“Bioengineered Foods” Continue To Invade American Shelves, But Have Very Little Studies Into The Safety

The following report is Joe Doran from The Trends Journal:

You may have noticed a distinct increase in tiny labeling after the ingredient list on food products you buy that says “This Food Contains Bio-Engineered Ingredients.”

FDA labeling laws updated in 2022 have created more standardized requirements for labeling of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) and Genetically Edited (GE) foods.

SEE: GMO Foods Are Now Legally Renamed As “Bioengineered”

Via the Federal Register, the government also puts out a periodic update of foods which product makers must provide that “bio-engineered” tag for, unless they can certify that they are sourcing from non bio-engineered alternatives.

On 29 November, the Federal Register released the latest list of foods that are now commonly bio-engineered.

The list includes some of the most basic ingredients that make up thousands of different food items Americans consume every day.

Though most have accepted that they consume at least some bioengineered foods, many still worry about the safety of these foods.

And they may have good reason.

The fact is, there are few rigorous long-term studies, especially involving humans, regarding bioengineered foods, particularly ones altered by newer sophisticated gene editing techniques.

And one of the largest comparative studies (ie. a study of studies) ever done on the subject concluded that there are significant health risks to bioengineered foods, and that despite assurances from the government and food industry, actual proof of their safety is lacking.

It adds up to a familiar story, of influential Big Business (in this case, Big Agriculture) and the Federal government working hand in hand to put profits and ideological goals first, while pretending products have met safety standards that amount to research vaporware.

In what we are calling “Syn Century,” it represents another example of how technocrats are propagandizing and normalizing synthetic “improvements” to natural alternatives, for profit and control.

The Latest Bioengineered Foods List

The following foods make up the commonly bio-engineered list, as identified by the Federal Register:

The regulations, at 7 CFR 66.6, contain the List, which currently includes: alfalfa, apple (ArcticTM varieties), canola, corn, cotton, eggplant (BARI Bt Begun varieties), papaya (ringspot virus-resistant varieties), pineapple (pink flesh varieties), potato, salmon (AquAdvantage®), soybean, squash (summer), and sugarbeet.

The Federal Register noted that foods not on the list were also subject to the labeling, if companies had any knowledge that such foods had been bioengineered:

As stated in the preamble to the 2018 BE final rule, at 83 FR 65852, the List establishes a presumption about what foods require disclosure under the Standard.

However, a food or food ingredient’s absence from the List does not absolve regulated entities from the requirement to disclose the BE status of food and food ingredients produced with foods not on the List when the regulated entities have actual knowledge that such foods or food ingredients are BE.

It might be enlightening to take an inventory of food products and items in your own pantry, to see just how pervasive bio-engineered ingredients are becoming.

We found the bio-engineered label on items like chewing gum, graham crackers, taco shells, hamburger buns, cereals and more.

Though labeling standards have been updated since 2022 to require more standard regulations for when and how companies must label bioengineered foods, those standards left glaring loopholes that actually allow companies to easily hide labeling on actual physical packages.

Many companies are doing this by only offering QR codes on packages with messages to “Scan Here for More Food Information.”

They know many consumers will not take the time to scan every package they buy to drill down on company websites for product information that often includes the “Contains bio-engineered ingredients” tag.

More generally, companies that use bio-engineered foods appear to have little desire to advertise or highlight their use. General Mills, for example, one of the largest cereal makers in the country, has this unassuming web page concerning their use of bioengineered foods:

The “Science” Of Safety Of BioEngineered Foods Is Largely Pretense

Bio-engineered foods can be either genetically modified (GMO) or genetically edited (GE).

Both involve manipulating natural genetics using sophisticated technology and knowledge.

But there are differences, and GMO foods have a longer history.

We’ve previously detailed differences in “bio-engineered” genetically edited foods, vs. “GMO” foods. (See “CRISPR GENE EDITING FOR FOOD, UNFORESEEN MUTATIONS INCLUDED,” 2 May 2023.)

In short, genetically edited foods involve genetic edits to a single organism. GMO foods combine genetic components of more than one organism.

We also noted in that article that though the FDA projects an aura of safety assurances regarding bioengineered foods, they admit themselves in little publicized fine print and regulations that no long term studies are required before introducing such foods into public use and consumption:

But the Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods acknowledges the limits of its assessment framework. For instance, it specifically notes that long term study of possible effects of genetically edited foods is not required before such foods are commercially sold to the public.

Because GMO technology has a longer track record, there are more studies—though mostly involving animals—assessing safety.

Genetically edited foods are also mostly tested on animals.

But there is what many might find to be a pronounced lack of any long term—or indeed any term—studies on humans, regarding either of these genetically altered foods.

One of the few research endeavors that undertook a comprehensive look at multiple genetically altered food studies, came to some troubling conclusions.

The study, “Evaluation of adverse effects/events of genetically modified food consumption: a systematic review of animal and human studies,” published in January 2022 by Environmental Sciences Europe, set out to perform a “systematic review of animal and human studies was conducted on genetically modified (GM) food consumption to assess its safety in terms of adverse effects/events to inform public concerns and future research.”

It included searching seven electronic databases including data from 1983 to July of 2020, looking for in vivo, animal and human studies on the incidence of adverse effects/events of GM products consumption. 

The researchers noted that GMO foods have only been commercially available since 1996.

By 2018, 70 countries had adopted GM crops, “including 26 countries that cumulatively planted 2.5 billion hectares of GM crops and an additional 44 countries that imported GM crops.”

Concerning the study of studies, two authors “independently identified eligible studies, assessed the study quality, and extracted data on the name of the periodical, author and affiliation, literature type, the theme of the study, publication year, funding, sample size, target population characteristics, type of the intervention/exposure, outcomes and outcome measures, and details of adverse effects/events.”

It also took into account the source of the studies, using something called the  “Chi-square test” to compare the adverse event reporting rates in articles funded by industry funding, government funding or unfunded articles. 

The study of studies concluded:

Serious adverse events of GM consumption include mortality, tumour or cancer, significant low fertility, decreased learning and reaction abilities, and some organ abnormalities. Further clinical trials and long-term cohort studies in human populations, especially on GM food-related adverse events and the corresponding GM events, are still warranted. It suggests the necessity of labelling GM food so that consumers can make their own choice.

As concerning as that conclusion is, the authors also revealed a rather troubling lack of quality in the vast majority of the studies that have been done on GMOs.

The authors laid out in detail how the studies left much to be desired in terms of biases and scientific rigor: “Methodological quality of the animal studies.”

According to our predefined quality assessment criteria, all of the studies were identified as being unclear or having a high risk of bias (Fig. 3). None of the studies were reported to blind researchers from knowing which intervention each animal received. None of the studies reported prior sample-size calculation, 31 studies (15.27%) described wrong randomization procedures or did not mention the method of “randomization”, and 12 studies (5.91%) did not report adequate allocation concealment.

28 studies (13.79%) described that the groups were similar at baseline and 76 studies (37.44%) claimed that the housing conditions of animals from the various experimental groups were identical. 10 studies (4.93%) described randomly pick an animal during outcome assessment while 7 studies (3.45%) failed to select animals at random for outcome assessment. 88 studies (43.35%) completely used objective outcome indicators for outcome measurement. 185 studies (91.13%) reported consistent outcomes in the method and result sections while 5 studies did not, but none of the study protocols were available.

The study is currently available for viewing via the Springer Open research website.

TRENDPOST: We’ve previously detailed the growing use of bioengineered foods, and have noted that political authorities and manufacturers have worked together to minimize public awareness, even as new labeling requirements were implemented in 2022.

Unfortunately, as we predicted, bio-engineered foods are proliferating, and many people have a false sense of safety regarding these foods, thanks to deceptive government and industry tactics.

Building on general public apathy, thought leaders, industries looking to up profits via patented foods and innovations, and governments in sway to ideological climate and “degrowth” goals, are all stepping up the synthetic (bio-engineered) food movement.

Pop science news outlets dutifully parrot stories about the advantages of bioengineered foods for the environment, for ensuring “food security” (ie. adequately available supplies of basic foodstuffs), and even as embodying “healthier” lifestyles (ie. fake “plant-based” meat products and so on).

Like other systematic impositions of synthetic products and experiences being sold and normalized to people, bio-engineered foods are designed to accomplish objectives and goals that have little to do with bettering the lives of or health of average humanity.

Instead, it’s all about deriving profit from mediating every facet of existence via synthetic processes and products, and accomplishing ideological goals regarding consumption, the parameters of acceptable thought and culture, the course of the future, and the protection and extension of elite power and control.

Unless the bulk of humanity gains more awareness concerning the imposition of the synthetic on the wings of ideology and profit–masked as “science innovation”–an increasingly dystopian future awaits.

---

AUTHOR COMMENTARY

Go figure that the list of GMO ingredients are defined under section “7 CFR 66.6.” Please, let’s not make it too obvious now.

As Doran said, if you bother to check the fine print of most food and beverage packaging in the U.S., you might be shocked by the gross amount of products that contain bioengineered ingredients. As a vigilant shopper, you must read every label and package meticulously. Yes, it’s a hassle, but if you want to be in peak condition and health, and not be sick all of the time, and not have a number of health problems later on in life, then you need to avoid them.

Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.

3 John 2

Furthermore, as The TJ pointed out, this pervasiveness and acceptance of bioengineered foods is indeed dystopian – something I have reported on that will be one of the big pushes coming down the pike, with gene-edited crops and livestock with Frankenstein traits to them, and will be pushed in a bid to replace real foods amidst artificial famine and “climate change” chaos.

---

[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10).

The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE