More Gene Rouletter

Pig Beans — The Latest GMO Frankenfood

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked
pig beans gmo frankenfood


  • One of the latest GMO Frankenfoods is Piggy Sooy, a soybean genetically engineered to contain pig protein. One or more undisclosed pig genes are spliced into conventional soya to create a soybean with 26.6% animal protein
  • Moolec, the U.K.-based company that developed Piggy Sooy, is also working on developing a pea plant that produces beef protein. The company claims these transgenic hybrids will provide similar taste, texture and nutritional value as meat, without the high cost of cultured or lab-grown meat alternatives
  • June 21, 2023, the U.S. Department of Agriculture authorized the sale of cell-cultivated chicken from Good Meat and Upside Foods. Both plan on rolling out their synthetic chicken to “high-end” restaurants across the U.S. first, while they scale up production
  • Researchers have discovered that CRISPR-Cas gene editing wreaks havoc in the plant genome, causing several hundred unintended genetic changes to occur simultaneously “in a catastrophic event” that ripples across large parts of the genome
  • Because these changes are impossible to predict, gene edited plants cannot be assumed safe without extensive testing

As expected, more and ever-wilder transgenic foods are being produced. Among the latest is Piggy Sooy, a soybean genetically engineered to contain pig protein.1,2 According to Moolec, the U.K.-based company that developed this latest Frankenfood, pig genes were spliced into conventional soya to create a soybean with 26.6% animal protein.

The exact pig genes used is a trade secret. As a result of this genetic engineering, the interior flesh of the soybean is also a rosy flesh color. The company is also working on developing a pea plant that produces beef protein. Moolec claims these transgenic hybrids will provide similar taste, texture and nutritional value as meat, without the high cost of cultured or lab-grown meat alternatives. According to New Atlas:3

“Farmers will raise the plants via conventional agricultural practices. Once the beans have been harvested and processed — again, via conventional techniques — their proteins will go into meat substitutes and other products …

As is the case with lab-grown pork, it is hoped that commercial adoption of Piggy Sooy could ultimately eliminate the raising and slaughtering of pigs, along with the associated ethical and environmental concerns.

‘Moolec has developed a unique, successful, and patentable platform for the expression of highly valuable proteins in the seeds of economically important crops such as soybeans,’ says the company’s chief science officer, Amit Dhingra.

‘This achievement opens up a precedent for the entire scientific community that is looking to achieve high levels of protein expression in seeds via molecular farming.’ There’s currently no word on when foods containing the proteins may be available to consumers.”

US Authorizes Cultured Chicken

Lab-grown chicken is also heading toward our plates. June 21, 2023, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) authorized the sale of cell-cultivated chicken — meaning chicken meat grown from stem cells in a bioreactor — from Good Meat and Upside Foods.4,5

Both plan on rolling out their synthetic chicken to “high-end” restaurants across the U.S. first, while they scale up production. In addition to these two, more than 100 other companies are also working on different iterations of cultured meat, from cell-based ground beef and 3-D printed steak and fish (see video above), to synthetic foie gras and cultured seafood.

If you care about your health, I have but one recommendation. Stay clear of all these lab-grown concoctions. I don’t even want to call them food. There’s simply no telling how they may affect your health, and no one is studying it either. It could be decades before the effects become evident, and by then it may be far too late to roll things back.

On the one hand, the know-how of how to grow and raise real food might be lost. On the other, we might lose the ability to grow real food because there won’t be any unadulterated seeds left to work with unless we break open the doomsday seed vault at the North Pole.6

Gene Editing Causes Chaos in the Genome

As reported by GMWatch in June 2023, researchers have discovered7 that CRISPR-Cas gene editing ends up wreaking havoc in the plant genome:8

“Recent scientific findings have revealed chromothripsis-like effects after the application of CRISPR/Cas gene editing in the genome of tomatoes … Chromothripsis refers to a phenomenon in which often several hundred genetic changes occur simultaneously in a catastrophic event. Many sections of the genetic material can be swapped, recombined, or even lost if this occurs …”

Importantly, the same catastrophic cascades of gene swaps, recombination and loss also occurs in mammalian and human cells in response to gene editing. Actually, that’s been known for some time.

This is the first time they’ve found that CRISPRthripsis occurs in gene edited plants as well, and the unintended genetic alterations not only occur far more frequently than previously suspected, but they also occur across large parts of the genome.

Gene Edited Plants Cannot Be Regarded as Safe

As explained by Test Biotech:9

“… when both strands of DNA are cut, as is typically the case with the CRISPR/Cas, the ends of the chromosomes can lose contact with each other. If the repair of the break in the chromosomes fails, the severed ends can be lost, restructured or incorporated elsewhere.

Chromothripsis otherwise seems to be relatively rare in plants. CRISPR/Cas applications can frequently result also in changes at genomic sites that are particularly well-protected by natural repair mechanisms. The risks cannot generally be estimated, so they must be investigated thoroughly in each and every case …

The recent findings shed new light on the alleged ‘precision’ of gene scissors: although the new technology can be used to target and cut precise locations in the genome, the consequences of ‘cutting’ the genome are to some extent unpredictable and uncontrollable.

Plants obtained from new genetic engineering (New GE) cannot, therefore, be regarded as safe per se, and need to be thoroughly investigated for risks. Without exact genomic analyses, chromothripsis can be easily overlooked. It is, for example, not unlikely that it also occurred in plants obtained from New GE that were already deregulated in the US.”

Precision in Gene Editing Is Overrated

Those in favor of gene editing frequently stress the fact that it’s far more precise than natural breeding, the insinuation being that precision assures we only get the desired changes, nothing more and nothing less. But that’s clearly not true.

Precision does not guarantee safety, because hundreds of unintended genetic changes can occur from a single alteration, and unintended genetic rearrangements and/or the disruption of gene expression, in turn, can result in:

  • Alterations in the biochemical composition of the plant (or animal tissue)
  • Production of novel toxins
  • Production of novel allergens

Europe Seeks to Deregulate CRISPR Edited Plants

At present, the U.S. has no specific regulations for gene edited plants. The same regulations that apply for conventional crops apply for GMOs.10

That said, in late May 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on “Pesticides and Exemptions of Certain Plant-Incorporated Protectants (PIPs) Derived from Newer Technologies,”11,12 which now requires GMO developers to submit data showing that plants that have been gene edited to resist pests are harmless to other components of the ecosystem, don’t contain pesticide levels beyond those found in conventional crops, and won’t cause negative health effects in consumers.

For years, Europe has had rather stringent restrictions on GMO plants, but they’re now seeking to deregulate as well. As reported by Test Biotech:13

“Attempts are currently being made in Europe to largely deregulate plants obtained from CRISPR/Cas applications. According to leaked documents, the EU Commission plans to give companies permission to release New GE plants into the environment and to market their products after only a short period of notification.

Similar to the USA, the proposed criteria exempting them from mandatory risk assessment would not require any investigation of unintended genetic changes, e.g. chromothripsis.

The new regulation would not only be applicable to plants used in agriculture, but also would allow the release of wild plants with no in-depth risk assessment. Testbiotech is warning that the planned deregulation and large scale releases of New GE organisms could threaten natural resources needed by future generations.”

Lab-Made Meats Are Ultraprocessed Junk Food

Between genetically altered produce and lab-created meats, we’re getting close to not having many real, unadulterated whole food options left. Importantly, many meat alternatives fall into the category of ultraprocessed foods, which we already have far too much of.

In 2018, Friends of the Earth (FOE), a grassroots environmental group, released a report that posed critical questions about the trend toward synthetic biology. In it, they stressed the highly processed nature of these products:14

“Various ‘processing aids’ are employed to make some of these products, including organisms (like genetically engineered bacteria, yeast and algae) that produce proteins, and chemicals to extract proteins.

For example, chemicals like hexane are used to extract components of a food, like proteins (from peas, soy, corn etc.) or compounds (from genetically engineered bacteria) to make xanthan gum … disclosure of these ingredients is not required.

Other processing aids (e.g. bacteria, yeast, algae), including those that are genetically engineered to produce proteins, are also not currently required to be disclosed on package labeling. The lack of transparency makes it difficult to assess the inputs and impact of their use.”

Can We End the Tyranny of Ultraprocessed Food?

In a June 2023 Wired article, Dr. Chris Van Tulleken, an expert in infectious diseases and author of “Ultra-Processed People: Why Do We All Eat Stuff That Isn’t Food … and Why Can’t We Stop?” made a heartfelt plea to policymakers and doctors to protect public health by leading the fight for real food:15

“Diet-related disease — which includes obesity, heart attack, strokes, cancer, and dementia — is the leading cause of early death in the UK. Driving it is a set of industrially processed products … known formally as ultraprocessed food (UPF).

This type of food is usually wrapped in plastic and has additives that you won’t find in a typical kitchen. In the US and the UK, we get on average 60% of our calories from UPF products like pizza, bread, breakfast cereals, biscuits, and nutritional drinks …

UPF is a byproduct of a complicated financial system that involves repurposing waste from animal food into human food.

To solve this problem, the first thing we need to do is include in the official UK guidance about nutrition the information that ultraprocessed foods are associated with weight gain and diet-related diseases, and that the recommendation for people is to avoid these foods.”

Unfortunately, while an admirable call to action, I don’t foresee governments issuing guidance to avoid ultraprocessed foods anytime soon, seeing how many countries, especially the U.S., are all-in on transitioning the entire food system to one that is wholly, or close to wholly, made up of genetically engineered and processed fare.

It’s part of the technocratic takeover known as The Great Reset. By replacing real animal foods with patented lab-made alternatives, globalists will have unprecedented power to control the world’s population. It’ll also grant them greater control over people’s health.

It’s well-known that the consumption of ultraprocessed food contributes to disease,16 and the benefactor of ill health is Big Pharma. The processed food industry has spent many decades driving chronic illness that is then treated with drugs rather than a better diet.

We’re now looking at more ultraprocessed foods being rolled out in the name of combating climate change, so don’t hinge your hopes on legislators. The financial and geopolitical forces against them are enormous. No, I believe the real power resides with each and every one of us. We need to ensure real food still has a place in the marketplace by spending our money on it and leaving all the processed and genetically engineered food on the store shelves.


What’s In Your Catfish?

Scientists Use CRISPR To Put Genes From Alligator Into Catfish

Credit: Jam Press/Auburn University
Transgenic gene editing means taking a genetic sequence from one species and inserting it into another. The United Nations is cataloging the DNA of all species on earth for this very reason: mix and match. Given enough time, these Technocrat/Transhumanist scientists will cause a meltdown of life on earth from genetic corruption. ⁃ TN Editor

Millions of fish are farmed in the US every year, but many of them die from infections. In theory, genetically engineering fish with genes that protect them from disease could reduce waste and help limit the environmental impact of fish farming. A team of scientists have attempted to do just that—by inserting an alligator gene into the genomes of catfish.

Americans go through a lot of catfish. In 2021, catfish farms in the US produced 307 million pounds (139 million kilogram) of the fish. “On a per-pound basis, anywhere from 60 to 70% of US aquaculture is … catfish production,” says Rex Dunham, who works on the genetic improvement of catfish at Auburn University in Alabama.

But catfish farming is also a great breeding ground for infections. From the time farmed fish are newly hatched to the time they are harvested, around 40% of the animals worldwide die from various diseases, says Dunham.

Could the new genetic modification help?

The alligator gene, which Dunham’s research turned up as a potential answer, codes for a protein called cathelicidin. The protein is antimicrobial, says Dunham—it’s thought to help protect alligators from developing infections in the wounds they sustain during their aggressive fights with each other. Dunham wondered whether animals that have the gene artificially inserted into their genomes might be more resistant to diseases.

Dunham and his colleagues also wanted to go a step further and ensure that the resulting transgenic fish couldn’t reproduce. That’s because genetically modified animals have the potential to wreak havoc in the wild should they escape from farms, outcompeting their wild counterparts for food and habitat.

Transgenic survivors

Dunham, Baofeng Su (also at Auburn University), and their colleagues used the gene-editing tool CRISPR to insert the alligator gene for cathelicidin into the part of the genome that codes for an important reproductive hormone, “to try to kill two birds with one stone,” says Dunham. Without the hormone, fish are unable to spawn.

The resulting fish do seem to be more resistant to infections. When the researchers put two different types of disease-causing bacteria in water tanks, they found that gene-edited fish were much more likely to survive than their counterparts that had not undergone gene editing. Depending on the infection, “the survival rate of the cathelicidin transgenic fish was between two- and five-fold higher,” says Dunham.

The transgenic fish are also sterile and can’t reproduce unless they are injected with reproductive hormones, say the researchers, who published their findings online at the preprint server bioRxiv. The paper has not yet been peer-reviewed.

“When I first [heard about the study], I thought: what on earth? Who would have thought to do this? And why would they?” says Greg Lutz at Louisiana State University, who has been researching the role of genetics in aquaculture for decades. But Lutz thinks the work has promise—disease resistance can have a big impact on the amount of waste generated by fish farms, and reducing this waste has long been a goal of gene editing in farmed animals, he says.

Read full story here…


Taking Real Science Out Of the Mix

COVID Criminals Accused of Crimes Against Humanity — New World Next Week

By The Corbett Report

Welcome back to #NewWorldNextWeek — the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week:

Story #1: The German Investigation Into the Covid Scandal

Designer Babies on The Way?


First the crops, now the babies: Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos to create designer babies

(NaturalNews) If a group of Chinese scientists gets their way, the future genome of the human race will be designed and mapped out by their genetic standards. Human genetics might one day have to pass strict genetic tests and go through genetic modification to meet the demands of developing a more perfect human race. Chinese scientists are taking eugenics to a whole new level at the Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, confirming for the first time that human embryos have been genetically engineered.

Those who are angered at the current corporate control and genetic modification of crops should be even more furious at the experiments currently taking place on human embryos.

The Chinese scientists claim they have modified the germ line of several human embryos. The genetic changes are intended to eliminate the possibility of a fatal blood disorder in humans called thalassemia. This is the next step toward a society of designer babies engineered to possess more disease-resilient traits.

As scientists are already finding out with crops, altering genes can elicit unintended consequences. For example, GMO Bt corn was spliced with the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin, which was designed to repel the corn ear worm, but over time that worm population adapted and became resilient, causing widespread crop damage and the need for more chemical pesticides.

What are the unintended consequences of manipulating human life?

The impending eugenic society

Research team leader Junjiu Huang assured the medical community that all of the embryos used in the research study were non-viable embryos that could not survive. The embryos were obtained from fertility clinics where two sperm fertilized one egg.

After Huang got the results he was looking for in non-viable fetuses, was he willing to stop there or will he take it to the next level? Will this kind of research ultimately be carried out on fully-intact, viable human fetuses – possibly those harvested from Planned Parenthood pathology labs?

Editing the DNA of human embryos is already banned in Europe, but other countries – apparently China and maybe the U.S. – might not be too concerned with the ethical grounds involved in fetal tissue research and the genetic modification of human life.

“This news emphasizes the need for an immediate global ban on the creation of GM designer babies,” said Human Genetics Alert Director, Dr. David King. “It is critical that we avoid a eugenic future in which the rich can buy themselves a baby with built-in genetic advantages.”

“It is entirely unnecessary since there are already many ethical ways to avoid thalassemia. This research is a classic example of scientific careerism – assuring one’s place in the history books even though the research is unnecessary and unethical.”

Shirley Hodgson, professor of cancer genetics at St. George’s University of London said, “I think that this is a significant departure from currently accepted research practice. Can we be certain that the embryos that the researchers were working on were indeed non-viable?”

“Any proposal to do germline genetic manipulation should be very carefully considered by international regulatory bodies before it should be considered as a serious research prospect,” she stated.

The experiment caused mutations in genes that were not supposed to be affected at all

The Chinese scientists used a technique originally discovered by MIT scientists. The genetic engineering technique is known as CRISPR/Cas9 and works by inserting a protein from a specific bacterium into the germ line of human DNA. The gene editing process mimics the way in which a virus is attacked in the body. The spliced bacterium snips away at the gene responsible for the rare blood disorder.

This technique has its shortfalls. First of all, what are the long-lasting effects of altered genes that are passed down through generations? How will the environment ultimately respond to these changes, and what mutations might occur?

These are valid questions considering that only 71 of 86 embryos survived the two-day gene editing period. On top of that, only 28 embryos were successfully spliced and an even smaller portion actually contained genetic material replacement when all was said and done.

To make matters worse, the CRISPR technique caused mutations in genes that were not supposed to be affected at all!

Nevertheless, four other groups of Chinese scientists are expected to continue the research. Lead researcher Huang says he is abandoning the controversial research to study ways to stop these mutations from occurring. How thoughtful.

Sources for this article include: