Tag Archives: synthetic

Got MilQ? Fake Milk to Replace Dairy and Breast Milk (what could go wrong?)

Remember these news items? Not difficult to figure what Bill & Co were up to is it?
2016: Pediatrics Journal says to stop calling breastfeeding natural
2017: We’re ‘Advancing’ from ‘Breastfeeding is Not Natural’ to CDC Reporting ‘Breast Milk Has Inhibitory Effect On Vaccine’
2020: In 2016 Pediatrics Journal said breast feeding was not natural … 4 years later Bill Gates is investing in lab-made breast milk

Note: Due to censorship of Dr Mercola’s articles he archives them to paid sub soon after publishing. I’ve therefore published this in its entirety however you may find the source link will no longer work. EWR


From Dr Mercola

Story at-a-glance

  • The globalist technocrats are intent on monopolizing the entire food supply. They already have a monopoly on grains and have made headway in genetically engineered (GE) seafood. The next targets include lab-grown meats and dairy substitutes
  • Biomilq, made from cultured breast tissue, will be marketed as a breast milk substitute
  • The company Helaina is working on creating glycoproteins “identical to those found in breast milk.” Those proteins can then be added to a variety of infant formulas, seniors’ nutrition and, eventually, all sorts of foods
  • The justification for creating synthetic milk substitutes is, of course, preventing and reversing “climate change.” That’s the justification used to sell virtually all fake foods. In reality, however, they will perpetuate and worsen adverse effects on the environment
  • Lab-created foods are ultraprocessed and therefore qualify as junk food. Fake meat and dairy cannot replace the complex mix of nutrients found in grass fed beef and dairy, and it’s likely that consuming ultraprocessed meat and milk alternatives may lead to many of the same health issues that are caused by a processed food diet
  • The starting ingredients in fermented synthetic biology products are cheap sugars derived from GE corn and soy. All GE crops are grown in environmentally destructive monocultures, and use loads of herbicides such as glyphosate, pesticides like neonicotinoids and synthetic fertilizers. As a result, they’re loaded with chemical residues that end up in the final product

The globalist technocrats are intent on monopolizing the entire food supply. They already have a monopoly on genetically engineered (GE) grains and have made headway in GE seafood. The next targets are lab-grown meats and dairy substitutes. There’s even a lab-made breast milk alternative on the way called Biomilq, which is made from cultured breast tissue.1

Another company, Helaina, aims to create glycoproteins “identical to those found in breast milk,”2 which can then be added to a variety of infant formulas. They may also be used in seniors’ nutrition and eventually, all sorts of foods.

Many familiar globalists are invested in these faux dairy ventures. Biomilq investors, for example, include Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Richard Branson, Masayoshi Son, Jack Ma, Michael Bloomberg and Marc Benioff.3

The first Biomilq product is expected to be ready for the market within the next three to five years.4 Other animal-free milk products are expected to hit the shelves sometime between 2023 and 2024.5,6 That includes ice cream made with lab-grown diary, which will go into Ben & Jerry’s product line.7

In the Environmental Health Symposium video above, Alan Lewis reviews what goes into the making of synthetic biology. Synthetic biology goes by many names, including “gene edited fermentation” and “precision fermentation products.”

While that sounds fairly innocuous, synthetic biology manufacturers rarely ever discuss what goes into the feed they use to grow the target organism, or what happens to the waste at the end of the fermentation process. That’s understandable, as both raise a number of serious questions.

What Are the Base Ingredients?

As explained by Lewis, the starting ingredients in fermented synthetic biology products are cheap sugars derived from GE corn and soy. All GE crops are grown in environmentally destructive monocultures with taxpayer subsidies, and use loads of herbicides such as glyphosate, pesticides like neonicotinoids and synthetic fertilizers. As a result, they’re loaded with chemical residues that end up in the final product.

In addition to a base of sugars, hundreds of other ingredients may be added to the ferment in order to produce the desired end product, such as a certain protein, color, flavor or scent.

Aside from the desired target metabolite, these gene-edited organisms may also be spitting out any number of non-target metabolites that have completely unknown environmental consequences and health effects.

As explained by Lewis, the most-often used microorganism in the fermentation process is E.coli. The E.coli is gene-edited to produce the desired compound through its digestive process. It also needs to be antibiotic-resistant, since it needs to survive the antibiotics used to kill off other undesirable organisms in the vat.

Aside from the desired target metabolite, these gene-edited organisms may also be spitting out any number of non-target metabolites that have completely unknown environmental consequences and health effects.

How Are Synthetic Biology Ferments Created?

As explained by Lewis, the various “feed” ingredients are placed in a fermentation bioreactor set at 87 to 90 degrees Fahrenheit for anywhere from 24 to hundreds of hours to grow the target microorganism. The target organisms in the ferment consume the nutrients they need, and what’s left over after those organisms are extracted is hazardous biowaste.

Importantly, while traditional fermentation processes, such as the making of beer, produces waste products that are edible by animals, compostable and pose no biohazard, the same cannot be said for these GMO synthetic biology ferments. The biowaste must first be deactivated, and then it must be securely disposed of. It cannot go into a landfill.

It’s important to realize that they are creating GMO organisms that have never existed on earth before, and these organisms and their waste are neither edible nor compostable, and there are unknown risks involved with unintentional or intentional release of these organisms into the environment.

They may also result in novel foodborne illnesses. And, since antibiotics are used to prevent the growth of undesirable organisms in the ferment, antibiotic-resistant organisms are automatically integrated into the final product. The types of foodborne illness that might be caused by gene-edited E.coli and its metabolites are anyone’s guess at this point. Nobody knows what such illness might look like.

The Fake Justification for Fake Foods

The justification for creating synthetic biology for food, including milk substitutes, is to prevent and reverse “climate change.” As reported by CNBC in June 2020:8

“Biomilq co-founder and CEO Michelle Egger … and her co-founder, CSO Leila Strickland, hope that the breast milk produced by Biomilq from culturing mammary epithelial cells will help reduce the carbon footprint from the global infant formula market …

‘Right now, by the estimations we have been able to make, at least 10% of the dairy market globally ends up in infant formula,’ Eggers said. ‘That means per-infant-fed formula in the U.S., 5,700 metric tons of CO2 are produced, and 4,300 gallons of freshwater are consumed each year to feed a child. Parents want to do what’s best for their kids but shouldn’t have to decide between feeding their children and protecting the planet.'”

While the push for synthetic biology is built on the idea that it will somehow save the environment from the ravages of factory farming, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and monocultures, it’s incredibly misleading, because it doesn’t address the fact that there are environmentally beneficial ways to farm, and we really should switch to those instead of transitioning into factory laboratories where everything that comes out of it is a biohazard.

Fake Food Manufacturing Creates Toxic Waste Products

In February 2021, the Good Food Institute (GFI), a nonprofit group behind the alternative protein industry, released a techno-economic analysis of cultivated meat, which was prepared by consulting firm CE Delft.9 In it, they developed a model to reduce the current costs of cultured meat production down to a point that would make it economically feasible in full-scale plants by 2030, a model they said is “feasible.”

In attempting to create cultured meat on the scale that would be necessary to feed the world, logistical problems are numerous and, possibly, insurmountable. There are waste products — catabolites — to deal with, as even cultured cells excrete waste that is toxic.

Oxygen and nutrients must also be adequately distributed to all the cells, something that’s difficult in a large reactor. Stirring the cells faster or adding more oxygen may help, but this can cause fatal stress to the cells.10

The environmental “benefits” are also on shaky ground when you factor in soy production as well as the use of conventional energy sources. When this is factored in, GFI’s life-cycle analysis found that cultured meat may actually be worse for the environment than conventionally produced chicken and pork.11,12

Repeat of a Failed System

Yet, the push for the creation of synthetic biology continues. In the foreword to Navdanya International’s report “False Solutions That Endanger Our Health and Damage the Planet,” Vandana Shiva details how lab-grown foods are catastrophic for human health and the environment, as they are repeating the mistakes already made with industrial agriculture:13

“In response to the crises in our food system, we are witnessing the rise of technological solutions that aim to replace animal products and other food staples with lab-grown alternatives. Artificial food advocates are reiterating the old and failed rhetoric that industrial agriculture is essential to feed the world.

Real, nutrient-rich food is gradually disappearing, while the dominant industrial agricultural model is causing an increase in chronic diseases and exacerbating climate change.

The notion that high-tech, ‘farm free’ lab food is a viable solution to the food crisis is simply a continuation of the same mechanistic mindset which has brought us to where we are today — the idea that we are separate from and outside of nature.

Industrial food systems have reduced food to a commodity, to ‘stuff’ that can then be constituted in the lab. In the process, both the planet’s health and our health have been nearly destroyed.”

Lab-Made Foods Are Junk Foods

It’s important to realize that all lab-created “foods” are ultraprocessed, and will likely impart the same kind of ill health effects as other ultraprocessed foods. 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.”

Basically, what the globalist cabal is attempting to do is to eliminate conventional farming methods like raising cattle for beef and dairy products, and replace them with synthetic, patented reproductions. In short, they’re taking whole foods and turning them into ultraprocessed junk foods, all while trying to convince you the junk food is healthier for you.

Synthetic Biology Is Part of a Control Scheme

Aside from the potential health hazards, lab-grown foods rely on monocultured crops that destroy the soil, resulting in carbon release. So, right there, the climate change justification falls apart. Since synthetic biology relies on GMO monoculture, it creates the very things they claim to counteract: environmental degradation that results in climate change.

As noted by Lewis, synthetic biology, which is the latest addition to the patented, genetically modified organism (GMO) food system, also results in a “massive shift in ownership and concentration of wealth … and control over our food supply.”

In short, synthetic biology creates reliance on industry that can then be used to manipulate and control the population in any number of ways. In the long term, people will eventually lose the know-how of producing their own food using traditional methods, and this may well be part of the plan.

The globalist cabal intends to create a one world government, and what better control tool than having everyone completely dependent on the state for all of its food?

Protect Your Health by Avoiding Frankenfoods

The drive for plant-based alternatives to real animal food, be it meat or dairy, isn’t due to health, or even to support vegan or vegetarian diets. Those truly interested in eating a plant-based diet can do so by eating real plants, after all, and in so doing can enjoy the many health benefits that eating plant foods provides. No, it’s about creating a system of control through food. It’s also a way to control people’s health.

It’s already known that the consumption of ultraprocessed food contributes to disease,15 but manufactured fake meat and dairy may also pose additional unknown risks.16 The benefactor of ill health, of course, 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. Synthetic foods will likely be an even bigger driver or chronic ill health and early death.

The fact is, fake meat and dairy cannot replace the complex mix of nutrients found in grass fed beef and dairy, and it’s likely that consuming ultraprocessed meat and milk alternatives may lead to many of the same health issues that are caused by a processed food diet. So, if you want to really protect your health and the environment, skip pseudofoods that require patents and stick to those found in nature instead.

SOURCE

MORE GREAT IDEAS FROM GATES:

Can a vaccine for cows slash methane emissions?


Photo: pixabay.com

Bill Gates tells Reddit why he’s bought so much farmland

Gates, recently separated from Melinda … interesting timing I figure. He’s ‘helping developing countries’ again … remember all the crippled & dead children in India? The sterilized African women? Heaven help the recipients of his ‘philanthropy’. This is a man who wants to reduce the world’s population, whilst ‘saving’ people with his jabs. And he wants us eating fake meat (see article). How helpful is that for our health? Great for depop. EWR

********************************************************************

…the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced that it’s creating a nonprofit entity called Gates Ag One which will seek to “speed up efforts to provide smallholder farmers in developing countries.”

“Gates argued that higher-income societies should completely replace their consumption of cattle-derived beef with “synthetic” alternatives.”

Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates responded to questions about his farmland investments during an ‘Ask Me Anything’ (AMA) session on social media platform Reddit this weekend.

It’s the first time Gates has publicly commented on land purchases made by entities associated with him and his wife Melinda since they were named as the top private owners of US farmland by acreage earlier this year.

Gates was speaking to Redditors during an event marking the release of his new book, ‘How to Avoid a Climate Disaster.’

Responding to the question, “Hey Bill! Why are you buying so much farmland?” posed by one Reddit user, Gates indicated that seed science and biofuel development were major drivers of the acquisitions.

“My investment group chose to do this. It is not connected to climate,” he wrote.

“The agriculture sector is important. With more productive seeds we can avoid deforestation and help Africa deal with the climate difficulty they already face. It is unclear how cheap biofuels can be but if they are cheap it can solve the aviation and truck emissions.”

Back in January, US magazine The Land Report revealed that Bill and Melinda Gates have amassed the largest portfolio of private farmland in the US, comprising an estimated 242,000 acres.

READ MORE

https://agfundernews.com/bill-gates-tells-reddit-why-hes-acquired-so-much-farmland.html?fbclid=IwAR1OsoXXfJHCqLqkSQ2Zp-HKxIm2Lq5lJy5kuXhGPpEA6EBeWopNo0gDPjc

Photo: screen shot

Soil levels of organic carbon & nitrogen have declined following 50 yrs of synthetic nitrogen fertilization – the dark side of nitrogen fertilizers

Published on Mar 2, 2010

This video describes how 50 years of synthetic nitrogen fertilization has decreased soil organic matter in the Morrow Plots, the oldest experiment field in the U.S. Shown speaking is Richard Mulvaney, Professor of Soil Fertility at the University of Illinois. For more information about the study, go to http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/reprin… and http://www.nitrogennews.com.

Cup of chemicals anybody? to all the lovers of Earl Grey tea – the REAL bergamot content is ‘very small’ & the rest is chemical & natural flavouring

For years I’ve enjoyed Earl Grey tea. In fact it was the first non-mainstream tea I ever took a liking to, and that’s going back forty odd years now. A dear friend introduced me to it and I’ve bought it ever since.  Since it has always been very expensive compared to your common breakfast teas, almost double the price, it was reserved to enjoy only on the odd occasion. For a few years I didn’t drink it at all because my very tight budget just didn’t allow it. The expense I believe comes from the addition of subtly flavoured bergamot, an oil extract from the bergamot orange. “Citrus bergamia, the bergamot orange (pronounced /ˈbɜːrɡəˌmɒt/), is a fragrant citrus fruit the size of an orange, with a green color similar to a lime.” (Wikipedia)

Citrus_bergamia_-_Köhler–s_Medizinal-Pflanzen-184.jpg
Bergamot Orange [wikipedia]
So a year or two back I began buying it again and noticed it wasn’t as strong. It took two bags to taste the bergamot. Or making a smaller cup. This led me to start reading the fine print. Yes it was labeled ‘light strength’. I contacted the Twinings Facebook page and asked what was up with the ‘light’? The answer was a little vague and I couldn’t really figure out what it meant. I did complain about the fact you could hardly taste the bergamot. Then recently I noticed a package change and the bags were sealed in a foil bag. The bergamot flavour was stronger and on examining the new pack it said 5% bergamot flavouring whereas the old packet said 3.5%. Yay, I said to myself. They’ve strengthened it. Then I began to ponder. ‘Flavouring’? Surely not? So I contacted the Facebook page again and asked is the flavouring real bergamot or imitation? I was instructed in their reply to contact Twinings using the email ad supplied. My first red flag. If it was real bergamot they would surely be proud to tell me that on Facebook for all the public to see. This was the reply I got:

In our Twinings tea bag Earl Grey products we use a combination of a granular bergamot flavouring, plus a liquid flavouring to give a strong aroma. The exact compositions of flavourings are the flavour houses’ proprietary information. However, the flavourings in Earl Grey include a small amount of bergamot extract and other natural flavouring chemicals and synthetically produced flavour materials.

So, I have replied (a week ago now) to ask what percentage of the flavouring is real bergamot? No answer yet although I suspect that will also be “the flavour houses’ proprietary information”. I will keep you posted on that one. My next email will question the cost compared to the real. (UPDATE BELOW).

black-tea-431849_1280
A small amount of bergamot extract & other natural flavouring chemicals & synthetically produced flavouring materials

I figure if they are using artificial chemical flavouring then they ought not to be charging the very high price they do. I always paid more knowing that of course bergamot will be expensive and if I wanted that flavour it was worth the price. So there you go, this is what bloody corporations do (and if you read my posts you will know I don’t generally swear but on this occasion I am. I’m kind of gutted really). They’ve cut the cost of production (and no, chemicals won’t be dearer than real bergamot otherwise they wouldn’t be going to the trouble of sourcing them) and pocketed the difference they made (from we customers). We’ve learned to identify MSG by its various other abbreviated names, however in this instance, with the artificially tweaked bergamot, we have no idea what we are drinking chemical wise, plus it is just not the real deal.

So … I don’t like the fact that I’ve been drinking bergamot flavoured chemicals, especially after recently reading of the great health benefits of Earl Grey which would only be

tea-cup-2107599_1280
Cup of Earl Grey Chemicals anybody?

present in real bergamot, (relaxing and sleep inducing were two of them) and I don’t like the fact I’ve been ripped off. If I didn’t love Earl Grey so much I’d stop drinking it. Although that may still be on the tables. I’m just weighing it all up at the moment.  I’m asking myself also, what other products have chemical flavouring rather than the real thing? It surely proves we must read the fine print. Please do watch ‘The Corporation’ movie. You’ll understand why and how corporations can subtly mislead us.

UPDATE: The next reply I got from Twinings was 14/7/2018:

“The percentage of flavouring components that are derived from bergamot in the Earl Grey blend is 4.8%.

We are unable to give a list of other ingredients as this is proprietary information.”

I then replied again on 15/7/2017:

Hello and thank you for your reply.
I would have to express my disappointment that we are paying a lot for Earl Grey tea on the understanding really that it is expensive because of the bergamot content, yet it is only a mere 4.8%.
I would really like to know how long since your company has substituted chemicals for the real thing. And if we are purchasing chemical substitutes for bergamot the tea should therefore be cheaper. I don’t imagine the chemicals will be dearer than real bergamot or your company would not be using them.
And about the chemicals that are proprietary info, how do we the consumers choose the chemicals we ingest if your company is not willing to disclose them?
Would you please tell me when the content changed from bergamot to chemicals?
Kind regards

I have heard nothing since. I expect I won’t be either.

Note also, the concentration of chemical flavouring has gone from 3% (going by the first box I saved around 1-2 years ago) to 4.5% (the box I now have) to according to the manufacturer’s email, 4.8%. When, I wonder, did it rise to 4.8% given the last email was a year ago & current labeling is only 4.5%?

The other million dollar question is: how much is ‘a small amount’ of bergamot? It must be very small I imagine, given they are not saying.

If you’re for knowing what’s in your food, do drop them a line & ask the pertinent questions as I have. Here is their email: InfoHelp.Aus@twinings.com

 

EnvirowatchRangitikei