Synthetic Foods

[Kay Kim]

Synthetic milk from Bored Cow and Perfect Day contains 92 unidentified molecules, including fungicides – NaturalNews.com

Bored Cow’s “synthetic” milk, made with Perfect Day’s ProFerm, contains 92 unidentified molecules and a fungicide. Perfect Day claims ProFerm is “identical” to cow’s milk, but testing reveals significant nutritional discrepancies. The Organic Consumers Association and GMO/Toxin Free USA have...

www.naturalnews.com

Synthetic milk from Bored Cow and Perfect Day contains 92 unidentified molecules, including fungicides
04/11/2025

• Bored Cow's "synthetic" milk, made with Perfect Day's ProFerm, contains 92 unidentified molecules and a fungicide.
• 
  
• Perfect Day claims ProFerm is "identical" to cow's milk, but testing reveals significant nutritional discrepancies.
• 
  
• The Organic Consumers Association and GMO/Toxin Free USA have filed a lawsuit against Perfect Day for false and misleading marketing.
• 
  
• The FDA's "GRAS" process is under scrutiny for allowing untested synthetic products into the market

In an era where food technology is rapidly advancing, the line between natural and synthetic is becoming increasingly blurred. The recent controversy surrounding Bored Cow's "synthetic" milk, made with Perfect Day's ProFerm, has raised serious concerns about the safety, nutritional value, and

ethical implications of these new products. The Health Research Institute's (HRI) findings, which revealed 92 unidentified molecules and a fungicide in Bored Cow's milk, have sparked a legal battle and a broader debate about the regulatory framework governing food additives.

The rise of synthetic milk and the Perfect Day controversy​

Perfect Day, a biotech company, has been at the forefront of developing synthetic milk proteins using genetically modified microflora. The company

claims that its product, ProFerm, is "identical" to cow's milk and offers a more sustainable alternative. However, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and GMO/Toxin Free USA have filed a lawsuit against Perfect Day, alleging that the company's marketing is false and misleading.

According to the lawsuit, ProFerm is not identical to cow's milk. HRI's testing revealed that ProFerm is only 13.4% cow's whey protein, with the remaining 86.6% consisting of fungal proteins. These fungal proteins and compounds are not found in cow's milk and have never been part of the human diet. John Fagan, Ph.D., HRI's chief scientist and CEO, emphasized the nutritional deficiencies in synthetic milk:

• 69 important nutrients present in natural milk were either absent or present in trace amounts in ProFerm.
• 
  
• Vitamins B2, B5, and E, as well as omega-3 fatty acids, were either missing or present in negligible amounts.
• 
  
• Carnitine, essential for energy metabolism, was either absent or present in trace amounts.

Fagan's findings highlight the stark differences between synthetic and natural milk, challenging Perfect Day's claims of nutritional equivalence. The presence of a fungicide, Benthiavalicarb-isopropyl, in Bored Cow's milk further raises concerns about the safety of these products

The historical context and the future of food​

The controversy surrounding synthetic milk is part of a broader historical trend of technological advancements in food production. From the introduction of pasteurization in the late 19th century to the development of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the 1990s, each innovation has brought both benefits and challenges. The rise of synthetic biology and "precision fermentation" represents the latest frontier in this ongoing narrative.

However, the ethical and moral implications of these technologies cannot be ignored. The OCA and GMO/Toxin Free USA argue that consumers have a right to know what they are eating and to make informed choices. The synthetic milk scandal raises questions about the transparency and accountability of food companies and the adequacy of regulatory oversight.

As the lawsuit against Perfect Day unfolds, it serves as a reminder of the importance of rigorous scientific scrutiny and transparent labeling in the food industry. The debate over synthetic milk is not just about the safety and nutritional value of these products; it is also about the principles of consumer trust and the integrity of the food supply chain

 

[Kay Kim]

https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-06-14.

FRANKEN-SALMON SECRETLY APPROVED by highly corrupt FDA so America can start sucking down lab-concocted fish by tricky-named “Wildtype” brand

Yes, the Food and Drug Adulteration agency (FDA) has gone and approved what could be the first salmon that cause cancer and dementia as they are grown in a laboratory Frankenstein style with little to no safety testing whatsoever, except of course by the freakshow that made it. Welcome to the Island of Dr. Moreau. Dinner is served. The new Franken-salmon is called "Wild-Type" to TRICK all consumers into thinking they are wild caught. This is highly deceptive advertising and should be ILLEGAL. That's like calling GMO corn "Organi-Corn."

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has quietly approved the first lab-grown salmon for human consumption, raising concerns among food safety experts about the lack of independent testing and public oversight in the approval process. The product, developed by Wildtype Foods — a company backed by investors including Jeff Bezos and Leonardo DiCaprio — has already been introduced in high-end restaurants in Portland, Oregon, with plans for nationwide expansion.

Unlike traditional Atlantic salmon, which has been consumed for thousands of years, the lab-grown version was approved based solely on the manufacturer’s own safety claims, without independent verification or animal feeding trials. The FDA stated it found “no basis” to dispute Wildtype’s conclusion that its product is “as safe as comparable foods produced by other methods.”

Jaydee Hanson, policy director for the Center for Food Safety and an expert in synthetic biology, criticized the approval as “outrageous,” noting that the FDA allowed the company to use the “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) designation — a classification originally intended for substances with long histories of safe consumption.

The ‘Generally Recognized as Safe’ designation was never intended for this,” Hanson said. “The FDA is negligent in allowing a company to use the self-approved generally recognized as safe method

How lab-grown salmon is made — and why experts are concerned​

Wildtype’s salmon is produced by culturing fish cells in steel vats using a proprietary nutrient blend, including undisclosed ingredients and growth factors designed to accelerate cell multiplication. One such factor, fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF2), has raised concerns among scientists about potential residual traces in the final product and their possible links to uncontrolled cell growth.

Hanson pointed out additional unknowns, including the undisclosed method used to give the salmon its pink color and whether antibacterial agents are used to maintain cell health. “The company doesn’t divulge what it uses to give the salmon its pink color,” he said. “They likely need some kind of anti-bacterial product to keep the cells healthy, but it isn’t clear what product they’re using.”

A Troubling Precedent in Food Regulation​

The approval marks a significant shift in how novel foods are evaluated, bypassing traditional safeguards such as public comment periods, long-term health studies, and independent testing. Unlike pesticides — which undergo extensive public review despite not being directly consumed — lab-grown salmon was approved without similar scrutiny.

Several states, including Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Montana, and Indiana, have already banned the sale of lab-grown meat, citing insufficient safety data. These bans reflect growing skepticism about federal regulators prioritizing corporate interests over public health.

Potential Cancer Risks Under Investigation​

Researchers have raised alarms about the use of genetically modified cell lines in lab-grown meat production, some of which exhibit cancer-like behavior. Patents filed by companies such as Memphis Meats describe modifying cell lines by altering tumor-suppressing proteins, while JUST Inc.’s patents reference growth factors that could promote uncontrolled cell proliferation.

A Bloomberg investigation found that some immortalized cell lines used in lab-grown meat are “technically speaking, pre-cancerous and can be, in some cases, fully cancerous.” Harvard Stem Cell Institute researchers have also documented mutations in the TP53 gene — a critical tumor suppressor — in lab-cultured cell lines.

What Consumers Can Do​

With federal oversight lacking, experts recommend vigilance:

• Read labels carefully—Lab-grown products may be labeled as “cultured,” “cell-based,” or “lab-grown.”
• 
  
• Ask restaurants about sourcing—High-end establishments are early adopters.
• 
  
• Support transparency laws—Advocate for mandatory labeling and independent safety reviews.
• 
  
• Choose traditional or organic options—Opt for verified wild-caught or organic seafood and plant-based proteins.

The FDA’s approval of lab-grown salmon sets a concerning precedent for food regulation, prioritizing corporate self-assessment over independent safety verification. As this technology expands, consumers, lawmakers, and scientists must demand greater transparency to ensure food safety and public trust. Without rigorous oversight, the long-term health and environmental impacts of lab-grown meat remain uncertain — leaving the public as unwitting test subjects in a high-stakes experiment.

Tune your food news frequency to FoodSupply.news and get updates on more toxic foods that corporate America loads the grocery store shelves with to drive up chronic diseases and disorders so Big Pharma can take your money.

Sources for this article include:

NaturalNews.com

NaturalHealth365.com