Mark Kastel, executive director of food industry watchdog OrganicEye, joined The Defender In-Depth this week to discuss the unknown risks – to human health and the environment – of patentable “alternative meats.”

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) last month approved a new “plant-grown” meat protein, made by genetically modifying soybeans to produce porcine myoglobin, a pig protein.

It’s the latest in a string of “alternative proteins” – including lab-grown and gene-edited meats and insect proteins – attracting the interest of government regulators and wealthy private investors. These “alternative proteins” and their production processes are often touted as more environmentally sustainable, more climate-friendly and as a solution to global hunger.

But critics question those claims – and also raise concerns about the unknown risks of such “meat” products. Mark Kastel, executive director of food industry watchdog OrganicEye, joined The Defender In-Depth to discuss the unknown risks – to human health and the environment – of “alternative meats.”

Kastel pointed out how government regulatory agencies, which he says are captured by corporate interests and lobbyists, hurt small farmers. He said financial control – epitomised by the patenting of the “food tech” – is behind the push toward “alternative meats.”

Kastel told The Defender In-Depth there is no pressing need to develop Piggy Sooy or other similar products.

“We don’t have shortages of pork. We don’t have shortages of soybeans. There are very few commodities that are in short supply,” Kastel said. “People who are starving in the world are mostly suffering from distribution problems and [low] income. … So, do we need Piggy Sooy? I don’t think so.”

Kastel said that the production process for Piggy Sooy and other “alternative meats” is “not farming, that’s for sure,” as the products are made in laboratories.

In the case of Piggy Sooy, “They’re creating a transgenic life form – they’re taking the genes from a totally different species, in this case an animal, and inserting them into existing soy genetics. What could go wrong? We don’t know.”

Yet, these products “will eventually be involved in agriculture, because those seeds that they’re genetically modifying will go in soil, will go in the environment,” Kastel said. “The impacts are unknown.”

Noting that similar transgenic genetic engineering processes are also being used to develop edible vaccines, Kastel said “We are playing with fire,” citing the risk of our food supply becoming contaminated “with something that we don’t know.”

“We’re going to suffer as a species, our health and well-being,” Kastel said. “We’re turning our children and the 300 million-plus residents of this country … into lab rats.”

According to Kastel, products such as Piggy Sooy are typically tested after being rolled out to the public.

“To my knowledge there haven’t been any … GMO [genetically modified organism] products that have been tested on humans, for human health. No double-blind studies, the gold standard in testing, and only very limited testing with a laboratory … during fairly short periods of time. Again, to my knowledge, no lifetime studies.”

When genetically engineered seeds and plants have been released, however, Kastel said, “We’ve seen that those genes contaminate our food supply.”

“Adventurous genes cross with both domesticated and wild plants,” Kastel said. “The current contamination is unknown … What we’re concerned about is the unknown risk.”

Kastel said non-GMO crops can be contaminated by genetically engineered seeds and chemicals that “become airborne and can transfer to other farms and plants. If you’re growing soybeans that aren’t genetically engineered to resist … it’s going to kill them.”

“The genetic material does not respect fence lines or property lines,” Kastel said. “It’s a grand experiment. I don’t think they’ll ever be able to mitigate the danger to the environment … once we release these genes, you can’t call them back.”

Government regulatory agencies have provided only lax oversight of genetic engineering processes, Kastel said, because “monied interests” have captured the agencies. According to Kastel, the USDA considers standard genetic engineering practices to be equivalent to “generations of traditional breeding methods.” As a result, “they’re not even looking at them at all. So, we’re on our own.”

In the case of Piggy Sooy, Kastel said the USDA considers these plant products as “basically equivalent” to non-GMO versions. “They look like soy plants. And so, they’re doing virtually no scrutiny. There’s no scrutiny of the product.”

“Our entire food regulatory system is weak in this country,” Kastel continued. “It’s underfunded and it’s heavily influenced by lobbyists and federal campaign spending. It doesn’t matter if it’s a Republican or a Democrat sitting on the House or Senate Agriculture Committee. The influence of Big Ag, as we call it, is unquestionable.”

Kastel pointed out how under the “Generally Recognised as Safe” (GRAS) system, the evaluation of new food products is outsourced to the manufacturers themselves.

“We call that regulatory capture,” Kastel said.

For example, he pointed to USDA Secretary and former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. “Iowa is the most … or one of the most agribusiness-dominated states in the nation,” Kastel said, noting that Vilsack was previously awarded the biotechnology “Governor of the Year” award — twice.

“The manufacturers and developers of GMOs love this guy,” Kastel said. “The people that worked for Vilsack, running the [USDA’s] organic programme, co-opted it on behalf of corporate agribusiness … Now, they’re consultants working for the biggest certifiers and corporate entities. So that’s standard operating practice in Washington.”

Referring to the “revolving door” between government and industry, Kastel noted how Vilsack “went to work as an international trade lobbyist in the dairy industry,” following his previous tenure as USDA secretary during the Obama administration.

“So why are we doing this?” Kastel asked. “Money.” While meat and crops like potatoes or soybeans can’t be patented, this is not the case for what he called “patentable analogues” such as meats developed in a laboratory.

According to Kastel, the patent holders generally are seed companies or innovators in the seed industry. In the case of genetically modified soybeans, for instance, Kastel said farmers have to enter into a technology agreement where they are “basically leasing the rights to use those soybeans.”

“There have been a myriad of lawsuits where farmers have seen the genetics trespass [and] inadvertently contaminate their crops, and they were sued by Monsanto,” Kastel said. “So, it’s a matter of control. It’s a matter of profit.”

“If they succeed with these lab-cultivated products” such as Piggy Sooy, and “If they succeed in convincing people they’re healthier,” Kastel said, “That might push more farmers off the land and out of business,” leaving the public with “fewer options for those of us that want real food.”

“We’re engaged in a grand experiment,” Kastel said.

Ordinary people have the power to counter this, Kastel said, noting that highly processed “alternative meat” products and labels such as the “Impossible Burger” and “Beyond Beef” are seeing flagging sales. “People aren’t buying them.”

“The marketplace is very democratic,” Kastel said. “We still control our own money, and we can have an impact by how we decide to spend it.”

• The Defender report