the inhabitable portions of our planet into a polar desert.”

 

 

At the end of the twentieth century, it was the alleged threat of the exact opposite – “global warming.”

“Global warming” fear mongering then accompanied government campaigns urging the adoption of new regulations.

Then, at the start of the twenty-first century, when people were not fully embracing the fear of “global warming,” so-called experts ambiguously warned of “climate change.”

“Climate change” would conveniently cover all eventualities, including temperatures that sometimes went down.

This was especially convenient as science has long proven that Earth’s climate has been constantly changing over the last few billion years.

Now, NASA scientists claim to have discovered the primary cause of (alleged) global warming in the past few years: Green agenda “environmental ” policies.

Interestingly, they do not address the controversial question of whether or not global warming is actually occurring.

Specifically, curbs placed on sulfur dioxide emissions in 2020 by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) forced the sulfur content in shipping fuel to drop from 3.5 percent to no more than 0.5 percent.

Sulfur dioxide is one of the gases targeted by green activists as it is considered a pollutant contributing to acid rain as well as various respiratory problems.

Environmentalists appear, however, to have been taken off-guard by one consequence of the drop in atmospheric sulfur dioxide: a potential global increase in temperatures.

In their research paper, the NASA scientists note:

While IMO2020 [the new regulation] is intended to benefit public health by decreasing aerosol loading, this decrease in aerosols can temporarily accelerate global warming by dimming clouds across the global oceans. IMO2020 took effect in a short period of time and likely has global impact.

The process involved sulfate particles, formed from sulfur dioxide, which can mix with clouds and make them brighter.

These bright clouds then reflect some of the sun’s rays back out to space, so that less heat reaches Earth.

The scientists estimate that the drop in sulfur dioxide emissions means fewer bright clouds with the result, they claim, of a doubling (or more) of the warming rate:

Here we estimate the regulation leads to a radiative forcing of +0.2±0.11Wm−2 averaged over the global ocean.

The amount of radiative forcing could lead to a doubling (or more) of the warming rate in the 2020 s compared with the rate since 1980 with strong spatiotemporal heterogeneity.

They claim that we saw this rise in temperatures last year.

They attribute 80 percent of recent global warming to the drop in sulfur dioxide emissions:

The warming effect is consistent with the recent observed strong warming in 2023 and expected to make the 2020s anomalously warm.

The forcing is equivalent in magnitude to 80% of the measured increase in planetary heat uptake since 2020.

The study also mentions the implications for general weather patterns across the globe.

The scientists argue that the issue is making the weather more unstable, particularly this decade:

The radiative forcing also has strong hemispheric contrast, which has important implications for precipitation pattern changes … [and] can create significant perturbations in precipitation patterns.

Had they not been scientists from NASA, the media would probably have ignored the findings.

After all, a single corporate news outlet did not pick up a recent study revealing how carbon dioxide’s current and future impact on global warming is likely zero.

This time around, the study was published in Nature and picked up by no less than 120 news sites.

However, what the mainstream media outlets focused on was a tangential issue raised by the research findings.

The NASA scientists had mentioned in their work a process called marine cloud brightening which Bill Gates is championing.

This involves spraying sea salt into the clouds to create a similar bright-cloud effect to that created by sulfates, possibly cooling the planet.

In response, The Washington Post headlined its article, “Could spraying sea salt into the clouds cool the planet?”

In fact, it dates back to 1990 and has been investigated for almost two decades.

The Post did not make a single reference to the discovery that “carbon emissions” are not, after all, causing temperature increases.

No more did the New York Times, which hid the (partial) results of the study in an obscure paragraph tucked away in an article headlined, “Hanging by a Thread: U.N. Chief Warns of Missing a Key Climate Target.”

In fact, NYT omitted to mention that the study was conducted by NASA scientists, only mentioning that:

Other contributors [to global warming] might stick around for longer. In a study published last week, a team of scientists led by Tianle Yuan, a geophysicist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, estimated that the planet could be experiencing additional warming right now for a counterintuitive reason: recent regulations that slashed air pollution from ships.

NYT then dashed back to the accepted narrative of normal, everyday human activity being the main driver of alleged “global warming,” stressing that:

To scientists, the foremost driver of warming remains clear: Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, the three most important human-caused heat-trapping gases, have continued their steady upward climb.

At current rates of emissions, it might only be five or so more years before humans have altered the atmosphere’s chemistry so significantly that it becomes extremely difficult to stop warming from surpassing 1.5 degrees Celsius, scientists have estimated

Evidently, NYT esteems the views of scientists from Imperial College London and other institutes more than the views of researchers from NASA.

Forbes, too, in an article titled, “Shipping Pollution Curbs Made Climate Change Worse, Controversial NASA Study Claims,” quotes random climate scientists who cast doubt on the study’s findings.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the research findings is that they shouldn’t have been news at all.

The effects of sulfates in the atmosphere have been known for decades.

An article dating back to 1999 states:

… the effects of the sulfur dioxide from industry might be countering the greenhouse effect created by carbon dioxide …

When fossil fuels are burned, both carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide are released.

As demonstrated in the ship tracks study, sulfate particles produced from sulfur dioxide create brighter clouds, which may cool the atmosphere.

Any light that is reflected cannot reach the ground and heat the surface of the Earth.

This means there is less heat for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to trap in the atmosphere.

This article was written by NASA scientists.

Today’s NASA scientists suggest in their study that the important question to address now is the “trade-off” between improving air quality and “global warming.”

They also imply that, in the future, scientists should exercise more caution in their efforts to control the climate, given the complex and often contradictory issues involved:

Read full article here…

Study published in Nature:      https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01442-3

from:  https://needtoknow.news/2024/08/nasa-scientists-green-agenda-policies-may-be-causing-global-warming/

Digital Earth Twin = Real Trouble for All

‘Digital Twin’ Of Earth Being Created To Predict The Future, Micro-Manage Everything

You can run, but you can not hide. The humongous new AI data centers, satellite networks, ground sensors, cell phones, and all the data on earth will combine to create a “Skynet” scenario to control everything, and all life forms. Driven by a lust to get to “net-zero”, this will far exceed anything related to climate change.

This simulation of satellites has now largely been fulfilled, but plans for more launches are in the works. This blanket of surveillance will monitor every square inch of the planet as systems are layered on. As the industry graphic above depicts, the payload for Technocrats lie in the “interventions.” — Technocracy News & Trends Editor Patrick Wood


By: Frost & Symons via Euronews

How do you know when a small-scale farmer in Africa, Latin America or Asia has sufficiently adapted to longer droughts or shifts in traditional monsoon seasons?

The complexity of this question means it is often left unanswered, with funding for such adaptation in developing countries dropping to around just a quarter of total climate finance provided by developed countries.

Delegates gathering at the Bonn Climate Change Conference to prepare for this year’s UN climate talks will be anticipating such questions, with COP29 already dubbed the “finance COP”.

In Baku, Azerbaijan, later this year, countries are expected to discuss a new climate finance deal after reaching the target of $100 billion (€93.2bn) a year in finance for developing countries two years later than agreed.

Historically low-emitting countries across much of the Global South desperately need more financial support to improve their climate defences across key sectors such as agriculture.

Less than 1% of international climate finance was spent helping smallholder farmers adapt to climate change in 2021, with many forced to spend up to 40% of their own incomes to cope with floods, droughts and crop pests.

However, in addition to more finance, countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America also need ways of measuring adaptation to direct investments more effectively.

The solution that works already exists

While efforts to transition to sustainable agriculture across Europe have sparked protests among farmers this year, adapting to the evolving impacts of climate change is already a matter of survival for those in the Global South.

One emerging solution is an adaptation index, which scores resilience to climate shocks to highlight where finance for climate adaptation is most needed. Such models can quantify levels of adaptation and preparedness, giving policymakers, development agencies, investors, and donors clear guidance on where and how to invest in adaptation finance.

Water scarcity is the most common climate risk for crop farmers in Guatemala and Honduras across the different commodities.

Adaptation indices, developed at a country or commodity level, complement other work to consolidate climate data and research, such as CGIAR’s Africa Agriculture Adaptation Atlas, which provides interactive data insights and forecasts.

This new methodology is already providing actionable insights to direct adaptation funding and have the best chance of increasing the resilience of some of the world’s most vulnerable communities.

Over the past two years, the first-if-its-kind Adaptation Equivalency Index (AEI) has been developed for Guatemala and Honduras by Heifer International, Conservation International and local partners, supported by the Global Environment Facility. Guatemala and Honduras have both ranked among the top 10 countries most affected by climate change over the past decade, with heavy rains, floods, droughts and hurricanes becoming more frequent and affecting agriculture.

The index ranks the adaptation levels of the countries’ major agricultural commodities: spices, cacao and coffee.

Evidence-based investment means tangible impact

What makes this index novel is that it starts off with the farmers themselves, identifying the real-world climate threats that producers are already experiencing and anticipating, as well as their capacity to adapt.

This work has already uncovered the fact that water scarcity is the most common climate risk for crop farmers in Guatemala and Honduras across the different commodities.

Read full story here…

Sourced from Technocracy News & Trends 

from:    https://www.activistpost.com/2024/08/digital-twin-of-earth-being-created-to-predict-the-future-micro-manage-everything.html

 

Messing With The Climate – What Can Go Wrong???

Scientists Call for Geoengineering of Glaciers To Address Climate Change

Raw Egg Nationalist | Infowars.com

A new scientific white paper calls for urgent research into geoengineering of glaciers in the Arctic and Antarctic

Geoengineering projects are being pursued across the globe in a bid to tackle climate change

The scientific community should urgently pursue research into geoengineering of glaciers, according to a new scientific white paper.

According to the white paper, research into geoengineering of ice sheets in the Arctic and Antarctic must be undertaken now, before humanity faces a catastrophic rise in sea-levels that could provoke panicked decision-making to halt it.

“Everyone who is a scientist hopes that we don’t have to do this research,” said Douglas MacAyeal, a professor of geophysical sciences and co-author of the paper.

“But we also know that if we don’t think about it, we could be missing an opportunity to help the world in the future.”

The white paper emerged out of two conferences held on geoengineering—deliberate interventions to alter the planet’s climate—at Chicago and Stanford University. The conferences were organized by the newly formed Climate Systems Engineering initiative at UChicago, which “seeks to understand the benefits, risks, and governance of technologies that might reduce the impacts of accumulated greenhouse gases,” according to a press release.

The scientists at the conferences advocated for two major types of geoengineering to be investigated. The first type consists of “curtains” moored on the seabed to prevent warm water from undermining ice shelves. The biggest threat to ice sheets is not warm air, but warm water,

The second type involves attempts to reduce the flow of meltwater streams that run off ice sheets. This could be achieved, for example, by drilling deep into glaciers, either to drain water from the glacier bed and prevent it from affecting the glacier, or to try and freeze the glacier bed artificially.

The report notes that both approaches are totally untested and their advantages and disadvantages, including potentially environmental disruption, are unclear.

The report calls for any investigation into geoengineering solutions to be conducted in an equitable manner, with input from all the world’s nations. This would involve “robust participation of sociologists, humanists, ecologists, community leaders, scientific and engineering governing bodies, international treaty organizations, and other relevant stakeholders in guiding the research.”

Geoengineering has received increasing coverage in the news in recent months, for good and bad reasons.

First, the good. In a welcome development, Tennessee became the first state in the US to ban geoengineering, including attempts to modify the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth, whether by using physical barriers in the high atmosphere, through spreading reflective chemicals in the sky, or by practices like cloud-seeding, which is used to increase the amount of rainfall over a particular area.

Now, the bad. It’s becoming clear that a shift is taking place in the scientific community and government, as the dangers of geoengineering are being reconsidered in light of the supposed “inevitability” of catastrophic climate change. Many influential figures now believe that the massive risks of geoengineering are worth taking, even if they only buy some extra time for even more sweeping changes to the global regime of carbon-emission reduction.

In February, The Wall Street Journal published a detailed report on three ongoing geoengineering projects taking place across the globe, with a mixture of government and private funding.

In Australia, researchers from Southern Cross University are releasing a brine mixture into the sky to create larger, brighter clouds that will reflect more sunlight and reduce local temperatures. The project is funded by the Australian government, universities, and conservation organizations.

In Israel, Stardust Solutions is testing a delivery system to disperse reflective particles at high altitudes, again to reduce solar radiation. The startup is currently testing the system indoors but will move to outdoor tests in the “next few months.”

And in the US, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute plans to add 6,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide to the ocean off Martha’s Vineyard. They want to produce a “carbon sink” that sucks carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and into the sea, storing it there. The U.S. government and private sources fund the project. The release of the chemical will require further approval from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Even more worryingly, private companies and individuals are experimenting with geoengineering, without government support or approval. In January 2023, a California startup called Make Sunsets admitted to launching test ballons in Mexico containing sulfur dioxide, a chemical that is of great interest to geoengineers because of its ability to reflect solar radiation in the atmosphere.

Although the test launches were greeted with anger by the scientific community and the Mexican government, the CEO of Make Sunsets, Luke Eisen, was unrepentant, and said that soon his company would start releasing as much sulfur into the atmosphere “as we can get customers to pay us” to release. The startup offers a “cooling credit” system on its website where customers can pay $10 for a gram of sulfur dioxide in a balloon’s payload.

from:    https://www.infowars.com/posts/scientists-call-for-geoengineering-of-glaciers-to-address-climate-change/

Guts and Grains

truth about grains in our food system

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • “Non-GMO” labeling does not mean chemical-free farming. These crops may still be treated with pesticides and herbicides. Many nonorganic grains are heavily sprayed with toxic pesticides like glyphosate just before harvest, a practice called desiccation
  • A recent study found glyphosate in 44 out of 46 organic and nonorganic gluten-free products tested, with some at alarmingly high levels
  • Glyphosate exposure can disrupt gut health by killing beneficial bacteria and promoting the growth of harmful bacteria. Consuming organic food has been linked to reduced cancer risk, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine
  • The EPA’s acceptable daily intake for glyphosate is 7,000 times higher than European standards, raising concerns about regulatory oversight
  • Supporting organic and regenerative farming practices through consumer choices can help drive positive change in the food system

In an era where health consciousness is at an all-time high, many of us have become increasingly vigilant about the food we consume. We scrutinize labels, opt for organic produce when possible, and make concerted efforts to avoid processed foods. However, there’s a critical aspect of our food system that often flies under the radar … the production and processing of grains.

While many of us strive to make healthier choices, financial constraints often limit our ability to consistently purchase organic produce. (Check out the Environmental Working Group (EWG) “Clean 15,” the 15 produce items that had the lowest levels of pesticide residues, here).

However, when it comes to grains and grain legumes (wheat, oats, chickpeas, and more), the stakes are significantly higher. This overlooked component of our diet may be harboring more dangers than we realize, particularly when it comes to the use of pesticides and herbicides.

Unbeknownst to many consumers, numerous grains are heavily sprayed with toxic pesticides just before harvest, making the sourcing of organic grains, or at least knowing their origin, crucial for our health.

The Non-GMO Misconception

It’s important to note that organic agriculture isn’t without its flaws. While it generally involves fewer synthetic chemicals, some are still permitted. Moreover, organic farming often relies on tillage, a practice that involves mechanically manipulating the soil through plowing or cultivation. This process can be detrimental to soil health, degrading its structure, increasing erosion, and disrupting vital microbial populations.

A common misconception, however, is that “Non-GMO” labeling equates to chemical-free farming. In reality, this label merely indicates that the crops haven’t been genetically modified. It says nothing about the use of pesticides or herbicides during the growing process. This misunderstanding often leads consumers to believe they’re making a healthier choice when, in fact, they may still be exposing themselves to harmful chemicals.

While many people are aware that glyphosate and other toxic herbicides are used to control weeds, fewer realize that these chemicals are also employed as drying agents in some nonorganic farming operations — leading to higher levels of glyphosate in nonorganic products made from oats, wheat and other grains.1

This practice, known as desiccation, involves spraying crops with glyphosate 1 to 2 weeks before harvest to accelerate the drying process, allowing farmers to harvest sooner.2 It’s like giving crops a chemical spa day, except instead of coming out relaxed and rejuvenated, it comes out dead and potentially carcinogenic. Fancy!

The use of glyphosate as a pre-harvest desiccant has seen a dramatic increase in recent years. For example, even though wheat is not a GMO crop, glyphosate use on wheat has skyrocketed by 400% in the past two decades.3 This trend isn’t limited to wheat; it extends to a wide range of grains and legumes, including barley, oats, corn, soy, chickpeas, and more.

The practice of using glyphosate for crop desiccation can be traced back to Scotland in the 1980s. According to Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., farmers there struggled with uneven drying of wheat and barley crops. To solve this problem, they began using glyphosate to kill the crops shortly before harvest, accelerating the drying process.

And thus, the practice of spraying glyphosate on crops before harvest was born, soon spreading to other regions and crops. The use of glyphosate as a pre-harvest desiccant leaves chemical residues that are then processed into our food, significantly increasing our dietary exposure.4 While this practice isn’t universal, it’s particularly common in regions with short growing seasons and wetter harvests.

The Alarming Findings

Recent studies have revealed shocking levels of glyphosate in various grain products.5 The EWG conducted tests on popular breakfast cereals and snacks, finding significant amounts of glyphosate in many samples. The highest level was detected in Quaker Oatmeal Squares Honey Nut, which contained 2,837 parts per billion (ppb) of glyphosate — nearly 18 times the EWG’s benchmark.

Even more concerning, a study from March of this year6 tested 46 samples of organic and nonorganic gluten-free products for glyphosate and other pesticides.

The results were alarming: 44 out of 46 samples tested positive for glyphosate. The highest level was found in Banza Chickpea Pasta, at a staggering 2,693 parts per million (ppm), the highest amount ever recorded in human food by the lab conducting the study! (Also, some of the foods labeled as gluten-free in this study were found to contain gluten.)

banza

While glyphosate has been the focus of much research and public concern, it’s not the only chemical we should be worried about. The same study from March of this year that found high levels of glyphosate also identified 2,4-D, a component of Agent Orange, as the most prevalent pesticide in the samples. Products like King Arthur’s Gluten Free Flour and Milton’s Sea Salt Crackers were found to have the highest levels of pesticides.

Decimation of Our Guts

The health consequences of glyphosate exposure are becoming increasingly clear, with one of the most significant concerns being its impact on our gut microbiome.7

The suffix “-cide” in “herbicide” (and other similar terms like pesticide, fungicide, etc.) comes from the Latin word “caedere,” which means “to kill” or “to cut down.” Therefore, in the context of herbicide, “cide” indicates that the substance is designed to kill.

Glyphosate is designed to kill weeds and microorganisms in the soil, but our digestive systems contain trillions of microorganisms! Studies have shown that glyphosate can hinder the growth of beneficial gut bacteria while promoting the growth of pathogenic bacteria, leading to dysbiosis.8

“Glyphosate residues on food could cause dysbiosis, given that opportunistic pathogens are more resistant to glyphosate compared to commensal bacteria.”9

The Human Microbiome Project found that 732 out of 941 bacteria species in our gut have at least one copy of the gene that glyphosate targets. This means that 55% of our gut bacteria are sensitive to glyphosate, 38% are resistant, and 7% are unclassified.10 The potential for glyphosate to disrupt our gut health is, therefore, significant and concerning!

Regulatory Shortcomings

But don’t worry, folks. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has got our backs. They’ve set the acceptable daily intake of glyphosate in our drinking water at a level that’s only … checks notes … 7,000 times higher than the European standard. Because nothing says “We care about public health” quite like allowing a generous helping of herbicide.

For food, the EPA in the United States has set the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for glyphosate at 1.75 mg/kg body weight/day, which is significantly higher than the standards in Europe (0.5 mg/kg) and Canada (0.3 mg/kg).11 Even more alarming is that these standards only consider direct glyphosate toxicity, completely overlooking its potential impact on gut health.

Adding to the complexity of the issue is what researchers call the “cocktail effect.” While glyphosate is the active ingredient in many herbicides, crops are often treated with a mixture of agrochemicals. The synergistic effects of these chemical combinations are largely unknown and unstudied, particularly concerning their impact on the gut microbiome. This gap in our understanding poses significant risks to human health!

Another often-overlooked aspect of pesticide exposure is the cumulative effect. Even if individual foods contain “safe” levels of pesticides relative to the EPAs standards, regular consumption of multiple foods with residues can lead to a significant total exposure over time. This cumulative effect is rarely considered in regulatory decisions or public health guidelines.

“While glyphosate is the active ingredient, food crops are desiccated with GBH, which contain compounds in addition to glyphosate. Complicating matters further is the fact that most GBH are proprietary and their ingredients and the relative percentages are unknown.

This ambiguity poses a significant challenge for researchers as they do not know what they’re working with, the amount present and the synergistic effects of these chemicals when combined. Additionally, crops are often treated with a proverbial ‘cocktail’ of agrochemicals, including other herbicides, in addition to glyphosate and GBH.

The cytotoxic effects of glyphosate appear to increase when combined with other herbicides, including Paraquat … This synergistic phenomenon suggests that relatively low glyphosate residues within our food supply could have serious consequences when combined with other commonly used agrochemicals.”12

As awareness of glyphosate’s potential harm grows, some farmers are turning to alternative chemicals like Dicamba. However, this shift doesn’t necessarily represent an improvement in terms of health or environmental impact. It merely replaces one potentially harmful chemical with another, perpetuating a cycle of chemical dependency in agriculture.

It’s crucial to understand that the widespread use of toxic chemicals in farming is not the fault of individual farmers, but rather a result of the broken agricultural system shaped by government policies and industry influences over decades. Farmers often find themselves caught in a challenging situation, pressured by economic realities, market demands, and agricultural policies that have long favored high-yield, chemically intensive farming practices.

The current system, largely shaped by government subsidies, research funding priorities, and regulatory frameworks, has created an environment where conventional, chemical-dependent farming is often the most economically viable option for many farmers.

Additionally, years of specialized education and industry messaging (and propaganda) have reinforced these practices, making it difficult for farmers to transition to alternative methods without significant support and systemic change. Many farmers are simply trying to survive in a system that wasn’t designed with long-term environmental and health consequences in mind.

The Way Forward

The prevalence of glyphosate in our food system is alarming, with the chemical even being detected in women’s breast milk,13 indicating its ability to bio-accumulate in the human body.

But we can reduce our exposure significantly by paying attention to where our food comes from (ESPECIALLY when it comes to grains). And the research now supports that reducing consumption of foods high in glyphosate can lead to significant health improvements.

A review conducted by the University of Washington found that agricultural workers who used glyphosate extensively were 41% more likely to develop Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma during their lifetime compared to those who used it infrequently or not at all.14

Furthermore, a major study published in JAMA Internal Medicine revealed a significant reduction in cancer risk for individuals who consumed a diet rich in organic food.15

Conclusion

While sourcing organic produce isn’t always feasible, it’s crucial for consumers to be more aware of where their grains (wheat, oats, corn, rice, barley, chickpeas, etc.) or grain by-products (bread, baked-goods, cereal, crackers, etc.) come from. Just as many people advocate knowing your meat’s origin, the same principle should apply to grains and cereal crops.

It’s important to further emphasize that simply eliminating soy or wheat from one’s diet and choosing “gluten-free” doesn’t guarantee the elimination of glyphosate exposure, as many other nonorganic crops are desiccated before harvest.

For example, if you were regularly buying the Banza Chickpea pasta because you thought it was a healthier gluten-free option, you were unknowingly significantly increasing your glyphosate exposure.

Now, I know we’ve covered a lot of ground here, and you might be feeling a bit overwhelmed. You might even be eyeing your morning toast with suspicion, wondering if it’s plotting against you!

But remember, knowledge is power! And in this case, it’s the power to make better choices about what you put in your body. This will not be a “top-down” effort, as the government does not put public health first.

Instead, change will be from the “bottom-up” through consumer demand. Since public health is secondary to corporate interests, it is on us as consumers to educate ourselves about these issues, ask questions, and make informed choices about the foods we consume.

Organic is the better option relative to non-GMO for grains. However, the ideal solution would be sourcing from regenerative farms, although these can be harder to find.

Regenerative grain production involves minimal or zero chemical use and instead focuses on building soil health to produce healthy crops. This approach not only reduces chemical exposure but also improves soil health since tillage is not employed.

Supporting organic and regenerative farming practices and demanding transparency in food production from farmers, cooperatives, and food companies are crucial steps towards a healthier food system. It really is on us!

In the end, the question isn’t always just about what we eat, but about how our food is produced. By paying attention to these often-overlooked aspects of our food system, we can take control of our health and contribute to a more sustainable future for agriculture.

You can make a difference by supporting organic and regenerative farmers. Think of it as voting with your fork (or spoon). Every time you choose an organic grain product, you’re essentially voting against the chemical-based conventional farming system.

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/07/30/truth-about-grains-in-our-food-system.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20240730_HL2&foDate=true&mid=DM1608961&rid=85574406

And Now They Are Coming for Beef

Rancher Sounds Alarm on Mandatory mRNA Vaccines For Meat Supply

Infowars.com

USDA “did a trial with 500 pigs. Within the first couple of weeks they had about 100 of them die,” says rancher Trevor Cowley.

A rancher is warning of the government’s experimentation with mRNA vaccines on the U.S. meat supply, noting that 25% of the pigs that received the shots have died.

“The USDA came out with a study on pigs because pigs were the first to be trialed with the mRNA vaccines. They did a trial with 500 pigs. Within the first couple of weeks they had about 100 of them die,” rancher Trevor Cowley said on the “Real Business Owners” podcast last month.

“They analyzed the pigs after they had died…They were still finding traces of the vaccine inside the meat,” he added.

Cowley said the government is also using the bird flu outbreak to advocate for injecting beef cattle with more experimental mRNA vaccines.

Cowley also explained that the federal government pushed for mandatory ID chipping of cattle in response to the bird flu outbreak after failing to implement them earlier in the face of massive public outcry.

Watch the full interview:

from:    https://www.infowars.com/posts/rancher-sounds-alarm-on-mandatory-mrna-vaccines-for-meat-supply/
from:    https://www.infowars.com/posts/rancher-sounds-alarm-on-mandatory-mrna-vaccines-for-meat-supply/?__cf_chl_tk=ZdqqGxeRUYL17ORdcyPieXtZ52FBBKJqUlgwuleBYRk-1721844959-0.0.1.1-4138