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

Food and agriculture as another of the 7 areas targeted by globalists; and to begin with, knowing that COVID was a diabolical hoax, we ought not to miss the curious relationship between COVID lockdown and the food chain system, in that the COVID lockdowns revealed the weakness of overly centralised supply food chain on a global level. Government-mandated shutdowns disrupted food distribution hubs and shuttered meat processing plants, causing chaos, riots, and unrest worldwide as people scrambled to find food for their families. So much so that in 2023, 282 million people globally experienced high levels of acute hunger – which is an increase of 8.5 percent from 2022’s already elevated levels. In the United States (alone), the US Department of Agriculture reported that one in eight American households lacked adequate food in 2022.

You’d think this would be the time to support farmers around the world, and to encourage local food systems that are resilient in the face of supply-chain disruption. Instead, in country after country, cabal-affiliated leaders proceeded to crack down on independent farmers and force them to comply with draconian new rules in the name of combating climate change – which marked the beginning of consolidated efforts to weaponise laws in a bid to target food and agriculture.

THE WEAPONISATION OF LAWS TO DISRUPT THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

For instance, in Ireland, the agricultural sector was ordered to cut carbon emissions by 25% in seven years. This was a requirement that would obviously drive many farms into bankruptcy and would force the culling of hundreds of thousands of cows.  Meanwhile, in Canada, the goal became a fertiliser reduction of 30%, including reductions in manure use on organic farms – while manure was the only viable alternative to chemical fertiliser. Farmers proceeded to ring the alarm bells that this policy will devastate the food supply. And even though milk prices were hitting record levels, Canadian officials still forced farmers to dump their milk if they produced more than an arbitrary quota. Dairy owners were further banned from giving the milk away to neighbours or homeless shelters. For instance, in Ontario, farmers could not even sell their milk directly to consumers at all, but were rather mandated to sell it to a single government-approved body which then decides how it is distributed.

Then, in the Netherlands, the government required a 30% reduction in livestock and mandated cuts in nitrogen of up to 95% – and this is the nitrogen that is released from cow manure and, if used properly, is an earth-friendly fertiliser. In any case, the government also promulgated plans to seize and shut down up to 3,000 farms to meet climate objectives. During this time, protests by Dutch farmers have been met with force, including the police firing live ammunition rounds at protesters. Denmark, Belgium, and Germany considered similar nitrogen reduction policies. And, both the UK and US had already put schemes into place to pay farmers not to farm. In fact, in huge areas of the Midwest, large corporations were seizing prime farmland through the law of eminent domain to install solar farms – despite the fact that these installations could instead be built in sunny, arid deserts where they would not disrupt the food supply, thus proving that this was a deliberate measure to disrupt the work of farmers, as opposed to being about alternative sources of energy.

But, it was not just large corporations who were front and centre of the seizure of land in the US – the government was a key stakeholder during the Biden-Harris administration. You’d recall that Biden’s “climate czar” John Kerry, remarked that small farms are significant emitters of nitrogen, necessitating a push for the US federal government to crack down on farming in America allegedly to combat “global warming.” Kerry further insisted that the United States must massively reduce farming to meet the radical “green agenda” goals laid out by the World Economic Forum and the United Nations. According to the former Secretary of State, the world can’t tackle climate change without first addressing the agriculture sector’s emissions – and farmers in the US were front and center of his plans.

Of course, we mentioned that this weaponisation of laws to disrupt the agricultural sector is not exclusive to the US, and has included measures from the UK as well. In late 2024, this was seen with the target of specifically family farms, through the introduction of a tax on inherited agricultural assets. And concerningly, how this plays out is that (essentially) a typical family farm would have to put 159% of annual profits into paying the new inheritance tax every year for a decade and could have to sell 20% of their land, and this is according to analysis by the Country and Land Business Association. This is to say that a typical 200-acre farm owned by one person with an expected profit of £27,300 would then face a £435,000 inheritance tax bill.

But, doubling down on their efforts, the Labour government has also paused the Post-Brexit subsidies paid to farmers to boost food production and the environment without warning! And the news of the pause came amid protests to Labour’s changes to agricultural inheritance tax rules. Clearly, pause leaves thousands of farmers at a crossroads as to how they can plug the subsidies, which are being phased out. Meanwhile, under the SFI scheme, farmers are paid for actions aimed at boosting NOT ONLY food production, but also nature, including by improving the condition of their soil as well as planting hedgerows, trees and wildflowers.

THERE ARE CORPORATIONS (DELIBERATELY) HINDERING FOOD SUPPLY

But, finally, since 2020 there has been a significant increase in the number of unexplained fires and other events damaging farms, barns, food warehouses, food pantries, and the food supply chain in general, prompting the FBI to warn that the food system is under threat from cyberattacks. So why was this happening? In other words, why was the food supply system being disrupted, seemingly on purpose? And who is behind this global assault on our farmers? Well, this brings us to a discussion about corporations that have been functioning as a hindrance to food supply. And for anyone who delved into the entities behind the tyrannical COVID policies, you may also note that many of the corporations we’ll discuss are quite familiar.

Let’s start with Bayer/Monsanto. Bayer merged with Monsanto in 2018, effectively combining the companies responsible for Agent Orange and pioneering chemical warfare. And just for some added context, Agent Orange, was a mixture of herbicides that US military forces sprayed in Vietnam from 1962 to 1971 during the Vietnam War for the dual purpose of defoliating forest areas that might conceal Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces and destroying crops that might feed the enemy.

In any case, in 1999, Monsanto’s CEO, Robert Shapiro, bragged that the company planned to control (and I quote directly here): “three of the largest industries in the world—being agriculture, food, and health—that now operate as separate businesses.” Also adding that (quote): “there are a set of changes that will lead to their integration.” Well, today these chemical manufacturers control a huge percentage of the world’s food supply. And Monsanto has already been in the news a number of times in relation to their war on food, especially news relating to lawsuits affecting farmers.

More specifically, since Monsanto began selling their patented ‘Roundup Ready’ genetically modified (GM) seeds they have sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement. Their heavy-handed investigations and ruthless prosecutions have been nothing less than an assault on the foundations of farming practices and traditions that have endured for millennia, including one of the oldest, the right to save and replant crop seed. Michael White, who is a fourth generation farmer and seed cleaner living in the northeast corner of rural Alabama never imagined that he would become the target of the conglomerates aggressive legal tactics. But unlike other farmers who could not afford the legal battle or faced demoralisation of other kind, in his area Michael White refused to give in to Monsanto and in doing so became one of only a handful of farmers to maintain the ability to speak publicly about his case.

The second corporation we will look at is Cargill, alongside the US Department of Agriculture (also known as the USDA). Cargill is a World Economic Forum partner and the largest private company in the United States. It monopolises unimaginably vast swaths of the global food industry, including meat processing in the United States. And Cargill’s business practices, along with bigger-is-better policies enforced by their cohorts at the United States Department of Agriculture, have led to the closures of many local abattoirs which forced farmers to depend on a few corporate mega-slaughterhouses. This leaves farmers waiting 14 months or longer for butchering slots, for which they often must transport their animals hundreds of miles—and indeed, farmers and ranchers must book processing dates up to a year before the animal is even born! Furthermore, the high fees charged by Cargill’s slaughterhouses contribute to the skyrocketing price of meat—all while the farmers themselves are barely paid enough to cover the cost of raising the livestock. And the USDA, meanwhile, made sure that their policies prevent farmers from processing meat themselves on their own farms.

Then there’s the Wellcome Trust. The Wellcome Trust, which was the former owner of Glaxo before it merged with SmithKline, played a major role in Britain’s Covid debacle and is unapologetic about its goal of reducing food sovereignty! Now, interestingly, the Wellcome Trust also funds “Livestock, Environment and People” (also known as LEAP), which is an organisation dedicated to developing and testing behavioural modifications to coerce the public into removing meat and dairy from their diets. However, LEAP’s co-director Susan Jeffs bemoans that motivating people with environmental impact labels on their foods does not seem to work: stating that “People are already settled into very established habits”. She also went on to suggest altering what the industry provides, thereby forcing consumer choice. And of course, the industry referenced here tends to be pro veganism and eating insects. But, this attitude from Susan Jeffs is ultimately because the Wellcome Trust researchers recommend “availability interventions” that “rely less on individual agency” to reduce access to animal food products.

Then there is, of course, the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum. Starting with the WHO, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO’s Director-General, would like you to believe that food production is responsible for almost one-third of the global burden of disease. Then subsequently, he calls for transforming the global food system toward plant-based foods, reducing meat and dairy in our intake, and enforcing policies to save the climate through restricting diet. In fact, a WHO 2022 report concluded that (quote) “considerable evidence supports shifting populations towards healthful plant-based diets that reduce or eliminate intake of animal products.”

And of course, you are likely familiar with the World Economic Forum and their Great Reset agenda. Part of their messaging has been why eating insects could reduce climate change, why we need to give insects the role they deserve in our food systems, and even why we might be eating insects soon. Suffice it to say that their plans for your dietary future are clear. However, in addition to this, there is a link between a limitation on food intake and their sinister plans for “smart cities.

Then, finally, we then have to talk about the Rockefeller Foundation, 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

So, here’s 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.

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