SPECIAL CHICKEN DEALS END AUG 31st. Stock up on Chicken today!

mRNA Use in Agriculture

written by

Joe Wanda

posted on

April 30, 2023

Big Pharma’s mRNA vaccine arrives in Agriculture

It is evident that our farm serves some of the most informed consumers.
When I'm just busy farming…

I receive text messages, dm's, and emails sharing concerns about new technology or recent food health concerns….

All well before I knew the issue existed!

Last month, we were overwhelmed with inquiries concerned about the use of mRNA vaccines in our livestock. 

Short answer:
We don't use mRNA here on our farm....
and don't foresee ever using this technology in the future....
Period

Recent reports in the last months shared mRNA vaccine technology is being developed and already being used in hog livestock agriculture. 

Leaving many consumers concerned about their food source. 

I set out to do more research on this topic and take an unbiased view, but quickly realized this could turn into a college thesis with how deep the topic could go. I'm not a doctor and won't claim to have it figured out, the science behind mRNA technology is a bit over my head.  For now, let's just stick to some basic facts that I found and I encourage everyone to spend the time researching it for yourself to make your own decision whether this technology is safe or not.  

Ultimately, our view is to serve health conscious consumers and if our customers are skeptics, then we will avoid it at all costs, just as we have taken a stance against GMOs, glyphosate, antibiotics, and other questionable food technology. 

THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL STANCE AGAINST SCIENCE. Believe me when it comes to new technology, I am all for improving our well being and making life better. I'd be Amish and not writing this email, if I didn't believe in new technology advancements.

When did mRNA vaccines arrive?

While vaccines have been around for decades, the mRNA is new to the game of agriculture and creating quite the stir of controversy. 

It is stated that mRNA vaccines started being researched a decade ago and first used in 2015 on clinical trials with hogs. 

However, it wasn’t until the beginning of this year that it became a hot topic, as it started to go viral on social media and many raised concerns. 

Part of the popularity on social media was due to many state lawmakers raising their concerns. 

I found an article explaining more of their concerns thanks to reporter, Kevin Killough

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

Missouri State Rep. Holly Jones, who sponsored the Missouri bill, said it doesn't ban the use of the vaccines, but informs consumers if it was used. 

"The public deserves to understand what is in their food supply," Jones said.  

She said that mRNA technology is being used without the right amount of studies on safety and efficacy, and she doesn't think the "gene therapy" label would be problematic. Jones said that we already have labels we put on products, such as "grass-fed beef" and "non-GMO."  

"There needs to be something specific to gene therapy labeling, especially when it comes to our food supply," Jones said. "We have to be specific enough that people understand what they're putting in their body. I believe consumers deserve to have that information."  

Jones said that her bill would support farmers who would become vulnerable to lawsuits without those labels.  

"This is actually pro-business," Jones said.  (Source found here)

What are mRNA vaccines?

Vaccines are nothing new, in fact they have been around for a long time and the first one was developed in 1796. It is a substance used to stimulate immunity to a particular infectious disease or pathogen, typically prepared from an inactivated or weakened form of the causative agent or from its constituents or products.

Vaccines in the past have fallen into 2 main categories. 

1. MLV (modified live virus) or killed virus. Which worked by injecting a small amount of the virus into the body to create an immune response from the body and form memory cells to fight it in the future. 

2.Toxoid vaccines use a toxin (harmful product) made by the germ that causes a disease. They create immunity to the parts of the germ that cause a disease instead of the germ itself. That means the immune response is targeted to the toxin instead of the whole germ.

However, the mRNA vaccines are something new that I expect to take quick adoption in the vaccine world as the technology speeds up the development process and is claimed to be much less expensive to produce. 

An mRNA vaccine is different because it uses a copy of a molecule called messenger RNA to produce the immune response. In theory, after the laboratory mRNA is injected into the body, it sends a code to the cells to produce a protein that mimics the virus. This protein then stimulates an immune response and creates antibodies against the virus. 

Currently, I found that mRNA vaccine technology is only available for pigs, dogs, and cats. It is not licensed for beef or poultry at this time. (found here)

iStock-1447453355.jpg

Should we be concerned?  

Many are concerned about this new technology and its long term effects. 

1. Will it have negative side effects to the health of the animal long-term?

The FDA/USDA assure that it is completely safe to use and won't have negative long term health effects on the animal's health.

2. Will we be ingesting this mRNA when consuming meat from mRNA vaccinated animals? 

They also share that the mRNA will denature in the body after a few days. Most vaccines already have meat withdrawal periods of 30-60 days (animals can't be processed for consumption after withdrawal period) on their product labels, so I anticipate a similar withdrawal period for the mRNA also. Claims are also made that ingesting the mRNA would not survive the acid stomach environment and there's no need to be concerned about this either. However, supposedly they are working on creating an edible mRNA vaccine through plants (Link here). So maybe it has a longer life period than they claim?  This is where I think all of it gets over my head.

Here's 2 scientists below that are on opposing sides that have both been scrutinized for being paid off. Click on the link below and listen to both and decide on your own.

Dr. Malone claims mRNA needs more research 

Dr. Folta claims mRNA is safe

I do pray and hope that this technology is safe and the hype is for naught. 

Does Wanda Farm Use mRNA vaccine?

As I stated above, we have never used mRNA technology nor will ever in the foreseeable future. 

Full transparency on all other vaccines. 

I don’t have a stance against or for them. I think it depends on each farmer’s situation.

Currently:

All our chickens are not vaccinated from start to finish.

All our hogs are not vaccinated from start to finish. 

Almost all our beef cattle are not vaccinated. 

I say almost because we work with several different cow/calf farmers that raise calves for us (all to our strict grass-fed only standards). “No vaccines” has never been a requirement for our farm partners. While the majority choose not to vaccinate, I do have one farmer that chooses to vaccinate for a respiratory bacteria to his calves at weaning (it’s the old technology of MLV, not the mRNA). 

Also will note, I have not been required or do I know of any farmers that have been mandated to use this new vaccine technology. 

I do believe this will be an independent decision for each farmer, but most likely will be accepted with open arms to the industry. 

I think overall the farm industry is pretty receptive to new biotechnology. 

Why do we choose not to vaccinate?

There’s really 2 main reasons we choose not to vaccinate our livestock.  

First, what type of farm do you think these vaccines are going to benefit the most?

Obviously the industrial, factory farms need these vaccines. 

The livestock at these factory farms are raised in enclosed buildings with poor ventilation, in their own feces, un-natural diets, and many times under stressful environments. 

All weakening their immune system and creating susceptibility to disease. 

Not to mention they are crowded in the buildings, so disease can quickly spread from animal to animal. 

Not to blame these farms, they are under so much economic pressure to prevent livestock sickness, that vaccines will be a viable option for them.

For our farm, we raise our livestock in a natural environment outside on pasture. 

That said, we feel there’s not near the same disease pressure our livestock experience outside.

They have better air quality, cleaner environment, more vitamin D, natural diet, and a less stressful atmosphere. 

All this said, when they do get exposed to a pathogen, they have a stronger immune system to fight it off!

We will also offer our cattle a free choice mineral and salt to help boost their immune system. 

This is really the main reason I choose not to vaccinate our livestock. 

The second reason follows my first. 

What’s the economic benefit? 

If our animals are healthy, why give money to big pharma for a vaccine that’s not necessary? 

Not to mention the whole process and time of catching the animals to give shots is neither enjoyable for us or the animals. 

20220514_142731(small).jpg

Animal Husbandry all starts with prevention and that means giving our livestock a low stress and natural environment as nature intended. 

Summary

I am very thankful for all the technological advancements in science and medicine. They all have helped make our lives easier and better, however, not everything is black and white. 

I encourage everyone of you as consumers to spend time researching this mRNA technology yourself and make you voice to legislation that you want them to regulate this in our food system. 

You deserve to know how your food was produced. 

Our farm will continue to be skeptics of new bio technologies and listen to our customers' concerns. 

We seek to honor God’s creation and feed families safe, healthy, nutritious food.

God Bless, 

Farmer Joe 

More from the blog

"Air-chilled" chicken: another marketing gimmick?

Air-Chilled vs. Water-Chilled: The Truth About Chicken Processing, PAA, and What Really Matters As consumers become more educated about food quality, one topic has begun circulating online in the health space: air-chilled chicken. New marketing language like “air-chilled” is showing up on grocery store packaging everywhere. While the intention behind asking these questions is often good, the conversation has become oversimplified from our point of view.  At Wanda Farms, we believe transparency matters more than trends. Our chicken is water-chilled using a USDA-inspected cold water system with a peracetic acid (PAA) antimicrobial rinse. (We aren’t trying to hide anything.) However, when you keep reading, you'll learn why the air-chilled label has taken off, what actually impacts food safety and quality, and how we’re thinking about processing decisions with research instead of just chasing the latest marketing claim. Why Air-Chilled Debate Exploded The last several years, there’s been a growing push toward “air-chilled” poultry showing up at higher-end grocery stores and specialty butchers. Shoppers see the word on a package next to a premium price tag, and it’s easy to assume it means cleaner, safer, or healthier chicken.  Consumers, as they should be, are mainly concerned about how their food is processed. “Air-chilled” feels like a shortcut to less-processed, more natural chicken, especially compared to a method that involves a “chemical rinse.”  But removing water immersion from the process does not automatically create a safer or healthier bird. PAA: The First Line in Food Safety One of the most common concerns surrounding water-chilled chicken is the antimicrobial rinse itself. That concern is understandable. Nobody wants to feel like their food was doused in chemicals.  That said, here’s what’s actually true: PAA (peracetic acid) is effectively a combination of vinegar and peroxide, breaking down into acetic acid, oxygen, and water residue. It’s USDA-approved and used at tightly controlled, low concentrations. It’s USDA Certified Organic-compliant, which is why it can be used at our Certified Organic processing facility.  It’s one of the most common tools in U.S. poultry processing for reducing Salmonella and Campylobacter loads. This distinction matters far more than simply choosing air over water. Understanding what PAA actually is, and why it’s there, eliminates a lot of the chemical and environmental concern consumers associate with the word “rinse,” while still allowing our processor to meet strict food safety standards. (FYI: we only use USDA-inspected processors, always.) The Real Issue: Air-Chilled ≠ Automatically Safer Much of the air-chilled preference stems from a legitimate texture and quality discussion, not necessarily a food safety one. What Air Chilling Actually Changes Air-chilled birds are cooled with circulating cold air instead of being submerged in a communal chill tank. This typically means:  Less retained water, so less purge in the packageBetter browning and skin crisping when cookedLess cross-bird contact during chilling All legitimate, real differences. Air-Chilled Is Not the Enemy: The Framing Is. There’s a growing misconception online that air-chilled is inherently “cleaner” or “safer,” and that water-chilled means “contaminated.” That’s not supported by the facts. Air-chilled birds still receive an antimicrobial intervention, typically a cold mist spray that includes an antimicrobial, and many air-chill plants also use PAA earlier in the process, before the chill step.  Federal regulation doesn’t explicitly require an antimicrobial rinse, but it does require Salmonella testing, and to our processor’s knowledge, an antimicrobial step is effectively the only way to reliably pass that testing.  In a report on poultry processing*, Encyclopedia Britannica also notes an important nuance about water immersion chilling: while it can create cross-contact opportunities between birds, the combination of the wash effect plus the antimicrobial treatment can actually reduce total bacterial load across the batch.  The real question isn’t “air vs. water.” It’s whether the processor’s food safety program is doing its job. And both methods, done correctly, can be effective. *Link to report by Encyclopedia Britannica Why We Haven’t Switched to Air-Chilled We understand why customers are asking these deeper questions. We’ve been asking them too. Here’s where we’ve landed, and why: We aren’t the processor. Wanda Farms doesn’t control chilling method—our USDA-inspected processing partner does. To this day, I don’t know of any poultry processors in the Midwest that offer air chilling. If one did, we’d absolutely consider switching, but it’s not currently on the table.Water alone, without an antimicrobial, would concern me more. Chilling in plain water without PAA would hold bacteria rather than reduce it. The antimicrobial rinse is required by our USDA facility specifically to reduce the Salmonella load present on the bird.Air-chilled isn’t automatically “chemical-free” either. As noted above, most air-chill operations still apply an antimicrobial at some point in the process. It’s just applied differently.Sourcing and scale. Air-chilling requires more space, more energy, and reduces processor yield due to moisture loss, which is part of why it’s harder to find at the scale a small Midwest farm like ours needs. Where We Focus Instead Rather than chasing a chilling-method label, we put our energy into the things we believe actually move the needle on quality and integrity: Raising chickens on pastureRotational grazing practicesNon-GMO feedNo antibiotics or added hormonesHumane, low-stress handlingNutrient-dense food raised with integrity Our processor uses the PAA water-chill method because, alongside meeting food safety standards, they’ve found it helps maintain the flavor, juiciness, and texture our customers consistently tell us they love. Your Farmer’s Final Thoughts I think this air-chilled vs. water-chilled conversation is a lot like the no-corn, no-soy conversation we wrote about. A real concern, with some real substance to it, that’s gotten oversimplified into a single word on a package standing in for “better.” Salmonella occurs naturally in chickens and doesn’t affect them the way it affects us. It’s a human food-safety concern, not an animal-welfare one, and it’s why processors, air-chilled or water-chilled, treat for it. Properly cooked, handled without cross-contamination in your kitchen, it’s a non-issue either way.  I don’t want to chase a marketing label just to capture market share. I’d rather be straight with you about how our chicken is actually processed, why, and keep our focus on the parts of the process we do control: how the birds are raised. Pasture access, rotational grazing, non-GMO feed, humane handling, and nutrient-dense food raised with integrity. That’s the standard we hold ourselves to at Wanda Farms. We’re always happy to be transparent about our process and answer any other questions you may have. Hope this helps.

A Father's Belief

Rest in Peace Tom Wanda “My father gave me the greatest gift anyone could give another person: He believed in me.” - Jim Valvano

No Corn, No Soy: What's the buzz?

New marketing labels like “no corn, no soy” are show up. What's the big deal and should you care? We dive into full transparency and education on the subject matter and where we, Wanda Farms stand.