Madness is not just good business for psychiatrists.
It pays off in particular for companies that use the climate craze, for example, to increase their own sales.
One of these companies is Royal DSM, DSM-company, the developer and manufacturer of Bovaer ® or 3-NOP, short for the main component of Bovaer ®, 3-nitrooxypropanol.
Bovaer ® runs as a feed additive in Europe while it is is classified as a drug by the Food and Drug Administration in the USA:
„On June 8, 2023, Elanco US, Inc. (“ Elanco ” or “you ”) submitted a request for consultation with CVM regarding 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP), marketed as Bovaer ® 10 You also state that 3-NOP is intended for the reduction of methane emissions per pound of dry matter (DM) intake when incorporated at 27.2-36.3 mg 3-NOP per pound (60-80 mg per kilogram) of DM in the total mixed ration of lactating dairy cows.
Based on the information provided in your letter, Bovaer ® 10 is an article (other than food) intended to
affect the structure or any function of the body of an animal, and therefore it is a drug. “
So this is it: one’s feed additive is another ones drug … In the European Union, the classification as a feed additive is what justifies the difference in responsibility. If Bovaer ® had been classified as a medicinal product, the European Medicines Agency would be responsible for approval because it is considered a feed additive, it is the responsibility of EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority.
On the 11th September 2019 has the European Commission of EFSA’s mandate to examine safety issued by Bovaer ® as feed additive, on 24 February 2022 Bovaer ® was approved by the European Commission:
Even before approval in the EU, Royal DSM, a Dutch company, lost little time to integrate Bovaer ® into the food chain. Cooperations with Elanco in the United States, the North Australian Pastoral Company (NAPCo) in Australia and with producers such as ARLA, who, together with ALDI, Tesco and Morrisons, have decided to bring the anti-methane Bovaer ® to the food cycle in the United Kingdom:
The naivety of people who can do it within just two sentences to assure that Bovaer ® has been tested in many trials and classified as indifferent and in the next to speak of the pilot project / trial on their own farm is hardly more to increase and give us reason to review the history of Bovaer ®, which has been researched so extensively that it is difficult to find studies.
Not an easy task, because the data on the mode of action, security and safety of Bovaer ® is, as one should say, somewhat thin. Scientific contributions are primarily found that Bovaer ® is suitable for reducing methane emissions from cattle and other ruminants. What costs arise, health costs for the cattle and those who line up behind them in the food chain, these are questions that scientists who are part of the prevailing climate craze today seem to be of little interest:
de Carvalho, Victor Valério, William LL Souza, Alexandre Perdigão, Maria B. Niehues, Isabelle Errobidarte de Matos, Maryana M. Ribeiro, Tiago S. Acedo et al. (2023). 343 Combination of Feed Additives to Reduce Methane Emissions and Increase Performance By Feedlot Cattle.“ Journal of Animal Science 101 (Supplement_3): 275-276.
Lund, Peter, Morten Maigaard, Maria Holst Kjeldsen, Marianne Johansen, Anne Louise Frydendahl Hellwing, Martin Riis Weisbjerg, and Ole-Kenneth Nielsen (2024). Implementation of the Use of the Enteric Methane Mitigating Feed Additive Bovaer ® in the National Danish Emission Inventories for Dairy Cows..
Ma, X., S. E. Räisänen, M.E. Garcia-Ascolani, M. Bobkov, T. He, M. Z. Islam, Y. Li et al. (2024). Effects of 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP, Bovaer ® 10) and whole cottonseed on milk production and enteric methane emissions from dairy cows under Swiss management conditions. Journal of Dairy Science.
Terefe, Geferemariyam, and Mulugeta Walelegne (2024). Assessing the impact of climate action mitigation strategies from livestock production: A review – Solution for greenhouse gases mitigation. CABI reviews 19 (1).
It’s like attending a collective delusion. We could add 40 + more studies that deal exclusively with the reduction of methane in ruminants, including not a study that wonders whether the intervention in the food chain, for those who suffer the intervention, the animals , and those who follow in the food chain, the consumers, are safely possible. Science fails almost completely once again. You feel like you are back in time when thousands of sycophants have safely and effectively overturned „in the “ narrative in order to serve as reliable recipients of research funds for pharmaceutical companies and political clowns and their COVID-19 spray broths to legitimize. It seems the same with Bovaer ®.
Ultimately, little remains of the extensive research on Bovaer ® mentioned in the video above when asked about security for ruminants and those who swallow ruminants and their products, little on which one can make an appropriate assessment of the miracle cure, which encourages the obstacles to climate change to be true. As a result, the EFSA Panel document, which was the basis for the approval of Bovaer ® by the European Commission, is largely reduced:
The EFSA Panel, which ultimately gave the recommendation to approve Bovaer ® in the EU, consists largely of veterinarians, whose suitability to read scientific studies, we cannot assess.
However, what we can say: The recommendation is EXCLUSIVELY based on information, data, results provided by DSM, the manufacturer of Bovaer ®. The manufacturer of Bovaer ® would therefore be able to feed the EFSA panel, which ultimately decides on the approval, because the EU Commission adopts the panel recommendations, with exactly the information that promotes approval , a procedure known by Pfizer with which the company ultimately obtained the approval of its COVID-19 spray broth.
SciFi support
ScienceFiles also have to be financed.
And it is becoming increasingly difficult to finance ScienceFiles in the face of ever increasing costs.
Please help us keep the shop running!
There are three ways to support us:
More information can be found here:
ScienceFiles supportWe would like to thank all supporters at this point!
It would therefore not be unusual for those who had to decide on the approval of a feed additive to have been fed exclusively with the information that promoted this approval, and would have been withheld from them the information that could jeopardize approval. The mere fact that selective provision of information and a decision on one cannot be ruled out shows how rotten and absurd the system for testing the infinity of substances that are administered to consumers is. It is actually not a question whether such a system can guarantee the security of consumers and does not regularly become victims of selective information serving the business interests of large companies. Where a barn door is open, people will find a …:
„The present assessment is based on data submitted by the applicant in the form of a technical dossier in support of the authorization request for the use of Bovaer ® 10 (3-nitrooxypropanol) as a feed additive. “
If you only get data from manufacturers, you have to artfully slip around the gaps in the data, e.g. if they concern the question of impurities in the industrial manufacturing process of 3-NOP, which accounts for an average of 10.5% of the feed additive, the rest is propylene glycol (35.2%), an alcoholused to add flavor to chewing gum, remove ear wax, which is present in E-cigarttes and is otherwise used as a solvent) and silica (54.3%). Whether heavy metals are produced during production, which then remain in the feed additive, the panelists who have given the recommendation to approve Bovaer ® are UNKNOWN that the purity of the production of 3-NOP should be between 99.1% and 99.4% , they have been assured by the manufacturer without being informed of what is in the 0.6% This was probably not worth mentioning, an astonishing assessment when you recall the DNA contamination of mod-RNA-COVID-19 spray broths.
„The purity is specified to be > 98.0% 3-NOP (w / w%). The content of 3-NOP in three industrial batches of the active substance ranged between 99.1% and 99.4% (w / w%).■■■■■ However, certificates of analyzes were not provided. “
The first question to be interested in determining the safety of 3-NOP as a food additive is what happens to the stuff after it is absorbed by a ruminant’s organism. According to the morbidity and desire to kill, which is present in the industries that deal with medicines or food (additives), rats for „science “ were initially sacrificed. The results of the rat studies are ultimately none other than those obtained from studies with goats: 3-NOP is stable in the stomach, is metabolized there to NOPA, nitropropionic acid, which or its residues can be detected in tissues and in organs of the rats. Nitropropionic or hiptagenic acid can have a toxic effect [finally toxic], lead to brain damage and cause allergies.As always, whether nitropropionic acid does this is a question of concentration. The concentration at which she does this is a question with an unknown answer.
In this respect, it is important where and in what amount 3-NOPs are found if it is not metabolized or 3-NOPA if metabolism takes place. They are found in faeces in 1.9% of the intake, 3.5% in the urine, 6.4% in the milk, 5% in edible tissue, 1.1% mainly remain in the small intestine. A total of 11.85% of the intake is not metabolized and is excreted anyway. However, when 3-NOP is metabolized, there is another by-product that is excreted. This time over the breathing air, namely, Warning, now it comes: CO2nd. You read correctly. The evil methane that cows and other ruminants are furrowing out is being combated by the fact that poor animals are now more CO2nd exhale than they already do.
Insane and indicative of the crazy time that is permeated by countless Irrsins profiteers …
And, where we are on the subject of „Irrsin “, EFSA’s FEEDAP panel, which is responsible for recommending the safety or safety of Bovaer ®, has drawn the following conclusion from the results just reported:
„The FEEDAP Panel concluded that 3-NOP (and / or its gastrointestinal degradation products) is almost completely absorbed, is unlikely to accumulate, and, considering possible biochemical pathways, is extensively metabolised to building blocks for endogenous compounds (radioactiv
11.85% residues are almost completely absorbed „for the people in this panel “. No statistician, however bad, would even consider such an error term. However, when it comes to the safety of feed that ultimately ends up in the food chain, such values are acceptable.
One of the most important questions about how much of the additive, which potentially has negative effects for humans, enters the food chain via milk from dairy cows is a question that the panelists cannot answer, simply because they are not given them any data on the basis of which this would be possible. A study with a number of cows is designed to milk twice a day. However, the data provided to EFSA’s panelists only include half of the values, while the other study itself is described as useless in the very applicant-friendly nature of the FEEDAP panel:
„The dose-range finding study showed some weaknesses: only few animals were used (16 cows in total), lack of confirmation of the target concentration of additive in the feed linked to a possible tendency of the additive to decrease over the time, limited ability of the additive to homogeneous. distributed in Another limitation consists in the unexpectedly high differences of NOPA concentration between morning and afternoon milking. The FEEDAP Panel was therefore not in a position to use the data of the dose-range finding study for an assessment of consumer exposure to NOPA.„
Ultimately, it is unknown, at least to those who have approved the stuff, how much 3-NOP or 3-NOPA finds its way into the human food chain via Bovaer ® as a feed additive.
Bovaer ® was nevertheless approved on the recommendation of the panelists, who still complain about the missing data in the report.
Against this background, it may reassure them that 3-NOPs, if you consume it via milk, are unable to make any changes to their genome, at least no changes have been found in in vivo studies. You must therefore be able to use cancer as a result of planetary rescue via Bovaer ® with increased CO2nd-To develop output, to be satisfied:
„Positive results were observed in two in vitro MN tests performed in Chinese hamster V79 cells; in one of these studies, a plastic activity was demonstrated by the CREST analysis.
[…]
Based on the above, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that the genotoxicity potential of 3-NOP cannot be ruled out. “
Human sacrifices to save the planet.
And of course ANIMAL victims: rats, mice and dogs were subjected to a Bovaer ® diet to find out how the stuff affects their fertility. Well, male rats are sterile, male mice and dogs probably don’t. What do you do with such a result, you choose what fits so that the approval is not endangered:
The FEEDAP Panel noted that the severe effects seen on testes and epidemidymides, affecting spermatogenesis, were observed in rats only. The FEEDAP Panel agreed on an overall NOAEL of 100 mg / kg bw per day for 3-NOP, derived from subchronic toxicity studies conducted in rats, mice and dogs. “
NOAL stands for No Observed Advserse Effect Level, so the panel believes that the limit for the performance of 3-Nop / Bovaer ® – 100 mg per kilogram of body weight is appropriate. We don’t know how they get this value. And why limit values obtained on the basis of rat, mouse and dog tests should apply to cattle and ruminants is a question that is better not to ask. In any case, rats were unlucky.
Another little encore: rats were murdered again to find out that some who had Bovaer ® / 3-NOP had developed a tumor in the intestine. What do you do if you absolutely want to allow a feed additive, but the stuff entails the risk of colon cancer.
Right: You determine a limit!
Which one?
Guess:
Correct: 100 mg / kg body weight.
How did you know?
There are cups and shirts in the ScienceFiles shop
The whole test is ridiculous at this point at the latest. It is a miracle that people who influence human and animal food in the EFSA panels based on non-existent data and arbitrary limit values do not sneak past mirrors from morning to evening.
And then, at the very end, it was no longer believed that it was still to come, the question is discussed how Bovaer ® affects the cows to whom it is being fed. The answers to this question are, as the saying goes: mixed.
Regardless of how much Bovaer ® cows are administered: your milk quantity remains the same.
| mg 3-NOP / kg feed DM | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 90.2 (× 0.8) | 106.8 (× 1) | 220.4 (× 2) | |
| Dry matter intake (kg / day) | 22.7 | 22.9 | 22.8 | 21.8 * |
| Water consumption (kg / day) | 96.1 | 95.9 | 94.6 | 87.0 * |
| Body weight (kg) | 670 | 676 | 675 | 670 |
| Body weight change (kg) | 36.9 | 43.6 | 42.2 | 36.6 |
| Milk yield (kg / day) | 27.9 | 28.7 | 27.5 | 27.5 |
| Protein yield (kg / day) | 0.89 | 0.92 | 0.88 | 0.91 |
| Fat yield (kg / day) | 0.76 | 0.81 | 0.74 | 0.89 * |
| Energy corrected milk (kg / day) | 23.0 | 24.3■ | 22.7 | 24.7 * |
- 3-NOP: 3-nitrooxypropanol; DM: dry matter.
- ■p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, level of significance of the difference compared with the control group.
However: cows fed with Bovaer ® are less thirsty, drink 9.5% less water than their unimpaired ruminant comrades. And the lower thirst goes hand in hand with a blood count, as can be found in sick animals: fewer monocytes, fewer red blood cells, less hemoglobin, higher levels of fibrinogen, all signs of a blood clotting disorder:
| mg 3-NOP / kg feed DM | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 90.2 (× 0.8) | 106.8 (× 1) | 220.4 (× 2) | |
| Monocytes d5 (× 109/ L) | 0.54 | 0.48 | 0.46 | 0.43 * |
| Monocytes d56 (× 109/ L) | 0.36 | 0.31 | 0.30■ | 0.30■ |
| Red blood cells (× 1012/ L) | 6.78 | 6.52 * | 6.39 * | 6.42 * |
| Haematocrit (%) | 29 | 28 * | 28 * | 27 * |
| Mean corpuscular haemoglobin (pg) | 16.2 | 16.5 * | 16.5■ | 16 |
| Haemoglobin d56 (g / L) | 112 | 110 | 109 | 103 * |
| Prothrombin time (s) | 28.9 | 27.3 * | 27.7■ | 27.0 * |
| Fibrinogen (g / L) | 0.85 | 0.88 | 0.93 | 1.00 * |
| ALT (U / L) | 30 | 27 * | 27 * | 24 * |
| LDH d56 (U / L) | 1267 | 1249 | 1245 | 1034 * |
| Total cholesterol (mmol / L) | 4.50 | 4.26■ | 4.18 * | 4.18 * |
| Triglycerides (mmol / L) | 0.143 | 0.126■ | 0.130 | 0.124 * |
| Albumin (g / L) | 36 | 36 | 36 | 35 * |
| Ca (mmol / L) | 2.40 | 2.46■ | 2.47 * | 2.40 |
| Amylase (U / L) | 34 | 34 | 34 | 31 * |
| Ovary absolute size (g) | 35.2 | 31.9 | 29.7 | 25.8 * |
| Ovary relative size (g per kg final bw) | 0.050 | 0.048 | 0.040 | 0.039■ |
- 3-NOP: 3-nitrooxypropanol; DM: dry matter; ALT: alanine transaminase; LDH: lactate dehydrogenase; bw: body weight.
- ■p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, level of significance of the difference compared with the control group.
To see excitingly what EFSA’s panelists, whose job is to protect not only the consumers who then have to drink the 3-NOP milk, but primarily the animals that are given the stuff:
„The changes in coagulation parameters were also of a minor magnitude. The effects on monocytes were rather subtle (a slight decrease at 2 × level (p < 0.10) at day 56) and difficult to interpret clinically, as a decrease in these cells becomes clinically meaningful when accompanied by changes in the white cell number There were significant differences among groups in erythrocyte numbers, haematocrit, haemoglobin and MCH, but average values varied over a very narrow range and the magnitude of the differences can be regarded as small in most cases. “
There are statistically significant differences between cows fed with Bovaer ® and those that were not fed with Bovaer ® in terms of the values mentioned above, but the deviations are too small to be questionable, according to the panelists .
Here statistical inability meets the effort to allow Bovaer ® in any case. On the one hand, every statistical student in the first semester knows that statistics with discrete values represent a snapshot. THEREFORE, it is analyzed whether differences that are found are statistically significant, because statistically significant differences indicate that more problems or differences will arise in the TIME PROCEDURE than previously measured. The entire discussion of the EFSA panelists makes no reference to the period for which the differences between Bovaer ® – and non-Bovaer ® cows were determined, such an omission, because of course, and a few paragraphs before the panelists knew that, not only has the amount of feed additive,but also the duration of feeding with Bovaer ® has a significant influence on the blood values, which are then measured. For this reason, significant differences NORMALERWEISE are the starting point for permanent observation, an examination for at least 6 months, with constant determination of the values of interest. The indication that differences are statistically significant, but too small to allow gray hair to grow, based on discrete values for variables that change over time, can hardly be beaten in terms of stupidity.Differences are statistically significant, but too small to grow gray hair, based on discrete values for variables that change over time, there is little to beat stupidity.Differences are statistically significant, but too small to grow gray hair, based on discrete values for variables that change over time, there is little to beat stupidity.
Let’s summarize:
Bovaer ®, approved in the EU in February 2022,
combats climate change, which is said to be fueled by methane that cows excrete, by suppressing methane and largely by CO2ndthat is added to the breathing air of the cows in large quantities is replaced. Can you increase madness?- Around 12% of the active ingredients of Bovaer ® 3-NOP and after metabolism 3-NOPA are found where they should not be, in milk, tissue, urine and faeces. All possibilities to bring 3-NOP and 3-NOPA into the food chain.
- 3-NOP does not have a genetically modified effect, but it does have an indirect effect, because it is carcinogenic, but it is not that bad if EFSA’s panelists go.
- EFSA panelists do not know how much 3-NOP and 3-NOPA is found in cows‘ milk because they have not been given the data.
- Male rats become sterile through Bovaer ®. But it doesn’t matter, because in this case you can’t transfer the results of animal studies that you would otherwise have consistently transferred if they were positive. The people in the panel are very conscientious and precise and above all: consistent.
- The data, on the basis of which Bovaer ® has been approved, all come from Royal DSM, the company which of course has no interest in compiling the data in such a way that approval of its own product is more likely.
- Bovaer ® changes the blood count of the cows that receive it in a statistically significant way compared to cows that Bovaer ® did not have to eat. An alarm bell for everyone who only listened halfway in his statistics lecture, especially since the variables, the difference of which is statistically significant, were measured discreetly, but are changing over time. However, there are only hearing impaired and statistically illiterate people in the EFSA panel who are precisely limited to the value that cannot be interpreted with time-varying but discreetly measured variables: the extent of the difference.
Once again we are at the end of a detailed analysis of what the scientific assessment of submitted data on safety is supposed to be, they already know: safe and effective, of substances in which companies have an economic interest and which are inserted into the food chain of people should, and the horror has struck us in the face. It is really terrifying which amateurism becomes the basis of decisions that affect human and animal life.
With this in mind, enjoy your dairy products from Bovaer ® husbandry. Who knows what they’re dealing with. Or join the boycott of appropriate products, the only way to influence what nefarious people think of as a future for humans and animals …
