Few people are aware of just how much bioengineering and gene editing is transforming the entire food industry.

Want an idea of how far it’s going? Check out the Food and Drug Administration’s “New Plant Variety Regulatory Information” webpage and resource index ( 

These FDA resources are larded with assurances of its careful oversight of the exploding commercial genetic engineering of foods. Its main page, notes for example:

“The FDA participates in international activities related to foods derived from new plant varieties including the safety assessment and regulation of foods from genetically engineered and genome edited plants.  As part of these activities, FDA actively shares information with other participating countries.”

But research exists that indicates the use of supposedly “precise” CRISPR technology introduces unforeseen mutations in genetics, even in very simple organisms.

It begs the question, is science pretending to know more than it does, concerning the safety and possible ramifications of what is set to become exponentially more widespread proliferation of gene editing in the food industry?

Recent Research Points to Untended Mutations From “Precise” CRISPR Gene Edits

A preprint study posted on 8 March 2023 at SSRN titled “Unexpected Mutations Occurred in CRISPR/Cas9 Edited Drosophila Analyzed by Deeply Whole Genomic Sequencing” is not the first to point to unintended consequences of CRISPR editing. (See “NOT JUST FOR VIRUSES: SCIENTISTS HELLBENT ON HUMAN AND AI GAIN-OF-FUNCTION EXPERIMENTS,” 4 Apr 2023.)

Researchers at Capital Medical University in Beijing (cited as a top 400 in World University rankings according to Wikipedia) summarized their findings regarding mutations from a CRISPR edit of the common fruit fly:

“Here, we knocked out the WHITE gene in drosophila by CRISPR/Cas9, and performed high-throughput sequencing to analyze the effect of this editing process on the stability of [the] whole genomic profile. Numbers of unexpected mutations were found in the whole genome of drosophila. Although the KO occurred on chromosome X, most mutation[s] happened on chromosome 3, indicating the influence harbors on the whole genome. It is noteworthy that most mutations occurred in the intergenomic and intron regions, with no obvious impact on the function or healthy[ness] of the animal. This research gives us a comprehensive understanding of the genome-wide effects of CRISPR/Cas9 technique in lower animals, which would arise more concerning about CRISPR/Cas9 application.”

The fruit fly, known by scientific nomenclature as Drosophila melanogaster, is commonly used in biomedical and genetic studies. 

The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, along with other findings regarding CRISPR editing, are explicitly voicing concerns about unforeseen mutations. 

But the language and regulatory framework currently in place in the U.S., via the FDA and USDA, doesn’t appear to account in any way for these concerns.

The FDA website on genetically engineered foods points to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) sets of “guidelines” that assess the safety of such foods, including:

But the Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods acknowledges the limits of its assessment framework. For instance, it specifically notes that long term study of possible effects of genetically edited foods is not required before such foods are commercially sold to the public.

A section on the “Scope” of risk assessment states (bolding added):

3. The Codex principles of risk analysis, particularly those for risk assessment, are primarily intended to apply to discrete chemical entities such as food additives and pesticide residues, or a specific chemical or microbial contaminant that have identifiable hazards and risks; they are not intended to apply to whole foods as such. Indeed, few foods have been assessed scientifically in a manner that would fully characterise all risks associated with the food. Further, many foods contain substances that would likely be found harmful if subjected to conventional approaches to safety testing. Thus, a more focused approach is required where the safety of a whole food is being considered.

4. This approach is based on the principle that the safety of foods derived from new plant varieties, including recombinant-DNA plants, is assessed relative to the conventional counterpart having a history of safe use, taking into account both intended and unintended effects. Rather than trying to identify every hazard associated with a particular food, the intention is to identify new or altered hazards relative to the conventional counterpart.

5. This safety assessment approach falls within the risk assessment framework as discussed in Section 3 of the Principles for the Risk Analysis of Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology. If a new or altered hazard, nutritional or other food safety concern is identified by the safety assessment, the risk associated with it would first be assessed to determine its relevance to human health. Following the safety assessment and if necessary further risk assessment, the

food would be subjected to risk management considerations in accordance with the Principles for the Risk Analysis of Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology before it is considered for commercial distribution.

6. Risk management measures such as post-market monitoring of consumer health effects may assist the risk assessment process. These are discussed in paragraph 20 of the Principles for the Risk Analysis of Foods derived from Modern Biotechnology. 

It’s important to understand that genetically edited foods are not generally subject to safety trials on humans, under this standard.

What’s more, the guidelines specifically note that gene editing can have unforeseen results with potential for adverse effects on humans. But it downplays this admission by equating the risks as similar to older agricultural and animal breeding techniques (bolding added):

In achieving the objective of conferring a specific target trait (intended effect) to a plant by the insertion of defined

DNA sequences, additional traits could, in some cases, be acquired or existing traits could be lost or modified (unintended effects). The potential occurrence of unintended effects is not restricted to the use of in vitro nucleic acid techniques. Rather, it is an inherent and general phenomenon that can also occur in conventional breeding. Unintended effects may be deleterious, beneficial, or neutral with respect to the health of the plant or the safety of foods derived from the plant. Unintended effects in recombinant-DNA plants may also arise through the insertion of DNA sequences and/or they may arise through subsequent conventional breeding of the recombinant-DNA plant. Safety assessment should include data and information to reduce the possibility that a food derived from a recombinant-DNA plant would have an unexpected, adverse effect on human health.

Even as regulatory bodies admit that current assessment protocols can’t account for possible detriments of gene editing, the uses and purposes of editing are becoming more far flung.

There isn’t just a focus on things like increasing yields of rice, or introducing modifications that make food crops hardier in various climates.

To give one instance, a 21 March story at detailed how “UK scientists are growing genetically edited wheat to reduce cancer risk from burnt foods.”

Modifying wheat to produce less potential carcinogens if over-crisped might be considered a laudable achievement.

But there’s literally no end to the scope of such “improvements” that will likely be in store for any and every food.  The euronews story notes that the U.K. is set to greenlight the genetically edited wheat.

Genetically Edited Foods, GMOs and Disclosure Requirements

Congress enacted the nationwide Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law in July 2016, directing the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) to develop a nationwide standard for labeling bioengineered foods.

Up until December of 2021 in the U.S., it was still left to producers of genetically edited foods to decide whether they would disclose foods that were genetically edited.

Genetically Modified Foods or GMOs, which have important distinctions from genetically edited foods, have long had disclosure requirements.

GMO foods contain genetic material from an organism not part of the targeted modified food, whereas genetically edited foods involve editing of an organism’s genetics, without introducing foreign genes.

There have been further labeling efforts at the state level.

A recent article at by Dr. Joseph Mercola referenced reporting by Cowboy State Daily on that front. (“Big Ag Panicking Over Bill to Require Labeling of Gene-Altering Products,” 17 Apr 2023.)

The news outlet noted:

“Lawmakers in Arizona, Idaho, and Missouri have introduced legislation related to the use of mRNA vaccines in food. The Arizona bill only restricts labeling such food as organic. The Idaho bill amends state law to prohibit the sale of such foods unless conspicuously labeled that the presence of the vaccine is in the food.”

(“Livestock Vax Based On COVID-19 Vaccine Technology Raises Concerns, But Biologist Says Fears Are Unfounded,” 5 Apr 2023.)

As more foods undergo gene editing, it’s likely that many more commercial food products containing various ingredients will contain at least some genetically edited foods.

Food Industry and Big Bio Working to Keep Consumers in the Dark

Despite some progress on food labeling, there are glaring loopholes, including some involving controversial treatments being given to livestock.

As far as mRNA vaccines being given to pigs and cattle, it’s no conspiracy theory. In October of 2021, Iowa State University started testing a bovine respiratory syncytial virus mRNA vaccine, according to Dr. Mercola.

And some in the cattle industry have claimed they have been using mRNA vaccines to treat Bovine Respiratory Disease as far back as 2017, though the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has issued a statement saying “There are no current mRNA vaccines licensed for use in beef cattle in the United States.”

The issue gained greater awareness as a result of legislation introduced in the Missouri state house, House Bill 1169, which would label gene-altering goods. Big Ag lobbyists fiercely oppose the measure.

Meanwhile, Dr. Peter McCullough, a staunch critic of COVID mRNA treatments, has identified Chinese research not just treating livestock with controversial vaccine technologies, but using them as vehicles to spread vaccines to those who consume those animal products.

Dr. McCullough specifically referenced a study posted at, titled “An oral vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 RBD mRNA-bovine milk-derived

2 exosomes induces a neutralizing antibody response in vivo.”

For related reading, see:

TRENDPOST: The Trends Journal has repeatedly forecast that the biotechnology industry was embarking on radical genetic redesigns of the entire spectrum of organic life on earth.

For radical environmentalists who complain about impending disaster due to humans supposedly contributing to raising atmospheric carbon levels from .03 to 0.4 of total atmospheric content C02, their relative silence concerning wholesale genetic engineering is astounding.  

Inadequate safety regulations, shortsightedness about possible long term ramifications, and quest for profit are all part of the story of the unfolding explosion of CRISPR technology driven gene editing, and implementation of genetic medical treatments via food.

The false certitude of scientists who are selling the notion that their redesigns and experimentation will not lead to wild abuses and unforeseen outcomes, may soon make the COVID War era seem quaint by comparison.

But for non-gene edited food purveyors, businesses and health advocates, there are increased OnTrendpreneur®  opportunities involving locavore agriculture, organic and non GMO food production and marketing, and selling a comprehensive “Natural Human” lifestyle and ethos.

We had previously forecast this in our TOP TREND 2023: AGING POWER.

But also expect the government corporate technocracy to step up the labeling and smearing of opposition to gene manipulated foods as “conspiratorial,” and anti-science.

Skip to content