Church of God News

“Big Ag’s” Conflicting Positions About Regulating New Food Technologies

June 14, 2019

New food technologies are poised to transform the trillion-dollar meat industry.  …Beyond Meat—a plant-based meat company best known for its “Beyond Burger” and “Beyond Sausage”—has relished one of the “biggest-popping IPOs” since 2000.

In light of these successes, it is remarkable to say that plant-based meat may actually be the less disruptive of the new meat innovations. A second wave of companies has been using stem cells to create meat that is identical, at the cellular level, to animal flesh. This meat has yet to reach the marketplace, but it has already become the subject of heated legal debates. People have called the product by names ranging from “IVF meat” and “lab-grown meat” to “clean meat” and “slaughter-free meat,” depending on their angle. Throughout this article, for ease of discussion, I will refer to it with the neutral term “cell-based meat.”

Two issues quickly rose as the legal “hot topics” concerning cell-based meat: which agency—the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) or the Department of Agriculture (“USDA”)—would regulate these products, and how the agency would require companies to label them. “Big Ag” industry organizations, which profit from raising and slaughtering animals, proposed the following: the USDA should regulate cell-based meat, and that agency should restrict cell-based meat companies’ use of words like “meat” on their labels.

Creating meat from stem cells is simply a new production process—and unlike pumping antibiotics into animals, the introduction of cell-based meat will alleviate animal suffering, environmental damage, and human health concerns. The end product of this process, as the National Cattlemen and the NAMI acknowledged in their bid for USDA jurisdiction, is as much “meat” under the FMIA as slaughtered animals are. Cell-based meat companies therefore have the right to call their products “slaughter-free meat,” “cruelty-free meat,” “antibiotic-free meat,” or simply “meat”—and nothing in the law tells them otherwise. https://verdict.justia.com/2019/06/14/you-cant-have-your-meat-and-eat-it-too-big-ags-conflicting-positions-about-regulating-new-food-technologies

No, laboratory grown cells are not producing the same ‘meat’ product as actually-raised animals do.

This is another example of money influencing food production.

There simply have not been sufficient studies to prove proper safety and health impacts, nor is it practical to do them. In order to do this, millions of people would need to be involved. And the time period would need to be enough to cover 3-5 generations–it would probably need to take between 200-400 years to be able to have the data to come to a proper scientific conclusion about that. And, of course, that has not happened. Nor will that happen.

In Europe, they remain skeptical of US agricultural practices. On the positive side, EU leaders are pressuring US suppliers of meat to not fill the animals full of hormones often used to bolster meat production.

14 June 2019

BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Commission says it’s reached an agreement with the United States to allow more hormone-free U.S. beef onto the European market.

The commission said Friday the “in-principle” deal would allow U.S. farmers to export 35,000 tons of beef to the bloc. The increased tonnage will be phased in over seven years. Other countries will share a further 10,000-ton beef quota.

It could end a long-running dispute over EU beef import restrictions.

EU Agriculture Commissioner Phil Hogan says “the agreement will not change the overall volume, quality or safety of the beef imported into the EU, which will remain in compliance with the high European standards.” https://www.apnews.com/7b53d4c9997e4ed4a2970890f5c057f5

Europe has also been better than the USA (and much of Asia) when it comes to the use of antibiotics in meat animals.

The USA, on the other hand, seems more and more determined to contaminate the food supply with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).

A reader sent me a link to the following:

SHOCK as Trump signs executive order that will end most regulations and oversight on genetically engineered food

Even though Trump is far from an “establishment” Republican, to the frustration of health-conscious Americans, he just signed an executive order that might as well be called “the GMO Streamlining Act.” As reported by the Associated Press, this executive order directs federal agencies to reduce or eliminate regulations and oversight mechanisms that might help ensure the safety of genetically engineered crops.

In other words, President Trump just ordered the federal government to turn American into a massive GMO experiment where anything goes. “The move comes as companies are turning to newer genetic engineering techniques that make it easier to tinker with the traits of plants and animals,” reports AP, meaning that regulations are being dropped at exactly the moment in history when easy, low-cost genetic modification methods such as CRISPR are rapidly emerging, placing GE technology into the hands of small companies and even determined individuals.

Under the new rules, modern-day GMO corn and soybean crops would have never been subjected to safety testing at all. As AP reports:

Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture proposed changing its regulations in a way that would mean much of the genetically modified corn and soy grown in the U.S. today would not necessarily have been subject to special oversight.

In addition, the new streamlining would relax regulatory oversight of genetically engineered animals. https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-06-12-trump-signs-executive-order-genetically-engineered-food.html#

This is NOT a shock to me as Donald Trump is 1) interested in the farm-state vote, 2) is not known for appreciating benefits for a more natural diet, and 3) the following was already in my book Donald Trump and America’s Apocalypse:

Humans should eat what is good (cf. Isaiah 55:2). Donald Trump, like others before him, has made statements supporting the use of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) to be consumed as foods (Goldberg M. President-Elect Donald Trump and Organic Food – How Concerned Should We Be? Living MaxWell, November 10, 2016). Increased reliance on GMOs by the United States puts the nation at major risk for nearly complete crop failures. The Bible warns that famines (Matthew 24:7) and food shortages (Revelation 6:5-6) are coming and Donald Trump may further help set the stage for this. (Thiel B. Donald Trump and America’s Apocalypse. Nazarene Books, 2017)

Now, I should also add that Democrat and former US President Barack Obama was also pro-GMO (see also H.R. 933 includes pro-GMO provision that some call ‘Monsanto Protection Act’).

One of the major trade disputes between the USA and EU is that the USA wants more genetically-modified foods to be accepted in Europe and the Europeans had resisted that. GMOs are NOT good for the USA.

Notice the following:

Are GMOs safe?
Most developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe. In more than 60 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs. In the U.S., the government has approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale. Increasingly, Americans are taking matters into their own hands and choosing to opt out of the GMO experiment…

In the U.S., GMOs are in as much as 80% of conventional processed food. Click here for a current list of GMO risk crops.

http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/

Some have claimed that rats fed GMO corn developed tumors and organ damage:

Rats fed a lifetime diet of Monsanto’s genetically engineered corn or exposed to the company’s popular Roundup herbicide developed tumors and suffered severe organ damage, according to a French study…The study links varying levels of both the Roundup herbicide and the transgenes in Monsanto’s patented NK603 corn to mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage.

The rats were either fed the NK603 corn alone, corn treated with agricultural levels of Roundup, or given water treated with Roundup at low levels commonly found in contaminated drinking water and used in agriculture in the United States. In each group, there were two to three more deaths among female rats compared to control groups, and the rats on the Monsanto diet tended to die more quickly. (Ludwig M. French Study Finds Tumors and Organ Damage in Rats Fed Monsanto Corn. September 19, 2012. http://truth-out.org/news/item/11639-french-study-finds-tumors-and-organ-damage-in-rats-fed-monsanto-corn viewed 06/05/13)

While some have dismissed the above study, the reality is that it is giving humans an indication that GMOs do present health risks. Notice also:

A delegation of politicians and community activists gathered on August 7 in La Leonesa, a small farm town in Argentina, to hear Dr. Andres Carrasco speak about a study linking a popular herbicide to birth defects in Argentina’s agricultural areas.

But the presentation never happened. A mob of about 100 people attacked the delegation before they could reach the local school where the talk was to be held…Carrasco is a lead embryologist at the University of Buenos Aires Medical School and the Argentinean national research council. His study, first released in 2009 and published in the United States this past summer, shows that glyphosate-based herbicides like Monsanto’s popular Roundup formula caused deformations in chicken embryos that resembled the kind of birth defects being reported in areas like La Leonesa, where big agribusinesses depend on glyphosate to treat genetically engineered crops.

The deformations resulted from much lower doses of herbicide than those commonly found on crops, according to the study.

Biotech chemical giant Monsanto patented glyphosate under the trade name Roundup in the 1970’s. (Ludwig M. War Over Monsanto Gets Ugly. November 9, 2010. http://archive.truthout.org/war-over-genetically-modified-crops-gets-ugly-birth-defects-superweeds-and-science-intimidation64915 viewed 06/05/13)

Notice also the following:

“Is Genetically Modified Food Killing Us?” Alex Daley asks in today’s Daily Reckoning. “Probably not,” he confidently responds to his own question. But the worldwide scientific community is slightly less confident. The long-term effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are simply unknowable…

No, the problem with GMOs is not that they might kill us; the problem is that we have no idea how they might kill us. We have no idea if they might harm us quickly, or slowly…or not at all.

More importantly, we have no idea if — down the road — they might catastrophically alter the genetic traits of various organisms — in particular, the human organism. Therefore, the entire GMO experiment promises feast or famine…literally. (Eric Fry)

The new wheat is in early-stage field trials (i.e., it’s been planted to grow somewhere, but has not yet been tested for human consumption), part of a multi-year process on its way to potential approval and not unlike the rigorous process many drugs go through. The researchers conducting this trial are using RNAi to turn down the production of glycogen. They are targeting the production of the wheat branching enzyme which, if suppressed, would result in a much lower starch level for the wheat. The result would be a grain with a lower glycemic index — i.e., healthier wheat.

This is a noble goal. However, Professors Heinemann and Carman warn, there’s a risk that the gene-silencing done to these plants might make its way into humans and wreak havoc on our bodies. In their press conference and subsequent papers, they describe the possibility that the siRNA molecules — which are pretty hardy little chemicals and not easily gotten rid of — could wind up interacting with our RNA.

If their theories prove true, the results might be as bad as mimicking glycogen storage disease IV, a super-rare genetic disorder which almost always leads to early childhood death…the wheat might cause very severe adverse reactions in humans. (Alex Daley) (Daily Reckoning. November 28, 2012)

Here is a report from Harvard:

The decrease in glutelin levels in rice, for example, was associated with an unintended increase in levels of compounds called prolamines, which can affect the nutritional quality of rice and increase its potential to induce an allergic response. (Harvard. Genetically Modified Foods. ©2012 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College. Published by the Center for Health and the Global Environment. http://chge.med.harvard.edu/topic/genetically-modified-foods viewed 06/05/13)

Notice also the following:

CRISPR gene-editing tool causes unintended genetic mutations

May 29, 2017

It’s not hyperbolic to say that the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technique has been a revolutionary breakthrough, allowing scientists the ability to quickly, easily and precisely edit sections of DNA. But questions over how precise the CRISPR tool is have been raised in a new study from Columbia University Medical Center, which shows this gene-editing technology can introduce hundreds of unintended mutations into the genome….

In examining the entire genome from the CRISPR-treated mice, they found that the tool had successfully corrected the specific gene they were targeting, but it also potentially caused a great deal of other genetic changes. In two CRISPR-treated animals, more than 100 large gene deletions or insertions and over 1,500 single-nucleotide mutations were identified.

Most significantly, all of these identified mutations were not picked up by the general computer algorithms most researchers use to look at the off-target effects of CRISPR-editing. There were no obvious or immediately deleterious effects in the animals from these unexpected mutations, but it is unknown what longer term effects the altered genes could have.

“Researchers who aren’t using whole genome sequencing to find off-target effects may be missing potentially important mutations,” says co-author Dr. Stephen Tsang. “Even a single nucleotide change can have a huge impact.” http://newatlas.com/crispr-gene-editing-causes-mutations/49762/

Scientists simply CANNOT anticipate all the negative potential of GMOs.

The fact is that GMOs are not natural foods and pose a lot of health risks. Despite what various science and health professionals wish to imply, the plain truth is much about nutrition is simply not known. What is known is that humans survived on non-GMO foods for millenia. GMOs simply have not been tested enough to insure that they will not cause problems.

Years back, the Continuing Church of God put out a video about genetically-modified organisms and prophecy on our YouTube channel called Bible New Prophecy.

Here is a link to our video: GMO Risks and the Bible .

The USA has been in the forefront of risking the food supply by pushing GMOs. Nearly all corn and soy beans (about 90%) in the USA are GMO, and there are many other vegetables that are GMO. Europe has resisted these items.

Regarding some differences between meat raising in the USA and Europe, the Continuing Church of God put out the following video on our Bible New Prophecy YouTube channel:

As far as genetics and lab-animals go, frightening, ‘frankenstein-monsters,’ are being worked on in labs.

BBC reported about what it called an animal that would be half-human and half-pig. Is such a thing possible? Are chimeras for real? What about a “humanzee”? Are scientists really working on these type of creatures? Is this good? Can something truly be half human and half animal? How are humans different from animals? What is the ‘spirit in man’? What is man? Dr. Thiel addresses these issues and more with biblical-based responses.