This article examines genetically modified yeast in detail and shows how the biotech food industry is deceiving even consumer activists

An article in the UK Telegraph entitled “M&S accused of misleading shoppers with bread ingredients” reports that Marks and Spencer supermarkets have been mislabelling bread. A white loaf with a prominent label claiming “only four ingredients” actually has eleven. A sunflower and spelt loaf labelled six ingredients actually has 13. A flour packet labelled“ancient wheat variety ideal for artisanal style breads” is actually a modern strain.

There is a parallel situation in New Zealand where headline product claims using words like ‘natural’ or ‘contains no artificial additives’ can be completely misleading when you read and closely research the origins and actual content of the small print ingredient list currently required on all foods. In fact, regulations on product labelling are now out of date because of the introduction of genetically modified microorganisms and the resulting residual contamination of foods.

M&S is not the only UK supermarket deceiving its customers. The practice is widespread in the UK and around the globe. Lax labelling laws enable food producers to simply leave out or mislabel a number of ingredients including preservatives and genetically modified microorganisms typically found in ultra processed foods. Some, but crucially not all, deceptive labelling practices have been highlighted by the Real Bread Campaign a project of Sustain: an alliance for better food and farming which is a large membership-based organisation campaigning in the UK for a food system that is healthy for people, animals, and the planet.

So far so good, Sustain with its Real Bread Campaign appears to be leading the charge for healthy food, something we all need. But search their website for articles with the term “genetically modified” and nothing is found. In February we published our article “” Major Health Alert: the Extraordinary Genetically Modified Invasion of Our Supermarkets by Stealth which reported a range of novel food processing aids and ingredients are now produced using genetically modified microorganisms (GMMs). These are used across a very wide range of thousands of supermarket food items including baked goods like bread and many others. Our article reported recently published scientific research which showed the use of GMMs inevitably leads to residual contamination of the end product with bioactive modified synthetics known to be harmful to health. These have been found to include antibiotic genes, antibiotic resistant genes and cell division promoters which can play a role in cancer development.

Genetically Modified Yeast 

Let’s look in depth at one such ingredient. We all know that commercial breads contain yeast. What is yeast? A Google search replies:

“Commercial yeasts are primarily a cultivated strain of the microorganism Saccharomyces cerevisiae, grown on molasses, a sugar source, and supplemented with minerals, nitrogen, and vitamins to promote growth.”

Saccharomyces cerevisiae is an ancient species of single-celled fungus, commonly known as baker’s yeast or brewer’s yeast, used for thousands of years to ferment sugars into alcohol and carbon dioxide, making it vital for baking, brewing, and winemaking. This sounds innocuous enough, but now it has been genetically modified to facilitate its additional use in the biotechnology industry to enable cell division, gene expression, and protein interactions vital for the mass production of genetically modified products and medicines. 

A 2020 article in the journal Bioengineering entitled “Genetic Engineering and Synthetic Genomics in Yeast to Understand Life and Boost Biotechnology” reports that a commercial bakers yeast known as Sc2.0, is actually a genetically modified version of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Sc2.0 has been a work in progress since 2006 following on from Sc1.0 an earlier genetically modified version. An article in Nature Communications entitled “Construction and iterative redesign of synXVI a 903 kb synthetic Saccharomyces cerevisiae chromosome” published in January 2025 announced the final iteration of Sc2.0 and its availability for commercial applications including baking. Sc3.0 is already in the planning stage.

Sc2.0 yeast comprises 16 synthetic chromosomes and a new-to-nature tRNA neochromosome, a synthetic chromosome which has no natural counterpart. Sc2.0 is a streamlined, optimised version of the Sc1.0 genome made using computer-aided (AI) design, enabling it to be synthesised from numerous DNA fragments. In additionLoxP sites have been strategically inserted between genes to allow for future genome engineering and the generation of diverse cell variants through processes like SCRaMbLE.

SCRaMbLE (Synthetic Chromosome Rearrangement and Modification by LoxP-mediated Evolution) is a genetic engineering technique used in synthetic yeast genomes to create massive, diverse genetic variations such as deletions, inversions, and translocations by inducing recombination between LoxPsym sites at specific locations in the DNA when Cre recombinase is introduced. Cre recombinase facilitates genetic manipulation and is widely used in research, particularly in conditional mutagenesis to study gene function by creating conditional gene knockouts in specific tissues or at specific times.

The modified yeast used to make bread can be prepared to look much the same as the natural product used for thousands of years—little beige granules which do their magic when added to water and flour, but they are not the same. The modified genetic sequences of Sc2.0 are designed to facilitate processes like cell division, a necessary driver of cancer development. The effect of Sc2.0 on human health has not been studied. Incredibly, its developers have persuaded regulators that it should be ‘presumed safe’ when used by the food industry. 

To give you an idea of the level of biosynthetic activation present in Sc2.0, in addition to bread making it is being used to make antibiotics, mRNA vaccines, novel proteins, biofuels, and high value chemicals. It is also used to rapidly mutate biomolecules and as a platform for the large-scale integration and optimisation of foreign genes.And it is in our daily bread.

At the risk of over using a cliche, what could possibly go wrong?

It seems the Real Bread Campaign has not yet got their head around the difference between ancient yeast and Sc2.0. Who can blame them? tRNA neochromosome, LoxPsym, Cre recombinase and SCRaMbLE are terms that only recently entered the English language. They carry little meaning or significance for the general population. Yet the word‘yeast’ still appears on bread labels as if time has stood still for bread making through the centuries since Christ fed thousands with wholesome loaves and fishes. It hasn’t. tRNA neochromosome, LoxPsym, Cre recombinase and SCRaMbLE are now on the daily menu for the faithful followers of commercial bread, home bread machines and pizza. The Real Bread Campaign, GE Free NZ, and other consumer groups have not yet sounded the alarm, leaving the public in the dark and at risk.

If we want to avoid genetically modified bread ingredients that our regulators have designated GRAS (presumed safe without adequate testing) try making sourdough at home or buy from a genuine artisan baker. Our food system is being genetically modified by the hour and yeast has been modified to ensure that future exotic genetic modifications are made easy. On Friday the Health Select Committee will announce its recommendation on the Gene Technology Bill. The Bill does not contain the word ‘label’ anywhere and makes no provision to inform consumers about genetic modification of our traditional foods. Unfortunately very few if any consumer organisations have informed themselves or us about what is happening. It is time to wake up.

The Listener has published an article entitled “NZ spends more on health than most countries – so why is our health system still sick?“. The article follows the case of a woman from Thames who was diagnosed with appendicitis upon presentation to her local ED. She was transferred to Waikato hospital for an operation but had to wait 2 days during which time her appendix burst, a potentially life threatening condition. As a result her recovery took longer and involved more complications and pain. The article explains:

“Waikato Hospital has one of the busiest emergency departments in New Zealand – 84,000 presentations in 2024 – roughly 230 per day. Overcrowding is constant, especially during winter. [In NZ as a whole] more than 300,000 patients with “imminently” or “potentially” life-threatening conditions were not seen within recommended times in the first six months of 2024.“

The article continues:

“But there is a mystery here. If we compare New Zealand with other OECD nations, our health spend as a percentage of GDP is higher than average, and public health spending as a proportion of government spending is one of the highest. We have slightly fewer doctors per head of population than peer nations – but more nurses. And the number of doctors and nurses per capita has risen steadily for 25 years.”

So why is our health system failing? The National led government is blaming Labour policies and the Labour Party is blaming National cost cutting. The authors conclude that neither explanation is persuasive, saying “the delays and overcrowding were present at the end of the last National government in 2017, endured through Labour and are worse today.” It is at this point in the article when a rigorous investigation might have helped the Listener get to the bottom of the problem. They could have asked:

‘How much worse is the problem today and why?’

If they had asked that question they just might have realised that since 2021 there has been a sea change in levels of sickness that is not going away and may even be getting worse. As we reported in our article “It is not unusual” the number of St John Ambulance call outs in August 2025 was higher than it has ever been. Moreover the rate of excess deaths is still 5% higher than it was pre-pandemic. 

There is a known ratio between mortality and hospitalisation (see for example Contributions of event rates, pre-hospital deaths, and deaths following hospitalisation to variations in myocardial infarction mortality in 326 districts in England: a spatial analysis of linked hospitalisation and mortality data). It is usual to suppose that high mortality rates are caused by a combination of poor quality of hospital and healthcare services, poverty prevalence and, in the modern era, aging populations, but that is not always the case. The causation can work the other way round. In war time, rates of hospitalisation and death rise because there are more injuries. A similar case applies during disease epidemics, if mortality rises above the long term average it will be accompanied by increased hospitalisation rates and a strain on healthcare services. 

A third possibility exists, this occurs when the overall immunity of a population is affected. For example during famine conditions there is not only starvation but also low immunity. Following on from the pandemic and the mass mRNA COVID-19 vaccination program New Zealand is facing a deficit in immunity. This has resulted from biotechnology experimentation which has adversely affected our immunity, contributing to increased healthcare utilisation rates, ED visits and emergency call outs. The trend of increased sickness involves a wide range of health conditions on top of the known seasonal factors and prior trends.

Strangely the Listener fails to mention this obvious factor except for a passing reference to increasing levels of multi-morbidity (more people than ever before are experiencing multiple disease conditions simultaneously). Instead pretending that rising healthcare costs are primarily an inevitable result of mismanagement and rising costs. Experts interviewed by the Listener disagree on the causes and remedies, one suggestion calls for more efficient healthcare managers possibly with the assistance of advanced AI to replace some frontline medical personnel. Another opinion calls for training more doctors and nurses. But it doesn’t take an economist for us to realise that healthcare is already taking up such a significant percentage of our national budget that options are limited, especially because the previous government borrowed $66 billion to fund their pandemic response, money that has not yet been repaid. 

Whereas, as we have been reporting, multiple studies show unequivocally that simple low-cost preventive educational healthcare measures involving diet, exercise and meditation can reduce the healthcare burden dramatically. More than at any other time, New Zealand needs a genuine national health debate. Yet it seems that almost everyone in authority and mainstream media is keen to avoid this. 

We are being misinformed by those charged with protecting our health

Mostly our newspapers are poking fun at the healthcare debate that is taking place in America and the UK without actually informing us what the issues are, instead labelling public debate as anti-science, whereas the opposite is the case. 

Take for example this highly informative presentation by leading cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra which was dismissed by the Times as “unsupported by mainstream clinicians or experts.” When in fact Dr Malhotra is actually a highly credentialed clinician who was presenting critical research findings. 

For comprehensive review of Trump’s announcement on the dangers of paracetamol use during pregnancy see here. Contrary to uninformed media rejection of concerns, there are landmark published studies indicating significant risks. Andrea Baccarelli, MD, PhD, the Dean of Faculty of the Harvard School of Public Health who conducted a research review published in August entitled “Evaluation of the evidence on acetaminophen use and neurodevelopmental disorders using the Navigation Guide methodology” has written for example “Patients who need fever or pain reduction during pregnancy should take the lowest effective dose of acetaminophen [the active ingredient in paracetamol and Tylenol], for the shortest possible duration, after consultation with their physician about their individual risk-benefit calculation.” Despite this solid published evidence urging extreme caution, the New Zealand Herald headlined “Experts reject Trump’s ‘baseless’ paracetamol claims quoting Dr. Bryan Betty, a New Zealand GP and Chair of General Practice NZ. Sadly his blanket rejection is all most of the New Zealand public will likely hear on the issue.

New comprehensive reports you may have missed 

The Hatchard Report is committed to informing you about health in all its aspects. You may have noticed fewer articles than usual from the Hatchard Report in the last few weeks, that is because we are now publishing our GLOBE on Substack.com. These articles explore deeper principles surrounding biotechnology and challenge myths of safety and effectiveness that are being used to influence government policies and encourage unthinking public acceptance. As a result of this change, you might have missed some key articles. If you haven’t already subscribed to our Substack column you might like to check out our recent posts which examine in detail the ideas underpinning misplaced faith in gene editing safety. They question the biotechnology paradigm:

The Goldilocks Factor in Genetics

The modern age cannot be an age of biotechnology—Quantum mechanics, consciousness and biotechnology

The Long Read: Twenty Reasons to Completely Reject Biotechnology Experimentation Part 1

Part Two The Long Read: Twenty Reasons to Completely Reject Biotechnology Experimentation : Consciousness-Based Alternatives

I believe these are among our best ever articles which present the key issues very clearly. Substack is a platform that enables subscribers to share posts with other members, friends and social media. The content we are posting there replaces our GLOBE website. The Hatchard Report will continue as usual to bring you our perspective on local health and food issues all backed up by scientific references. Issues that our healthcare, biotech and processed food industries appear anxious to bury and ignore. Currently you can subscribe to our Substack without charge.

We Need Your Help

Just a word about our funding. We rely on your support. A big thank you to all of you who do contribute or have done so in the past. However we have had a continuing shortfall over the last four years, as a result we have had to borrow from the bank to keep going. The amounts involved are considerable and the costs of borrowing are becoming unsustainable. If you enjoy our reports, please consider helping us at this time if you are in a position to do so.. 

Finally a timely reminder, the parliamentary health select committee is due to report its conclusions on the Gene Technology Bill on October 10th. Please register your opposition to biotechnology deregulation by opposing the passage of the Bill. Write to your MP and share our articles with your colleagues and friends.

Associate Minister for Agriculture Mark Patterson, has announced that NZ First will oppose the passage of the Gene Technology Bill in its current form because the party is opposed to the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment, since their subsequent spread cannot be contained. Patterson told Newsroom: 

“The stuff that happens in containment in a lab: we don’t really have a problem with that. That’s fine. [Our concern] is in terms of general release into the environment”. 

Any celebration of this news is premature, because NZ First has announced its intention to negotiate with its coalition partners in order to reach a compromise on the terms of the Bill which apparently will only extend at the most to a continuation of the ban on the release of GM crops in New Zealand for the time being, but not to any control of exotic and highly risky genetic experimentation in labs and the rubber stamping of novel medical gene technology experiments. 

Patterson describes the issue of gene modification as “hellishly complex”. He is right about that, but completely off target when it comes to the safety of gene modification inside a contained lab. There are overwhelming reasons to reject deregulated genetic modification in New Zealand laboratories and the automatic approval of gene tech medicine in New Zealand if it has been used overseas as the Bill envisions. First among these reasons is the occurrence of 30 million global pandemic excess deaths.

Given the extreme risk, which should be obvious to everyone but is somehow being glossed over by those with vested interests, the NZ First party should now brush up on their research into the ‘hellishly complex’ issue of genetic modification as it pertains to what happens in contained laboratories. In fact, secure lab containment is a myth, accidents are not rare, they are common. A 2015 USA Today Investigation uncovered hundreds of errors in supposedly ‘contained’ US laboratories, reporting:  

“Vials of bioterror bacteria have gone missing. Lab mice infected with deadly viruses have escaped, and wild rodents have been found making nests with research waste. Cattle infected in a university’s vaccine experiments were repeatedly sent to slaughter and their meat sold for human consumption.”

A 2022 study of the Prevalence of Accident Occurrence Among Scientific Laboratory Workers found:

“Among 220 participants recruited in our study, 99 participants (45.0%) have had accidents during their lab works. 59.6% have been exposed once, 32.3% between two and four times, only 1.0% between four and six times, and 7.1% more than six times.”

If NZ First still naively thinks that the accident at the Wuhan lab was a one off that can be ignored or that gain of function research is no longer taking place or will not happen here, they need to think again. Biotechnology researchers and regulators have proved themselves consistently incapable of setting limits or acknowledging inherent risks, even recently. For example a 2022 experiment undertaken by Boston University recorded the success (???) of their efforts to combine the mild COVID-19 Omicron variant with more deadly strains circulating earlier in the pandemic. The strain they created killed 80% of mice, whereas omicron killed none.

NZ First might also have to consider the reliability or otherwise of the advice they have been receiving from health officials, lobbyists and so-called experts. Recent research has placed many of these positions in doubt.

For example a paper published in the Journal of Precision Biosciences entitled “Unintended Genetic Consequences of mRNA Vaccines: Evaluating Risks of Transcriptional Disruption, HLA Alteration, and Genomic Integration concludes:

“Contrary to initial claims that mRNA degrades harmlessly, emerging evidence suggests that synthetic sequences may embed within the human exome, disrupting essential genetic processes. The primary concern lies in the potential scrambling of the Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) gene complex, which could trigger autoimmune disorders and long-term genetic instability.”

Anyone who pretends such risks are minimal or can be ignored is going against the trend of scientific evaluation and discussions. Unfortunately some in positions of authority are digging in their heels and refusing to acknowledge the known risks or inform the public.

An exclusive investigation undertaken by the Public Health Reform Alliance reveals emails which show that CDC (US Centre for Disease Control) officials have been discussing among themselves how to obfuscate the facts about COVID-19 vaccines’ lack of efficacy. They have sought to keep discussion out of the public domain. Apparently the CDC spent $911 million on a COVID-19 vaccine promotion campaign that misrepresented the effectiveness of masking, vaccines and boosters — and “consistently overstated” the risk of the virus to children. Internal emails show that CDC officials sought to ignore and hide legitimate COVID-19 vaccine safety concerns, instead deciding to reassure the public of safety, without actually evaluating or investigating the concerns.

Despite the obvious risks, Shane Jones MP expects that NZ First will reach a compromise on the Gene Technology Bill to ensure the stability of the coalition, saying “To do a great right, sometimes you have to do a little wrong”. Whatever ‘little wrong’ he was talking about, it certainly cannot be applied to COVID-19.

According to the Harvard School of Public Health, COVID-19 has now become endemic. In other words, it is with us in one form or another for good. This has multiplied the number of illnesses the public can contract, especially during the winter season. An article in Stuff newspaper headlines “Winter illnesses drive ‘mass casualty situation’ feeling at hospital ED, doctors say“. It reports that hospital ED departments are currently overwhelmed as if a mass casualty event has taken place, actually it has and we have to ask why. St John Ambulance service has recorded its busiest month ever with over 50,000 call outs in August. Incidence of breathing difficulties were up 33% on the 12 month average. The surge in illness is being blamed on the combined toxic effects of flu, RSV and COVID-19, but does the cause of this malaise in public health run deeper than merely concurrent illnesses?

Multiple recent studies indicate that Covid escaped from the lab in Wuhan following gain of function research. Therefore it is important to realise that the Wuhan research was designed to genetically engineer a coronavirus strain found in bats into a virulent disease that could infect humans. At the Wuhan lab, biotechnologists were able to incorporate novel genetic sequences that efficiently locked into human receptors. These mechanisms are no doubt at the root of the infectivity and persistence of COVID-19. Long COVID-19 incidence provides an example of how such engineered characteristics can create long lasting reservoirs of disease in the human body.

What has not been made clear to the general public is the mobility of such genetic sequences. The human gut is a system where microorganisms can exchange genetic information, a phenomenon known as Horizontal Gene Transfer. A 2017 paper entitled “Potential Effects of Horizontal Gene Exchange in the Human Gut” reports 

“The human gut conditions, with stable temperature, continuous food supply, constant physicochemical conditions, extremely high concentration of microbial cells and phages, and plenty of opportunities for conjugation on the surfaces of food particles and host tissues, represent one of the most favourable ecological niches for horizontal gene exchange.”

The paper discusses potential effects of these exchanges on human health in general and autoimmune diseases in particular. In the light of these findings it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realise that a simultaneous infection with either flu or RSV along with COVID-19 may help more virulent and persistent winter disease strains to emerge with novel engineered characteristics. This is possibly what is happening in New Zealand right now. 

The effects are not limited to public health, the vitality of the economy is also under threat which is not a minor concern. The Herald reports that almost a quarter of staff at Northland schools were reporting sick in August forcing schools to roster senior students to teach. 1News reports 2025 research that concludes ill health is costing New Zealand businesses $46 billion annually.

So what should NZ First actually do about the Gene Technology Bill?

The risks posed by biotechnology experimentation are not just large, they are unprecedented and inherently unpredictable. In 2017, Jennifer Doudna, the Nobel prize winning inventor of CRISPR gene editing, writing in her book A Crack in Creation, cautioned:

“The power to control our species’ genetic future is awesome and terrifying. Deciding how to handle it may be the biggest challenge we have ever faced.”

The current formulation of the Gene Technology Bill fails to address Doudna’s warning. It offers a blank cheque to a regulator to approve experimentation in whatever ways they might see fit. Moreover the Bill grants exemption from criminal liability to those involved. Our World in Data estimates there have been 30 million excess deaths worldwide since the beginning of 2020, the largest incidence of mass deaths from disease since the advent of modern medicine and sanitation. The deaths are apparently the direct result of experimental gene manipulation. It seems excessively strange, ill considered and inappropriate to grant exemptions from liability in advance of further gene experiments. 

The issue here is the paramount need to protect public health. The safety of certain forms of biotechnology experimentation and gene editing is not proven as the Gene Technology Bill falsely presupposes, rather the obvious conclusion to be drawn from pandemic outcomes is the opposite. Given that both COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines came out of biotech labs, any balance of culpability between the two is immaterial. The Gene Technology Bill is a step too far and should be rejected. There are many scientifically valid reasons to take this very seriously indeed. See our Substack article The Long Read: Twenty Reasons to Completely Reject Biotechnology Experimentation for more information.

Any attempt to support the Bill in its present form or a compromise version which effectively deregulates genetic editing in laboratories will be a opening into an entirely uncertain and risky future. When Pandora risked opening her box, all the worlds evils including sickness, sorrow, death and vice escaped into the world. According to the myth, humanity was left with hope. The COVID-19 pandemic experience should be enough to let us know that hope is not enough. Write to your MP and ask that they reject the Gene Technology Bill.

Whole foods are disappearing in favour of biosynthetic GM ingredients

Modern medicine has evolved a concept of the ‘active ingredient’. The phrase refers to a specific chemical or molecular constituent of a medicine that is considered to have a therapeutic effect. Originally, most common medicines were prepared using whole plants. In the modern era, the idea that it wasn’t so much the plant as a single molecule in the plant that was providing the benefit. This led to procedures to separate out all the constituents and then isolate the active ingredient which could be used on its own. Soon these so-called active ingredients were chemically synthesised. More recently, biotechnology has developed batch fermentation processes which rely on genetically engineered microbes to mass produce such additives or medicines.

Traditional Ayurveda, the ancient health science of India and other herbal traditions recognise an important principle—all the constituents of whole plants taken together have synergistic healing effects. Different herbal preparation methods such as drying, decoction or fermentation do not chemically separate out the parts, rather they make the properties of the whole plant accessible to the physiology. 

A good gardener becomes aware that we have a subtle relationship with plants. Many of you may have felt signals of thirst, distress or well being emanating from specific plants and responded accordingly. Renowned physicist Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose conducted groundbreaking research into the sensitivity of plants, demonstrating their ability to respond to stimuli through electrical signals and movement. He invented delicate instruments, like the crescograph, to measure these physiological responses, proving that plants possess fundamental mechanisms similar to animals, such as a form of a nervous system and the ability to learn. After more than 100 years, his contribution to plant neurobiology is now being revived and discussed in the light of our modern knowledge of genetics. Plant structures depend on DNA just as our body does. A plant is a whole living entity that is more than the sum of its parts. Its full holistic capacity to heal is contained in the whole plant. This is the source of the healing property of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables which studies show improves health and longevity.

The separation of a single active ingredient from plants actually degrades some of the healing capacity of the plant. Unfortunately this concept of active ingredients is spreading into the food chain. Commonly processed foods are being sold with added ingredients such as vitamins, proteins, etc. which are advertised as magic health bullets. Whereas in many cases a whole food diet unadulterated may be far more healthy and accessible to digestion. This is especially true when we consider that modern food production methods are using biotechnology which introduces increased risks of unhealthy genetic contamination in the final product.

The future of chocolate

An article published in Nature on August 18th entitled “A defined microbial community reproduces attributes of fine flavour chocolate fermentation” illustrates something disturbing about the biotechnology industry. The early biotech industry began its existence reliant on grants and investment, gradually it has discovered ways to make a profit. To do so it has had to bioengineer products that replace things people use everyday. Nothing fits this bill better than our food. As we reported in our article “Major Health Alert: the Extraordinary Genetically Modified Invasion of Our Supermarkets by Stealth“, by now the great biotech food takeover is in full swing, but you wouldn’t know it even if you read the labels (very few do).

Chocolate is big business. The Wall Street Journal Reports “Chocolate, like sourdough or yogurt, begins with fermentation. Farmers stash cocoa beans scooped out of ripe cocoa pods in wooden boxes outdoors, cover them with leaves and leave them alone for a week. Fermentation is kicked off by bacteria and yeasts that live in the boxes or the soil.” This is an entirely natural traditional process.

A group of investigators from the University of Nottingham travelled to Columbia where some of the world’s finest tasting chocolate is made and collected samples of the hundreds of microbial bacteria and fungi present in the natural fermentation process. They zeroed in on just nine microbial species some of whose genetic characteristics they were able to reverse engineer in the lab.  When these standardised synthesised microbial genetic sequences were used to treat cocoa beans in a lab fermentation process, they produced a taste similar to that detected in naturally fermented chocolate. 

Their conclusion “Our results provide the basis for the design of fermentation starters to robustly reproduce fine chocolate characteristics.” Translated into everyday language, the researchers believe they can take over large segments of the chocolate industry and make a lot of money. Despite the similar taste, the net effect will be to drastically reduce the microbial diversity of natural processing and probably the nutritional profile of the final product. One thing is certain, under current labelling regulations the consumer will not be told of the switch from field to lab when it happens.

As we reported recently in our article “What are they actually putting in our food? Genetic modification in the low fat food marketing megabusiness” this is just one of many changes to chocolate production that are happening right now. For example chocolate-free ‘chocolate tasting’ drinks, powders, desserts and confectionery are being sold in New Zealand and elsewhere around the world as healthy caffeine-free alternatives to the real thing. So what are they made from and how are they made? 

For example, fava beans (more commonly known as broad beans) are subjected to a proprietary biotech fermentation process which breaks down the vicilin found in broad beans into peptides which are then roasted, ground into a powder which is mixed with vegetable fats (aka processed oils), sugar and lecithin to produce a chocolate flavour. The resulting product is marketed in some countries as more healthy and suitable for vegans (watch out vegans). As we have previously reported in our article “What Kiwis Need to Do to Avoid the GMOs Invading Our Supermarkets“, the problem with this claim is recently published research which has detected the presence of unhealthy residual genetically-active contamination of bioengineered fermentation processes. Processes similar to those which are used to make some of the fava bean faux chocolate ingredients. Which leaves the consumer with some important unanswered questions.

The socialisation of unhealthy food

You probably noticed the use of the word proprietary with reference to bioengineered fermentation processes—they are patented, locking in royalties and profits for their inventors. The fact that they are described as standardised is used as a marketing tool to falsely reassure the public of their supposed superior safety, taste and nutritional value. 

Once a bioengineered food processing agent or ingredient is developed, its appeal to processed food manufacturers is obvious, It is invariably cheaper in bulk so can be utilised on an industrial scale. Moreover under current regulations, and those even looser definitions proposed under the Gene Technology Bill, ubiquitous bioengineered ingredients and processing aids can be labelled as ‘natural’ and ‘healthy’, or even left off the list of ingredients altogether. Thus headline food packaging claims like “contains no artificial ingredients” have become not just entirely meaningless, but also deceptive.

The immorality involved should be obvious, primarily the object is to capture profit and cement monopoly, despite the fact it is denying the public information, choice, and safety. In this way, giant food processing corporations are seeking to capture broad markets, launching distinct product ranges aimed at different market sectors appealing to different consumer preferences. Some brands may emphasise price, value or taste, whereas others may advertise added content of supposedly nutritional micro-ingredients with health benefits. Whereas the underlying reality of almost all the products is an increasing number of bioengineered ingredients which differ in small but significant ways from their actual natural composition and involve unhealthy residual trace genetic contamination which is not being disclosed to the public.

Socialisation is a process which makes unhealthy choices, false claims and real harms to public health acceptable and even preferable. The carefully crafted image of global trusted brands like Kelloggs, Anchor, Sanitarium, Heinz, Watties, Goodman Fielder, etc is almost beyond reproach and question for much of the buying public. These processed food empires are trading on their brands and reputation, but the actual content of their products is being irrevocably degraded and changed by the rampant biotech research sector.

The ultimate logic of processed food and medicinal health monopolies is an assumption of control so total that there is hardly any need for the public to know anything meaningful. Misleading advertising jingles and images encapsulate food and health fictions that are broadcast to saturation. Thus we are told traditional Coke tastes great whereas Zero Coke is just as tasty but also the healthy option. Both are depicted being enjoyed with friends, which socialises the acceptability of an unhealthy product whose production methods are kept a trade secret. Fortunately, even if labels aim to disguise the real origin of processed products or misdescribe them as ‘natural’ or ‘healthy’, we can bypass the madness by favouring a diet rich in real organic whole foods, such as cereals, fruits, legumes and vegetables unadulterated with additives, preferably prepared at home. I can’t overemphasise enough the need for us as consumers to read the ingredient, Do you know what all of those listed are?

Health fictions brought into common currency by brand socialisation became even more threatening during the pandemic when the creation of health myths became a political and medical agenda. Thus the New Zealand Medical Council has recently told a judge presiding over a case brought by NZDSOS that mRNA vaccines carry ‘zero risk’, despite the preposterous untruth this represents. The Medical Council is apparently secure in the knowledge that they are themselves a trusted socialised brand, albeit in the healthcare sector, to such an extent that they can assert safety in the face of obvious and scientifically acknowledged risks such as myocarditis and not be challenged in law. 

If passed, the Gene Technology Bill will permanently enshrine in legislation the false notion that gene edited foods and medicines are inherently safe, a fiction that also excuses those producing and administering them from any liability for adverse effects or even deaths. We have until October 11th to inform and lobby our MPs.

We are now publishing unique in depth articles on substack.com with an international dimension. For example The Long Read: Twenty Reasons to Completely Reject Biotechnology Experimentation. You can sign up there to receive notification to your inbox. These do not duplicate Hatchard Reports. Please help support our work.

If enacted, the Gene Technology Bill will take us further away from our Kiwi foundational principles and our cultural heritage of independence and care.

The Bill signals a proposed new direction for New Zealand in alignment with and subsidiary to the world’s leading biotechnology nations that will have a radical effect on our food and our health. Yet if we reflect on the results of the biotech sector so far, by and large these are meagre, fleeting, unprofitable and unhealthy. We live in an increasingly complicated globalised technological world that is endangering health and life.

The good news last week was the announcement that the Health Select Committee has once again delayed its report on the Gene Technology Bill, this time until October 11th. This was due to the behind the scenes concerns of Winston Peters and New Zealand First. Both Peters and Luxon labelled the issue “complicated”. They are right. The delay gives us some more time to make this an election issue that won’t disappear. If you need reminding about the content of the Bill see here. Below we analyse the latest scientific evidence and the evolving issues for New Zealand.

Excess deaths continue

A Japanese study entitled “Significant Increase in Excess Deaths after Repeated COVID-19 Vaccination in Japan” provides some further background on the nation with the highest uptake of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in the world. The Japanese had received 3.6 doses per capita by March 2024 compared to 2.5 doses per capita in New Zealand. Around 80% of the population were vaccinated, the average figure equates to a range between 0—8 COVID-19 mRNA vaccines per person. 

As we have previously reported in our article The Unthinking Faith in Biotechnology and A.I., Japan now has the highest rate of excess deaths in the world. From January 2020 to March 2024, there have been a cumulative 350,000 excess deaths or 2,730 excess deaths per million. This rate is three times higher than the USA where mRNA vaccination uptake was significantly lower, and two times higher than New Zealand.

mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was the flagship product of the vast biotechnology industry designed to cement a biotech era of novel medicines, long life and new channels to gain economic prosperity. But the vaccine did not stop the spread of COVID-19 infection and its administration has been accompanied by a rate of reported adverse effects unprecedented in history. Initial claims that the vaccine was saving millions of lives have since been debunked. The preposterous 14 million lives saved claim promoted by WHO, has now been downgraded by the study of Ioannidis et al. to somewhere around 2.5 million confined to older people. Even this lower figure is in turn now being robustly questioned in the review literature. mRNA vaccination was not just a failure, it was deadly.

Flagship biotech companies are failing

As a result, it is hard to escape the notion that the global biotech industry with a current market valuation of $1.74 trillion grossly inflated by speculation has become a headless chicken, still running around while effectively dead. There are more than 20,000 biotech start-ups mostly funded by governments but also by private investment in the most active biotechnology nations. These include the USA, China, India, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Singapore, Israel, UK, Finland, Belgium, Germany, Austria and Japan.

In the US alone more than 2 million people are employed in the biotech sector. Following the dismal and dire results of mRNA technology, the investors, scientists and bio technocrats are being forced to face the reality of failure. Take Arena Bioworks for example, a company launched in January 2024 with huge fanfare and US $500 million of funding. It included the support of billionaires and the participation of a galaxy of highly credentialed biotech scientists. Arena’s announced intention was to become the “Bell Labs” of biotech “to simply do nothing but science” in order to “tackle the [world’s] most daunting problems.”

In March of this year Arena laid off 10% of its workforce, two days ago a further 30% were laid off. A spokesperson for Arena confirmed the cuts will mostly affect cell and gene therapy work which was, until the reality of adverse effects began to bite, the flagship program of biotech research around which its supposed health claims revolved.

Corporate biotech is launching a fightback, trying to protect its markets by placing opinion pieces in the legacy media.  

On August 19th the Wall Street Journal opinion column headlined “RFK Jr.’s Misguided War on mRNA” misdescribing more careful safety regulation as an effort “to tarnish a promising technology, a move that could damage U.S. innovation”. On August 15th a Washington Post opinion piece headlined “I witnessed Operation Warp Speed. Trump’s refusal to defend it is baffling.” It cited a now discredited three year old study which claimed the COVID-19 vaccines saved three million lives in the US and described the development of COVID-19 vaccines as “a masterstroke of American competition”. The NY Times opinion columns on August 18th led with “America Is Abandoning One of the Greatest Medical Breakthroughs“. It laments the Department of Health and Human Services decision to wind down 22 mRNA vaccine development projects under the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, halting nearly $500 million in government biotech investments. Whilst admitting the vaccines had problems and side effects, the article rolled out a version of that tired old saw “give us another chance and some more money, we will get it right next time”. 

Biotech is profiting only when it can bypass safety testing

All this visible opposition to the sensible strengthening of medical safety testing standards means precautionary thinking is actually winning, so the biotech industry is trying any way it can to bypass the tightening of health regulation.

Look around the world today and you see the medical sector of the biotech industry crying out for more government funding and less regulation. In the face of repeated failures, astronomical costs and unprecedented rates of adverse effects, they are justifying their calls for more money by making promises they have no hope of meeting; all the while refusing to face the consequences of COVID-19 pandemic mistakes. As a consolation, they are unethically reaping what profits they can by applying exotic mRNA gene therapies to the lightly regulated animal veterinary sector, polluting the food chain.

Corporate biotech is also aligning itself with A.I. in an effort to tap into the current tsunami of A.I. investment. Make no mistake, it’s odds on that novel damaging illness is going to crawl out of the mass gene editing of millions of life forms under A.I. computer control. Software protocols experimenting on DNA. This is computers deciding how to edit humans. This is not science fiction, it is happening right now. Just remember that there are up to 10 million codons in the human genome in total, but a single codon out of place can cause fatal inherited illnesses like Huntington’s.

Meanwhile in the food sector, biotech companies are flying under the radar profiting through the introduction of biotech food processing aids and additives along with bio-edited synthetic copies of natural ingredients where any real requirement for safety testing has been removed. As we have been reporting (here and here), they have convinced regulators that industry-certified GRAS (Generally Recognised As Safe) principles will be sufficient in the food processing sector. In other words, they are asserting gene altered food and biotech production methods are safe by definition. But here too the deaths are mounting as the rapidly rising incidence of cancers is mostly being blamed on processed food consumption (AKA biotech processed foods).

The Gene Technology Bill runs counter to our New Zealand national interests

The direction being promoted by the New Zealand Gene Technology Bill amounts to the deregulation of biotechnology experimentation along with acceptance of the false principle that biotechnology is inherently safe and equivalent to natural processes. In addition, there are provisions for emergency authorisation of biotech medicines. Make no mistake about it, the absence of labelling requirements in the Bill is the result of intense lobbying by the biotech sector, they know the public are rightly suspicious of gene editing and they are demanding the right to alter traditional ingredients, processing methods, crops and medicines without being required to disclose what they are doing. In essence this is anti science, anti safety and anti life. Taken as a whole the Bill will simply be rubber stamping everything that was wrong with our government’s pandemic policy. It ignores the harm to the health of the nation we have suffered for the last five years (The latest June 2025 figures for deaths/ 1000 population are still elevated 2.5% above the pre-pandemic levels).  Moreover the Bill will cast aside any hope of maintaining the clean green image of New Zealand that is the basis of our agricultural export promotions and sales.

If the passage of the Gene Technology Bill is denied, New Zealand will be sending a message to the world that there is something very wrong with biotechnology industry practice. The unscientific paradigm driving the false dreams of health and longevity is deficient in understanding and safety. 

Who or what is to blame?

What happened in New Zealand during the pandemic was part and parcel of a global biotech overstep, we should realise that all New Zealand political parties in power at the time would certainly have made the same decisions if not worse. The COVID-19 virus emerged from biotechnology experimentation and COVID-19 vaccinations emerged from a biotech world of hype and hope that was not founded in reality. A glance at prior research findings should have been more than sufficient to realise that safety issues were proving insurmountable. Instead, known adverse mutagenic effects in the pre-pandemic years were swept under the carpet, while around the world governments, health authorities and the public were force fed an unremitting diet of false promises of ‘safety and efficacy’ and herded into decisions that ultimately lead to an economic and health catastrophe.

Incomplete science along with a disregard for safety testing and public health on the part of multinational food, pharmacy and biotech companies and their owners and principle investors bear the main burden of responsibility for the thirty million lives lost during the pandemic. Governments and their military wings had for years been naively believing in the false promises of the biotechnology industry. As we have discussed in hundreds of well argued and well referenced articles, the missing piece of the jigsaw lies in something unique to life that is literally staring us in the face whenever we look in a mirror, our own self behind the mask—the puppet master of bodily life: awareness. The whole biotech faulty paradigm of life has been constructed without a foundation in consciousness—the hallmark of the living—as if we were all just insentient machines. Nothing could be further from our own experience and the truth of life.

Our cause

New Zealand can face up to the glaringly obvious deficiencies in the current biotech misunderstanding about life by simply rejecting the Gene Technology Bill and requiring upgraded safety testing and labelling rules including information about GM processing methods and the presence of trace contamination residues. The New Zealand Bill of Rights should be elevated to a constitutional principle along with appropriate clauses protecting consumer choice. Biotechnology experimentation on the germlines of living organisms needs to be outlawed. No one anywhere in the world should be doing gain of function research or editing traditional food sources. 

By rejecting the Gene Technology Bill, we will be cementing a leading place for New Zealand in the rapidly growing global market for healthy natural foods, cosmetics, and medicines. We will continue to stand apart from the crowded world stage and chart our own course of health, self-sufficiency and common sense. This is not an anti-science option, as more and more studies of pandemic outcomes are being published, it is becoming crystal clear that the ideas driving biotechnology are completely at odds with the evidence. Genes form a network grounded in the quantum mechanical nature of physical reality. This genetic network supports the expression of our human consciousness and its highest ideals. Tinker with that only at the gravest peril to civilization. As the figures from Japan should be teaching us: ultimately billions of lives are at stake.

To access more articles by Guy Hatchard subscribe to our Substack channel

You may have noticed a profusion of packaged goods which claim to be healthy because they are ‘low fat’. Weight loss products command a massive global market, the sector is worth $150 billion annually in the US alone. The entire global food market is worth $17 trillion. Securing a piece of this pie is a mouth watering prospect. Any advertising edge that producers can get through false healthy claims is readily adopted, no questions asked. So what does this mean for our stomach? Let’s take a look behind the glossy packaging and health claims.

For example, chocolates are now appearing from major brands on our supermarket shelves which contain so called ‘fat-reduced cocoa’ accompanied in some cases with claims they contain ‘lower calories’. When it comes to ‘fat reducing’ there is not a lot of information on the label. This is because there is no legal requirement to identify the source of many ingredients, simply to give them a name, specify a function and list them in order of quantity.

Among low fat alternatives offered in the US was the Gatsby 180 Calories per bar Chocolate Style Fudge Brownie, until that is people tasted it. A normal 80gm chocolate bar contains around 450 calories. Uber eats used to recommend the Gatsby which was described as a gluten-free, dairy-free, low-sugar, low-carb, and low-fat package of guilt-free indulgence which mimics the taste and texture of fudgy, chewy brownie batter. So what is not to like? Aside that is from the taste, and certainly the ingredients, all of which are widely used in New Zealand. These are listed in order of weight content in the Gatsby as follows:

Allulose, EPG modified plant based oil, Soluble Corn Fibre, Cocoa processed with Alkali, Palm Kernel Oil, Sugar, Sunflower Lecithin, and Natural Flavour

Actual chocolate content is fourth on the list, so what are the other ingredients for and how are they made? 

1. Allulose

Official description: A rare low-calorie sugar that doesn’t raise blood sugar; It is US FDA GRAS-Approved safe (GRAS=Generally Recognised As Safe, a status which simply exempts a substance from going through any premarket food additive evaluation. In other words, its safety has been self-certified by industrial food manufacturers.)

Actual Origin: Allulose is produced using genetically engineered microorganisms capable of enzymatically converting fructose or sugar into something else that still tastes something like sugar but isn’t actually sugar, and btw highly likely now contains trace contamination by genetically engineered microorganisms such as Corynebacterium glutamicum strain FIS002 and E. coli strain K-12 W3110 (pWKLP) which contains multiple copies of D-psicose 3-epimerase. These along with other reactive catalytic processing and preservative agents including antibiotic genes, antibiotic resistant genes and cell proliferation agents.

New Zealand Use: Allulose is currently approved for use in New Zealand baked goods up to 10% by weight (!!!). It is also widely marketed as a healthy super food alternative sweetener by New Zealand health food companies. FSANZ is currently going through an approval process to allow general use in the food industry.

2. EPG modified plant based oil  

Official description: Esterified Propoxylated Glycerol is a calorie reduced fat substitute which is not absorbed like regular fat. It has been safety tested and is FDA GRAS approved.

Actual Origin: The manufacturing process involves a patented technology that starts with splitting fats or oils (like rapeseed or canola oil) into glycerol and fatty acids. Glycerol is then reacted with propylene oxide. This process inserts propylene glycol units (PGUs) onto the glycerol’s hydroxyl groups, creating a modified glycerol molecule. The modified glycerol is then reacted with fatty acids. This process essentially re-links the fatty acids and glycerol, but with the PGUs in between, forming the EPG molecule. This results in a fat that’s resistant to digestion and reduces calories. In other words at the very least it has no nutritional value and is rejected by human bowel and digestive processes. Regulators consider it non-toxic although higher doses of EPG can cause some digestive issues like gas or oily stools.

New Zealand Use: EPG is used in various food applications, including confectionery, frying, baked goods, and snack foods although limited information is available about specific products. It is marketed as healthier and more sustainable than commonly used coconut and palm oils

3. Soluble Corn Fibre 

Official description: A prebiotic fibre from corn which aids digestion and doesn’t spike blood sugar.

Actual Origin: Soluble corn fibre is a type of dietary fibre or maltodextrin made from cornstarch. It’s produced using enzymatic hydrolysis, a process that involves breaking the chemical bonds of a molecule using enzymes produced by genetically modified microorganisms. It is consequently subject to genetic contamination as described in (1) above. 92% of the corn processed in this way is also grown from genetically modified strains. In higher quantities it can cause digestive issues like gas or bloating.

New Zealand Use: It is widely used in New Zealand to thicken or sweeten processed foods like cereals, baked goods, dairy products, protein bars, and salad dressings. Because it absorbs water in the digestive tract it is also marketed as a healthy digestive aid and weight loss product.

4. Cocoa processed with Alkali

Official description: A Dutch process invented in the 19th century which reduced the natural acidity and bitter taste.

Actual Origin: The alkalising agents employed vary, but include potassium carbonate (E501), sodium carbonate (E500), and sodium hydroxide (E525). The process also reduces the beneficial natural phytochemical and antioxidant characteristics of chocolate.

New Zealand Use: Almost universal in chocolate goods

5. Palm Kernel Oil 

Official description: A saturated fat from palm seed which is stable for cooking, safe in moderation and balanced with other oil sources. It is non-hydrogenated.

Actual Origin: It is pressed from palm kernels then refined using a four stage process of degumming, deacidification, decolourisation, and deodorization. Degumming involves the use of a genetically modified strain of aspergillus niger fungus to produce phospholipase enzymes. The other processes involve bleaching, treatment with alkalis and high temperature distillation. All of which degrade nutritional value as opposed to traditional cold pressing.

New Zealand Use: Widespread use in foods and cosmetics

6. Sugar

Although sugar can be made from genetically modified sugar beets, the refining process of extraction, clarification, and crystallisation is considered sufficient to break down any DNA or protein which btw also reduces its nutritional value. The health risks of high sugar intake are well known including weight gain and obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and tooth decay. Excessive sugar consumption can also contribute to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, some cancers, and potentially worsen depression. These health risks are not limited to sugar, many so-called healthy sugar alternatives pose comparable or worse health risks.

7. Sunflower Lecithin 

Official description: An emulsifier made from sunflower seeds. Emulsifiers help to mix ingredients smoothly. FDA and EFSA GRAS approved safe and well tolerated.

Actual Origin: Sunflower lecithin can be produced naturally by dehydrating sunflower seeds and separating them into oil, gum, and solids. The lecithin is extracted from the gum through a cold pressing process which avoids exposure to heat and oxygen. However an increasing amount of modern lecithin production now uses phospholipase enzymes, particularly phospholipase A1 and A2, which are produced using genetically modified microorganisms and therefore subject commercial lecithin to the same risks of GM contamination listed above in (1). A 2021 study published in the journal Microbiome entitled “Direct impact of commonly used dietary emulsifiers on human gut microbiota” raised questions about the effect of commercial emulsifiers increasing bowel inflammation. This was not found with any of the lecithin they tested, although the authors called for more research.

New Zealand Use: Many types of Lecithin are used widely in confectionery, chocolate, margarine, and baked goods. It is also sold as a health supplement along with dubious claims that it will improve brain and cardiovascular health, support the liver and aid breastfeeding mothers.

8. Natural Flavour

Official description: The term ‘natural flavour’ implies a flavour derived from natural sources like plants or animals.

Actual Origin: It is possible for ingredients labelled as ‘natural flavours’ to be derived from genetically modified sources. The use of the term ‘natural’ doesn’t exclude the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the production process. Specifically, flavour compounds can be produced by genetically engineered microbes and still be labeled as natural.

New Zealand Use: Products labelled as containing natural vanilla flavour, lemon flavour or strawberry flavour for example do not have to be derived from a vanilla bean, a lemon or a strawberry. In fact, they are highly unlikely to be so derived.

Bowel cancer rates worldwide are increasing. In New Zealand, early-onset colorectal cancer is experiencing a significant rise, particularly among younger individuals. While overall colorectal cancer rates in older age groups have decreased, early-onset cases (in those under 50) have increased by 26% per decade over the past 20 years, according to a study by the University of Otago. This increase is even more pronounced in the Māori population, with a 36% increase per decade in those under 50. Processed foods and ingredients are among the suspected culprits. Is FSANZ (Food Standards Australia and New Zealand) doing a good job of protecting our health or is it rubber stamping contaminated industrial food production? You tell me.

High bowel cancer rates indicate that FSANZ is not listening to warnings or taking a sufficiently precautionary approach. Virtually the only way we can start to influence the situation and avoid long term risks to dietary health is through our retail food choices. This is how Gatsby chocolate failed to find a sustained market. Cold pressed oils, whole foods, pure ingredients, organic produce, unrefined goods. Fresh rather than packaged. Home grown and home cooking. For more information see our previous article “Major Health Alert: the Extraordinary Genetically Modified Invasion of Our Supermarkets by Stealth.

Speak to your supermarket purchaser to encourage real natural alternatives, read the labels and treat the advertising hype with discretion.

We are now publishing our GLOBE articles at substack.com which probe deeper into the foundational principles of biotechnology and the alternatives. You can subscribe for regular updates to your email inbox which do not duplicate Hatchard Reports. Our latest is “Part Two The Long Read: Twenty Reasons to Completely Reject Biotechnology Experimentation: Consciousness-Based Alternatives which was published over the weekend.

RCR’s Gerry Pyves had me on last week for an in depth personal interview. You can listen in to a lifetime retrospective at https://rcr.media/episodes/guy-hatchard-food-safety-natural-medicine-advocate-consciousness-genetics-and-social-change.

If you enjoy reading our unique scientifically referenced and carefully researched content and find it useful, please don’t forget we rely on your support. A huge thank you to everyone who has contributed over the years. One off donations or small regular contributions keep us going. Naturally some contributors have had to drop out as priorities or financial circumstances change. We hope that other readers can consider stepping forward to help us according to your resources in order to meet our budget needs. With very best wishes.

Dr. Guy Hatchard, PhD.

Shane Jones MP has announced that the NZ First party will not support the
genetic modification of plants and animals unless there are very good
safeguards in place. This is a step in the right direction, but not enough. No
doubt the Health Select Committee has postponed any announcement on
the Gene Technology Bill because the National Party and ACT are
scrambling to come up with a version of the Bill which NZ First will support.
Therefore more needs to be done to educate the party. The pandemic should
have taught us that there are no adequate safeguards. Genetic modification
which cannot be contained, recalled or remediated. We need to contact NZ
First MPs to thank them but also to reiterate the dangers and pitfalls.

There seems to be some kind of perception growing that whilst genetic
modification of plants and animals should be approached with extreme
caution, nothing should stand in the way of medical research because of the
promised benefits for healthcare. This argument actually increases the risks.
The gain of function research programme at the Wuhan Virology Lab,
supported by members of the biotechnology fraternity from around the
world, was dedicated to developing a virus that was more infective and more and more deadly than the common cold. They succeeded. Since the escape of the manmade Covid virus and the introduction of novel biotech vaccines Our World in Data has calculated there have been more than 30 million excess deaths worldwide.

Last week we announced that we have transferred our GLOBE writing to Substack.com where we will publish articles setting out the reasons for the worldwide cessation of biotechnology experimentation. Two days ago we published an article The Long Read: Twenty Reasons to Completely Reject Biotechnology Experimentation Part 1. This morning I received an email from a new reader at the site who is an internationally recognised authority on the brain. They wrote:

“Many thanks, this is an excellent synthesis….you should fill it out and publish a short work on Amazon…I would very much like to see an expanded version”

We believe that GLOBE will reach a bigger audience at Substack and we very much encourage you to subscribe to our Substack posts and share them widely. They will not be duplicating our HatchardReport.com releases, so this will not burden your email inbox.

How did the biotechnology paradigm develop in the wrong direction?

In 1900 the world of physics was in crisis. The accepted classical theory predicted that radiation from a black body such as a wood burning stove would increase infinitely at the ultraviolet end of the spectrum. Experiment showed it didn’t. Max Planck proposed an elegant solution. Energy, he said, did not exist in continuous values, it was divided into discrete packets he called quanta. The resulting revolution in understanding led to the evolution of quantum mechanics, but it wasn’t adopted without a fight that rumbled on well into the twentieth century. The essential mistake was the belief that the microscopic world of the atom could be described in the same terms as the mechanical understanding of the macroscopic world around us that Newton and his successors elaborated. It couldn’t.

Today biotechnologists are making the same class of mistake, fundamentally they believe in a naive interpretation of molecular DNA that treats it as a linear alphabet, akin to the written word on the page, which arose through random evolutionary processes which can therefore be safely edited. It can’t be. Just as physicists couldn’t see the atom and its components, biotechnologists cannot directly see DNA and its functions. The properties of DNA have been inferred from indirect measurements using sophisticated equipment whose results unfortunately are being interpreted using a classical perspective. But the microscopic world is not classical, a hundred and twenty five years ago Planck proved that it is quantum mechanical.

The quantum world is not just composed of discrete packets of energy as opposed to classical continuous spectra, its states evolve in an abstract probability space which responds to the observer. It stores memories of past interactions which link distant entities together across time and space. It transcends our classical ideas of causality which are based on the billiard table where one ball hits another and then follows a continuous path to a definable goal. In today’s iterations of quantum ideas, time and space, rather than being the theatrical backdrop of every event, have become secondary concepts which evolve out of the self interaction of a unified field which just is—BEING itself.

Biotechnologists have ignored these quantum concepts, erroneously treating the body as a classical object devoid of consciousness. They have condemned themselves to remain behind in the 19th century classical world. To hide the deficiencies of this luddite paradigm, they have wrapped their pronouncements in mystique and promises of a glorious future of health and longevity. This is a mirage, an act of misperception and imagination. A book currently on the NY Times best selling list by Eric Topol entitled Super Agers, exemplifies the genre. Topol envisions biotech treatments for the worst chronic killers—diabetes, obesity, heart disease, cancer, and neurodegeneration which everyonewill begin to take long before middle age. A dystopian vision of a medical autocracy worthy of Orwell and Huxley.

The reality on the ground now, as we have been reporting, is quite different. Medical applications of biotechnology such as gene therapies are not actually curing people in large numbers or even small numbers, they are more often producing effects at great cost which are short lived (if at all) and accompanied by extreme risks of adverse effects on health. Recipients are facing the risk of death along with the certainty of a lifetime of expensive medical care. Because of the complexity of these procedures and the necessity for an individual approach (because everyone’s DNA is unique), there is no possibility of sufficient money, resources and personnel to carry them out on a wide scale within public health systems, nor is that desirable in any way.

The Gene Technology Bill proposes to give a virtual freehand to the biotechnology fraternity to experiment on the general public with the near certainty of a repeat pandemic performance, probably in an even more serious iteration. It even includes a clause to protect the instigators from any liability. If you need to remind yourself what is in the Bill go to our YouTube video and write to your MP. The 30 million excess deaths during the pandemic show just how much can go wrong and how quickly. All this points to the need for an alternative paradigm for biotechnology. That will be our next post on Substack. To subscribe go to https://guyhatchardphd.substack.com. As time allows, we will be developing educational courses on natural law and health which will be available through our Substack.