What Does “Organic” Really Mean?

Posted on June 29, 2025 by marcia

Food Labels: Chicken, Eggs, Beef, Pork, Lamb, Produce

Know what they mean and How to read them

JUN 28, 2025

With the recent focus on Making America Healthy Again (MAHA) with food, knowing a bit about the USDA and food labeling has never been more important.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is a huge executive division within the US government. It is subdivided into 15 agencies with oversight by 15 administrative offices. The USDA employs nearly 100,000 people, working at more than 4,500 locations nationwide and abroad. For 2024, the USDA was given an operating budget of $24.46 billion, an increase of 11.5% over the previous year. The bureaucratic behemoth has oversight regarding food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and issues related to public policy.

One agency is the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The AMS creates and administers domestic and international marketing opportunities for producers of “food, fiber, and specialty crops.” This includes commodity procurement and contract management for cotton, tobacco, livestock, poultry, specialty crops, and all types of food labeled organic.

As it turns out, the National Organic Program (NOP) is the federal regulatory program within the AMS that develops then enforces national standards for organically produced agricultural products sold within the United States. Run by only 34 employees and the Office of the Deputy Administrator, the NOP was allocated $24 million within the 2024 operating budget to oversee and regulate all elements of the organic food industry. For comparison, the budget for the Packers and Stockyards program, which regulates and monitors the activities of livestock, meat, and poultry, was allocated $35 million.

NOP oversees the work of 84 certifiers who perform audits, write audit report reviews, send out notices of noncompliance, issue corrective action reviews, and respond to consumers and producers seeking information and assistance regarding all food categories of organic food and labeling, including meat. The expanded availability of organic products in retail stores, supermarkets, and online platforms has made it easier for consumers to access organic meat and has contributed to its market’s growth. In 2021, just over 16,000 certified organic farms were in operation in the US, with California having the most certified farms by far (3,061) while nearly 7,000 farms were certified as organic pastureland and rangeland.

Want to become an organic farmer? There’s a lot to know…

The organic food market’s overall growth has impacted the organic meat sector in many positive ways. As consumers become more aware and critical of the quality of food they eat and prepare for their families, their concerns are driving the availability of organic products in retail stores, supermarkets, and online platforms, including the search for organic meat.

The size of the Global Organic Meat Market was valued at USD $18.78 Billion in 2022 and is poised to grow to USD $37.39 Billion by 2031. The concern for animal welfare is a significant driver for the organic markets. North America is expected to lead the global demand for organic meat. This is, at least in part, due to NOP and USDA programs that support the production of organic meat and meat-related goods.

There is also a growing emphasis on regenerative organic practices for the organic meat industry. Organic meat production typically adheres to stricter animal welfare standards than conventional meat production.

Regenerative farming has been used since the late 1970s, but the terms Regenerative Agriculture and Regenerative Farming came into wider circulation in the early 1980s and is becoming a very popular buzzword now. The technology focuses on restoring soil health via holistic land management, rotational grazing, and enhancing crop biodiversity. While organic farms also prioritize soil health, regenerative practices often go beyond organic standards.

Under NOP regulations, each certified organic farm must have an organic systems plan (OSP), a detailed outline that explains how the farm operations will satisfy the requirements of the NOP regulations. Just understanding all the rules used to monitor and market the organic food market is onerous. This includes (in part) keeping track of updates to each of these regulations:

USDA organic regulations (100s of pages long)
Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (100s of pages long)
Organic enforcement rules
Organic certification processes
Organic livestock and poultry standards
Organic labeling rules
….and more.

What does “organic” really mean?

According to the USDA,

Organic is a labeling term that indicates that the food or other agricultural products have been produced through approved methods. These methods integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster the recycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used.

The Organic Standards can be found here.

The Label Quiz

Many consumers want to eat as “clean” as possible, meaning they want real food that is not contaminated with chemicals, antibiotics, pesticides, GMOs, and toxic vaccines.

Livestock and poultry farmers have caught on to this. Many farmers believe in the organic certification concept but are unwilling to go through the long, and often very expensive, certification program process. After the certification, farmers have to pay an annual, often pricey, fee to maintain the certification.

When consumers see the word “organic” on a package or a label, they have expectations about the product they are purchasing. USDA-certified organic foods must be grown and processed according to federal guidelines that take into consideration soil quality, animal raising practices, pest and weed control, and the use of antibiotics and hormones.

USDA organic regulations prohibit the use of GMO ingredients, listing them as “excluded methods.” Foods labeled organic are also not allowed to contain bioengineered ingredients (BE), which means ingredients made using recombinant DNA technology such as gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes. (NOTE: These ingredients ARE in foods that are NOT organic).

Organic products are labeled according to the percentage of organic ingredients they contain. There are four distinct labeling categories for organic products:

100 Percent Organic – Products with this label contain only certified organic ingredients, including any processing aids.
Organic – For products in the “organic” category, at least 95% of the ingredients must be certified organic. The remaining five percent of ingredients must be organically produced, unless commercially unavailable or allowed on the National List.
Made With Organic ***– For multi-ingredient agricultural products, the “Made with organic ***” label means the product must contain at least 70 percent certified organic ingredients. These products may contain up to 30% of allowed non-organic ingredients. All ingredients – including the 30% non-organic ingredients – must be produced without GMOs.

If a product states, “Made with organic grains,” all ingredients derived from grains— including enriched wheat flour, corn oil, or oats—must be certified organic. If a product contains both organic and non-organic forms of the same ingredient, they must be identified separately in the ingredient statement.

Specific Organic Ingredients – This label is a mixture of non-organic and certified organic ingredients. The ingredient statement of the products identifies that the product contains less than 70% organic content.

Chart Source: Cetrafoods.com

These labeling differences help educated consumers to distinguish between products that are either labeled as “made with organic ingredients” or products that are made with a mix of ingredients.

The USDA and NOP organic regulations prohibit organically labeled food from being contaminated with residues from pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, and genetically modified (GMO) or bioengineered (BE) ingredients. Products undergo required residue testing. If foods are found to be even minimally contaminated (there is no minimum level that is tolerated), penalties and warning letters are issued. (In other words, organic food appears to have a zero tolerance level for these residues. That’s good!)

Labels for Meat

Chicken

To be designated as organic, the birds must be raised organically, starting no later than two days after they hatch. The USDA requires the chicken’s feed to be grown without pesticides or synthetic fertilizers and certified.

Being free-range is not the same as being organic. Free-range and cage-free refers to where/how the chickens lived, not what they were fed, and gives no indication about the quality of the air or hygiene levels where they lived. According to the New Roots Institute,

“Outside space provided to free-range chickens is loosely defined and often just a formality: it’s likely too small, barren, and otherwise inadequate for the thousands of chickens being raised in a farm for slaughter.’

Free-range. “Free-range” is a marketing term used by the food industry. It means the bird was provided shelter, unlimited access to food, fresh water, and outdoor access during their production or life cycle for at least 51% of their lives (making it “the majority” of their lives).
Cage-free. This label indicates that the bird could roam within a building, a room, or an enclosed area with unlimited access to food and fresh water. Cage-free hens generally have no access to the outdoors.

Don’t be fooled by food labels that sound like the living conditions are better for chickens. The ASPC (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals^®) has a table to help make informed choices about chicken meat. The guide helps consumers make choices based on chicken welfare. These three are the best choices:

Source: ASPC table

Eggs

With labels like “organic,” “free-range,” “cage-free,” and “vegetarian fed” it’s hard to know which eggs are the best to buy. While food labeling should be simple and transparent, unfortunately, is mostly about marketing.

Conventional Eggs

Conventional eggs are not the most ethical or nutritious eggs. These birds are generally fed poor quality feed that often contains antibiotics and hormones. Hens live in stacked rows of cages and live in a space approximately the size of a sheet of paper. The vast majority of egg-laying hens are confined in battery cages. Unable to spread their wings, caged laying hens are among agribusiness’s most intensively confined animals. The poor living conditions increase the risk of bacterial contamination.

Globally, non-typhoidal Salmonella is the most frequently documented cause of foodborne disease. In the US, it is the second most common cause of foodborne outbreaks, and around 20% of the illnesses caused by Salmonella are related to poultry, poultry products, and eggs.

In a study from 2023, Salmonella contamination varies widely among egg-producing countries. Contamination in US is low, and reported to be 0.005%. In Europe, Salmonella contamination has been found to be about 0.37%, and in China, the world’s largest egg producer eggs, between 0.5% and 5.6% of eggs were found to be contaminated with the bacteria.

Free-Range Eggs

Lines can get blurred when it comes to the free-range egg label. This is because organic eggs must be from free-range hens, but free-range eggs aren’t necessarily organic, because the birds do not need to be fed organic feed. The USDA only requires free-range eggs come from “free-range” chickens but most really only have limited access to a small, fenced in outdoor area.

Likewise, eggs labeled as “vegetarian,” “antibiotic-free,” or “all-natural” don’t have to meet the strict standards required for certified organic eggs. There’s little oversight, so it’s often up to individual farms or companies to define what those labels mean

Organic Eggs

Under the USDA Organic Certification Requirements, organic eggs must come from chickens that are fed only organic feed that is free of animal by-products, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, or chemical additives. These chickens must not be given any antibiotics or additional hormones.

Organic eggs must be laid by 100% free-range, cage-free chickens with access to an outdoor area, even if it’s small. Overall, organically raised hens offer the highest standard of animal welfare, making them the most ethical egg option available.

Organic eggs are more nutritional sound, even though the industry says there is no difference between organic and non-organic eggs. Since the hens are fed high-quality feed, have more movement, and are drug-free, they produce fresher eggs with more nutrients. The yolks of organic eggs have a richer orange color; they certainly taste richer and healthier. After eating organic eggs, I find the non-organic eggs served in most restaurants taste like styrofoam in comparison.

While organic eggs are often more expensive, sometimes double the cost of commercial eggs, they’re worth it. Look for the USDA Certified Organic label on the egg carton or buy from local farmers who follow the strict standard s for raising organic birds.

Beef

NOTE: Grass-fed describes WHAT the animal was eating, whereas pasture-fed describes WHERE the animal was being fed.

Organic means the cows ate only organic feed and were not given antibiotics or hormones.

Grass-fed

Animals receive most of their nutrients from grass and forages (such as hay) throughout their life. However, the animal’s diet has nothing to do with whether or not it received hormones or antibiotics, or was exposed to toxic pesticides, including glyphosate. In other words, just because it the meat is labeled grass-fed, doesn’t necessarily mean it is organic.

The American Grassfed Association (AGA), a non-governmental organization, developed an approval label to clear this concern. If the meat has an AGA label , it means the animal was raised in a pasture, only fed grass or hay, and was never treated with hormones or antibiotics. American Grassfed Association (AGA) is a producer-founded and run non-profit organization that supports American Family Farms and Ranchers through certification, advocacy, and education programs.

A list of AGA-approved providers can be found here.

Pasture-raised

A pastured-raised animal must have had access to the outdoors for at least 120 days per year. According to USDA regulations, this label includes terminology that refers to only a particular animal. For example, the animal may have lived in a field or on a wide-open ranch, or it may have lived outside in a small pen. The USDA has not developed a labeling policy regarding hormones and antibiotics for pasture-raised products.

Pork

Pigs intended for meat products must be raised organically from the last third of gestation and, like beef, without the use of antibiotics and growth hormone stimulants. To be labeled USDA certified organic, the pork must not only come from pigs raised on organically certified farms but also be processed by a USDA certified organic processing plant.

There are four major aspects of USDA-certified organic regulations relating to pig production—source of animals, feed, healthcare, and living conditions. The only piglets that can be sold as organic are those who whose mother (the sow) has been managed organically from the last third of gestation to birth (gestation ranges from 111 to 120 days.) Federal organic regulations require that organic pigs have access to the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, clean drinking water, and direct sunlight. Organic pigs must have access to clean, dry bedding. If the bedding has crop residue, it must be from organic crops. (Pigs are treated more humanely than chickens).

Pork labeled as organic must come from pigs that have only been fed a diet consisting of organic grains and protein sources, including organic soybean meal. The animal feed must be 100% organically produced and without animal byproducts or daily drugs. GMOs, or hormones. While antibiotics are strictly prohibited, vaccines are allowed….and they get many.

Sheep

As of Jan. 31, 2024, there were 5.03 million head of sheep in the United States, with the largest numbers being located in Texas, California, and Colorado. Even though sheep are produced in all 50 states, most large sheep ranches are located west of the Mississippi River. When it comes to the countries with the most sheep, the US isn’t even in the top 10.

Difference Between Lamb and Mutton

Lamb is meat from a young sheep, under one year of age. Lamb is said to have a very delicate, even slightly sweet, grass-fed flavor; the meat is very tender. Lamb is usually 60-70% more costly than mutton. Mutton is the meat of mature sheep, harvested between 2 to 3 years of age. Mutton is said to have a robust, greasy, even gamey taste compared to true cuts of lamb. Because the animal is older, the meat tends to be tougher and more “chewy.” Most lamb meat sold in the US comes from older sheep.

The USDA does not have clear labeling rules that differentiate between lamb and mutton. Classifying and labeling the meat lamb, yearling, or mutton is left to producers. Therefore, any sheep meat under 24 months at the time of harvest can be labelled as lamb when it is actually mutton.

An astonishingly large and diverse number of products are made from sheep and their byproducts, from food to cosmetics and shaving cream to surgical sutures. Check out this American Sheep Industry Association flier to see the full list.

What about produce labels?

Produce can be labeled organic if it was grown in soil that has not had any prohibited substances applied to it for at least three years before harvest. Products that are clearing not organic have no misleading labeling, except for products that now bear the label coated with Apeel, which I’ve written about previously.

Another chemical used on produce since 1996 is called 1-MCP, which stands for methyl-cyclopropane, marketed under the name Smart Fresh. When sprayed on apples and oranges, the shelf life can be extended for up to three years by blocking the replication of bacteria on the surface of the fruit, but it can also disrupts human and animal gut microbiome.

Other labels found on produce are the PLU labels, standing for Price-LookUp codes. They allow retailers to manage inventory, process customer checkout faster, and help manage the produce industry supply chain. Assigned by the International Federation for Produce Standards (IFPS), more than 1,400 PLU codes have been assigned to various types of fruits and vegetables. The labels also identify if the produce is organic or conventionally grown.

A four-digit code starting with the number 3 or 4 (3000 or 4000 series) is used for conventionally grown produce. This means synthetic fertilizers, chemicals, and/or pesticides might have been used during the growth of the produce.
A five-digit code starting with the number 3 identifies fruits and vegetables that have been irradiated or electronically pasteurized.
A five-digit code starting with the number 6 identifies pre-cut fruits and vegetables.
A five-digit code starting with the number 8 is designated for fruits and vegetables that have been genetically modified or bioengineered.
A five-digit code starting with the number 9 is designated for organic fruits and vegetables.
If the code contains more than five digits, it is not part of the IFPS standardized system.

Summary

the next time you go to the grocery store, spend a little more time reading food labels. Now that you know a little more how they are categorized, you can be an even better consumer for yourself and your family. You’ll want to chose organic eggs, Certified Humane chicken, and AGA labeled beef. You may want to shop using the ASPC food shopping list. They say on their website, but it’s a place to start.

“Where to buy” information is kept up-to-date by individual companies; please contact the store or seller directly to confirm product availability.

*The ASPCA does not audit farms or ranches and instead relies on independent animal welfare certifications as the basis for evaluating different food brands in the marketplace.

from: https://drtenpenny.substack.com/p/food-labels-chicken-eggs-beef-pork?publication_id=931759&post_id=166770095&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

A Fish Out Of Water

Posted on June 19, 2025 by marcia

FDA Rubber-stamps Approval of Lab-grown Salmon

by Veronika Kyrylenko June 12, 2025

Article audio sponsored by The John Birch Society

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared its first-ever lab-grown fish for sale in the United States — based entirely on data submitted by the manufacturer. Wildtype, a California-based food tech company, is now approved to serve its cell-cultivated coho salmon.

This FDA approval makes Wildtype the fourth company cleared to market lab-grown animal products in the country. The salmon is now available on the menu at Kann, a high-profile Haitian restaurant in Portland. The company plans to roll out its “salmon” in four additional restaurants in the coming months, followed by a broader launch into the food-service sector.

What FDA Said

In its review, the FDA stated that it had “no questions” regarding the safety of Wildtype’s salmon. This bureaucratic phrasing marks the final step in the agency’s voluntary pre-market consultation process. The agency wrote:

Based on the data and information presented in [Wildtype’s pre-market safety submission to the FDA], we have no questions at this time about Wildtype’s conclusion that foods comprising or containing cultured coho salmon cell material resulting from the production process defined in [the submission] are as safe as comparable foods produced by other methods. Furthermore, at this time we have not identified any information indicating that the production process as described in [the submission] would be expected to result in food that bears or contains any substance or microorganism that would adulterate the food.

The FDA did not conduct its own tests. Instead, it based its clearance on Wildtype’s internal safety assessments. The agency said it found no evidence to contradict the company’s conclusions — but, apparently, also made no effort to verify them independently.

How It’s Made

Wildtype begins the process of creating what it calls “the cleanest, most sustainable seafood on the planet” by extracting cells from a single coho salmon. These can come from muscle tissue or even from a fertilized egg, per the company. The cells belong to the mesenchymal lineage, meaning they have the natural ability to turn into muscle, fat, or connective tissue.

Once collected, the cells are placed in a sterile, nutrient-rich environment designed to mimic the conditions inside a living fish. They grow and multiply in stainless steel tanks, similar to the fermenters used in brewing. Over time, the cell mass expands to form the basis of what will become the finished product.

After harvesting, the cells are combined with a small number of plant-based ingredients. These help fine-tune the taste, color, and texture, giving the final product its sushi-grade look and feel. Wildtype previously used a plant-based scaffold to help shape the product, but has since moved away from that approach. The company now applies thermal processing after harvest to ensure food safety.

The result is a fillet that resembles raw fish in appearance and taste. According to Wildtype, it delivers the same amount of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids as conventional salmon, but without the harmful levels of mercury, antibiotics, or parasites.

However, many of the details remain undisclosed — such as what gives it its pink color or which agents are used to prevent bacterial contamination. While the process appears clean and carefully controlled, critics point out that the lack of transparency and independent oversight leaves some important questions unanswered.

Safety, Hazards, and Oversight

Wildtype claims it follows a rigorous food-safety protocol. This includes a seafood-specific HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) plan, good manufacturing practices, allergen controls, verified suppliers, traceability for all inputs, batch testing, sanitation procedures, and employee retraining. On paper, the system checks all the regulatory boxes.

But key questions remain unanswered. Wildtype conducted no animal trials. No human feeding trials. And there is no post-market surveillance to monitor long-term health effects. The FDA didn’t request any of that. Instead, it accepted the company’s internal safety assessment, backed by a legal mechanism known as GRAS — “Generally Recognized as Safe.”

The GRAS designation was originally developed for substances used widely and safely for decades — food ingredients like vinegar or black pepper. As the FDA itself explains, GRAS status applies only when “all data necessary to establish safety” are publicly available and recognized by qualified experts. GRAS ingredients must meet the same standard as food additives: a “reasonable certainty of no harm” with intended use.

In Wildtype’s case, the FDA stretched that standard, to say the least. The cultivated salmon isn’t a familiar pantry item or time-tested seasoning. It’s an entirely new food category created in a lab, using techniques borrowed from pharmaceutical manufacturing. And the only data the FDA relied on came from the company itself.

Jaydee Hanson, policy director at the Center for Food Safety, told The Defender that the FDA’s move was “outrageous.” He argued that the GRAS pathway was never meant for novel biotech products like this:

The FDA is negligent, I would say, in allowing a company to use the self-approved generally recognized as safe method. And then the FDA should have developed its own new guidelines for how to test this new food.

Without those guidelines, and without independent testing, critics say, the FDA handed off its regulatory role to the very company seeking approval — leaving consumers to hope the science holds up.

Cultivated Food and Globalism

The push for lab-grown meat and seafood doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It aligns closely with Agenda 2030, the United Nations’ sweeping blueprint for global control. Among its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), several specifically target the way food is produced, distributed, and consumed.

Under SDG 2 (“Zero Hunger”) and SDG 12 (“Responsible Consumption and Production”), the UN calls for “sustainable food systems” that reduce environmental impact, use fewer natural resources, and decrease reliance on traditional agriculture. Cultivated meat, at least in theory, promises to do just that: no livestock, no methane, no deforestation.

Global institutions like the World Economic Forum (WEF), which supports cell-cultivated food as a scalable solution to “climate change” and global food insecurity, echo this narrative. Together, the UN and WEF promote a future of food that is lab-made, patent-protected, and centrally controlled.

Needless to say, this approach hands power over what we eat to a narrow set of actors: multinational corporations, unelected global bodies, and venture-backed biotech firms. Traditional farming, food independence, and personal choice are being engineered out of the equation.

from: https://thenewamerican.com/us/tech/fda-rubber-stamps-approval-of-lab-grown-salmon/

This Is NOT Our War

Posted on June 19, 2025 by marcia

Rep. Thomas Massie Introduces Legislation to Stop US Involvement in Israel-Iran War

June 18, 2025 Gateway Pundit 6

Republican US Representative Thomas Massie introduced an Iran War Powers Resolution with Democrat Representative Ro Khanna to prohibit US involvement in the Israel-Iran war. The resolution notes that “Congress has the sole power to declare war” and would direct the President to terminate use of US military against Iran, “unless explicitly authorized.”

Massie wrote: “This is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.”

Massie also polled followers, asking, “Should the United States be giving Israel weapons to make war with Iran?” and 85% of the more than 126,000 respondents said “No.”

Trump is losing his base over supporting Israel in another war.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) announced that he has introduced a resolution to prohibit American involvement in Israel’s war with Iran on Tuesday.

This comes as Trump signaled on Tuesday that he is seriously considering a strike on Iran and taking out Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

“We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

The President later shared a message he received from U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, where Huckabee compared the current situation Trump faces to that of President Harry Truman, who ordered the first nuclear bombs to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ending World War II. This prompted concern among supporters of the President, who ran on the promise of ending wars, not starting World War III or involving the U.S. in another endless war in the Middle East, that the nuclear option is being considered.

This comes after Israel carried out a massive bombing campaign on Iran’s nuclear sites. The Jewish state conducted the preemptive strike, called “Strength of a Lion,” after receiving intelligence that Iran had enough enriched uranium to build several nuclear bombs within days. However, as The Gateway Pundit reported, since the 1990s, Netanyahu has repeatedly claimed that Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, often citing short timelines for their capability.

The President has gone from calling for Israel to hold off on attacking Iran pending negotiations, even hours before Israel struck Iran, to now calling for “a real end, not a ceasefire” after Israel seemingly vetoed his calls for peaceful negotiation.

Late last month, Trump said he told Israel it wouldn’t be “appropriate” amid the ongoing negotiations:

If Trump decides to go the interventionist route, he will be siding with the warmongers like RINO Senator Lindsey Graham (SC), who has called on the U.S. to go “all in” with Israel and even called for a regime change in Iran.

Rep. Massie announced his resolution on X on Tuesday, saying, “This is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.”

The resolution, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) notes that “Congress has the sole power to declare war” and would direct the President to terminate use of U.S. military against Iran, “unless explicitly authorized.”

I just introduced an Iran War Powers Resolution with @RepRoKhanna to prohibit U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran war.

This is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.

Massie has long been outspoken against involvement in Israel’s war.

On Friday, he vowed to vote against funding for the war, noting that the country evidently “already has enough to start offensive wars.”

He also polled followers, asking, “Should the United States be giving Israel weapons to make war with Iran?” and 85% of the more than 126,000 respondents said “No.”

from: https://needtoknow.news/2025/06/rep-thomas-massie-introduces-legislation-to-stop-us-involvement-in-israel-iran-war/

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

Posted on May 20, 2025 by marcia

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

May 16, 2025 Jimmy Dore, BGR and WDBJ 6

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?

Posted on May 4, 2025 by marcia

Bob Rubila

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

At the heart of the US space 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-energy 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 local 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 study 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

Posted on May 4, 2025 by marcia

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:

Heavy trash bags
Kitchen trash bags
Food storage bags in sandwich size and gallon size
Contractor trash bags

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”

Posted on March 23, 2025 by marcia

(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

A MIDWESTERN DOCTOR

MAR 20, 2025

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:

In 1950, the US Navy covertly sprayed “harmless” bacteria in the San Francisco Bay Area, causing infections and fatalities. Those bacteria then became endemic in the area.
The Cambridge Working Group estimated in 2014 that potentially dangerous lab leaks occur, on average, twice each week in the US alone, and by 2018 this number had risen to an average of four times per week.
Numerous fatal lab leaks involving smallpox and anthrax occurred in the US, UK, and Soviet Union.
Lyme disease emerging next to a US government facility that was weaponizing the same bacteria.
The 1977 H1N1 influenza pandemic being traced back to a lab leak.
The 2001 Anthrax attacks in the US being linked to a weaponized strain found only in bioweapons labs.
Numerous SARS lab leaks occurring since 2002, some of which led to broader outbreaks (and hence why Hotez applied for his vaccine grant).
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) actually emerging from chimpanzee research activities.
Numerous disastrous veterinary pandemics have emerged from leaks.
Some evidence suggests the current bird flu pandemic originated from a USDA lab leak.

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?

Posted on August 7, 2024 by marcia

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

August 04, 2024

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

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.

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

Posted on August 6, 2024 by marcia

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

August 4, 2024 Slay News and Nature 5

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

Digital Earth Twin = Real Trouble for All

Posted on August 4, 2024 by marcia

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

AUGUST 2, 2024

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