mRNA food labeling bill failed to progress in the Utah state legislature.

Trade associations and paid lobbyists do not have your family's safety interest at heart. What's next?

On February 23, I attended the presentation of a food labeling bill (HB 0549) in the Utah state legislature. The bill was sponsored by Utah Rep Trevor Lee and proposed labeling of the animal products from animals that had received genetic vaccines. The transparency to the consumer is extremely important for the products that are produced by animals treated with these poorly studied injections. The key issues with human covid shots include their inherent toxicity by design, false regulatory status as “vaccines” (since originally designed as gene therapy), their status as “EUA countermeasures” devoid of consumer safeguards, severe adulteration with plasmid DNA and other problematic contaminants found in every independent test conducted to date.

The proposed bill was not accepted by Utah state legislature. It was defeated by an embarrassing show of paid influence with not one person speaking “against” referring to human health risk, animal health risk or risk to the environment, but only the money this regulation would cost and even ‘meat hesitancy’— if you can believe it!

The discussion allowed 4 people to speak in support of the bill and 4 against it. Everyone speaking in support of the bill was unaffiliated or represented family focused non-profit. They were asking for transparency to the consumer, and for further study of the risks before these products are pushed without disclosure to the mass market.

In this article I would like to focus on those who spoke against the bill, because this illustrates the massive battle ahead of us.

Speaking AGAINST the bill, Kelvyn Cullimore, President and CEO of BioUtah, bio-pharma manufacturing consortium. Mission statement from BioUtah website says: “We are comprised of manufacturers and developers of medical devices, pharmaceuticals, diagnostics and biotechnology products as well as government, academic and health care institutions all focused on improving health and wellness through the delivery of innovative technologies and services.”

Mr. Cullimore’s opposition to the bill was based on his false assertion that mRNA products do not modify the genomes of treated animals (or humans). This assertion is completely false because neither human EUA Countermeasures marketed as covid vaccines, nor USDA approved mRNA vaccine for pigs have ever been studied for genome integration before reaching the market. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Furthermore, mRNA and DNA based injections have been demonstrated to integrate into host genomes in numerous research publications in peer reviewed literature¹. Finally, since all mRNA vaccines on the market have been found adulterated with plasmid DNA, they are de-facto transfectants, designed to integrate into the host genome. The DNA plasmid is the main method used to create genetically modified or “knock-out” animal and plant breeds for laboratory experiments and other purposes.

I wonder if members of BioUtah trade association are aware of the scientific and regulatory literature on this topic?

Next speaking AGAINST the bill, Terry Camp, VP of Public Policy for Utah farm bureau federation. Mr. Camp’s position, like the previous speaker’s was full of concern for the reputation of mRNA products as “safe”. There wasn’t any concern expressed for people working with the animals and thus exposed to shedding of plasmids, nor for safety of the food supply:

Utah Rep. Daily-Provo who was opposed to the bill helped Mr. Camp to get double speaking time by asking him to explain how the agriculture industry will be “harmed” by the need for consumer transparency. She later on went so far as to assert that Drs. Lindsay and Kory who spoke in support of the bill couldn’t be “experts” on the subject because they were not from Utah… while deferring to the FDA’s expertise to thoroughly evaluate and approve these products. Last I checked, the FDA is not from Utah either. Furthermore, the FDA does not approve animal vaccines, a different federal agency, USDA, is responsible. None of the speakers seemed to have been aware of this fact, but they knew for sure that these products were safe without even knowing where to look up that information! Assertions by Mr. Camp and Ms. Daily-Provo about safety are thoroughly contradicted by the USDA-approved label of Sequivity, Merck’s mRNA vaccine for pigs. Within 21 days of vaccination, the farmers are faced with up to 30% loss of their herd due to immediate death or grave side effects in vaccinated animals. Long term safety of the product is unknown, neither shedding nor genome/microbiome integration were studied, and upon request USDA refused provide the underlying data that went into the creation of this label citing “commercial secrets”:

Next speaker AGAINST the Bill, Amber Brown, Director of Legislative Affairs for Utah Department of Agriculture and Food. Ms. Brown represents a state government entity that would be tasked with enforcement of the labeling requirements, and thus her stance is not surprising. She is claiming undue hardships from all the extra work. What was a shock to me is how nonchalant she is describing the current state of food safety knowledge in Utah: she states that the Utah Dept of Agriculture and Food currently has no ability to trace where meat and other animal products come from: the animals can be imported from other countries, can be culled and slaughtered with no knowledge of prior conditions or treatment (can they be diseased? cancerous? poisoned? treated with prohibited substances? have consumed lead or other chemical environmental pollutants?) Ms. Brown does not know and is not enthusiastic about figuring these things out for the sake of food safety. She certainly does not want to have to track yet another item of concern, mRNA!

The fourth speaker AGAINST the bill was Dave Davis, President of Utah Food Industry Association. Mr. Davis interestingly misrepresented himself as a “community”. I beg to differ. He represents commercial interests and the restaurant industry, not community.

As I mentioned above, due to this formidable financially and politically incentivized opposition the bill failed to progress in legislature.

What’s next?

People have the right to know whether they are working with or secondarily ingesting genetic contaminating byproducts which may still have transfection potential - either integration into genome or, even easier and more immediately devastating, destruction of microbiome. Ranchers or meat handlers could be exposed to untold amounts of transfective agents and proteins which could pose a health risk. Bacteria in the soil and animals in the food chain are exposed from fecal material and urine and farm waste. Farm handlers are exposed through shedding of the gene therapies and direct contact with large amounts of the transfective agents directly.

A fast growing share of USDA approved vaccines are already made with transfectants (DNA plasmids) as starting material, intermediate or final product. Dr. Janci Lindsay, an expert toxicologist and molecular biologist who spoke at the meeting in support of the bill states:

The plasmids that contaminate the modRNA COVID vaccines have human compatible promoters and origins of replication (cytomegalovirus and SV40). While these may not pose as much of an integration concern in the animals themselves, outside the oncogenic potential of the DNA fragments, the secondary transfectant— ie the one who consumes the meat or dairy, the one who handles it, gives the injections, etc… could be at risk of replication of the plasmid sequences and targeted integration into the genome and/or microbiome. There is also the reverse transcription of the mRNA in tissues that contain active reverse transcriptase in the testes and ovaries.

Due to requirement by the FDA for inspection of biologics manufacturing facilities lifted since 2019 (FDA rule change), contamination/adulteration with DNA plasmids is a disaster waiting to happen.

Neither farmers, nor veterinarians, nor farm bureaus, no state regulators are equipped to detect this dangerous matter in the products they are so cavalier about calling safe!

I advise my readers to get to know your local farmers and ranchers. Do not rely on the farm bureau or state regulators to have your or your family health and safety interest at heart. You can verify for yourself from these presentations that they do not. Speak with your local food producers, restaurant owners, farmers and make them aware of the danger that they are directly exposed to by using these products. I have written on this topic in the past and will continue to do so. In the meantime, here is an example of self-certification that can be done by food producers and agriculture: The Beef Initiative. We do not need to wait for legislation to be able to do this. If a food producer refuses to let you know what is in their food, it’s only common sense not to give them your money!

For a one-time donation for this Substack:

Art for today: Oreo Cows (aka Galloway cattle), oil on panel, 8x10 in.

1. References:

·  Domazet-Lošo, Tomislav. "mRNA vaccines: Why is the biology of retroposition ignored?" Genes 13.5 (2022): 719. [Google Scholar]

·  Kaessmann, H.; Vinckenbosch, N.; Long, M. RNA-Based Gene Duplication: Mechanistic and Evolutionary Insights. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2009, 10, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]

·  Zhang, Y.; Li, S.; Abyzov, A.; Gerstein, M.B. Landscape and Variation of Novel Retroduplications in 26 Human Populations. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2017, 13, e1005567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

·  Casola, C.; Betrán, E. The Genomic Impact of Gene Retrocopies: What Have We Learned from Comparative Genomics, Population Genomics, and Transcriptomic Analyses? Genome Biol. Evol. 2017, 9, 1351–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

·  Cheetham, S.W.; Faulkner, G.J.; Dinger, M.E. Overcoming Challenges and Dogmas to Understand the Functions of Pseudogenes. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2020, 21, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

·  Zhang, W.; Xie, C.; Ullrich, K.; Zhang, Y.E.; Tautz, D. The Mutational Load in Natural Populations Is Significantly Affected by High Primary Rates of Retroposition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2013043118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]