Tuesday, 30 July 2024

‘Sign of Things to Come’: Singapore Approves 16 Insects for Human Food



Singapore has approved 16 insects as food for humans — becoming the latest country to authorize insect products for human consumption, in what The Guardian described as a move that “paves the way for plates to become wrigglier, leggier and more sustainable” and as “a sign of things to come.”

In a July 8 announcement, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) approved the 16 insects, which include silkworm pupa and mealworm, “With immediate effect.”

“These insects and insect products can be used for human consumption or as animal feed for food producing animals,” the SFA stated.

Countries and entities such as the United Kingdom (U.K.), Australia and the European Union (EU) have already approved some insects for human consumption. However, in the U.S. existing regulations contain few references specifically addressing insects.

This regulatory gap has enabled an ecosystem of “alternative protein” startups to enter the insect food market — with the backing of figures such as Bill Gates and government agencies including the United Nations (U.N.) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the National Science Foundation.

“The United Nations Food And Agricultural Organisation (FAO) continues to promote insect consumption as an environmentally friendly way to get protein in your diet — for both humans and their livestock,” The Guardian reported.

Proponents of insects as food for humans, including the FAO, argue this will help combat climate change, as insects produce a smaller carbon footprint than traditional livestock. But critics challenge this view.

“The justification for insects is to produce protein using fewer inputs: to save the planet by reducing climate change, methane from cows, less pollution,” internist Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, told The Defender. “But just because it is protein doesn’t mean it’s good for us.”

Nass cited parasites that could be spread by insects, difficulties in digesting insects, and common allergies to chitin — commonly found on the exoskeleton of insects.

According to Nass, lax U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, under which many insects can be classified as “Generally Regarded as Safe” (GRAS), “means they don’t require testing” and enables the FDA to “look the other way.” This has opened the door for insect foods to reach consumers.

“How long will it take before we learn whether these foods are safe? It could take generations,” Nass said.

“Advocates for mass consumption of insect-based foods would like you to believe that bugs have been a reliable source of protein for thousands of years,” said Seamus Bruner, author of “Controligarchs: Exposing the Billionaire Class, their Secret Deals, and the Globalist Plot to Dominate Your Life.”

Bruner, who also is director of research at the Government Accountability Institute, told The Defender:

“While that is true, malnutrition and disease were also endemic and life expectancies were dramatically lower than they are today. The truth is that beef, pork, poultry and other animal-based foods are the most efficient and healthy sources of protein. These climate fanatics pushing insect-based foods are scaring people into adopting less healthy diets.”

Dutch journalist Elze van Hamelen told The Defender that using insect ingredients for pet food also poses a risk to public health, citing a 2019 study that found parasites in 244 of 300 insect farms and pet stores that were investigated.

“Feeding pets with parasite-infested insects, especially pets that do not have the physiology to digest bugs, may not be such a good idea,” van Hamelen said.

Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., author of “The Great Reset and the Struggle for Liberty: Unraveling the Global Agenda,” told The Defender, “The insect craze is intimately connected to the U.N.’s Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).”

Rectenwald cited two SDGs: SDG 2, “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture” and SDG 12, “Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.”

“’Sustainability’ is code language for coerced reductions in consumption and forced behavioral modifications,” Rectenwald said.

Nass said the U.N., along with the World Economic Forum (WEF), “promote the so-called SDGs, which can supposedly be met if we change our diet.” Yet, “We don’t see the WEF or U.N. attendees eating insects at their meetings.”

Nass suggested that one reason behind the shift to insects as food is “to cause emotional harm: to degrade, debase, downgrade human beings” and that beef is “being demonized,” potentially to “weaken the species.”

“The idea seems to be to get rid of small producers and create a fully industrialized system of food production that CargillConAgraPepsiCo will profit from,” she added.

“Bill Gates claims his investments in alternative proteins are to save the planet,” Bruner said. “What he does not say is that they are part of a strategy to monopolize the protein industry — for profit — as he lobbies to ban animal-based competition.”

Insect Firms in Singapore ‘Educating’ Children About Insects as a Food Source

The 16 insects Singapore’s SFA has approved include “various species of crickets, grasshoppers, locusts, mealworms and silkworms,” The Straits Times reported. According to The Guardian, foods containing insects must clearly label this on the packaging, “to indicate the true nature of the product.”

The Straits Times reported that local restaurant chain House of Seafood is already “cooking up a menu of 30 insect-infused dishes to give customers more choice,” while other firms have begun “educating consumers” — including children — about insects as a food source for humans.

The report cited the example of Altimate Nutrition which, “While waiting for SFA’s regulatory approval … conducted workshops and educational sessions at almost a hundred schools, from pre-schools to institutes of higher learning.”

Surveys conducted after the program found that about 80% of students would be willing to try the insects after they are approved, The Straits Times reported.

But Bruner said other factors are likely at play in Singapore.

The WEF — perhaps the largest driving force behind so-called ‘alternative proteins’ — frequently touts Singapore’s compliance with Agenda 2030, so the decision to prioritize insect-based foods is not surprising,” he said.

EU, U.K., Australia and Other Countries Approve Insects for Consumption

Authorities in the EU, U.K. and Australia, among other countries, have also approved certain insects for human consumption.

Brussels Signal cited Ermolaos Ververis, scientific officer for the European Food Safety Authority Novel Foods Team, who said the EU has authorized six insects: “Alphitobius diaperinus larvae products, dried mealworms, whole and ground yellow mealworms, whole and ground Grasshoppers, whole and ground crickets, and partially defatted Whole Cricket Powder.”

Eight applications are still pending in the EU, where according to EU regulationsfoods containing insects must be clearly labeled.

Brussels Signal reported that under Horizon Europe, a European Commission — the executive branch of the EU funding program for research and innovation — “insect-based proteins are considered one of the key areas of research.”

U.K. authorities have approved four insects for human consumption — yellow mealworm, house cricket, banded cricket and black soldier fly, as “novel foods,” while Australia has approved three species: two varieties of mealworm and a cricket.

According to the FAO, there are more than 1,900 “edible insect species.” However, insects don’t appear to be included in the FAO’s Codex Alimentarius — its international food safety guidelines.

‘Nudging’ the Public Toward Acceptance

Several studies, including a 2020 report by the European Consumer Organisation, a 2021 YouGov poll and a 2022 report by UBA, Germany’s environmental agency, suggest low demand among the public for consuming foods containing insects.

Other studies in 2020 and 2022 suggested people would be more willing to shift their attitudes after being told about the “environmental benefits” of eating insects.

The 2020 study suggested that “nudging” — a behavioral science concept supported by the National Science Foundation — could be used to this end. “As humans are a particularly social species, leveraging the social nature may prove particularly useful,” the study said.

In a 2021 European Food Safety Authority reportGiovanni Sogari, Ph.D., an assistant professor in the Department of Food and Drug at the University of Parma in Italy, suggested, “There are cognitive reasons derived from our social and cultural experiences, the so-called ‘yuck factor’, that make the thought of eating insects repellent to many Europeans. With time and exposure such attitudes can change.”

And Lies Hackelbracht, the owner of TOR Royal, an insect production company in Belgium, told Euronews in 2021, “When we are 9 billion people, it won’t be possible to let everybody eat meat, so we have to search for other possibilities with a lot of protein and it can be in plants, but it can also be in insects.”

Thursday, 25 July 2024

The ‘Conspiracy’ to Kill Trump: The Real Insiders Out to Get Trump



In assessing whether there was an “inside job” to kill Trump, many have naturally focused on the federal agencies, including the Secret Service and the FBI. But what if Trump was set up by someone inside his campaign? This does not seem far-fetched now that we know that someone in the campaign had been begging the Secret Service for additional security. We now understand that additional security was not forthcoming and Trump was nevertheless sent out to the Butler rally on July 13 and exposed to gunfire from a roof that was not being monitored.

Clearly, this was a set-up.

The conclusion is inescapable: somebody in the campaign knew there was a risk to Trump’s life because federal agencies were unwilling to protect him. Or perhaps several people knew about the risk. Who are these people? And shouldn’t Trump immediately fire them?

These are troubling conclusions to make, but that is where the evidence leads.  

Looking back at the situation, Rep. Mike Waltz said, “I have very reliable sources telling me there have been repeated requests for stronger secret service protection for President Trump.”

Those “reliable sources” must be in the Secret Service and the Trump campaign. They must be in the Trump campaign since Waltz said some of the requests were made in writing. That means that Trump’s people knew of the risk to the president but sent him out to be in front of the crowds anyway. They knew the security was insufficient.

But the risk was not just to the president but members of the crowd, as we saw in Butler.

So this “security failure,” if that’s what you want to call it, was on both ends – in the Secret Service and in the Trump campaign.

This dramatic conclusion puts a new perspective on things.

Let us understand the real dimensions of the “inside job” theory.

The issue becomes not whether a series of flubs, failures, and breakdowns occurred. And the claims about a second shooter divert attention away from the main issue.

The basic problem is why, knowing the security was not good enough, Trump’s advisers decided to proceed with these dangerous rallies and put Trump’s life in danger. And that indicates the Trump campaign has been infiltrated by people willing to risk the life of the former president. 

Whether it was one shooter or more, Trump’s life was in danger in part because of decisions made by his own campaign!

Does Trump trust those around him? Perhaps he should take a second look.

After initial denials, the Secret Service admits the Trump campaign was requesting additional security. At the same time, there is no evidence the campaign procured additional security from private sources, as I had been arguing BEFORE the assassination attempt. That means his advisers were content to have Trump appear out in the open before massive crowds without adequate protection. 

In other words, all the blame doesn’t rest on the Secret Service. And the Trump people who proceeded with the Butler rally knew his life would be in danger as a result.

Put another way, the Secret Service is certainly to blame for not providing that extra protection. But the Trump people knew the protection was inadequate.

If we think back, consider the fact that the Secret Service had coordinated with the FBI to stage its armed raid on Trump’s home on August 8, 2022. That should have set off alarm bells among Trump’s people about whether the Secret Service could be trusted to protect Trump.

The inescapable conclusion is that while there was a federal plot to kill Trump, it was aided and abetted by people in the Trump campaign who knew or had to know the Secret Service could not be trusted to protect the president.


The point is that nothing was done to beef up security for Trump, even though his people had to know his life was in danger.

As such, with federal agencies determined to eliminate him from the race, and Trump’s people refusing to go public about the dangers, the inevitable happened – an assassination attempt was made. 

What I find interesting is that Trump’s people have moved on, blaming the Secret Service for failures, when they are directly implicated in the plot.

These campaign aides were grossly negligent and they should be held accountable. Their negligence almost cost the life of their boss, the former president and current presidential candidate.

Instead, to my knowledge, nobody has been fired from the campaign. And nothing has been done to procure private security services.

What the Trump campaign also ought to be doing is instituting additional screening and vetting for all Secret Service personnel guarding the president.

Trump has always had a problem with loyalty.  He still has a problem.

His own family members, especially his sons, should immediately halt all of Trump’s personal appearances until additional security is obtained either from trustworthy federal personnel or private security guards judged to be loyal to the former president.

I’m sure Eric and Don Jr. want their father to win a decisive victory against the Deep State forces out to get him. They want him to continue to campaign.

But if my father were targeted for murder, I would stop his public appearances until I was sure he could be protected.  And I would look inside the Trump campaign for problems.

They should look to the example of what happened after Pope John Paul II was the target of an assassination plot engineered by the Russian KGB.

In major public appearances, current popes tend to use the so-called “Popemobile,” which is surrounded by bullet proof glass and armor.

Trump needs something like that. It would dramatically illustrate the state of our political system today, in which the leading opponent of the Deep State shows his determination to survive everything they throw at him.  It would also result in more protection for his physical safety, a growing concern for his millions of supporters.

Bombshell! Big Pharma Exposed: How Big Pharma and Your Doctor Scam You to Death – The Truth About Chemo and Radiation Exposed

Big Pharma Exposed: Discover the sobering truths exposed by Dr. Peter Glidden about the pharmaceutical industry’s deception and the dangers ...