Unpacking the revelations from the documentary titled Food Deception: The Global Poisoning Plot, and to begin with, right at the beginning of the documentary, an important fact is communicated, which is that in the last 50 plus years, how or what people eat has significantly changed. And this is a crucial reflection point, which necessitates that we ask the question, on what through this change about?

Well, first, we can note this change in light of the shift towards a higher consumption of ultra-processed foods. So, the term ‘ultra-processed food’ emerged in the 1980s, mostly used in reference to highly-processed convenience foods and snacks, often energy-dense, poor in nutrients, and inclusive of various synthetic additives such as emulsifiers, colours, artificial sweeteners, and flavor enhancers. Concern over such foods was part of the growing holistic and environmental health movements of the 1970–80s; yet, those who raised alarm about the encroachment of ultra-processed foods were often labeled, especially by industry and their powerful allies, as ‘food faddists’ and ‘pseudoscientists’.

Nevertheless, for decades, there was a significant amount of determined advocacy against ultra-processed foods, backed with clinical work, much of it by pioneers within the holistic medicine (now integrative, functional, and lifestyle medicine) movement. For instance, by the early 1970s, the topic of highly-processed foods finally became the subject of intense scientific and public debate. Included in this debate were a small but growing number of physicians and allied health professionals who promoted holistic medicine, an important part of which was dietary advice to limit highly-processed foods. When nutritional medicine pioneer Dr. Jeffrey Bland began lecturing on ‘food as medicine’ in the 1970s, he advocated for the removal of highly-processed foods (donuts, soda, and the like) during conference breaks, replacing them with whole fruits, nuts, and minimally processed items.

But, certainly the entrance and prevalence of ultra-processed foods did not occur on its own. In fact, it turns out that it was brought about by an industry that had little to do with food – being the cigarette industry – so much so that in the 90’s, the two largest food companies in the world were RJ Reynolds and Phillip Morris (which are both cigarette companies. And happened because, when the Surgeon General of the US announced during this same period that cigarettes were problematic (which was obviously going to hinder the profits of cigarette companies), well, cigarette companies used their profits to buy entire sections of Food Companies.

In fact, the two biggest Mergers and Acquisitions deals in world history up until the 90’s were the Cigarette Companies buying food companies. These 2 cigarette companies (being  RJ Reynolds and Phillip Morris) shifted their thousands of scientists from making cigarettes addictive to focusing on making food addictive. The Cigarette Industry further shifted all of their lobbying to lobbying for food… and created the horrible Food Pyramid where carbs and sugar were the base of the Pyramid. The Food industry then paid off the FDA, USDA, Harvard to create reports that sugar isn’t a cause of obesity. This is why America significantly shifted their diets to ultra high processed foods.

So, evidently, the nature of food eaten has changed from non-processed to ultra-processed foods, and this is because of the deliberate efforts of food corporations, and even non-food corporations – which is to say that there is a way on food and nutrition. Well, this necessitates that we question who else is involved in this plot, and what structures exist to hold them all accountable.

MANY FOOD CORPORATIONS KNOW THEIR PRODUCTS ARE HARMFUL TO CONSUMERS

Well, for one, a lot of the food corporations in the status quo are among the culprits in the war on food and nutrition. In fact, food corporations have known for a long time that they were harming people with high levels of sugar in their foods. For instance, in the year 1999, a group of men who controlled America’s largest food companies attended a meeting in the Minneapolis headquarters of Pillsbury. In attendance were CEOs and presidents from Nestle, Kraft and Nabisco, General Mills and Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola and Mars. The agenda was the emerging obesity epidemic and how to deal with it. These men were in constant battle with each other over what they called “stomach share” – the amount of consumers that any one company’s brand could take away from their competition.

Pillsbury’s chief technical officer ran the meeting. His intent was to get these men to agree that they had gone too far in creating and marketing products that posed the greatest health concerns–foods laden with sugar, salt and fat. He and others wanted these food giants to agree to be part of the solution, not the problem, by reformulating their foods to make them healthier. But, by looking at today’s obesity epidemic it is quite clear that the food companies did not agree, and only proceeded to fuel the problem further.

HOW LOBBYING PRACTICES HAVE CORRUPTED FOOD REGULATION

However, it is not the people over at the 1999 meeting in the Minneapolis headquarters of Pillsbury that learned to corrupt the vices of dissenters, regulators and credible science, because lobbying has become a highly weaponised tool from food corporations, and many diabolical corporations alike.

For instance, have you ever noticed how cheese is practically everywhere and in almost everything? Pizza crusts are stuffed with it. Salads are sprinkled with it. Burgers are smothered in it. Even vegetables, supposedly the healthy part of a meal, are often drowned in melted cheese sauce. Well, this is NOT an accident. It’s the result of decades of manipulation by one of the most quietly powerful food lobbies in the United States: being the dairy industry. And before we proceed, I certainly am aware that dairy can be among the healthier food groups, but make no mistake – this should not be a blanket assumption, being that cheese is either processed or ultra-processed, and pasteurised milk is not as healthy as it is marketed to be in comparison to the often unjustly vilified raw milk. And so, in essence, behind the dairy industry as well is a cartel-like structure of trade groups, marketing boards, and government partnerships that have worked together to artificially inflate the place of cheese and dairy in the human diet.

Let’s look at the US as a case study. The roots of America’s dairy dominance go back to World War I and II. During wartime, the government encouraged farmers to ramp up dairy production to feed troops overseas and keep the home front nourished. Milk, butter, and cheese were essentials. But when the wars ended, production didn’t stop. Farmers had built massive infrastructure to deliver milk in quantities that no longer matched demand.

Instead of scaling back, the US government stepped in. Federal price supports and subsidy programs propped up the dairy sector, buying up excess milk and converting it into shelf-stable products like cheese, powdered milk, and butter. These items were cheap to store and even cheaper to push. And so, over time, cheese went from being a relatively healthy food to a storage solution! And then, they got creative. In the 1980s, the USDA began working directly with fast food companies to (quote-unquote “solve” the surplus problem. One of the biggest partnerships was with Pizza Hut. With government assistance, they created the “cheese-stuffed crust pizza” to push more dairy.

By the way, pizza hut was NOT the only one. Domino’s pizza partnered with Dairy Management Inc. (a USDA-funded front group) to launch a new pizza with 40% more cheese. Taco Bell’s cheesy menu items were developed with the same organization’s help. Even McDonald’s began tweaking its menu to boost cheese consumption. And so, just like that, public health policy was working against public health!

Now, if this sounds like a conspiracy, it is likely because it practically is—only it’s all legal, tax-funded, and publicly documented. Here’s how it works: Dairy Management Inc is a marketing organisation funded by mandatory fees (checkoff programs) on dairy farmers. Dairy Management Inc also works in partnership with the USDA, meaning the same government that’s supposed to be promoting healthy eating is also helping the dairy industry sell more products. Then, between 1995 and 2023, the US provided over $50 billion in direct subsidies to the dairy industry, even though demand for liquid milk has been dropping for decades. All meaning that companies, regulators and government departments have all colluded in a corporatism plot, which prioritised private profit that is supported by public spending and shielded from normal market consequences. But, by the way Canada also has its own version of the dairy cartel that is currently colluding with the government to enforce a dairy production quota system that is detrimental to small farmers, as it is only the big dairy corporations that can afford them.

WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE SHIFT TOWARDS ULTRA-PROCESSED?

Now, one of the things we have to understand about the current predicament with regards to health is that however bad the effects of, say, phthalates or PFAS are on their own, things become so much worse in combination. This is considering that lab studies generally try to pinpoint the effects of individual chemicals, but the truth is that, out there in the real world, no-one is just exposed to one chemical. Instead, they’re exposed to dozens, maybe hundreds at a time.

The combination of particular substances is likely to result in enhanced negative effects or even new effects, as this study (which I’ve never seen anybody discuss) reveals. The common food emulsifier glycerin monostearate, which is readily found in processed food, significantly enhances the hormone-disrupting effects of phthalates, leading to increased testosterone decline and increased testicular damage in rats.

Similarly, Nitrosamines in processed meats can cause DNA alkylation damage leading to double-strand breaks (or DSBs). Acrylamide in fried foods also generates what is called Reactive Oxygen Species (or ROS), which is a neurotoxin. And so, the short-term takeaway is that eating processed food – which contains untold chemical additives – is probably one of the worst things you can do in a context where food corporations are pushing estrogenic and obesogenic substances. If you haven’t already, you would kindly need to consider stopping to eating processed and ultra-processed food, opting instead for whole foods.

THE PROBLEM WITH FLUORIDATED MILK

Now, a warning about fluoridated milk was re-echoed in the documentary Food Deception: The Global Poisoning Plot, specifically in light of how many milk brands contain fluoride, and how this has health ramifications for children. Now, Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral found in rocks, soil, and water. It’s a form of fluorine, a chemical element, and it exists in small amounts in plants, animals, and even our bodies. BUT, on average, the human body contains about 2,600 mg of fluoride, mostly stored in bones and teeth, which is far more than what is naturally acceptable; in other words, it is far more than what people would be exposed to if they only interacted with in the small, naturally occurring amounts found in plants, soil and water.

Well, while fluoride is promoted for preventing cavities, the levels that people are exposed to through specifically tap water, toothpaste, and processed foods are unnaturally high, and that’s where the trouble begins. But, in addition, fluoride is NOT a harmless nutrient like vitamin C or magnesium. It’s a toxin that can wreck your body when you get too much of it. Unlike other minerals, your body struggles to excrete fluoride, so it builds up in your bones, teeth, organs, and even your brain over time. And this accumulation can even lead to a range of health issues, many of which you might not immediately connect to fluoride.

Here is why this is concerning: Studies have linked high fluoride exposure to cognitive problems, including reduced IQ in children and brain fog in adults. Fluoride can cross the blood-brain barrier, potentially disrupting neurological function and contributing to memory issues or difficulty concentrating. But, as troubling as it is for adults, it is especially alarming for children, whose developing brains are more vulnerable. Research from places like China and India, where fluoride levels in water are naturally high, shows a clear connection between fluoride exposure and lower cognitive performance.

Then, in addition, there is also the problem of mineral displacement. More specifically, fluoride displaces iodine, which your thyroid needs to regulate metabolism, energy, and hormones. This can, in turn, lead to hypothyroidism, leaving you feeling sluggish, gaining weight, or just not strong in your body. It also competes with calcium and magnesium, essential for strong bones and muscles, potentially weakening bones and causing joint pain – and so, ironically, fluoride weakens bones that strengthen them. And so, considering that milk is a staple in the diets of billions, the fluoridation of milk – just like the fluoridation of water – makes many susceptible to health risk if they do not know these facts.

GOT RAW MILK? THE WAR ON A CRUCIAL DAIRY SOURCE

During the Biden-Harris administration, small farms and companies were being mandated by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to destroy all of their raw dairy products after receiving a cease and desist order from the state – primarily because of raw milk. So, why was there this effort to target raw milk, which is non pasteurised and non-fluoridated. Well, first, raw milk proprietors tend to be small operations with limited political clout who giant agricultural interests see as competition they would like to wipe – much like Monsanto does with smaller farmers. Second, raw milk is actually full of beneficial bacteria that get wiped out during pasteurisation. But, of course, a government susceptible to a diabolical agenda to depopulate the world will try to stamp out what is good and healthy for people to consume by whatever means available to them – this is part of the reason farmers are being asked to destroy organic crops and use GMO seeds.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The food and agriculture is among the 7 areas targeted by globalists, we addressed the corporations behind the war on food and agriculture. Well, today, we ought to begin our discussion with what has become a codified playbook on the war on this industry, from the Rockefellers. This is crucial as a focus because members of the Rockefeller family may carry more blame than anyone else in history for turning agriculture away from independent family farms towards corporate conglomerates. Essentially, in 1947, Nelson Rockefeller founded the International Basic Economy Corporation (also known as IBEC) to modernise and corporatise agriculture in South America, particularly in Brazil and Venezuela. The IBEC transformed farming to depend on expensive machinery and inputs that priced subsistence peasant farmers out of viability. The American International Association for Economic and Social Development (also known as AIA), which is a Rockefeller-funded philanthropic organisation, also helped build the market through which IBEC could enrich its owners. And while the IBEC’s promotional literature claimed that the company was generously assisting the “Third World” by providing necessary consumer products while turning a profit, on closer examination, it was simply a business enterprise built on the Rockefellers’ old Standard Oil model, in which smaller competitors are forced out using monopolistic practices before prices are raised!

However, this tactic was taken to a whole new level with the so-called Green Revolution, first in Mexico in the 1940s, then in the Philippines and India in the 1960s, as well as in the United States. Traditional farming practices such as the use of manure as fertiliser for heirloom native crops were then replaced with a model of mechanised chemical farming, using Rockefeller-funded new seed varieties which had been developed to require petrochemical fertilisers and pesticides to produce significantly increased crop yields compared to the traditional crops grown by peasant farmers in these countries.

And it is worth noting that the Rockefellers, as oil oligarchs, stood to profit from the petroleum-based fertilisers and pesticides that this new method demanded. The crops grown were almost all cereal crops like rice and unfortunately replaced more nutrient-dense, traditional crops like millet. And there were consequences for this. For example, India experienced an increase in food but a decrease in nutrition: with more empty calories but fewer fruits, vegetables, and animal proteins, micronutrients essentially disappeared from the diet. In addition, illnesses such as anaemia, blindness, fertility problems, low birth weight, and immune impairment increased in the country.

Therefore, while the Green Revolution was hailed as the solution to world hunger and poverty, it actually poisoned local water supplies, depleted the soil, and left farmers drowning in debt as they could no longer independently produce the fertiliser and seeds they needed. And I believe you would have also deduced that the latter Monsanto GMO Roundup-Ready seed model followed this playbook established by the Rockefellers. But this is a reminder to South American, Asian and African countries (as we are about to discuss) to sever themselves from these organisations  especially because people who profit from your suffering, cannot be your helpers. In addition, these regions are wealthy and have intelligent people, enough for us to be self-sufficient.

However, the Rockefeller Foundation did not end in the Americas or Asia – they also launched an attack on the African continent. More specifically, in 2006, the Rockefeller Foundation, Bill Gates, and others pushed the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, or AGRA, and they again followed this proven playbook. Since AGRA’s launch, African biodiversity has been lost, and the number of severely undernourished people in sub-Saharan Africa has increased by nearly 50 percent, even by the UN’s own reports. Just as in India, farmers are being tricked into abandoning nutrient-dense, drought-resistant crops like heirloom millet in exchange for the empty calories of GMO corn. And in response, hundreds of African organisations have demanded that this neocolonial project end, leaving the future of African agriculture in the hands of the native farmers who know the land best.

And by the way, the Rockefeller Foundation has also set its sights on the US food system with its Reset the Table agenda, handily launched in 2020 just weeks after the Great Reset was announced. This is another sinister plan to watch, and pray against.

However, what is incredibly dangerous and important to note is that a number of these corporations waging a war on food tend to project themselves as pillars for good. They have invested a lot into curating a public image that makes their evil works either go unchecked or even be covered by the promulgated message that their actions are for the greater good. And to say this was intentionally done is not a mistake – their philanthropic (or more accurately, philantro-capitalistic) works are nothing more than a public image campaign. For instance, the corrupt wealth and influence of figures like John D. Rockefeller was resented by Americans who knew its source. And to counter that, John D. Rockefeller embarked on a campaign of so-called philanthropy, primarily to redeem his public image; and not because he is inherently a philanthropist.

SECRET MANIPULATIONS OF CROPS, TO MAKE THE PUBLIC CONSUME GMO FOODS

But let’s also talk especially about “GMOs”. In 1986, the federal government established the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology. This policy describes how the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) work together to regulate the alleged safety of GMOs. In 1992, the FDA policy stated that foods from GMO plants must meet the same requirements, including the same safety standards, as foods derived from traditionally bred plants. Then, the first GMO product created through genetic engineering—a GMO tomato—became available for sale after studies evaluated by federal agencies proved it APPARENTLY to be as safe as traditionally bred tomatoes in 1994. Following this, in the 1990s, the first wave of GMO produce created through genetic engineering became available to consumers: from summer squash, soybeans, cotton, corn, and canola. AND YET, concerns have been expressed regarding GM food safety.

These concerns, as well as the limitations of the procedures that were followed in the evaluation of their safety (by bodies like the WHO and the FDA) are presented as being quite dire. For instance, animal toxicity studies with certain genetically modified foods have shown that they may toxically affect several organs and body systems. In addition, the results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the haematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. But, these effects are not surprising at all. There is a lot of damage done by companies that produce food, especially genetically modified foods today. In fact, just looking at Monsanto as an example, it began in part as a chemical company that polluted the environment of many areas where they operated their plants.

Well, GMOs are not just inherently bad – but they are also tied to another manipulative tactic that has been used in the war on food and agriculture – especially pertaining to wheat. Wheat itself in its organic form is not the issue in question; the issue especially relates to genetically modified wheat; and this is because the Big Fake Food Corporations are NOT ONLY dumping this GMO wheat in massive quantities into the food supply, but also that in doing so they have actually known for 40+ years now what gluten has been doing to the digestive system of consumers. More specifically, there is something that’s found IN the gluten that is VERY IMPORTANT to these fake food corporations: which is a protein called Gliadin. They discovered this protein in gluten was highly addictive. When you eat GMO wheat, the gliadin in the gluten goes straight to your brain and makes you CRAVE MORE FOOD, and also  makes you HUNGRIER.

And once they discovered what this gliadin protein does to your brain, the Big Fake Food Corporations started dumping their GMO/gluten/gliadin-filled-wheat into just about everything they make that ends up on your grocery store shelves. Essentially, gliadin stimulates your appetite and makes you hungry for more sugar and more grains! Which means that the more you eat their genetically modified wheat, the more you’ll want! Now, you’d recall that with the COVID-19 jabs, government bureaucrats working in conjunction with Big Pharma had to sabotage HCQ and Ivermectin for their profits.

Well, similarly, some governments are not only NOT doing anything to prevent this harm to the public, but a number of lawmakers have all been bought off and are colluding with these big fake food corporations – the same food companies that do not care about you and have been selling you toxic, addictive fake food that they have tinkered with to make you constantly want to eat more of it in order to increase their profits. Obviously, this relationship between lawmakers and Big Food is diametrically opposed to the government’s mandate to act in the best interests of its people.

However, when you follow the development of the genetically modified week, what is utterly concerning is also the revelation that many believe that there was no genetically modified wheat, especially in northern America. And yet, people found illegal strains of wheat in different parts of North America.

CASE STUDIES: NATIONS ARE PUSHING BACK AGAINST BIG FOOD & GMOs

However, in this dispensation, not only are more people demanding an end to GMOs, not only are more people becoming aware of the dangers and ills of GMOS on their health and the environment, but numerous individuals and heeding to the call to use formal legal recourse options to hold parties like Monsanto accountable. In fact, you’d recall that we have discussed here on ‘The War Room’ that the state of Oregon in the US celebrated that it reached a historic settlement with Monsanto. And with a new law, it will be investing a portion of the settlement in improving the air, land, and water that was polluted for decades.

Similarly, despite recent talks about having GMOs in the country, Nigerians have a well documented history of emphatic resistance to GMO’s. For instance, in 2017, a coalition of civil society groups organised a rally in Abuja demanding an end to the planned introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms into Nigeria’s foods and farming scheme. They also petitioned the National Assembly seeking a repeal of the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) Act. In 2024, the Nigerian House of Representatives initiated a suspension of the introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) across the country. This decision follows a motion calling for an investigation into the potential risks associated with GMOs, particularly regarding food and environmental safety. The House is urging the federal government to halt the commercialization of GMO crops until a comprehensive investigation is completed by the Committee on Agricultural Production and Services; and this followed after Honorable Muktar Shagaya moved the motion to suspend the introduction of GMOs until investigations are carried out to ascertain the safety, on May 16, 2024.

Now, a number of nations still have long been trying to protect organic crops. However, they were often tricked into the planting and consumption of GMO crops (which is one of the things that let you know that this is a deliberately orchestrated tool in the war on food). For instance, in 1998, Mexico passed a law banning the planting of genetically modified corn. But, unfortunately, came a time when Campesino farmers in Mexico bought unmarked corn from the US from their local government store. They ate some and planted some, as most farmers do. Unfortunately, the genetically modified seeds crossed with the land raised organic corn and contaminated the corn of the farmers.

Well, on March 18th this year, Mexico’s lower house of Congress has officially approved a constitutional reform banning the planting of genetically modified (GM) corn. The ban has taken effect immediately and is a result of a process initiated by former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. A general ban on GM corn in Mexico seemed more complex after a trade dispute ruling in December ’24. This ruling deemed Mexico’s restrictions on GM corn a violation of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), stating that it lacked sufficient scientific evidence and caused unfairly restricted US market access. Following the USMCA panel’s decision, Mexico has lifted its import restrictions on genetically modified corn intended for human, livestock, and industrial applications, a move that impacts approximately $5 billion in annual US GM corn exports, primarily for livestock feed

Despite the risk of economic repercussions, the current administration of President Sheinbaum took a next step in the process by ensuring GM corn cannot legally be planted in Mexico anymore, reaffirming its stance on protecting Mexico’s traditional agriculture and food security. The law will ‘guarantee biodiversity, food sovereignty, and the health of Mexicans’, according to the President.

The newly approved reform solidifies previous legal measures by enshrining the ban in Mexico’s Constitution. The decree aims at preserving native corn varieties, protecting biodiversity, and ensuring food sovereignty. The reform prohibits GM corn cultivation while mandating strict legal oversight to prevent risks to biosafety, public health, and Mexico’s biocultural heritage. This is in line with the focus of the Mexican government on rural development and the support of traditional agricultural systems.

WE ALSO HAVE A PART TO PLAY IN SUPPORTING LOCAL FOOD PRODUCERS

Then finally, while the issues we have discussed today are systemic and a consequence of the plans of sinister actors, we must also not miss an opportunity to compound on our activist efforts to ensure a clean, organic, cost-effective and functional food supply system. And honestly, it begins with supporting local food producers! First, we need to demand this on a legislative front though engaging the relevant stakeholders and policy makers, but also with the choices we make. It is jarring the extent to which consumers have also substituted the support for things like local farmers markets for convenience stores. And we saw this, for example, when American farmers across the country were reported to be struggling because the so-called elite class only wanted imported foods, instead of buying foods from American farmers and American companies.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso