Agriculture
Diet, Injections, and Injunctions
From the Brownstone Institute
By
After the lockdowns of 2020 and the vaccine mandates of 2021, most Americans have heard about the idea of medical freedom and many have concerns about informed consent. One in four of our countrymen say they know someone who was seriously injured or killed by the Covid vaccines. The need for informed consent in medicine is apparent. But far fewer know anything about food freedom, or why it matters.
Medical freedom and food freedom are two sides of the same coin, and unless we fight to protect both, we will have neither.
Looking to the future in his 1951 book The Impact of Science on Society, the Nobel Prize-winning British mathematician, philosopher, and eugenicist Bertrand Russell forecast a future where the elites would use science as a means to control the population: “Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.”
In The Scientific Outlook, Russell also wrote: “[In the future], [children’s] diet(s) will not be left to the caprices of parents, but will be such as the best biochemists recommend.”
While this likely sounded far-fetched to most of Russell’s contemporaries, his words capture our current era with alarming accuracy. In the past three years, millions of Americans saw their lives and livelihoods destroyed through injections and injunctions. Small businesses were decimated by the lockdowns. Legions of hard-working people faced ruin for demanding their right of informed consent – to evaluate the facts regarding any so-called medical treatment and to decide for themselves if they wanted it. They were fired for refusing the vaccine. They were killed with remdesivir. They died when doctors and bureaucrats denied them the truly safe and effective treatments they demanded, such as ivermectin.
Some of you are among the brave few who stood up in that moment and did what was right, to protect patients and vulnerable people at great cost to yourselves. I applaud you for this. You know first-hand what it means to have the boot of Injections and Injunctions on your face.
Now the third piece of the control grid Russell laid out must come into focus: diet. The battle to control you through what you eat is very real. It threatens to destroy what sovereignty we have left, and it is being perpetrated by the very same people who brought you “safe and effective injections” and “two weeks to slow the spread.”
The Covid lockdowns revealed the weakness of our overly centralized 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. The situation deteriorated further when Russia invaded Ukraine, the breadbasket of Europe; numerous countries in Asia and Africa depended on Ukrainian grain for their sustenance. The decreased harvest drove up grain prices around the world, contributing to terrible food shortages for millions.
In 2023, 282 million people globally experienced high levels of acute hunger – an increase of 8.5 percent from 2022’s already elevated levels. In the United States, one in eight American households lacked adequate food in 2022, according to a report from the US Department of Agriculture.
You’d think this would be the time to support farmers around the world who are trying to feed the hungry masses, and to encourage local food systems that are resilient in the face of supply-chain disruption. Instead, in country after country, World Economic Forum-affiliated leaders are cracking down on independent farmers and forcing them to comply with draconian new rules in the name of combating climate change.
In Sri Lanka, the World Economic Forum-affiliated Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe banned all chemical fertilizers in a bid to combat climate change, forcing farms to go organic overnight, something which any organic farmer will tell you is a recipe for disaster – making a change like this, even on a single farm, takes planning and time. Combined with an acute diesel shortage, this edict left farms unable to operate, leading to soaring food prices and famine. The situation became so dire that in 2022, hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankans rioted, invaded the presidential palace, and overthrew their government.
In Ireland, the agricultural sector has been ordered to cut carbon emissions by 25% in the next seven years. This requirement will drive many farms into bankruptcy and will force the culling of hundreds of thousands of cows.
In Canada, the goal is fertilizer reduction of 30%, including reductions in manure use on organic farms – the only viable alternative to chemical fertilizer. Farmers are ringing the alarm bells that this policy will devastate the food supply. Even though milk prices are hitting record levels, Canadian officials still force farmers to dump their milk if they produce more than an arbitrary quota. Dairy owners are banned from giving the milk away to neighbors or homeless shelters. In Ontario, farmers cannot sell their milk directly to consumers at all, but must sell it to a single government-approved body which then decides how it is distributed.
In the Netherlands, the government is requiring a 30% reduction in livestock and mandating cuts in nitrogen of up to 95% – nitrogen that is released from cow manure and, if used properly, is an earth-friendly fertilizer. The government also plans to seize and shut down up to 3,000 farms to meet climate objectives. Protests by Dutch farmers have been met with force, including the police firing live ammunition rounds at protesters.
Denmark, Belgium, and Germany are considering similar nitrogen reduction policies. Both the UK and US have already put schemes into place to pay farmers not to farm. In huge areas of the Midwest, large corporations are seizing prime farmland by eminent domain to install solar farms – installations that could instead be built in sunny, arid deserts where they would not disrupt the food supply.
All of this is happening at a time when we need more food and farms, not a reduction.
In the United States, there are many small, regenerative organic farms that raise pastured meats, dairy, and poultry on perennial pastures, without the use of chemical fertilizers, using animal manure to feed the grasses in a beautiful holistic cycle that is environmentally friendly and has starkly lower methane and carbon emissions compared to industrial farming. It reduces nitrogen runoff into rivers and streams and prevents erosion. If our government truly cared about climate change and human health, bureaucrats and scientists would be visiting these farms, begging to learn how to implement their methods to save the planet. Instead, these farmers are facing increased harassment and raids by armed agents seeking to shut down their operations.
You may have heard about Amos Miller, the Amish farmer from Lancaster, Pennsylvania who has been facing persecution from the CDC, FDA, and USDA for 7 years now for the unforgivable crime of providing raw milk and farm-processed, non-USDA inspected meats to customers who know what they are getting and want it exactly that way. We’ll get into why his customers want non-USDA-inspected meats later in this series. But for now, know that such raids are frequent and are threatening our ability to access local, healthy, environmentally friendly meats and dairy.
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 is this happening? Why is our food supply being disrupted, seemingly on purpose? And who is behind this global assault on our farmers?
Cow feed additive Bovaer meant to curb climate change seems to be killing some Danish dairy cows
Since October 1, 2025, when many Danish dairy farmers began incorporating the synthetic additive Bovaer (containing 3-nitrooxypropanol) into their cows’ feed—alarming reports have come in of animals suffering from: stomach cramps, fevers, miscarriages, drastic drops in milk production, sudden collapses and in some cases, the need to be euthanized.
The first farmer from Denmark comes forward and talks about sick and dead cows, after giving his cows the Bovaer poison. 10/28 25. Remember that waste products from Bovaer, are passed on in milk and meat.
Short version video.
Boycott Arla and share, share, share. pic.twitter.com/fXzHgfWP3G
— Kent Nielsen Denmark (@Kentfrihedniels) October 30, 2025
In the shocking video below, Danish farmer Rene Lillehjælper discusses how her husband is driving their “cow ambulance” tractor— transporting yet another collapsed cow from their dairy farm—because of the “Bovaer Poison.”
Marketed as a “climate-friendly” methane reducer, this product—produced by the Dutch-Swiss giant DSM-Firmenich—became a legal requirement for Danish dairy farmers to add into their animal feed for 80 days or for their cows to be fed extra fat throughout the year.
Notably, farmers experimenting by removing Bovaer saw their herds recover rapidly, only for symptoms to return upon reintroduction. Yet, despite these red flags, authorities insist on pushing ahead, with an investigation only now underway.
These reports build on the concerns I outlined in my November 2024 investigation into Arla’s UK trials, where EFSA tolerance studies highlighted issues such as reduced feed intake, decreased organ weights (including ovaries and heart), and altered enzyme levels in cows at elevated doses—yet these effects were ultimately classified as “non-adverse” by regulators.
BREAKING: Methane-Reducing Feed Additive Trialled in Arla Dairy Farms
On November 26th, Arla Foods Ltd. announced via social media their collaboration with major UK supermarkets like Tesco, Aldi, and Morrisons to trial Bovaer, a feed additive, aiming to reduce methane …
What was even more troubling were the findings from my analysis of the safety assessment report, prepared by the UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) and Food Standards Scotland (FSS), reviewed by Animal Feed and Feed Additives Joint Expert Group (AFFAJEG) and the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs (ACAF).
It stated: “In relation to safety studies for the consumer, a 2-year carcinogenicity study in Wistar rats showed “mesenchymal cell tumours were reported in 4 out of 49 females at the top dose of 300 mg/kg bw/day of 3-NOP given orally. Based on these results, the original study report concluded there was evidence of carcinogenicity in female rats.”
AFFAJEG noted potential for mesenchymal cell hyperplasia and benign tumours at high doses but, citing no malignant tumours or genotoxicity, concluded the additive is not carcinogenic at recommended inclusion rates.
ACAF echoed that the additive “can be considered safe for consumers.” Yet, their conclusion was seemingly contradicted by the following statement: “The additive should be considered corrosive to the eyes, a skin irritant and potentially harmful by inhalation.”
In a separate development, a May 2024 FDA letter addressed to Elanco US, Inc, (which has an agreement with DSM-Firmenich to market Bovaer) stated: “Based on a review of your data and the characteristics of your product, FDA has no questions at this time regarding whether Bovaer® 10 will achieve its intended effect and is expected to pose low risk to humans or animals under the conditions of its intended use.”
Ironically, the FDA letter included an attachment with the following warning:
It should be noted that Bovaer passed the FDA review in under 12 months—much shorter than industry standard.
Kjartan Poulsen, chairman of the National Association of Danish Dairy Producers, has received numerous calls from concerned farmers. “We have so many people who call us and are unhappy about what is happening in their herds,” he shared with TV 2.
He described the recurring issues as unusual and is urging reports of suspected Bovaer-linked miscarriages. Poulsen emphasized that any animal harm undermines the additive’s purpose: “This should give a climate effect – and if cows die from this, or they produce less milk, then the effect is minus.” He is calling for a temporary pause from Agriculture Minister Jacob Jensen and for farmers to cease use if welfare issues arise.
Approved by the European Commission in 2022 based on EFSA assessments, Bovaer was deemed safe for cows, consumers, and the environment, with claims of up to 30-45% methane reduction.
However, field experiences differ. Reports from Jyllands-Posten and TV 2 describe lower milk yields tied to miscarriages, plus collapses—some cows recovering with treatment but others needing to be euthanised.
Earlier whispers from Danish farmers included fevers, diarrhoea, mastitis, and even cow deaths attributed to Bovaer. One producer lost six animals in under a month. Critics label it “animal cruelty,” especially under mandatory use for farms with over 50 cows.
The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration acknowledges these reports and has enlisted Aarhus University to analyse real-world data, with initial findings expected after the 2025-26 new year.
The irony is stark: a product meant to “save the planet” for reducing methane is harmful to dairy herds, slashing productivity, and raising fears of contaminating the food chain—despite assurances it “breaks down fully” with no residues.
Yet, the true winners emerge clearly: DSM-Firmenich, cashing in on booming sales fuelled by mandates and climate subsidies, alongside powerhouse investors like BlackRock (holding ~3.3%) and Vanguard, who reap the rewards from this relentless Net-Zero drive.
If you appreciate the hard work that I do as an independent investigative journalist,
please consider supporting me with a paid subscription.
This article supplied by Troy Media.
And you may never find out if Health Canada gets its way
Cloned-animal foods could soon enter Canada’s food supply with no labels identifying them as cloned and no warning to consumers—a move that risks public trust.
According to Health Canada’s own consultation documents, Ottawa intends to remove foods derived from cloned animals from its “novel foods” list, the process that requires a pre-market safety review and public disclosure. Health Canada defines “novel
foods” as products that haven’t been commonly consumed before or that use new production processes requiring extra safety checks.
From a regulatory standpoint, this looks like an efficiency measure. From a consumer-trust standpoint, it’s a miscalculation.
Health Canada argues that cloned animals and their offspring are indistinguishable from conventional ones, so they should be treated the same. The problem isn’t the science—it’s the silence. Canadians are not being told that the rules for a controversial technology are about to change. No press release, no public statement, just a quiet update on a government website most citizens will never read.
Cloning in agriculture means producing an exact genetic copy of an animal, usually for breeding purposes. The clones themselves rarely end up on dinner plates, but their offspring do, showing up in everyday products such as beef, milk or pork. The benefits are indirect: steadier production, fewer losses from disease or more uniform quality.
But consumers see no gain at checkout. Cloning is expensive and brings no visible improvement in taste, nutrition or price.
Shoppers could one day buy steak from the offspring of a cloned cow without any way of knowing, and still pay the same, if not more, for it.
Without labels identifying cloned origin, potential efficiencies stay hidden upstream. When products born from new technologies are mixed with conventional ones, consumers lose their ability to differentiate, reward innovation or make an informed choice. In the end, the industry keeps the savings while shoppers see none.
And it isn’t only shoppers left in the dark. Exporters could soon pay the price too. Canada exports billions in beef and pork annually, including to the EU. If cloned origin products enter the supply chain without labelling, Canadian exporters could face additional scrutiny or restrictions in markets where cloning is not accepted. A regulatory shortcut at home could quickly become a market barrier abroad.
This debate comes at a time when public trust in Canada’s food system is already fragile. A 2023 survey by the Canadian Centre for Food Integrity found that only 36 per cent of Canadians believe the food industry is “heading in the right direction,” and fewer than half trust government regulators to be transparent.
Inserting cloned foods quietly into the supply without disclosure would only deepen that skepticism.
This is exactly how Canada became trapped in the endless genetically modified organism (GMO) debate. Two decades ago, regulators and companies quietly introduced a complex technology without giving consumers the chance to understand it. By denying transparency, they also denied trust. The result was years of confusion, suspicion and polarization that persist today.
Transparency shouldn’t be optional in a democracy that prides itself on science based regulation. Even if the food is safe, and current evidence suggests it is, Canadians deserve to know how what they eat is produced.
The irony is that this change could have been handled responsibly. Small gestures like a brief notice, an explanatory Q&A or a commitment to review labelling once international consensus emerges would have shown respect for the public and preserved confidence in our food system.
Instead, Ottawa risks repeating an old mistake: mistaking regulatory efficiency for good governance. At a time when consumer trust in food pricing, corporate ethics and government oversight is already fragile, the last thing Canada needs is another quiet policy that feels like a secret.
Cloning may not change the look or taste of what’s on your plate, but how it gets there should still matter.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
From Underdog to Top Broodmare
Public Execution of Anti-Cartel Mayor in Michoacán Prompts U.S. Offer to Intervene Against Cartels
Prince Andrew banished from the British monarchy
Ford’s Liquor War Trades Economic Freedom For Political Theatre
Province orders School Boards to gather data on class sizes and complexity by Nov 24
Canada’s attack on religious charities makes no fiscal sense
How one major media torqued its coverage – in the take no prisoners words of a former Alberta premier
-
Business2 days agoTrump’s Tariffs Have Not Caused Economy To Collapse
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta government’s plan will improve access to MRIs and CT scans
-
Daily Caller2 days agoTrump Reportedly Planning Ground Troops, Drone Strikes On Cartels In Mexico
-
Economy1 day agoWelcome to the Energy Humanist Club! Bill Gates breaks the moral monopoly against fossil fuels
-
Brownstone Institute2 days agoBizarre Decisions about Nicotine Pouches Lead to the Wrong Products on Shelves
-
International2 days agoHours after Trump’s warning, Nigerian Christians massacred by Islamist gunmen
-
Business1 day agoCarney government’s first budget should signal end to crippling ‘climate’ policies
-
Business1 day agoNo Jobs Clause: Liberals Under Fire Over Stellantis Deal in Fiery Committee Showdown