Lab-Grown And Real Human Meat Was FDA Approved Cannibalism A Sprit Cooking Human Meat Project - New Shake 'N Bake Fetus - Campbell Cream of Fetus Soup

From an automated source of eggs, a chicken farm which produces additional end products like raw/cooked chicken and feather can be constructed with the addition of egg-dispensing and chicken-killing systems. Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long ? For every new egg-laying hen born into today’s factory farming system, a male chick is killed — or “culled.” As many as 300 million chicks are killed in the United States every year, and more than 6 billion total are killed around the world. It’s a disturbing and wasteful practice, and it has its roots in the warped economics of chicken production. Most chicken meat comes from “broiler” chickens, bred to grow unnaturally big and fast. That is not the case with egg-laying hens, which have been bred to put all their energy toward laying. Consequently, when their egg output begins to wane, they have so little meat on them that they often don’t enter the human food supply and are instead used as pet food, feed for other factory-farmed animals, or simply “landfilled.” This is why egg producers cull male chicks: The males from the leaner breeds used in egg production cost more to feed and house than they would ever sell for as meat, so they’re economically useless to the industry. Animal welfare activists have been lobbying against male chick culling for decades, chronicling cute and fuzzy day-old chicks who are gassed or macerated. The thing is, the industry doesn’t like the practice either — it’s inefficient and wasteful, even before accounting for the bad PR. The alternative would be to develop in-ovo sexing technology — technology that can determine the sex of a chicken before it hatches — stopping the incubation process for males before they even come out of their shells and eliminating the need for a wasteful culling operation. In 2016, the United Egg Producers (UEP), a lobbying group for the egg industry, announced that it was hoping to fund the development of such technology and committed to ending male chick culling by 2020. It was big news. Vox even referred to it as “the best news for America’s animals in decades.” But 2020 came and went, and chick culling continues unabated. In July 2020, the UEP put out a statement saying it was still looking for “an economically feasible, commercially viable alternative to the practice of male chick culling at hatcheries.” It added, “We believe this goal is achievable with time and research,” but it didn’t offer a new timeline for the goal or elaborate on what issues still had to be worked out. USPoultry — an umbrella organization representing various egg and poultry trade groups, including the UEP — has put roughly $100,000 toward research grants for startups and researchers looking to end chick culling. Other than that, the egg industry has not made any additional support for this project public, and the UEP would not answer questions outside of its statements. Meanwhile, in Europe, two companies are already sexing chicks in their shells and selling limited quantities of no-cull eggs in grocery stores in Germany, France, the Netherlands, and other European countries. So what’s taking the United States so long? The problem is the technology There are roughly 336 million laying hens in the United States. For in-ovo sexing to stop the bulk of male chick culling, it likely would need to be able to sex close to a billion eggs per year (taking into account unfertilized eggs and male chicks). But despite the fact that people have been speaking out about it for decades, there still isn’t a viable way to humanely avoid chick culling at the scale the industry requires. The Humane League (THL), a nonprofit that lobbies corporations to make animal welfare changes, was involved in getting the UEP to promise an end to chick culling back in 2016. David Coman-Hidy, THL’s president, says that he doesn’t see any evidence that the US egg industry is dragging its feet. However, he does acknowledge there’s certainly a history of the agriculture industry saying better animal welfare — like phasing out the use of battery cages in the egg industry or gestation crates in the pork industry — wouldn’t be commercially viable until consumers and corporations demanded it. “The difference here is that this is actually a technological problem,” Coman-Hidy says. “We don’t need to develop the technology of ‘don’t put hens in battery cages.’ That technology exists. It’s called a barn. But sexing these eggs at a really young age is complicated.” To see just how complicated it is, it helps to understand how the technologies already in use in Europe work and why their shortcomings make them a nonstarter for US egg producers and animal welfare activists. The European companies selling no-cull eggs in local supermarkets — Agri Advanced Technologies (Agri-AT) and Respeggt GmbH — use different approaches to address the same problem. Respeggt-branded eggs use an endocrinological gender identification technology that’s somewhat similar to a human pregnancy test. Eight to 10 days after incubation, a machine takes a sample of liquid from each fertilized egg and looks for the presence of a female hormone by looking for a color-changing reaction. Male eggs are then used for animal feed and the females continue toward hatching. All the eggs produced by hens sexed with this technology are sold under the Respeggt brand, free from chick culling. It can currently test one egg per second or at most 31.5 million eggs per year (if run continuously). According to Kristin Höller, Respeggt’s head of business development and global affairs, by the time the cost is passed on to consumers, they’ve seen an increase of about 1 to 2 cents per egg. They have not yet tried to sell the technology to the US egg industry but, even if they did, the volume it can handle is currently too low for this technology to be used to get rid of chick culling across the board. The other company, Agri-AT, tests eggs using hyperspectral measurement that essentially scans the colors inside the egg. This method is much faster than Respeggt’s: Its machine can sex 20,000 eggs per hour or at most 175.2 million a year (if run continuously). But a big drawback is that it only works on brown-egg-laying chicken breeds where male and female chicks are different colors when they hatch. Since most egg-laying hens in the US only lay white eggs, Agri-AT’s technology can’t be used at scale here. Jörg Hurlin, managing director at Agri-AT, said that they don’t yet know how much their technology would cost the consumer, though it will certainly add to the cost of eggs. One issue that complicates these efforts is the difficult-to-answer question of when an embryo becomes a chick. Some researchers say day seven is when chick embryos can begin to experience pain. If that’s right, sexing the eggs eight to 10 days after incubation as Respeggt does, and 14 days as Agri-AT does, may still end up inflicting pain on the embryo, which could be trading one animal welfare problem — culling — for another. (However, Agri-AT did develop another machine they call “STUNNY” that uses electricity to anesthetize the eggs, eliminating any potential pain in stopping their development.) The embryo problem is one that the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR), a US-based agricultural research organization, is attempting to address. FFAR is sponsoring something called the Egg-Tech prize, which will award up to $6 million to researchers producing promising methods of ending chick culling. The group is hoping for a technology that can be used at scale and implemented before day eight of incubation, at which point there’s evidence the chicks experience sensation. There’s one other technological solution being pursued that’s worth noting here. At the University of Georgia, Kristen Navara has been researching the potential of finding a way to control and change the sex of chicks before they even hatch. In chickens, the hen controls whether the resulting chick is male or female. Using hormonal treatments, Navara can change the sex of an egg. Because the Food and Drug Administration bans the poultry industry from using hormones, Navara explains, the hope is that knowing what pathways those hormones operate on might allow her to find and manipulate a gene that could, for example, permanently make all laying-breed chicks female. If it works, it could be an even more economical option than in-ovo sexing. Not only would chick culling end but hatcheries wouldn’t “lose” half of all fertilized eggs that would have hatched into males. All in all, the picture that’s emerging on egg-culling is one of promising innovation — and a recognition that progress has been much too slow. Another way to end chick culling: Raise other chicken breeds In-ovo sexing might be the solution to end chick culling that’s gotten the most attention from the egg industry, but it’s not the only one. Hatcheries could also go back to how chickens were bred pre-factory farming — which would do away with culling, period. Until the early 1900s, farmers didn’t worry too much over whether their chickens were male or female. Hens were raised as egg layers while the roosters were the first ones to become Sunday dinner. Some breeds were slightly more suited to one purpose over the other, but did both reasonably well. So-called “dual-production” breeds like the Rhode Island Red could lay 250-300 eggs per year (a huge improvement over the average chicken’s 80 eggs) and after five months the 6- to 8-pound males could be sold for meat. At the beginning of the 20th century, the birds were considered a marvel. Then the poultry industry changed. Up through the 1930s, raising chickens tended to happen on small farms mostly run by women. What we have now would be unrecognizable to those farmers: highly specialized and mechanized factory-style farms with chicken breeds that do one thing or the other very well. Today, broiler chickens — the ones raised for meat — are slaughtered at just seven weeks old, having already reached 6.5 pounds; high-production egg layers produce about 300 eggs each per year. This has made poultry production extremely efficient, but at the cost of animal welfare. Factory-farmed meat chickens suffer chronic pain and have a lot of joint and movement problems, while most egg layers live out their lives in small cages, are unable to express natural behaviors like nesting, and can suffer from bone weakness and breakage. “The [egg industry’s] hope is to get a cheap sexing alternative and continue on this crazy route of having two completely different birds for different purposes,” says Mahi Klosterhalfen, CEO of the Albert Schweitzer Foundation, which focuses on farm animal welfare issues in Germany. While he, too, wants to see the end of chick culling, Klosterhalfen would rather see farmers return to the dual-purpose breeds of the past. “The laying hens wouldn’t have such extreme numbers of eggs they have to lay and broilers wouldn’t grow so fast they can’t move around after a couple of weeks,” he says. This would make all chicken products considerably more expensive than they are today (chicken is really cheap, though, so even if it got more expensive it still likely wouldn’t be pricier than even the least expensive cuts of beef or pork). But if a return to a pastoral era of raising chickens seems implausible, the practice of male chick culling continues to be a moral problem. Six billion chicks gassed or macerated a year is a lot. And for all its horribleness, culling has received surprisingly little public attention. When the UEP announced in 2016 they were going to stop the practice, consumers were shocked to hear that the practice existed at all. “We started getting calls from reporters immediately asking if it was true that [the egg industry] did this,” the Humane League’s Coman-Hidy says. “It’s one of the most grotesque corners of factory farming.” Between the financial motivation and the specter of public attention turning to this issue again, he believes in-ovo sexing will happen as soon as technically possible. He may be right. But while the technology to fix the problem may be coming soon, the broader questions that chick culling raises what we’re willing to do to animals in the name of low prices; what we’re willing to do to animals, period still loom before us. It’s an upsetting image, and an upsetting message, no doubt. There is some truth in it, and I noticed there was a lot of confusion in the comments on the Instagram post itself, so I wanted to dive in and explain. The sad truth is, yes, some baby chicks are killed when they are only a day or two old. Male and female chicks are separated when they are only a day old, and most of the males are destroyed. This practice is known as chick culling and may be done by cervical dislocation, asphyxiation, or (as the image above suggests) maceration. Here’s a clip from a Discovery Channel show that gives you a (censored) peek inside a commercial hatchery. The sorting of males from females takes place around the 2:50 mark, but thankfully they don’t show the culling of any male chicks. When it comes to egg laying chickens, the females are most valuable (obviously). One rooster can easily service a dozen or more hens, so very few male chicks are kept around to reach maturity and continue breeding programs. Why don’t they let the males live and use them for meat instead? This was the main question I saw posted in the comments on the Instagram image. It comes down to a difference in chicken breeds and the ever-growing demand and pressures put on factory farmers. Let’s say you want to buy a dog to pull a dog sled. You’re much more likely to choose a breed like a Siberian Husky or an Alaskan Malamute over a Chihuahua or a Dachshund, right? Different breeds of dogs are bred to have physical characteristics to serve certain purposes. Similarly, in the world of chickens, there are many breeds but most of them fall into one of three broad categories: Meat breeds Egg laying breeds Dual purpose breeds (Arguably you could say some breeds are just fancy, show breeds, but we’ll ignore that for our purposes here.) Meat birds are bred to have oversized breasts because Americans love chicken breast meat. They’re also bred to grow as fast as possible on as little feed as possible, to make them more cost-effective. On the other hand, industrial egg laying breeds are bred to lay eggs prolifically, don’t have large breasts, and take almost twice as long to reach their full size potential compared to meat birds. In general, their meat isn’t as “tasty” to the average American palate that’s used to grocery-store style chicken. So when you ask why don’t they use the males for meat, the simple reason is: it isn’t cost-effective to do so. The breeds in question that are being ground up are male egg layers, not meat birds. To save those male chicks and raise them up would take twice as long (therefore using up more feed and taking up space that could be more profitably-used) and they wouldn’t sell as well because their breast meat isn’t as large and their flavor doesn’t match what is “expected” in US grocery stores. It costs less to destroy them when they’re a day or two old than what it does to feed them and sell them later. So what can I do if I want to still eat eggs? Here’s where that third breed-type comes in: dual purpose breeds. Dual purpose breeds (often heritage breeds) are the types of chickens that you would have found living on family farms and in backyards in your grandparents’ and great-grandparents’ generations. They are good egg layers (but not quite as prolific as industrial egg layers), and have tasty meat (but don’t mature quite quickly as industrial meat birds). They tend to be healthier animals in general, with more “normal” body proportions than the inflated-breast bearing cornish-cross meat bird. Dual purpose breeds tend to be favored by homesteaders and hobbyists that want to have a self-sufficient source of meat and/or eggs. Many heritage breeds also are good foragers (meaning they’ll eat insects and vegetation in your yard, thereby offsetting food costs a bit), and some breeds will go broody and raise their own young very successfully. If you want to eat eggs, your best bet is to purchase them from someone who raises heritage, dual purpose breeds. Male chicks of dual purpose breeds are rarely culled as at small or medium sized farms. They’re either raised up and used for meat later, or used in breeding programs. Hens, of course, are kept as egg layers and may be used as “stew hens” in later years when their egg production slows. Either way, the animals aren’t “wasted” as they are when they are culled as day old chicks. I’m a firm believer in the notion that the marketplace has a major role to play in helping animals. Every commercial enterprise, by making intentional choices, can build humane practices into its business models and provide consumers with choices that improve the lives of animals. In fact, consumers are hungry for this kind of leadership from corporate America. One recent and sterling example comes from Unilever, the food manufacturing giant that owns Hellman’s mayonnaise, Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, and other major global brands. Unilever has already earned our applause for its decision to end the use of battery cage eggs in its supply chain by shifting entirely to cage-free eggs. And today—following discussions with The HSUS, Farm Forward, The Humane League, and Compassion in World Farming—the company announced yet another move to reduce animal suffering in the egg industry. It’s going to work to prevent the destruction –via maceration and suffocation – of baby male chicks in the egg industry, dealing with a very ugly, largely hidden and once seemingly unavoidable animal welfare problem. Maceration, a little known part of egg production, is the mass killing of male chicks—of no use to the industry since they don’t lay eggs. Discarded like trash, these baby birds—hundreds of millions of them a year, just in the United States alone—are dumped into massive grinders while fully conscious, or sometimes simply thrown live into trash bags to suffocate, on the first day of their lives. While no egg company has pledged to address this systemic abuse in the near term, Unilever announced today that it’s going to do so, having judged the mass killing of the chicks unacceptable in the long run. The company is now working to make a technology commercially and scientifically viable that would determine the sex of embryos in eggs long before they get out of the egg, so that they don’t hatch and create a terrible moral problem. Needless to say, success in this effort would eliminate a vast amount of suffering—chicks endure stressful handling even prior to being killed in hatcheries—for hundreds of millions of animals annually. Unilever's statement also highlights its exploration of plant-based ingredients to replace eggs in some of its products. To address the numerous severe problems associated with factory farming, all tools should be at our disposal, including the use of plant-based proteins as substitutes for eggs in certain situations. These steps—ending the mass grinding of male chick births and moving toward plant-based ingredients in products that have long required eggs—are indicators of how innovation driven by animal welfare sensibilities is helping to start critical conversations in the food industry. And that sort of discussion and drive is an antecedent to practical solutions. Last month, we announced ground-breaking changes from Nestlé, and now we have this major action from Unilever. It’s my hope that Kraft and other competitors, and ultimately the egg industry itself, will follow in Unilever’s footsteps and join the push for reforms that will please consumers and that are simply the right thing to do. When it’s the right moral decision, it’s typically the right business decision, too. If you eat chicken or eggs, and you’re not raising the chickens yourself, then you’re more or less guaranteed to—unknowingly—be consuming products from birds who spent their lives on factory farms. (In the US, there is only a 1% chance that chicken meat, or eggs, will not be from a factory farm.) Throughout their lives, broiler chickens (those raised for meat) and layer hens (those who produce eggs) are subject to endless suffering. They are forced to live in filthy, cramped conditions, with no access to sunlight. They are denied natural behaviors, like scratching in the earth and bathing in dust. They are subjected to surgical procedures without anesthetic, and suffer debilitating injuries and illness. But it doesn’t have to be this way. What Are Factory Chickens? Factory chickens are chickens who are born and raised in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)—or what you and I might know as factory farms. Factory-raised chickens account for 99% of eggs and meat raised in the United States. How Does the Chicken Industry Work? Chickens are used in two ways for food. They are either raised for their eggs, or to be killed for meat. So what’s the difference between an egg-laying hen and a chicken raised for meat? Chickens are selectively bred for each of these uses, meaning that producers select for specific traits. For example, meat chickens are bred to have large ‘meaty’ breasts, and hens to lay more eggs. But these aren’t the only differences... What Are Broiler Chickens? Because they are raised and slaughtered for meat, broiler chickens are selectively bred so that they mature and gain weight faster. Specifically, they are often bred to grow larger pectoral muscles—the white breast meat—favored by consumers. This abnormally fast growth reduces the time it takes each bird to become large enough for slaughter. This ‘efficiency’ benefits companies, who can spend less money on each bird. However, this comes at the expense of the animals’ well being. What Are Layer Hens? Layer hens are female chickens used in egg production. These are selectively bred to produce high volumes of eggs—far more than they would lay in the wild. In fact, in factory farms, a hen is forced to produce close to 300 eggs a year. In the wild, she would produce close to 12 eggs a year—a small fraction of that in a factory farm. It’s no wonder the term ‘factory chicken’ is apt. These hens endure some of the most extreme forms of confinement of any factory-farmed animal. Chicken Cruelty Facts Factory farms are designed to maximize output at minimal cost, though the true cost is carried by the animals’ and their welfare. Both broiler chickens and layer hens endure many systematic cruelties in these bleak facilities, beginning when they are chicks and continuing throughout the rest of their artificially shortened lives. How Chicks Are Raised For many, the word ‘chick’ inspires images of fluffy, chirping baby chickens, snuggled under their mother’s wings or nestled in the spring sunshine. Babies are supposed to be treated with care and gentleness, and protected from danger. But for chicks raised in factory farms their reality is far different. Born In Incubators Both layer and broiler chickens begin their lives in large incubators, a far cry from the cozy nests and mother’s wings that wild birds are used to. In hatcheries, chicks break open from their shells into a world of artificial lighting, alongside thousands of other unfortunate chicks. The only time these babies will see daylight is when they are transported to the factory farm where they will spend their lives and again when they are transported for slaughter. Separated from Parents In the wild or with backyard flocks, chicks are practically inseparable from their mother. Unable to regulate their own temperature, they sleep beneath her protective wings. The father rooster is often nearby, sometimes helping the mother choose her nesting site, and watching out for predators. In factory farms, chicks are deprived of these bonds. They never meet their parents. Their only social interaction is with the other chickens, who they live in close proximity with—often under great stress. Debeaked When Young Beak-trimming is a cruel procedure in which portions of a chick’s beak are sliced off, usually using a hot blade. This painful process is often performed when a chick is only hours old. It is most commonly practiced on layer hens who often live in confined battery cages with other hens. However, broilers may have their beaks trimmed. The mutilation is meant to stop hens from pecking at one another, an unnatural behavior caused by the stressful conditions on factory farms. But, while it may hinder pecking, debeaking itself can cause chronic pain, especially in birds whose beaks are trimmed at older ages. Males Are Immediately Slaughtered In the egg industry, male chickens are considered useless because they can’t produce eggs. Within hours of being born, the baby chicks are separated by sex. Females go on to have their beaks trimmed, and prepare for a short, miserable life in a layer barn. The males’ fate is tragically sombre too. They are killed by being ground up alive, a process also known as maceration, or by being gassed to death. Transported in Boxes When the surviving chicks are about a day old, they are transported to various barns, where they will enter into production lines. This is extremely unsettling to the newly hatched birds, who are crammed into crates the size of large desk drawers. The transport process is known to be stressful, even causing death due to exposure to extreme conditions in transport. For those who survive, the chicks will still feel the effects of transport in their following weeks of life. How Do Layer Hens Live? Layer hens endure some of the most stressful, crowded, and artificial living conditions of all factory-farmed animals. Trapped in Battery Cages If you’ve already heard of battery cages, chances are you’ve heard bad things about them, and with good reason. Battery cages are wire cages which layer hens are forced to live in. They are generally a few feet wide and only 15 inches high. In this tiny space—too small for one hen to live comfortably— anywhere from four to 10 hens are crammed into a single cage at any time. Each hen ends up with ‘personal space’ the size of a lined piece of paper where she will live her entire life. Can you imagine that kind of confinement? Industry guidelines say that each bird should have a minimum of 67 square inches of space in which to spend their lives. This means that, even in the best conditions, factory chickens can’t stretch their wings or take more than a couple of steps without hitting the bars of the cage or getting in the way of other birds. Battery cages prevent hens from engaging in virtually all natural behaviors, and these confined conditions are endlessly at odds with their strong maternal desires to build nests and protect their eggs. Additionally, battery cages are made entirely of wire, with sloped floors, so that eggs roll into troughs at one side of the cage. This flooring system can cause a range of debilitating foot and joint issues in hens. Deprived Of Natural Light In layer barns, hens are deprived of natural light, forced to spend their lives in vast, windowless sheds. In most conventional egg production, one of the only times layer hens will get to feel the fresh air of the outdoors is during transport to the factory farm barn, and during their trip to the slaughterhouse at the end of their lives. Artificial lighting is used to compel birds to lay eggs throughout the year, even during winter months when natural sunlight decreases and egg production naturally slows. The entire process is unnatural, and cruel. How Many Eggs Do Factory Chickens Lay? Indeed, in the wild, hens lay around 12 eggs per year, allowing mothers to devote themselves to taking care of their chicks. Deprived of this natural behavior, and selectively bred to produce unnaturally high numbers of eggs, layer hens in factory farms produce around 300 eggs per year. That’s a lot of eggs, and a lot of trauma, for the hens’ bodies. How Do Broiler Chickens Live? Like layer hens, broiler chickens are forced to live mostly indoors in crowded, often unsanitary conditions, giving rise to several painful physical conditions and a very poor quality of life. Overcrowded Unlike layer hens though, broiler chickens live together in mixed-gender flocks and are generally not caged. Instead, they live in windowless sheds. A single broiler barn, or “grow-out barn,” can house tens of thousands of birds at one time. They are so crowded that the birds can’t engage in natural behaviors like running or perching. The overcrowding even prevents birds from resting, as they are jostled, bumped, and stepped on when laying down to sleep for a few precious moments. Sleep-deprived, the chickens suffer from stress and depressed immune systems. Deformities and Diseases Beyond their squalid living conditions, broiler chickens suffer from a variety of deformities and diseases. Below are just a few of the conditions that cause pain and premature death in these chickens: Sudden death (flip over) syndrome: a type of cardiac arrest similar to a heart attack Ascites syndrome (pulmonary arterial hypertension): accumulation of fluids in the abdominal cavity because of high pulmonary arterial pressure Wooden breast syndrome: breast muscles that become diseased, tough, and woodlike Ammonia burns: burns resulting from prolonged exposure to feces It’s a grim truth that many of the products consumers buy have come from diseased, injured, and cruelly-treated animals. Genetically Manipulated As mentioned, broiler chickens are bred to grow bigger, faster, and with larger pectoral muscles than is natural. These manipulations cause numerous health conditions. Green muscle disease, a condition in which the breast muscle grows so large and fast that there are not enough blood vessels supplying the area, resulting in dead tissue, is just one example. This can be visible in the chicken meat you find in grocery stores. How Long Do Factory Chickens Live? The average backyard chicken can live up to an impressive 10 to 12 years of age. This stands in stark contrast to the lifespans of both broiler chickens and layer hens. After less than two years, layer hens are considered “spent”—meaning their bodies have been pushed to the limit by producing hundreds of eggs. These hens are sent for slaughter as soon as their production begins to slow, which usually occurs between 18 and 24 months old. In the wild, these animals would only just be considered adults at this age. In a factory farm system, their lives are considered useless, and over. Broiler chickens die even younger on factory farms. They are killed after only a matter of days: on average, at about 47 days old. This means that virtually every chicken breast, leg, thigh, and wing on grocery store shelves comes from birds who are still just babies. How Are Factory Farmed Chickens Killed? Billions of chickens are killed every year in the US alone, and unfortunately, welfare is not a primary consideration at chicken slaughterhouses. For both broiler and layer hens, a common method of slaughter is live-shackle slaughter. This process involves hanging chickens upside down with their legs clamped into metal stirrups, often resulting in broken bones. Chickens are then submerged up to their shoulders in a bath of electrified water, designed to leave them unconscious. Then, their throats are slit, and they are thrown into a tank of boiling water, designed to de-feather their bodies. Heartbreakingly, many chickens are not rendered unconscious in the electrified bath, meaning they are conscious for the painful steps of slaughter. In 2019, the US Department of Agriculture estimated that over half a million chickens were still conscious when they were thrown into the de-feathering tank—meaning they were boiled alive. It Doesn’t Have to be This Way Ultimately, the lives—and deaths—of factory chickens are filled with suffering and cruelty every breath of the way. Factory farms are designed to produce eggs and meat for low prices, with chickens themselves bearing the burden. (Of course, these chicken products arguably pose health concerns to people and our planet.) Cost-saving measures, like reducing the amount of space a chicken is afforded, accelerating their growth to unnatural rates, and artificially stimulating egg production, hurt the health of billions of factory chickens every year. Chickens are social, intelligent birds who do not deserve this abuse. What Can You Do to Help Factory Chickens? Corporate giants, like Costco and Tyson Foods will only change the way they treat chickens if they know that customers, and the public, care. It is up to you—each of us—to demand change. Will you join us in asking big food corporations to treat animals better? Just imagine a world in which no chicken is raised as a “factory chicken”—manipulated and tortured for nothing more than pure profit. That’s the world we envision. Let’s make it a reality, together! Because chickens aren’t always considered “cute” (fluffy yellow chicks aside), they're often denied the compassion and concern given to our furry friends, like dogs and cats. However, like all animals, chickens deserve to be treated with love and care. Sadly, the egg industry in the United States is failing these equally cute, cuddly companions by the billions. How are eggs produced? On factory farms, where the vast majority of the global egg supply comes from, eggs are produced by subjecting female chickens, known as laying hens, to unbelievable acts of cruelty. Thousands of birds are crammed together, often in filthy, darkened places where the birds have almost no ability to engage in natural behaviors. Meanwhile, their bodies are pushed to produce as many eggs as possible: almost one a day. Compare that to a wild chicken, who would naturally lay close to 12 eggs in one year, and you’re confronted with a nearly 3,000% increase in egg production—3,000% more than what is ‘natural’ for a living, breathing hen. At the end of their abbreviated lives, hens are sent to the slaughterhouse, where they're destined to become cheap meat via a brutal process known as live-shackle slaughter. The life cycle of laying hens The life cycle of hens on factory farms are filled with exploitation at every turn. From birth until death, these birds are subjected to treatment that's far from their best interest, to say the least. 1. Hatchery Industrial hatcheries are tightly controlled and highly mechanized production facilities designed to bring thousands of chicks into the world simultaneously. These environments are a far cry from what baby chickens would experience in the wild, where they would be protected by parents and allowed to explore their new homes. Instead, layer hens are born into a sterilized world of metal and heat lamps, where chicks huddle together in the absence of their parents— whom they’ll never get to meet. Shortly after birth, most chicks are sent down a conveyor belt, where they're injected with a vaccine to protect them from a common contagion, known as Marek’s Disease. Then, chicks are sexed—a technical term that leads to a tragic process, in which male and female chicks are separated, and the lives of male chicks come to an abrupt end. Although some countries are banning this practice due to its overt cruelty, it’s still widely practiced. In many egg production facilities. As a result, male chicks are separated from females and sent tumbling into a macerating machine, where they are ground up alive. This needless violence, known as chick culling, happens because the egg industry considers male chicks (who will never lay eggs) to be useless. No eggs. No profit. No life worth living. The remaining—all-female—chicks then experience their first mutilation. Farther down the conveyor belt, chicks encounter a debeaking machine, where portions of their beaks are sliced off—rarely (if ever) with any numbing agents or pain killers. A chicken’s beak is a crucial sensory organ, allowing them to navigate their world. In a way, a chicken’s beak is like our human hands. Yet on factory farms, beaks are simply seen as dangerous weapons that can peck at other distressed hens. But none of this is the fault of the hens. 2. Growing Chicks are then sent to grow-out barns, where they reside until they are around 16 weeks old. Baby chickens, known as pullets, are confined in these barns and largely denied access to the outdoors, with no way to feel the sun on their backs or the wind through their feathers. Instead, they wait in this dimly lit barn for the next step of the production process, which, for many millions of hens, is the cruelest of all. 3. Maturity Once pullets have matured, they're sent to egg production barns where they will begin producing eggs—lots and lots of eggs. Through selective breeding, hens’ bodies have been forced to produce unnaturally high volumes of eggs. In the wild, hens would lay one clutch per year, consisting of 12 or so eggs. On factory farms, hens lay an egg nearly every single day. This unnatural laying cycle takes a serious toll on their bodies, causing a host of medical issues, like prolapses and brittle bones. When hens are around 72 weeks old, their ability to produce eggs at such an unnatural rate begins to drop. They are then shipped to their final destination, where they meet a terrifying and brutal end. Learn about the life of Bobby Bob Bob, a curiously clever egg-laying hen. What increases egg production? The egg industry is focused on taking as many eggs as possible from chickens while using as few resources as they can—all to achieve maximum profits. It's not natural for chickens, or any other bird, to lay an egg every single day for upwards of a year. Imagine if every one of those eggs were fertilized and became chickens. A hens family would be made up of close to 365 children—each in need of individual care, food, warmth, and comfort. But humans are experts at manipulating and exploiting other animals, especially when there is money to be made. Breed Though there are hundreds of breeds of chickens found around the world, on factory farms one breed has become especially popular. Known as Hybrid White Leghorns, these birds have been selectively bred to lay extremely high volumes of eggs. This breed is also efficient at converting feed into egg production, meaning less food for hungry chickens, and greater cost cuts for these industrial egg farms. The egg factory farming industry has essentially turned Hybrid White Leghorns into egg-producing machines. Nutrition Nutrition plays a big role in egg production, since hens need to consume the right kinds of food in order to create the shells, yolk, and other ingredients of eggs. On factory farms, chickens are fed a blended, artificially-produced, diet that can include ingredients such as wheat, corn, barley, peas, and soybeans—ingredients that could be consumed in whole, nutritious form, by humans directly—cutting out the middle processor, the chicken. Space allowance On factory farms, intensive confinement is a given. The more hens you can cram into a given space, the more eggs you can produce—so giving hens living spaces that are scarcely bigger than their bodies is the most cost-efficient. Sadly, the birds wind up shouldering these costs through their own suffering. The cruelest and most cost-effective type of egg production confines each bird to a small space that’s equivalent to the size of a piece of letter-sized paper. It’s barely enough space for her to stand on, let alone sit to lay an egg. Spreading her wings is virtually out of the question.. Standing up is, too, since the cages are so low that the graceful combs that top their heads easily scrape against the wiring. These cruel confines are known as battery cages. Battery cages are widely considered among the worst abuses suffered by any animal raised for food, and they've been outlawed in the European Union, as well as states like California, Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, and Oregon. Other types of egg production facilities offer varying degrees of space for hens. Cage-free eggs, for example, do not confine birds to cages. Instead, they are free to roam. However, the picture is still bleak for cage-free hens, who often spend their lives in vast indoor sheds without any outdoor access, or even windows, to catch glimpses of the outside world. Free-range eggs are a step up from cage-free, often providing hens with some moments to step outside. Going one step further, many consider pasture-raised eggs to be the most ethical type of egg production. In these environments, birds are given ample access to the outdoors, although it's unclear for how long. The claims of egg producers can be hard to take at face value, since the industry has a bad habit of lying to consumers for its own financial gain. Light management Manipulating the amount of light hens are exposed to can increase egg production, since light notably affects their reproductive cycles. In nature, hens begin to lay eggs when daylight is present for 14 hours out of the day, and they reach the peak in egg production when there is 16 hours of daylight. Because of this, factory farms artificially light the inside of barns to mimic longer daylight hours, even during winter when days are far shorter. Do chickens get sad when you take their eggs? Little scientific research has been done to determine if hens become sad when eggs are taken from them—notably because doing such research is counter to the system itself. In battery cages, the floors are slanted, causing the eggs to simply roll forwards onto collection troughs, almost immediately going beyond the reach of the hen and leaving her little time to mourn. What is known, however, is the significant distress chickens experience when they're unable to make a nest. Research has shown that hens will go to great lengths to access nesting boxes or private spaces in which they can lay their eggs. In battery cages, where they are cruelly denied nesting opportunities, hens may engage in “sham” nesting, where they go through the motions, despite there not being nesting materials to arrange around their bodies. Egg production facts and statistics The US is a major per-capita consumer of animal products, be it cheese, pork chops, chicken breasts, or hamburgers. Eggs are no exception. This snapshot (below) of egg production and consumption in the US might make you think twice about supporting this unsustainable, yet booming industry. US egg consumption Over the last decade , egg consumption has remained quite high in the US. In 2009, Americans ate an average of around 246 eggs a year. In 2015, that number rose to 256, and in 2019, it reached 293 eggs— nearly one egg per day. US egg production and hen population According to USDA data, in 2021 there were a total of 327.8 million laying hens producing the nations’ eggs. Of these, around 70% (231.7 million hens) were confined to the crushing cruelty of battery cages, while nearly 30% (roughly 96 million hens) were cage-free. How does egg production affect the environment? Like other forms of factory farming, egg production is terrible for the environment. Chicken litter— containing feces that are high in ammonia (plus feathers and other waste)—can ferment on barn floors and give off toxic gasses that can be dangerous to farmworkers and the surrounding community. Chicken feces can also seep into groundwater supplies, or be whisked away in streams or rivers, before contaminating distant ecosystems that could be closer to home than we’d like to think. What you can do for egg-laying hens Supporting The Humane League's efforts to curb the serious harm caused by industrial egg production is an easy and impactful way to create change on this critical issue. Already, our supporters have been successful in compelling major corporations to banning cruel battery cages and applying major pressure on the egg industry to do better, because chickens deserve better. Make a difference, right now, by holding some of the big egg-buying corporations accountable. Because change for chickens, and all animals raised for food, doesn’t happen without caring, compassionate people like you. An egg is made from the inside out. The yolk is made first, and then wrapped in a layer of egg white, before being neatly and beautifully packaged up in an egg shell. The beginning of an egg is the tiny ova which takes a week to grow into a proper egg yolk. If you cut a boiled egg in half and look at the yolk, the dark rings were layers made during the day and the light layers during the hours of darkness. Strange but true! When the yolk is ready it is released along the oviduct. The first part of the oviduct is where the egg white (albumen) is added. The egg white mainly consists of protein, water and minerals. Then the egg carries on along the oviduct where it grows two connecting strands at the top and the bottom called chalaza, which anchor the yolk to the shell keeping it in the centre of the egg. The next stage is for the shell membranes to form around the white. After this the egg continues down into the uterus where the shell is added. The shell is made from calcium carbonate, which is also found in marble and chalk. The shell is a great bit of design, it is on average only 0.3mm thick but it is incredibly strong. The colour of the shell depends on the breed of chicken and on the individual chicken itself. Some chickens lay dark brown eggs (like Madama Bluebelle) and the Araucana lays a blue egg, but the colour of the shell doesn't affect the taste. Truth Behind Meat Production Chicken Waffle Beef Burger An Eye-Opening Exploration - https://rumble.com/v2mmrac-truth-behind-meat-production-chicken-waffle-beef-burger-an-eye-opening-expl.html Narrated by Oscar-nominee James Cromwell, this powerful film takes viewers on an eye-opening exploration behind the closed doors of the nation's largest industrial farms, hatcheries, and slaughter plants -- revealing the often-unseen journey that animals make from Farm to Fridge. If this documentary moves you, please take a moment to consider if these animals lives are worth taking for merely taste. Thinking about going vegan? The Truth About the Meat Industry What is left out of our food labels? Behind the cow industry are disturbing secrets you are not supposed to know. Supermarket beef has become an industrialized, unnatural product laced with lies beyond the labels. What actually happens to that meat before it reaches grocery store shelves? In this blog I’ll unveil the dirty truth behind the cattle slaughter process everyone needs to hear. Pedophile's Eating Alive And Aborted Baby And Young Kids Too Rejuvenating Potion https://rumble.com/v2q0z7u-pedophiles-eating-alive-and-aborted-baby-and-young-kids-too-rejuvenating-po.html Planned Parenthood Kills Them and Then Sells Their Organs. Which is Worse? Planned Parenthood Is Largest Food Suppliers Human Meat In The World Today. "You Are What You Eat." Most of us have likely heard this saying before and are familiar with its simple and sensible meaning. When we were younger, this adage taught us (hopefully) to take care of what we put into our bodies because the food we eat can have a direct affect on our health as a whole. Selling Human Meat Per Planned Parenthood Rules All Sell At Cost/Lost For Non-Profit Organization. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg96052/html/CHRG-114hhrg96052.htm The Center for Medical Progress, whose undercover videos exposed Planned Parenthood leadership negotiating the harvesting and sale of aborted fetal body parts, released a new video today featuring Planned Parenthood officials’ sworn videotaped testimony about the sales. Lab-Grown And Real Human Meat Was FDA Approved Cannibalism A Sprit Cooking https://rumble.com/v2mnkmi-lab-grown-and-real-human-meat-was-fda-approved-cannibalism-a-sprit-cooking.html There is something deeply disquieting about cannibalism. Motives and technicalities do not matter; eating human flesh is now universally considered revolting, whatever the circumstances. However, if we trust a long line of anthropologists and ethnographers, this has not always been the case in all parts of the world and is therefore not self-evident. How Americans And World Are Tricked Into Buying Fake Food Learn the Difference ? https://rumble.com/v2mkfre-how-americans-and-world-are-tricked-into-buying-fake-food-learn-the-differe.html The food in your kitchen cabinets may not be what it seems. Fraudsters motivated by economic gain secretly infiltrate the global food market through a variety of means, including counterfeits, dilutions, substitution and mislabeling, according to the Global Food Safety Initiative. This may not only harm consumers’ wallets, but it can also put public health and safety at risk. Some estimates say food fraud affects at least 1% of the global food industry at a cost as high as $40 billion a year, according to the FDA. 600 Billion Dollars Poison Ingredient Making Your Food Toxic To Eat Processed Food https://rumble.com/v2mesq8-600-billion-dollars-poison-ingredient-making-your-food-toxic-to-eat-process.html Nina deserves a lot more accreditation on this video, she was one of the first people to shed light on the problems with seed oils and the history of how they came to be. Top Ten Toxic Food Ingredients in Processed Food - Any food that has been canned, dehydrated, or had chemicals added to it is a processed food, and these foods make up about 60 percent of the average American diet. - Most of us don't think of the food we eat as poison, but some of the ingredients commonly found in processed foods can be considered toxic. By "toxic," I mean chemicals or highly processed ingredients that aren't good for you or can cause harm to your health. I'm talking about refined grains, trans fats, high fructose corn syrup, and all the other artificial junk you can't even pronounce on the ingredient lists. What is left out of our food labels? Behind the cow industry are disturbing secrets you are not supposed to know. Supermarket beef has become an industrialized, unnatural product laced with lies beyond the labels. What actually happens to that meat before it reaches grocery store shelves? In this blog I’ll unveil the dirty truth behind the cattle slaughter process everyone needs to hear. Human Meat Project - New Shake 'N Bake Fetus - Campbell Cream of Fetus Soup? https://rumble.com/v2qkf5y-human-meat-project-new-shake-n-bake-fetus-campbell-cream-of-fetus-soup.html Welcome to the Human Meat Project, we are the human meat donation program. By donating bodies for human consumption, we are taking action to solve overpopulation, which leads to climate change and the greenhouse effect caused by the mass farming of livestock animals in order to feed the world. How About A New Shake 'N Bake Kitty Flavors - Like Aborted Fetus ? or Campbell Cream of Fetus Soup If you have a craving for Aborted Fetus Soup, then we’ve got some bad news for you. An Oklahoma Senator, Ralph Shortey, has now outlawed “the manufacture or sale of food or products which use aborted human fetuses.” Planned Parenthood Kills Them and Then Sells Their Organs. Which is Worse? Planned Parenthood Is Largest Food Suppliers Human Meat In The World Today. "You Are What You Eat." Most of us have likely heard this saying before and are familiar with its simple and sensible meaning. When we were younger, this adage taught us (hopefully) to take care of what we put into our bodies because the food we eat can have a direct affect on our health as a whole. Selling Human Meat Per Planned Parenthood Rules All Sell At Cost/Lost For Non-Profit Organization. Federal law prohibits the commercial sell of human meat and trafficking of fetal tissue for profit and carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a $500,000 fine. (Key Word Is (( 4 Profit )) Per Federal Law and Pedophile's Eating Alive And Aborted Baby and Kids... Is O.K. If Only Sell Human Meat Is At Cost or At A Lost. P.S. Planned Parenthood Only Sell Human Meat At Cost/Lost... After Paying All Employee Hourly Wages and Other Cost To Run A Not-For-Profit Organization. Not only must the organization meet the requirements that the state where it is organized sets for non-profits, but it must also meet complex IRS regulations. These regulations are used not only to determine if the organization is exempt from tax under the organization's activities as a non-profit organization. What Is Lab Grown Meat ? How Is It Made From Beef To Human Meat Cell Guide Etc. https://rumble.com/v31vj1c-what-is-lab-grown-meat-how-is-it-made-from-beef-to-human-meat-cell-guide-et.html How Lab-Grown Meat Is Made From Beef, Chickens, Cats, Dogs, Fish To Human Body Meat And Has FDA's Approval For The First Time human body meat. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it has cleared all lab-grown meat product as safe for human consumption for the first time. In a news release, the agency said that after reviewing information from 100s foods company is making from cultured chicken, cats, dogs. cows and baby cells, it has “no further questions at this time about the 100s firm’s safety conclusion.” The agency noted that before can bring its products to the market, the facility in which the food is made will have to meet inspection standards from the FDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the USDA-Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). “The world is experiencing a food revolution and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is committed to supporting innovation in the lab-grown from cows, cats, dogs, baby in are food supply. As an example of that commitment, today we are announcing that we have completed our first pre-market consultation of a human food made from cultured lab-grown from cows, cats, dogs, human baby and other animal cells.” Eating cats and dog and fish Alive Educational Film ** GRAPHIC ** Green Eggs and Ham - https://rumble.com/v284oc1-eating-cats-and-dog-and-fish-alive-educational-film-graphic-green-eggs-and-.html Asia is the continent on which the consumption of dog meat is most widespread, with as many as 30 million dogs killed for human consumption each year according to estimates by the Humane Society International. This estimate includes many family pets, which are often illegally stolen from their homes and taken to be slaughtered. The consumption of dog meat is said to be most common in China, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, and the Nagaland region in India, but it is not considered widespread in any of these locations. Moreover, the practice is becoming less popular in many countries, where younger generations are more likely to regard dogs and cats as companions rather than cuisine. Ouroboros Steak grow-your-own human meat kit is "technically" not cannibalism A group of American scientists and designers have developed a concept for a grow-your-own steak kit using human cells and blood to question the ethics of the cultured meat industry. Ouroboros Steak was previously exhibited at the Designs for Different Futures exhibition at the Philadelphia Museum of Art Although no lab-grown meat has so far approved for sale in any part of the world, the market is estimated to be worth $206 million and expected to grow to $572 million by 2025, largely due to the increasing environmental and ethical concerns about the mass rearing of livestock for human consumption. Among the companies hoping to bring cultured meat to market are Aleph Farms, which claims to have been the first company to make a lab-grown steak. Others have focused on substituting meat entirely, with Novameat creating a 3D-printed steak from vegetable proteins. Soylent Green isn't as evil as it is made out to be today Spoiler of the punchline of the whole movie... "Soylent Green is people!" In the film Soylent Green the big conspiracy is that human corpses are being recycled to make food for others to eat. While cannibalism is viewed in a negative light, it is almost socially acceptable in dire situations, which the world of Soylent Green is. The basic problem of the Soylent Green world is that there isn't enough food energy available to feed the population due to the poisoning of the land and recent poisoning of the ocean. While the powers that be and their science teams scramble to find a long-term solution to keeping humanity alive they have to implement stopgaps. The dead aren't going to contribute any more to society, and burning the bodies would waste the chemical energy in them. Converting them to food allows humanity to stay alive a little longer while a permanent solution is looked for. In the final scene of the film the fear is expressed that humans will be "bred like cattle" to feed the rich. This cannot be true, because it will always take more food to grow a human than you will get out of them -- thermodynamics demands it. Soylent Green can be a stopgap while looking for a long-term solution, but you can't sustain a society on it. No one is being bred for food. It's merely a dire situation where the powers that be are looking for a means to keep humanity alive while long-term options are being investigated. By publicizing the Soylent Green production process (and probably getting it shut down), the protagonist has perhaps doomed humanity to starvation if an alternative is not found in time, since cannibalism was keeping humanity alive a little longer than they would have been able to live otherwise. New York City has a population of 96 million, and only the elite pedophile's can afford spacious apartments, clean water, and natural food. The homes of the elite are fortified, with security systems and bodyguards for their tenants. Usually, they include concubines (who are referred to and used as "furniture"). The poor live in squalor, haul water from communal spigots, and eat highly processed wafers: Soylent Red, Soylent Yellow, and the latest product, far more flavorful and nutritious, Soylent Green. I never found Soylent Green plausible. If the Earth can no longer support the number of human beings it has, then the areas that don't have enough food will go to war to get food from others, and the resulting casualties will bring Earth's population down to manageable levels. Agenda 21 and 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change. ( Its 1432 Pages Long ) Thanks. https://planning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/publication/download_pdf/Growing-Smart-Legislative-Guidebook.pdf DEATH DECLARATION For 2030 Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development Wide World Now.

Why are so many food processing plants and warehouses catching fire all of a sudden? Recent fires at food processing facilities have some claiming there’s more going on than meets the eye. Experts aren’t convinced. Experts say there’s no credence to recent internet rumors that a number of fires at food processing plants across the country are suspicious or in some way linked. “It’s not unexpected to see fires in these kinds of structures,” said Birgitte Messerschmidt, director of the NFPA Research division. “Fires are not a rare occurrence. We had 490,000 structure fires in 2020 in the United States. We see a lot of fires every year.” Last month, rumors began to circulate on social media that a string of fires and other destructive incidents, including a plane crash, at food processing plants throughout the United States appeared suspicious—despite no law enforcement officials saying that was the case. Conspiracy theorists implied the blazes were connected in some way and even that the federal government could have something to do with them. The truth, however, is that nothing is unusual about any of the fires that have occurred in food processing plants over the first few months of the year. Although no data is kept on fires that occur strictly at food processing facilities, the National Fire Incident Reporting System tracks fires within broader categories like manufacturing, refrigerated storage, and agricultural facilities. In 2019, the number of fires at all manufacturing or processing plants in the country topped 5,300—nearly 15 a day. Additionally, more than 2,000 fires occurred in agricultural, grain and livestock, and refrigerated storage facilities, which could all include food processing operations. There is something suspicious, and there are a lot of people speculating that there might be something going on here. Never before in history has there been this amount of “accidental destruction” of the food supply. Reuters and others say there is no evidence that the last 12 months of incidents were intentional or planned. But the sheer numbers statistically are very alarming... 1— 4/30/21 Monmouth Smithfield Foods pork processing plant 2— 7/25/21 Memphis Kellogg plant 3— 8/13/21 JBS beef plant 4— 8/24/21 Patak Meat Company 5— 7/30/21 Tyson River Valley ingredient plant 6— 10/21/21 Darigold plant 7— 11/15/21 Garrard County food plant 8—11/29/21 Maid-Rite Steak Company 9—12/13/21 San Antonio food processing, West side Foods 10—1/7/22 Hamilton Mountain poultry processing Plant 11—1/13/22 Cargill-Nutrene feed mill. Lacombe, La 12—1/31/22 Winston-Salem fertilizer plant 13—2/3/22 Wisconsin River Meats 14—2/3/22 Percy dairy farm 15—2/5/22 Wisconsin River Meats processing facility destroyed by fire in Mauston, Wisconsin. 16—2/15/22 Bonanza Meat Company goes up in flames in El Paso, Texas 17—2/15/22 Shearer's Foods Food processing plant explodes in Hermiston, Oregon. 18—2/16/22 Indiana Louis-Dreyfus soy processing plant 19—2/18/22 Bess View Farms 20—2/19/22 Lincoln premiere poultry 21—2/22/22 Shearer's Foods potato chip plant 22—2/22/22 Fire destroys Deli Star Meat Plant in Fayetteville, Illinois. 23—2/28/22 nutrient AG Solutions fertilizer facility burns 24—2/28/22 Shadow Brook Farm & Dutch girl Creamery burns 25—3/4/22 294,800 chickens destroyed at farm in Stoddard, Missouri 26—3/4/22 644,000 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Cecil, Maryland 27—3/8/22 243,900 chickens destroyed at egg farm in New Castle, Delaware 28—3/10/22 663,400 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Cecil, Maryland 29—3/10/22 915,900 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Taylor, Iowa 30—3/14/22 Wayne Hoover dairy farm, barn full of cows burns 313/14/22 2,750,700 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Jefferson, Wisconsin 32—3/16/22 Walmart Distribution Center burns for 76 hours in Plainfield Ind. 33—3/16/22 Nestle Food Plant extensively damaged in fire and new production destroyed Jonesboro, Arkansas 34—3/17/22 5,347,500 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Buena Vista, Iowa 35—3/17/22 147,600 chickens destroyed at farm in Kent, Delaware 36—3/18/22 315,400 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Cecil, Maryland 37—3/19/22 Walmart Food Distribution center catches fire in Plainfield, Indiana 38—3/22/22 172,000 Turkeys destroyed on farms in South Dakota 39—3/22/22 570,000 chickens destroyed at farm in Butler, Nebraska 40—3/24/22 Major Fire at McCrum Potato Plant in Belfast, Maine. 41—3/24/22 418,500 chickens destroyed at farm in Butler, Nebraska 42—3/25/22 250,300 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Franklin, Iowa 43—3/26/22 311,000 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota 44—3/27/22 126,300 Turkeys destroyed in South Dakota 45—3/28/22 1,460,000 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Guthrie, Iowa 46—3/29/22 Maricopa, Az. Food Pantry burns down 50,000 pounds of Food destroyed in Maricopa, Arizona. 47—3/31/22 Rio Fresh Onion factory damaged by fire in San Juan, Texas. 48—3/31/22 76,400 Turkeys destroyed in Osceola, Iowa 49—3/31/22 5,011,700 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Osceola, Iowa 50—4/6/22 281,600 chickens destroyed at farm in Wayne, North Carolina 51—4/9/22 76,400 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota 52—4/9/22 208,900 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota 53—4/12/22 89,700 chickens destroyed at farm in Wayne, North Carolina 54—4/12/22 1,746,900 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Dixon, Nebraska 55—4/12/22 259,000 chickens destroyed at farm in Minnesota 56—4/13/22 Fire destroys East Conway Beef & Pork Meat Market in Conway, New Hampshire. 57—4/13/22 Plane crashes into Gem State Processing, Idaho potato and food processing plant 58—4/13/22 77,000 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota 59—4/14/22 Taylor Farms Food Processing plant burns down Salinas, California. 60—4/14/22 Salinas food processing plant 61—4/14/22 99,600 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota 62—4/15/22 1,380,500 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Lancaster, Minnesota 63—4/19/22 Azure Standard nation’s premier independent distributor of organic and healthy food, was destroyed by fire in Dufur, Oregon 64—4/19/22 339,000 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota 65—4/19/22 58,000 chickens destroyed at farm in Montrose, Colorado 66—4/20/22 2,000,000 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Minnesota 67—4/21/22 Plane crashes into and destroys General Mills 68—4/22/22 197,000 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota 69—4/23/22 200,000 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota 70—4/25/22 1,501,200 chickens destroyed at egg farm Cache, Utah 71—4/26/22 307,400 chickens destroyed at farm Lancaster Pennsylvania 72—4/27/22 2,118,000 chickens destroyed at farm Knox, Nebraska 73—4/28/22 Egg-laying facility in Iowa kills 5.3 million chickens, fires 200-plus workers 74—4/28/22 Allen Harim Foods a chicken processing company based in Delaware killed nearly 2 million chickens 75—4/2822 110,700 Turkeys destroyed Barron Wisconsin 76—4/29/22 1,366,200 chickens destroyed at farm Weld Colorado 77—4/30/22 13,800 chickens destroyed at farm Sequoia Oklahoma 78—5/3/22 58,000 Turkeys destroyed Barron Wisconsin 79—5/3/22 118,900 Turkeys destroyed Beadle S Dakota 80—5/3/22 114,000 ducks destroyed at Duck farm Berks Pennsylvania 81—5/3/22 118,900 Turkeys destroyed Lyon Minnesota 82—5/7/22 20,100 Turkeys destroyed Barron Wisconsin 83—5/10/22 72,300 chickens destroyed at farm Lancaster Pennsylvania 84—5/10/22 61,000 ducks destroyed at Duck farm Berks Pennsylvania 85—5/10/22 35,100 Turkeys destroyed Muskegon, Michigan 86—5/13/22 10,500 Turkeys destroyed Barron Wisconsin 87—5/14/22 83,400 ducks destroyed at Duck farm Berks Pennsylvania 88—5/17/22 79,00 chickens destroyed at Duck farm Berks Pennsylvania 89—5/18/22 7,200 ducks destroyed at Duck farm Berks Pennsylvania 90—5/19/22 Freight train derailment Jensen Beach FL 91—5/21/22 57,000 Turkeys destroyed on farm in Dakota Minnesota 92—5/23/22 4,000 ducks destroyed at Duck farm Berks Pennsylvania 93—5/29/22 200,000 Chickens killed in fire in Minnesota 94—5/31/22 3,000,000 chickens chickens destroyed at Forsman egg farm facility in Stockholm Township, Minnesota 95—6/2/22 30,000 ducks destroyed at Duck farm Berks Pennsylvania And 96— S & P Meats Burn Down in Spokane, WA. Gone In Summer 2021 100's more not listed hear 2022 / 2023 etc. Maybe Partly ? Bird flu, or avian flu, is it ? Data on the number fires at food-processing plants in 2022 ? “does not signal anything out of the ordinary,” according to the National Fire Protection Association. Despite no evidence ((see list above)) of foul play, unfounded true or false rumors from conservative pundits suggest a rash of “mysterious fires” may be part of a plan to disrupt the food supply. Numerous true and or false posts on social media claim that recent fires at food processing plants in the US have been intentionally orchestrated in order to create a national food supply shortage. new world order has fact-checked these claims and said remember the governments lie all the time and this comes as a surprise to anybody or nobody at all. Bird flu, or avian flu, is an infectious type of influenza that spreads among birds. In rare cases, it can affect humans. There are lots of different strains of bird flu virus. Most of them don't infect humans. But there are 4 strains that have caused concern in recent years: H5N1 (since 1997) - H7N9 (since 2013) - H5N6 (since 2014) - H5N8 (since 2016) Although H5N1, H7N9 and H5N6 don't infect people easily and aren't usually spread from human to human, several people have been infected around the world, leading to a number of deaths. In February 2021 H5N8 was found to have infected a small number of people for the first time, in Russia. As more food processing plants burn down, the prophecy of pre-Messianic food shortages looms more imminent. Though labeled a conspiracy theory, the facts remain undeniable; prices are rising as supply chain problems persist and food becomes dear. BIDEN: PLANNING TO “DISSEMINATE FOOD SHORTAGES.” The story comes in the wake of a presidential prediction that food shortages were about to become a reality due to the war in Ukraine. While addressing the subject, President Biden made a gaffe that made it seem that the food shortages were, in fact, planned. “We had a long discussion in the G7 with the, with both the United States, which has a significant — the third-largest producer of wheat in the world — as well as Canada, which is also a major, major producer, and we both talked about how we could increase and disseminate more rapidly food, food shortages,” Biden said at NATO Headquarters in Brussels on March 24. The video has been removed by Facebook. The transcript of that address has also been altered slightly. “With regard to food shortages, yes, we did talk about food shortages. And it’s going to be real,” Biden said at a press conference last week in Belgium after attending meetings of NATO and G7 leaders. The president referred to 8% inflation as “the price of sanctions.” “Both Russia and Ukraine have been the breadbasket of Europe in terms of wheat, for example, just to give one example,” Biden said. WAVE OF FIRES While Biden blamed Russia, fires cropped up all around the US in food production facilities. Despite Biden’s deflection, many of the fires occurred before the conflict in Ukraine: On Saturday evening, a fire broke out at Perdue Farms facility in the South Norfolk area of Chesapeake, North Carolina. Ten days ago, a small plane crashed within a mile of the runway of the Covington, Georgia Municipal Airport, hitting a General Mills food facility. On Sunday, it was being reported that “nearly a dozen wildfires” had just roared through key agricultural areas of Nebraska. In the middle of the night, on March 23, a fire broke out on the roof of the General Mills food processing plant in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. On March 28, Maricopa Food Pantry, a local food bank in Arizona, lost 50,000 pounds worth of food in a fire that occurred “just 15 minutes after their food bank closed,” according to CBS affiliate Arizona’s Family.AZCentral cited CEO Jim Shoaf in stating that 15,000 pounds of meat and 40,000 pounds of canned goods and “other commodities” were lost in the blaze. On March 31, a structure fire significantly damaged a large portion of the Rio Fresh onion packing facility in San Juan, Texas. It was the largest fresh onion packing facility in the region. On April 12, a major fire broke out at New Hampshire’s East Conway Beef and Pork slaughterhouse. On April 13, the Taylor Farms California Foodservice production facility in Salinas, California, burned almost entirely to the ground. The facility employed nearly 1,000 people. An update on the company’s website described the Salinas facility as its primary production facility. On April 14, a small plane crashed into the Gem State food processing plant in Heyburn, Idaho. The website for the company describes itself as processing 18,000 acres worth of potatoes each year. On April 19, the headquarters of Azure Standard, the nation’s premier independent distributor of organic and healthy food, was destroyed by fire. The company released a statement that due to the destruction, the company “will experience out-of-stock status for Azure Market oils, honey, and vinegar – basically any Azure Market liquid product – as well as our carob products for the short term.” The destruction may also affect product supplies from their fruit packing facility. On March 24, 2022, a fire destroyed the Penobscot McCrum potato processing plant in Belfast, Maine. On March 16, 2022, according to KAIT, a fire caused extensive damage to a new production line dedicated to Hot Pockets at a Nestle plant in Jonesboro, Arkansas. On March 16, a major fire hit the 1.2 million-sq.-ft. Walmart fulfillment center, Plainfield, Indiana. On February 22, 2022, a propane boiler explosion caused a fire that destroyed the Shearer’s Foods potato chip plant in northeast Oregon. On February 3, 2022, according to NBC15 in Madison, WI., a fire destroyed part of the Wisconsin River Meats site in Mauston. On January 13, 2022, according to KALB, an explosion and fire damaged the Cargill-Nutrena plant in Lecompte, Louisiana. On January 6, 2022, a fire did extensive damage to a poultry processing plant in Hamilton, Ontario, according to CHCH-TV. On December 13, 2021, a fire broke out at a food processing plant in San Antonio, Texas. When firefighters arrived on the scene, they found a freezer on fire in the facility. $150,000 worth of food was destroyed in the fire. On November 29, 2021, a fire broke out at the Maid-Rite Steak Company meat processing plant in Scott Township, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. The cause of this fire has been ruled an accident. On September 12, 2021, a fire broke out at the JVS USA beef processing plant in Grand Island, Nebraska. According to Drovers, the nation’s oldest livestock publication, the fire was determined to be from a heater near the roof in the rendering area of the plant. On August 23, 2021, a fire broke out at Patak Meat Products in Cobb County, Georgia. In March of 2022, the company said on Facebook that it is still rebuilding. On July 31, 2021, according to WVTM, the NBC station in Birmingham, Alabama, a fire broke out at Tyson’s River Valley Ingredients rendering plant in Hanceville, Alabama. On July 25, 2021, a fire damaged a Kellogg’s plant in Memphis, Tennessee. According to fire officials, it was accidentally sparked when a malfunctioning conveyer belt sparked a blaze in a rice drying machine. On April 30, 2021, a fire broke out at the Smithfield Foods pork processing plant in Monmouth, Illinois. On January 11, 2021, a fire destroyed the Deli Star meat processing plant in Fayetteville, Illinois, according to Meat+Poultry. Snopes “debunked” the claim by listing 26 such incidents and noting that none of the incidents were determined by authorities to have been caused by arson. Snopes claimed that “such fires are relatively commonplace” in a country with “36,000 food and beverage processing establishments in operation.” At the same time, 27 million chickens and turkeys being raised commercially are being culled because of bird flu. Last week, the FBI warned that ransomware attacks were targeting farmers. These attacks typically happen during the critical planting and harvest seasons, with attackers hoping to disrupt operations, cause financial loss and damage the food supply chain. PROPHECY: FAMINE IN END-OF-DAYS Global famine is described as a precursor to the Messianic era. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 97a) describes a precise schedule of increasing famine based on the seven-year Shemitta (Sabbatical) cycle that presages the Messiah. The Talmud cites the Prophet Amos’ prediction of bizarre rain: I, therefore, withheld the rain from you Three months before harvesttime: I would make it rain on one town And not on another; One field would be rained upon While another on which it did not rain Would wither. Amos 4:7 It should be noted that the previous verse explicitly states that the end of days will see extreme famine as a means to urge people to repent before the Messiah: I, on My part, have given you Cleanness of teeth in all your towns, And lack of food in all your settlements. Yet you did not turn back to Me —declares Hashem. Amos 4:6 The Talmud goes on to describe the following years in the Sabbatical cycle of famine: During the second year of that period, arrows of famine will be shot, indicating that there will be famine only in certain places. There will be a great famine during the third year, and men, women, children, the pious, and men of action will die, and the Torah will be forgotten by those who study it. During the fourth year, there will be plenty but not great plenty. There will be a great plenty during the fifth year, and they will eat, drink, and rejoice, and the Torah will return to those who study it. During the sixth year, heavenly voices will be heard. During the Sabbatical Year, wars, e.g., the war of Gog and Magog, will be waged involving the Jewish people. During the year after the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year, the son of David will come. This global food crisis was also predicted in a prophetic vision by Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, a renowned 18th-century Jewish scholar and leader known as the “Alter Rebbe.” While reading from the Torah scroll, the Alter Rebbe had a vision that the Messiah would come after the year 5775, six years ago. His vision was based on the Jewish tradition that the world was given a general amount of sustenance to last 4,000 years from creation. When that sustenance ended, the Messiah would come. According to the Hebrew calendar, it is taught in the Talmud, the book of Jewish oral law, that the Messiah can come anytime between the year 4000 and the year 6000. His vision came while reading the section of the Torah dealing with the half-shekel taken from every Jewish male each year. The half-shekels from the 600,000 Jews in the desert (Numbers 1:46) equaled one hundred talents of silver, with each talent composed of 3,000 full shekels of silver. But the Bible lists an additional 3,550 half-shekels (1,775 full shekels), from which Moses made the silver hooks at the top of the pillars used to set up the screen surrounding the Tabernacle in the desert. The Alter Rebbe explained that those 1,775 shekels of silver given to the tabernacle gave the world another 1,775 years of sustenance. As pointed out by the scientific experts, this sustenance is quickly running out. Is America’s food industry being sabotaged? Consumers got a sense that our food-supply chains might be fragile when Covid-19 outbreaks shut down several meatpacking plants in the spring of 2020. Supermarket meat coolers were thinly stocked for weeks. In 2021, some observers began noticing a seeming uptick in fires and other disruptions at food-production facilities around the country. Soon lists of “suspicious” fires at food plants began circulating on Facebook and Twitter. Our “food supply is under attack,” a typical tweet proclaimed. By the spring of 2022, the lists of fires and other incidents had grown to include more than 90 events: fires damaged meatpacking plants in Georgia, Illinois, and other states; millions of chickens and turkeys were destroyed at dozens of farms; within a single week, airplanes crashed into two food-production facilities; and so on. Gateway Pundit, ZeroHedge, and other conspiracy-curious sites published stories on the trend. Soon Tucker Carlson was on the case. “What’s going on here?” the TV host asked. “Food processing plants all over the country seem to be catching on fire.” A few days later, a Tucker Carlson Tonight reporter noted, “we have found no evidence that these incidents are either intentional or connected.” But the fuse was already lit. The meme continued to spread, notwithstanding investigations by the Associated Press, Reuters, and various self-described fact-checking organizations, including Snopes and Politifact. The fires had non-nefarious explanations, they concluded; and the nation’s food supply remains uncompromised. Still, for many observers, the fact that nearly 100 food-producing businesses had been affected seemed too suspicious to ignore. On the Gateway Pundit site, a commenter using the handle Tempus Fugit asked a pertinent question: “The only missing fact in this story is, are these incidents above the norm?” That question—What is the baseline?—is one that news reporters routinely overlook. In fact, the human brain isn’t particularly good at sorting meaningful patterns from spurious ones. If anything, we are cognitively prone to see spooky patterns where none exist. The perceived food-disruption epidemic is an example of what psychologists call the “Baader-Meinhof phenomenon” or the “frequency illusion.” Did you ever learn a new word, or the name of some historical person, and then suddenly start hearing that word or name everywhere? Those words or names have been around all along, but once you start noticing them, they seem to pop up with an uncanny frequency. (Why is this mental quirk named after a group of 1970s German terrorists? Answer here.) The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is a cognitive bias that works on an individual level. But perceived trends like the food-fire epidemic are amplified by a related bias that operates across society. It happens when news organizations and other groups devote extra attention to incidents that seem to fit a meaningful pattern. I call this the “freeway shooter syndrome.” Back in 1987, L.A. highways saw a spate of unexplained shootings. Several were actual cases of random gunfire between cars. But once the news media labelled the shootings a “murderous epidemic,” every incident involving cars and guns began making the nightly news, often receiving national coverage. Most of those cases weren’t random shootings: some were gang conflicts; some were carjackings or other common crimes; and some didn’t even happen on freeways. Normally, such incidents would have been minor local stories at most—until they fit a “pattern” that was largely the product of selection bias and media amplification. Something similar happened in the 1990s when the media focused on an alleged wave of arson attacks on Southern black churches. That claim originated with a progressive group called the Center for Democratic Renewal (CDR), which attributed the church fires to “a well-organized white-supremacist movement.” President Bill Clinton condemned the “epidemic of hatred,” and Congress passed the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996. As usual, the media didn’t want to ruin a good story by asking that vital question: What’s the baseline? If they had, they would have learned that churches in remote areas—including mostly white churches—had long been prone to fires. Some cases were due to arson, and a few of those, sadly, were probably racially motivated. But there was no new epidemic of fires; in fact, the rate of church arson cases had fallen dramatically since the early 1980s. Reporting for the Wall Street Journal, Michael Fumento found that many of the claimed arson attacks on the CDR list were dubious at best. A large number of the cases had already been ruled accidental; in quite a few others, the arson suspects were themselves black. And several of the churches on the list had never burned at all. There’s an old saying among journalists that some stories are “too good to check.” It’s supposed to be a joke. But all too often, when a story supports a media organization’s underlying biases, that motto remains operative. Despite the absence of confirming evidence, the media-boosted “epidemics” of 1980s freeway shootings and 1990s church fires continue to be credulously referenced in news articles to this day. So far, claims about a supposed epidemic of food fires are mostly circulating on the conspiracy-inclined right. So, rather than amplifying the claims, liberal-leaning media outlets are applying unaccustomed rigor in debunking them. These efforts will probably do little to persuade adherents to the paranoid view. Journalistic fact-checking sites such as Snopes and Politifact have squandered their credibility in recent years by indulging in nakedly partisan smackdowns of politically inconvenient stories. And some of the groups trying to set the record straight on the food fires aren’t doing themselves any favors. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) does crucial research on fire prevention. But its media team could use some advice on how to talk to a skittish, skeptical public. The group published an excellent article attempting to put food-fire fears to rest under the unfortunate headline “Nothing to See Here.” Nonetheless, the reporting on this topic from Politifact, Reuters, and other outlets is solid and persuasive. And liberal sources aren’t alone in debunking the idea that shadowy forces are torching our food supply: conservative outlets Not the Bee and National Review have also punched holes in the claim. First, there’s the baseline problem: a list of nearly 100 incidents disrupting food supplies certainly seems like a worrisome trend. But what’s the context? More than 2 million farms operate in this country, and about 35,000 food and beverage processing centers. The NFPA doesn’t specifically track fires at food-processing plants. But it does report that roughly 5,000 fires occur every year at all types of manufacturing and processing facilities combined—nearly 15 per day. In addition, the group says, in 2019, “more than 2,000 fires occurred in agricultural, grain and livestock, and refrigerated storage facilities.” At this rate, perhaps we should be surprised there aren’t more incidents included on the lists of supposedly suspicious events. Experts also stress that farms and food facilities are fire-prone environments. Agriculture is a notoriously dangerous pursuit, involving heavy equipment, explosive fuels and chemicals, and huge quantities of straw, grains, and other flammable products. (Just Google “barn fire.”) Food processing involves additional risks. “Food is fuel,” notes NFPA research director Birgitte Messerschmidt. These facilities process sugar, flour, fats, oils, and other flammable ingredients using ovens and similar heat sources. Counterintuitive as it might seem, some of America’s worst industrial accidents have involved food production. For example, a 2008 dust explosion at a Georgia sugar refinery killed 13 workers and injured dozens more. Several of the fires circulating on lists of supposedly suspicious incidents fall under this heading: a Maine potato-processing plant burned down after a fire started in a deep-fryer; a broken conveyor belt at a Memphis Kellogg’s facility “sparked a blaze in a rice drying machine“; “grease and animal byproducts” were the culprit in a 2021 fire at an Alabama animal-feed factory. In many cases, fires were related to construction, welding mishaps, a malfunctioning heater, and other quotidian problems. In other words, these were typical industrial accidents. Among the incidents commonly circulated on lists of suspicious fires, I couldn’t find any in which authorities said they believed the cause was arson. And some of the events included on these lists are just obvious stretches. “Fire destroys East Conway Beef & Pork Meat Market in Conway, New Hampshire,” reads one item. No doubt, the loss of a small-town butcher shop is a local tragedy. But it is hard to see it as a national emergency. The same goes for the plane crash at a Georgia General Mills plant, which Carlson mentioned in his roundup. If pilots were making kamikaze attacks on food plants, that would be frightening indeed. News that a student pilot and his instructor actually crashed 300 yards from a food facility is sad, but hardly ominous. In that case, and in many others on these lists, operations at the plant continued uninterrupted. And the plants that have been damaged aren’t critical linchpins in our food economy. As NRO’s Jim Geraghty notes, “If you were a terrorist or foreign agent attempting to choke off the American food-distribution network . . . would you start with an obscure potato-chip maker in Oregon? Then move on to the source of Hot Pockets in Arkansas?” As for the millions of chickens and turkeys destroyed in recent months, that is a real problem. Bird flu has been an occasional threat to poultry farmers for years. When the virus hits a particular egg or poultry farm, the only solution is to kill off the whole flock. A Eurasian strain of the disease began circulating overseas in 2021 and reached U.S. shores in January. Farmers across the country have been forced to cull their flocks, driving up the price of eggs and other products. The disease is also affecting wild birds. If this is a conspiracy, it’s one worthy of a James Bond villain. So does all this mean that we should relax and not worry about our food supply? Not entirely. In fact, a global crisis in food supplies is growing. Ukraine is one of the world’s largest producers of grain and vegetable oils. Russia’s invasion has largely choked off that country’s food exports. Then there is the global energy crisis. Russia’s invasion plays a part in that, too, but unrealistic green-energy policies in Europe—and the Biden administration’s hostility to U.S. energy production—are worsening energy shortages. From field to table, every part of the food economy depends on affordable energy. With energy prices soaring, food production and distribution will suffer. Even fertilizer is in short supply. Compared to most countries, the U.S. is well positioned to ride out a global food shortage. But the coming months will stress supply chains and drive food prices to heights most living Americans have never seen. The policy failures that have put us in this position are not shadowy conspiracies. They’re a matter of public record. What’s Really Going On with These Food-Facility Fires? We made it to Friday! First, with two small planes crashing into or near food-processing plants, and reports of fires at various food-processing plants and facilities, it’s fair to wonder if something sinister is going on, but the evidence is pointing in one clear direction; I would sincerely love it if unnamed “senior U.S. officials” would just shut up about how we’re helping the Ukrainians kill lots of Russian soldiers; and if you think filling up your tank with regular gasoline is painful these days, don’t look at the price of diesel — and I don’t mean Vin. What’s Really Going on With Food-Processing-Plant Fires In a typical year, how many planes crash into food-processing plants? You’d figure the answer would be “zero,” and in a bad year, maybe get all the way up to “one.” This year, we’re up to two so far — or more specifically, one crash into a plant, one crash about 300 yards from one. April 14: A plane crashed into an Idaho potato and food processing plant, killing the pilot, police said. It hit Gem State Processing in Heyburn in East Idaho at about 8:35 a.m. on Wednesday, city police said. The pilot was the only person in the plane and died during the crash, police said. None of the employees at the processing plant were injured. April 22: Covington [Georgia] firefighters responded to a plane crash that killed two people Thursday at the General Mills food processing plant. The small plane crashed apparently after taking off from the runway of the Covington Municipal Airport. Six tractor-trailers were damaged as a result of the crash. Both occupants of the plane died. However, the local officials were grateful that the plane did not strike the plant building, which could have resulted in greater loss of life. Two plane crashes near food-processing plants in eight days is indeed a weird coincidence, and some folks on the Internet — and Tucker Carlson — started noticing other news reports about other fires at other food-processing plants: February 5: A “massive fire swept through Wisconsin River Meats in Mauston on Thursday, destroying part of the facility.” February 22: “The Shearer’s Foods plant in Hermiston, Oregon caught fire after a propane boiler exploded.” March 17: “A structure fire at the Walmart Distribution Center in Plainfield, Indiana broke out about noon on Wednesday. About 1,000 employees were inside but none were injured, officials say. One firefighter suffered minor injuries.” March 22: “A fire that broke out at a Nestle Hot Pockets plant in Jonesboro, Arkansas on March 16 had the facility still closed as of March 21.” March 25: “Officials believe a deep-frying machine is behind the fire that destroyed a potato processing facility in Belfast.” April 13: “Firefighters from several departments in Maine helped battle a massive fire that destroyed a butcher shop and meat market in Center Conway, New Hampshire.” April 30: A soybean-processing tank caught fire at the Perdue Farms plant in Chesapeake, Va. So, what’s going on? Is this a nefarious conspiracy of arsonists, terrorists, or foreign agents? At this point, there’s no evidence of that and no reason to think it is the case. For starters, not all the fires or crashes did significant damage. In the Chesapeake soybean-facility fire, a plant manager said that the fire will have little to no impact on their operations. In the Georgia crash, the plane didn’t hit the building, no employees were harmed, and General Mills spokesperson Mollie Wulff said, “The plant did not experience any disruptions and it remains fully operational.” The pilot in that crash was identified as a student pilot, and the other person was a flight instructor — with no signs of terrorism and no signs of ties to a hostile foreign government. Second, none of the fires so far have been declared cases of arson. If we had confirmed or likely cases of arson at food-processing facilities from coast to coast, then yes, this would indeed be suspicious. (I know, I know, the Cigarette-Smoking Man showed up and covered it up.) But in any given year, there are a half-million fires reported to local fire departments, and about 5,300 of them are in “manufacturing or processing” facilities. That comes out to about 440 per month, and if there are fires in 440 manufacturing or processing facilities a month from coast to coast, we would expect at least a handful each month to be at food-processing facilities. In fact, the list above stretches the definition of food-processing facilities, because the Walmart Distribution Center also stored clothes and cardboard, and the New Hampshire fire happened at a butcher shop. Third, if you were a terrorist or foreign agent attempting to choke off the American food-distribution network . . . would you start with an obscure potato-chip maker in Oregon? Then move on to the source of Hot Pockets in Arkansas? Then move on to a soybean-processing tank in Virginia? Are these the right targets if you’re trying to cripple America? If you were a nefarious terrorist group or hostile foreign power and you had not merely one suicide pilot, but two of them — and in the case of the Georgia crash, someone willing to ride along as a passenger — would you really aim for a potato-processing plant in southern Idaho and then the Georgia plant where they make Cinnamon Toast Crunch? Does this terrorist group just hate carbohydrates or something? Does Dr. Atkins have an alibi? If you hated America and had the ability to crash two planes into separate targets . . . wouldn’t you pick something a little more high-profile? The last guys did! How is this plan to attack and disrupt the U.S. food-supply chain going to work, anyway? As of 2017, the U.S. had 36,486 food- and beverage-processing establishments. Is the plan to pick them off, one by one, every two weeks or so? What we’re likely experiencing is the “Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon,” a.k.a. “frequency illusion” — when you hear a term and then feel like you’re suddenly seeing it everywhere. In reality, whatever you’re observing is occurring at the same frequency, it’s just that you didn’t notice it or ignored it before. Because of the empty shelves earlier this year, people are paying much closer attention to supply chains these days. During the pandemic, many of us experienced sudden disruptions to our usually steady supplies of many varieties of food, as some meatpacking plants briefly shut down because of Covid outbreaks, and potato growers found it harder to get their spuds to consumers. (There was also that hacker attack on a major beef supplier in early 2021.) Then in January, tens of millions of Americans caught the Omicron variant at the same time, leading to disruptions to shipments of all kinds of products, and thus empty shelves and product shortages across the country. And those supply-chain problems still haven’t been worked out. Lots of Americans have become much more aware of all the steps between the creation of a particular good and when they purchase it, and just how many things can go wrong in between. (And just about everything can go wrong: The Felicity Ace, a cargo ship full of Porsches, Bentleys, and Lamborghinis, caught fire and sank to the bottom of the ocean in early March.) It is not surprising that something genuinely unusual — like two small planes crashing in or near two food-processing facilities in a short span of time — would catch people’s eyes and get them to start looking for a pattern. But so far, with no evidence of foul play, this appears to be just another random set of fires in a country that has a lot more fires at industrial sites than we previously thought. The world has a genuine food-supply crisis, as discussed yesterday, and that is likely going to increase prices on certain foods here in America. But the higher food prices we are seeing are thankfully not occurring because of small plane crashes or fires across the country. Dear Unidentified ‘American Officials,’ Please Shut Up One of the many reasons I doubt the existence of a Cigarette-Smoking Man or other sinister federal-government official organizing a conspiracy to cover up evidence of an “attack on our food supply” is the federal government — and for that matter, human beings — are generally bad at keeping secrets, and the bigger the secret, the more tempting it is for someone to reveal their role in it. Thursday brought yet another infuriating, mind-boggling example: Intelligence shared by the U.S. helped Ukraine sink the Russian cruiser Moskva, U.S. officials told NBC News, confirming an American role in perhaps the most embarrassing blow to Vladimir Putin’s troubled invasion of Ukraine. A guided missile cruiser carrying a crew of 510, the Moskva was the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. It sank on April 14 after being struck by two Ukrainian Neptune anti-ship missiles, U.S. officials said. Moscow said the vessel sank after a fire. The Moskva was the largest Russian warship sunk in combat since World War II. American officials said there were significant Russian casualties, but they don’t know how many. Apparently, yesterday’s leak that the U.S. government is helping Ukrainians target Russian generals just wasn’t dramatic enough for someone in the Biden administration. What do they think is the upside of leaking this information? Ed Morrissey and Allahpundit at Hot Air speculate that this is the administration wanting to look tough when their poll numbers are low and the outlook for the midterms is grim. You know why I don’t think there’s a giant federal-government conspiracy to cover up attacks on the nation’s food supply? Because so far, no unnamed senior U.S. official has called up the New York Times or NBC News and bragged: “We’ve successfully organized a conspiracy to cover up attacks on the nation’s food supply.” ADDENDUM: One point I should have added to yesterday’s Jolt about the global food crisis is that the rising cost of fuel is making moving food from one place to another more expensive. Cargo ships and most freight trucks run on diesel fuel, and diesel keeps hitting record-high prices — $5.50 per gallon nationally this week, according to the Energy Information Administration. (In Massachusetts, diesel fuel is now averaging $6.10 per gallon! In California, it’s up to $6.40 per gallon!) When Biden was inaugurated, a gallon of diesel fuel was $2.71. On Twitter, I keep seeing people — presumably liberal or progressive — who say, “I don’t worry about high oil and gas prices, because I drive a Tesla!” (These are often the same people who said they will sell their Tesla if Elon Musk bought Twitter.) I ask these MENSA candidates, who are so convinced that high gas prices don’t affect them because they’ve got an electric car: How do you think all the stuff you buy gets to the store? 18 Food Processing Plants Burned to the Ground? While we are watching Elon Musk buying Twitter, and the trial of Johnny Depp, did you know that several Food Processing Plants Burned to the Ground? What is going on? I was concerned seeing several people posting pictures and whatnot on social media about food processing plants burning, or otherwise destroyed. Well, I did some research to get to the bottom of it. People were questioning on social media why the news reporters were not making a big deal about all these fires. Okay, let’s see what really is going on. Is it as BIG as people are making it out? Food Processing Plants Burned to the Ground These fires have been devastating for local communities, disrupting crucial food production, and leaving thousands of workers without jobs. While the cause of these fires is not yet known, many experts believe that it may be related to issues like poor maintenance and outdated equipment. Regardless of the cause, these fires are a major concern for all of us who depend on the food processing industry for our livelihoods and to provide much of the food we eat every day. Here are some of the biggest fires that have occurred this year: In January 2021, a fire at a chicken processing plant in Georgia killed five workers and injured dozens more. In February 2021, a fire at a meatpacking plant in Nebraska killed one worker and left another with life-threatening injuries. In March 2021, a fire at a bacon processing plant in Iowa killed two workers and injured four others. In May 2021, a massive fire broke out at a food processing plant in Texas, destroying the facility and leaving over 1,000 workers without jobs. A few weeks later, another large food processing plant in California was completely destroyed by a fire, resulting in hundreds of layoffs. And just recently, two more food processing plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania were ravaged by fires, leaving thousands of workers unemployed. Food Processing Plant Conspiracy There is a lot of speculation as to whether or not these food processing plant fires are part of a larger conspiracy. Some believe that the fires are being started intentionally to sabotage the food supply chain and create chaos. Others believe that the fires are simply the result of negligence and poor safety standards. Is The Conspiracy True? Here is a good reference: FACT FOCUS: Food Plant Fires Fuel Conspiracy Theory by US News I quote, “On Monday, the National Fire Protection Association pushed back on the rumors in a story in its magazine titled “Nothing to See Here.” “Susan McKelvey, an NFPA spokesperson, noted in an email that national data show the country averaged more than 5,000 fires annually at manufacturing and processing facilities, not just food plants, between 2015 and 2019. She estimated that there have “been approximately 20 fires in U.S. food processing facilities in the first 4 months of 2022, which is not extreme at all and does not signal anything out of the ordinary.” Additionally, food processing plant fires are not uncommon. In fact, several dozen occur every single year, and there were over 2 dozen that happened back in 2019 (3 years ago)! There could be many reasons for these fires, poor maintenance, poor training, fewer employees, and thus less supervision. According to a 2019 report from the USDA, the U.S. has 36,000 food and beverage processing plants. Thus, even 18 fires would not cause significant disruption to the food supply. And, many of the fires that have made various lists, such as the 18 food processing plants burned to the ground, have actually happened in 2021. This gives a false impression that more fires are happening in a shorter time. What Fires Have Happened in 2022? While many tweets going around mention 18 fires in 6-months, only 12 of them actually happened in that time frame, and one was in Canada. Of the fires that did happen in 2022, they did little or no damage and have already been cleared as not suspicious. Here are just two examples: The Taylor Farms Fire was deemed to have started by a welding accident, and won’t put the company at risk. The Maine Potato Plant Fire was deemed to have started from a faulty deep fryer. What is Causing the Food Shortages Then? The main cause of the food shortages was the COVID-19 pandemic. The virus caused a decrease in production capacity, as well as an increase in demand as people were stocking up on food items since they were preparing more meals on their own at home. Many food processing plants have had to close down due to workers getting sick or having to quarantine. This led to a decrease in production, and therefore, a shortage of food. The increase in demand is due to people hoarding food and other household supplies during the pandemic. This has led to empty shelves in many stores across the country. While the food processing plant fires are not the cause of the current food shortages, they are a major concern for the future of our food supply. These fires underscore the need for more stringent safety regulations at these critical facilities and highlight the need for adequate emergency planning to ensure that we are able to keep our food chain up and running during difficult times.​ How Can We Prepare For More Food Shortages? If you are concerned about future food shortages, there are some things that you can do to prepare: Start a garden This is a great way to have a constant supply of fresh fruits and vegetables. Even if you don’t have a lot of space, you can still grow a garden to provide some of the food you need. Stay Informed In order to be prepared for any future food shortages, it is essential to stay informed about events and government policies. This includes following news outlets and social media pages that focus on agriculture and food supply issues, as well as staying up-to-date with the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service. By being informed, we can all work together to keep our food supply safe and secure.​ Overall, while the fires of 2021 and 2022 have not caused significant damage to our food supply chain, we must be prepared for future outbreaks and shortages. By taking steps now to support our local farmers and food producers, we can help to ensure that our food supply is secure for years to come. Final Word Despite the impact of food processing plant fires, we can all take steps now to prepare for future shortages as we all try to learn how to be more self-sufficient. Whether it’s supporting local farmers, stockpiling non-perishable foods, or simply staying informed about the latest developments in our food supply chain, there are many ways to help ensure that we have a stable and secure food supply. 30 Survival Foods to Stockpile for Any Disaster For many disasters or SHTF scenarios, we suggest that you stockpile the things for that specific disaster. However, sometimes we just don’t know what could happen. Because you never know, we have compiled a list of 30 survival foods that you can stockpile no matter what happens. Things to Keep in Mind As you stockpile, there are a few things you should keep in mind. Consider the following things when you are putting together your survival foods: Make sure you have at least a 3-day supply of non-perishable food. I would recommend much longer (at least a month). 3-days is a good starting point. Get foods that you know your family will eat. Don’t forget to accommodate special dietary needs, such as formula or baby food. Try to avoid foods that will make you thirsty or dehydrate you, especially if you have a limited supply of water. Check out my post: “How to Store your Food Storage” to ensure you properly store your survival foods. Don’t forget to stockpile water as well! Survival food is food that you need to survive any emergency or disaster. Here are the foods suggested by ready.gov: Wheat Berries: Get these in #10 cans since they store well while retaining nutrition. Your wheat berries can be turned into flour, cooked whole as a hot cereal, or be added to soups and stews. Salt: Salt doesn’t just season things. Preserving food was what we used to use salt for. It is still a great way to preserve your food. We also need it in our diet. Ready to eat canned food: These are essential, especially if something happens where you can’t cook your food. Get canned meats, fruits, and vegetables. Protein bars: If your meat goes bad because you have no power, this is a great way to get the protein that you need. Dry cereal or granola: This lasts quite a while and would be good to eat whether you can cook or not. Peanut butter: This is a great protein food. It lasts for 3-4 months. You can eat it even without bread. Dried fruit: Fruit is good for your body and dried fruit lasts much longer than fresh fruit. These provide potassium and other nutrients as well. Canned juices: Fruit has natural sugars and fruit juices can keep your sugar levels up if you don’t have enough food. Additionally, they are good for restoring electrolytes. Non-perishable milk: Canned milk or powdered milk are great sources of vitamin D. You won’t have to worry if the power goes out. Food for babies and infants: If you have a baby or infant, make sure to stock up on formula, baby food, and snacks for the child. More Survival Foods to Stockpile Here are some additional foods we recommend you stockpile: Canned soups and chili: These can be eaten straight out of the can and offer a variety of nutrients. Dry pasta: Carbs help keep you full and give you energy. Stock them since they are easy to fix and offer many meal options. Sports drinks: Gatorade and Powerade can help replenish electrolytes if water is scarce. Consider getting them with less sugar. Honey: Honey is a natural preservative, immune booster, antibacterial, and antifungal. Basically, it will help keep you healthy. Baking soda: It’s cheap, a great leavening agent, and can be combined with vinegar and used in place of eggs to make bread and cakes. Plus it’s good for cleaning and deodorizing. Dry yeast: This is essential for making many types of bread. Learn to make your own yeast starters as well. Popcorn: Plain popcorn kernels are easy to store and last for a long time. They make great snacks once popped, and can even be popped over a fire. Instant Potatoes: These last practically forever and require very little energy to cook. Just some boiling water and you have something filling in your belly. Crackers: Crackers are a great carb source. They make soups more filling and help you make it to the next meal. Beans: These are long-term survival items. They are full of protein and very filling. Additionally, they are inexpensive and easy to store and come in various types for variety in meal planning. Rice: Rice is similar to beans. It’s easy to store, filling, and lasts a long time. Lentils: Lentils cook faster than beans which require less energy to cook, but offer the same amount of protein. Oatmeal: Oatmeal can be stored without refrigeration. It makes a great breakfast or can be added to meats. Nuts: Nuts such as peanuts, almonds, pecans, and other varieties can be stored easily and are packed full of protein. Pasta sauce: Along with pasta, the sauce is a great way to make a quick and easy meal. Tea: Tea is a natural antibacterial and is good for medicinal purposes. Oils: It’s hard to cook anything without oil or fat. Stockpile vegetable oil, butter, coconut oil, olive oil, lard, or your preferred choice. Corn starch: This is great for baking and thickening. Pancake mix: Get one of the varieties where you only need water to make the batter. Eggs and powdered eggs: Eggs are a good source of protein and they are used in many recipes. Powdered eggs last longer. What to Do With Survival Foods with No Power Available It is crucial that you stockpile foods that don’t need to be refrigerated. Also plan to have some foods that are refrigerated and frozen as part of your food stockpile since the power MAY not go out. Here is what you can do if you lose power: Keep your refrigerator and freezer closed as much as possible. Unopened, the food will stay cold for 4 hours or longer. Use a thermometer to check the temperature in the fridge or freezer. It needs to be at 40 degrees or lower. If they have been above 40 degrees Fahrenheit for more than 2 hours, you will need to dispose of it. When in doubt, cook it if still partially frozen, or throw it out. If you live in an area where it is cold and it is colder than 40 degrees, you could put the food outside to keep it from spoiling. Can I Use Dry Ice? The key to dry ice is you need to have it or know where to get it prior to a power outage. Here’s what you need to know about dry ice: 25 pounds of dry ice will keep a 10 cubic foot freezer below freezing for 3 to 4 days! If you use dry ice to keep your food cold, do not let it come into direct contact with the food. Be careful when using dry ice. Wear dry, heavy gloves so you don’t experience personal injury. Final Word When it comes to survival foods, think foods you can eat without electricity, power, or a heating source. Try to get commercial #10 cans produced and packed by professionals. Remember, luck favors the prepared. Be sure to get to the store NOW to grab these survival foods to stockpile. Don’t wait until it’s too late!

Welcome to the Human Meat Project, we are the human meat donation program. By donating bodies for human consumption, we are taking action to solve overpopulation, which leads to climate change and the greenhouse effect caused by the mass farming of livestock animals in order to feed the world. How About A New Shake 'N Bake Kitty Flavors - Like Aborted Fetus ? or Campbell Cream of Fetus Soup If you have a craving for Aborted Fetus Soup, then we’ve got some bad news for you. An Oklahoma Senator, Ralph Shortey, has now outlawed “the manufacture or sale of food or products which use aborted human fetuses.” DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS COMING TO AMERICA – ‘HUMAN MEAT AND PLASTIC FOOD ? Planned Parenthood Kills Them and Then Sells Their Organs. Which is Worse? Planned Parenthood Is Largest Food Suppliers Human Meat In The World Today. "You Are What You Eat." Most of us have likely heard this saying before and are familiar with its simple and sensible meaning. When we were younger, this adage taught us (hopefully) to take care of what we put into our bodies because the food we eat can have a direct affect on our health as a whole. Selling Human Meat Per Planned Parenthood Rules All Sell At Cost/Lost For Non-Profit Organization. Federal law prohibits the commercial sell of human meat and trafficking of fetal tissue for profit and carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a $500,000 fine. (Key Word Is (( 4 Profit )) Per Federal Law and Pedophile's Eating Alive And Aborted Baby and Kids... Is O.K. If Only Sell Human Meat Is At Cost or At A Lost. P.S. Planned Parenthood Only Sell Human Meat At Cost/Lost... After Paying All Employee Hourly Wages and Other Cost To Run A Not-For-Profit Organization. Not only must the organization meet the requirements that the state where it is organized sets for non-profits, but it must also meet complex IRS regulations. These regulations are used not only to determine if the organization is exempt from tax under the organization's activities as a non-profit organization. Cannibalism is defined as the consumption of another human's body matter, whether consensual or not. In the United States, there are no laws against cannibalism per se, but most, if not all, states have enacted laws that indirectly make it impossible to legally obtain and consume the body matter. Murder, for instance, is a likely criminal charge, regardless of any consent. Further, even if someone consents to being eaten and ends their own life, the cannibal may still be liable for criminal or civil actions based on laws governing the abuse or desecration of a corpse, which vary by jurisdiction. The real threat to our democracy lies in misinformation I am going to take you guys on a real zinger this week. I don’t even know what to say except how thankful I am I don’t eat meat anymore. I do want to say this in no way implies I think anyone should stop eating meat – pork, cow, deer, chicken whatever you enjoy – but I think everyone is prepared to draw the line at cannibalism. It’s called The Human Meat Project. If you don’t believe me, check out the website I actually thought it had to be a joke. You know, a kind of sick satire. So, I contacted The Human Meat Project – I had to know. No one got back to me from the organization and of course there are no names or any information about where the Human Meat Project is located. Geez, I wonder why they are not listing that information – a bit controversial perhaps. Remember what I said last week, desensitizing until suddenly the masses think it is okay. I have noticed over the last few weeks more and more people have been talking about this Human Meat Project. I wonder what the fact-checkers would say about this. Yes, those media fact-checkers who clearly are put in place to “fact-check,” for the most part, to assure those people who do not do more research just believe that the information is a hoax. Until it’s not. Didn’t Elon Musk’s new Twitter already prove the fact-checkers might have been a little bit biased in their checking. And, in one of my columns last month I believe I outlined who owns the companies who are responsible for the fact-checking. Yep, those same companies that own all the media – the dots are connecting more easily these days. So, let’s get into it – because I think this week the rabbit hole has found a rabbit hole. At the Human Meat Project website, it explains “The practice of cannibalism is not uncommon in living beings. In both the animal kingdom and our human history, the consumption of one’s own species has existed.” Well, that is true, but isn’t there enough to eat without eating your buddy next door? It goes on to outline the human meat donation mission and vision “In order to save the planet from the impact of our modern civilization and lifestyle, we have to make a change in our ideas about consumption and our dietary choices. We face climate change due to waste, pollution, deforestation, and overpopulation problems. “By donating your body for human consumption, you are taking direct action to help others and lessen the damage of the industrial age. “By consuming human meat, we create a change in both our life and the world. By improving the standard quality of life in every country and nation, we can give everyone in the world a good life.” You can read about human meat nutrition facts, and I am going to let you do your own surfing the web for that one, but I will say these project leaders seem very proud that, “one body could feed up to 40 people.” Does this not just smack of World Economic Forum narrative? They also go into how they select their donors – “healthy, and without any contagious diseases, health issues, or medications or substances, which might be absorbed by people who consume their meat.” I wonder if that means those that have been jabbed are not good candidates? Just curious because there are, according to the media, a lot of health issues these days with those that have been vaccinated. The website states, “donating bodies for human consumption, we are taking action to solve overpopulation, which leads to climate change and the greenhouse effect caused by the mass farming of livestock animals in order to feed the world.” If you are already dead, how is that contributing to ending overpopulation – since you’re not part of the population anymore? And finally, there are two YouTube campaigns outlining why this is a good idea. I’m going to just leave this right there. Next up – some people have requested I check into a restaurant supposedly in Los Angeles called the Cannibal Club. The idea of this place notes the restaurant specializes in “the preparation of human meat” and bringing “the cutting edge of experimental cuisine to the refined palates of LA’s cultural elite.” The “exclusive clientele” includes noted filmmakers, intellectuals, and celebrities who have embraced the Enlightenment ideals of free expression and rationalism. Fact-checkers said this was a hoax. I am not convinced, but since there is no address and no information (rightly so because I think human meat might still be on the “no-no” list), it says to get invited you must first introduce yourself through the contact page and they send you information about membership adding, “It is necessary for us to operate privately and to vet our members in order to avoid disruption from the less enlightened.” And here are a few more foodie tidbits if these aren’t enough to have you running for the hills. While some people are “dead” convinced (no pun intended) that fast food has human meat in it, I could not confirm or deny – I am still chasing that rabbit hole. I did find that some people said Pepsi was using the fetal parts of aborted babies as a tested flavor enhancement. According to a report, around 2001, Senomyx patented several flavor enhancers by using “proprietary taste receptor-based assay systems, which have been previously expressed in human cell culture in HEK 293 cells. HEK 293 cells are a cell widely used in biological and medical research, immortalized through a genetic modification removed from the original human-embryonic kidney cells taken from a healthy aborted human fetus.” A woman who worked at a clinic said, “We would basically manipulate them into believing that by donating this tissue they could be saving the lives of others, but in reality, we had no idea what that tissue was going to be used for and that was never disclosed to us at the clinic – it was just for a price.” Apparently, a new ingredient such as this would be labeled under the category of “artificial flavors.” I think this one requires reader to determine if they want to do their own research. Fortunately, I don’t drink pop anymore, but when I did, I was a Coca Cola girl. Finally, did you hear about another new food group being created by the FDA and the Department of Agriculture with plastics entering the food pyramid? The FDA states plastics are a safe alternative to nutrients, and they are excited to introduce plastics to the daily diets of Americans. In a press release from the FDA, it reported “Plastics can be used as an alternative to many of the nutrients found in food such as fiber and protein. Plastics will also help reduce obesity by reducing the amount of food an individual can eat.” What will they think of next? At Human Meat Project, we value every body and every life at https://humanmeatproject.com/about-us/ We emphasize the source and origins of our human meat to deliver the diversity of our world and reveal the worrying differences of quality of life across the globe. Our organization welcomes every nation to give back to the rest of the world. Hand in hand, we can help each other improve living conditions and the environment for everyone through this global movement. We are calling you, humans, to wake up and take action now. We are not living individually and alone. We need each others to survive. Together we can create a world worth living for. Together we can build a world of humanity and solidarity. Every life is cardinal. Human Meat as Food Source The practice of cannibalism is not uncommon in living beings. In both the animal kingdom and our human history, the consumption of one’s own species has existed. During the discovery of the New World, Christopher Columbus brought back what could be seen as early evidence of cannibalistic practices in modern civilization. The word ‘cannibal’ comes from the name the Spanish gave to the Caribs (Cannibales). The Spanish accused the Caribbean tribe of ritualistically consuming their enemies, but modern-day scholars have doubts that it actually happened. They speculate the Caribs were engaged in an anti-colonial battle with a host of European powers. Many historians now argue that the cannibalism rumors were just a propaganda tactic by the Spanish meant to provoke fear. The word ‘cannibal’ was used as a derogatory term to describe tribal and native people, and became an indirect ethnic slur. Human Meat Donation Mission and Vision ! In order to save the planet from the impact of our modern civilization and lifestyle, we have to make a change in our ideas about consumption and our dietary choices. We face climate change due to waste, pollution, deforestation and overpopulation problems. By donating your body for human consumption, you are taking direct action to help others and lessen the damage of the industrial age. By consuming human meat, we create a change in both our life and the world. By improving the standard quality of life in every country and nation, we can give everyone in the world a good life. Human Meat Nutrition Facts One body can feed up to 40 people* *An average adult male 65kg, only meat Human meat often understated for its nutritions, human meat protein and fat density could have the same or better than other convenient meat product like beef, chicken and pork. As omnivore, human meat taste and texture is similar to pork, not to mention the quality could be more substantial(depending on Quality of Life ratings). One body contains every essential amino, minerals and vitamins needed for daily intake. Not only one body could feed up to 40 people, it also the most attainable resource for meat and fat consumption. Quality Control How we Select our Donors We make sure our donors are healthy, and without any contagious diseases, health issues, or medications or substances which might be absorbed by people who consume their meat. Health Risk Donors who have medical conditions such as AIDS/HIV, Anyone With COVID-19 Shots and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), hepatitis (HAV/HBV/HCV/HDV/HEV), cancer, tuberculosis, or rabies will be rejected in order to prevent risk to the consumer. There are also other medical condition that might prevent donors from being accepted, such as diabetes, hormone treatments or mental disorders. Rejected Donation In case of rejected donation: If a donor has any medical condition that can be transferred human to human, they cannot be a donor. If a donor has an active cancer, they cannot donate up until the time the cancer has gone into remission or been removed and will have to wait a minimum of one year after the last treatment or procedure. If a donor has a partial remission, they will have to wait a minimum of one year after the procedure and will go through a medical check up to ensure no medications remain in the body. If a donor has gone through full remission after one year, they can be a human meat donor. Quality of Life Quality of Life is a rating system of human meat quality. Every donor that has gone through our quality control procedure and assessment will be rated based on the quality of their life (health and wellness). Why Donate? Over time, the human population has increased rapidly across the globe, leading to a higher demand for food, especially meat products. With this increasing demand, land for residential areas has become more difficult to find and emissions from farms have risen every year, making the lives we lead less sustainable. We believe that by donating bodies and/or organs we can make a change by creating alternative meat consumption options while addressing the value of a person’s body. End Date Sometimes, if a donor is fully committed to donating their body to the society, we can give them an End Date Service. For an End Date Service, a donor can choose any date they want to be harvested. End Date Services are our way of allowing donors to make important arrangements and have time to live their life up until the date they choose to be harvested. We highly advise meat donors think carefully and discuss with their families before choosing a date. When the End Date is near, they will be called in for health and physical evaluations. The Human Meat Project will provide spiritual or religious service if the donor is spiritual or religious. The donor is also allowed to call in their personal spiritual or religious guidance. We believe that by giving these services, we can help the donor to have a peaceful death and produce better quality meat. Privacy We understand the importance of digital data in our daily life. With advance technology and information expanding rapidly the protection of our sensitive data and identity is a step we must take every time we access any digital platforms or internet services. In order to keep our donors’ personal(sensitive) information from unwanted parties. Human Meat Project provides ‘Opt Out’ option for donor whom wish to be a private donator. We, Human Meat Project strongly advised for every one who wish to partake in our cause to read carefully on our ‘terms and condition’ and ‘consent’ throughly. Opt Out Every donor can make a choice of ‘Opt Out’ to disclose the followings: Name - Date & Place of Birth - Gender - Privacy and Consent The Importance of Meat Label Just like beef from Australia, or USA, or New Zealand and any other countries, Human Meat Project must stated the origins and information for every donated meat and(or) organs to the public. Only ‘Opt Out’ information will be mark as N/A. Every other information a donor has filled in will be shared to the public in our donor list page and listed on the Meat Label. In every selection the Human Meat Project offers there will be a ‘Quality of Life’ ratings. Quality of Life is based on the physical condition of the most donor’s body, their lifestyle, habit, medical history. The more cleaner a person lives and(or) the healthier their life choices will receive a higher rating. With this, we are encouraging for future human meat donor to live a better life as well to improve living conditions globally to achieve a high ‘Quality of Life’ ratings. Before fire did humans eat raw meat? There is an argument, at least among some scientists, that cooking created humans, rather than the other way around. The quick answer to your question is that, yes, our predecessors ate raw meat, just like every other carnivore and omnivore on the planet. But those predecessors were very likely not anatomically modern humans. Related, to be sure, but not quite the same as us. Modern evidence suggests that our ancestors figured out how to make fire a very long time ago. Mastery of fire is generally accepted to have been widespread 125,000 years ago, before the Cognitive Revolution. At least some humans knew how to make fire 200,000 years ago, and some evidence is argued to prove that they had it over a million years ago. The argument, in essence, is that control of fire allowed our forebears to develop in ways that were previously impossible. The ability to cook food (both meat and other foods), both protects from disease and parasites, and makes a lot more nutrients and calories available for use. One of the enduring mysteries of human evolution is the human brain. It seems obvious to us that it’s useful for survival, since we’ve spent centuries dunking over every other lifeform on the planet. But, as our brains were developing, it’s not at all obvious that they’d be an evolutionary advantage. Human brains are huge resource hogs, they’re 1–2% of our body mass but consume 20–25% of the calories and oxygen that we use. In a natural, survival-based environment, that seems like a ludicrous waste for minor advantages. Our big brains mean less skull thickness and more weight on our necks, which makes us more vulnerable. They make it harder to pass through the birth canal, which is why human babies are born so early and helpless compared to most other mammals. If you were on the savannah 50,000 years ago, you might be shocked that such misshapen creatures could even survive. And the process around that is still the topic of debate and discussion, but it’s very likely that we couldn’t have survived in the first place if we hadn’t figured out how to make fire and cook our food. Our ability to do that meant we could get more calories from a given food source, use fewer biological resources on getting sick or fighting disease, and develop more quickly and healthily. In other words, if our raw-meat-eating ancestors hadn’t figured out how to cook food, it’s likely they never would have become us. Can a human survive solely on raw food? Yes. In fact, cooking is a relatively recent phenomenon. The first somewhat well-accepted evidence for cooking comes from the presence of burnt bones and tools at Zhoukoudian, China, between 300,000 and 500,000 years ago in what was probably a very late H. erectus site. Thus, all hominids before a certain date probably ate entirely raw food. ("Hominid Use of Fire in the Lower and Middle Pleistocene" by Steven R. James, Current Anthropology (1989) gives a good, if outdated, review of the origins of cooking and other fire use.) In fact, until recently, there were Inuit groups that went through multiple seasons in a year eating almost nothing but raw, frozen, or fermented meat. To be clear, though, there have been no modern human populations other than today's raw-foodists who have gone entirely without cooking. Anthropologists like Richard Wrangham use this as evidence that cooking may be an obligatory human behavior, controversially claiming that "people who choose a 'raw-foodist' life-style experience low energy and impaired reproductive function" ("Cooking as a biological trait", Wrangham, 2003). There are a few disadvantages to not cooking: Parasites: It's easy to underestimate how big of a problem parasites are, even today. Billions of people worldwide are infected by parasites, many from either unclean water or improperly prepared food. Parasite larvae tend to spend a lot of time embedded in animal tissues (like muscle) and plants, while adult stages will spend a lot of time in animal organs. Infestation with parasites is a major cause of malnutrition and death worldwide, and without proper regulations, transmission through raw food is distinct possibility, while thorough cooking will kill most parasites. The Inuit mentioned above probably have a smaller chance of getting parasites due to the climate, but protozoan and helminth infections were and continue to be a problem among many Inuit. The human digestive tract is resilient, but going for years eating nothing but unregulated raw food will take its toll. It's hard to eat raw food: Or at least, for a good part of hominid history it was. Early hominids specialized to eat tough plant matter had enormous jaws and huge sagittal crests to attach the powerful muscles needed to grind their food. (To be fair, much of the reduction in jaw size since then was caused by changes in the content of diet rather than the preparation.) Chewing this tough plant material caused many hominids' teeth to be worn down to the gums. (Again, to be fair, much of this was caused by the fact that for a long time, teeth were used as tools, which caused a lot of wear.) These early hominids also probably had digestive tracts better equipped to deal with raw food. The point is that if you are committed to eating raw food, it's not guaranteed that there will always be soft raw food available, and eating tougher food without cooking it takes a lot of effort. Some people believe that cooking has caused such a dramatic reduction in jaw size that it's a major cause of orthodontic malocclusion today ("The adaptive value of dental crowding", A. V. Lombardi, 1982). To give a dramatic illustration, take a look at the enormous molars on this jaw of P. boisei, a hominid specialized to eat tough plant matter: In the past, people who ate only raw food would probably have a somewhat shortened life-span due to the disadvantages outlined above. But these are mostly negated by the advantages that modern raw foodists have: Reduced exposure to parasites: Because of food regulations in the developed world, it's much less likely that you'll get many of the common food parasites than it was before, although you still have to be careful. Unprecedented access to a variety of foods: Sure, when you're living on the African savannah, living off of raw food may be tough, but in America, we import and grow food from all over the world. Surely, anyone can find enough foods to meet their nutritional requirements and suit their tastes - at least if they're willing to pay enough. And we've developed techniques and foods that make things much easier to eat than the tough plant matter our ancestors used to eat. Health: I know far too little about raw food diets to make any claims about their health benefits, but practitioners of these diets claim, among other things, that it preserves vitamins and enzymes. (As with any other dietary advice, take the claims with a grain of salt and look at what the evidence says.) In short, it should be made perfectly obvious that humans can survive on raw food alone, based on the fact that thousands, if not millions, of people have done it and are doing it. Whether or not this is desirable is up to you to decide. Soylent Green is a 1973 American ecological dystopian thriller film directed by Richard Fleischer, and starring Charlton Heston, Leigh Taylor-Young, and Edward G. Robinson in his final film role. It is loosely based on the 1966 science-fiction novel Make Room! Make Room! by Harry Harrison, with a plot that combines elements of science fiction and a police procedural. The story follows a murder investigation in a dystopian future of dying oceans and year-round humidity caused by the greenhouse effect, with the resulting pollution, depleted resources, poverty, and overpopulation. In 1973, it won the Nebula Award for Best Dramatic Presentation and the Saturn Award for Best Science Fiction Film. The "Books" conclude from the oceanographic reports that the oceans are dying and can no longer produce the plankton from which Soylent Green is made. This information confirms to Sol Roth that Simonson's murder was ordered by his fellow Soylent Corporation board members, who knew Simonson was increasingly troubled by the truth and feared he might disclose it to the public. Roth is so shaken by the truth that he decides to "return to the home of God" and seeks assisted suicide at a government clinic. Thorn rushes to stop him, but arrives too late. Before dying, Roth tells his discovery to Thorn. Thorn moves to uncover proof of crimes against humanity and to bring it to the attention of the Supreme Exchange so the case can be brought to the Council of Nations to take action. Thorn secretly boards a waste truck transporting human bodies from the euthanasia center to a waste-disposal plant, where he witnesses human corpses being processed and turned into Soylent Green. Thorn is discovered, but he escapes. As he returns to the Supreme Exchange, he is ambushed by Soylent operative Fielding and his men. Finding refuge in the church where Simonson confessed, Thorn kills his attackers, but is seriously wounded in a gun battle. As paramedics tend to Thorn, he urges Lt. Hatcher to spread the truth while shouting to the surrounding crowd, "Soylent Green Is People!" Soylent Green Is Made From People! 7 surprising facts about cannibalism white meat is rare and harder to get about 26% and black meat is easy to get about 62% other color's of meat is 12% and Cannibalism can show up at the most unexpected points in history and young human kids meat under 6 yrs. old are best an in fact tastes a lot like veal and human food as meat is sold all over the world. Most people don't associate cannibalism with the Soviet Union. But as Timothy Snyder describes in his book Bloodlands, the 1933 Stalin-imposed famine in Ukraine was so severe that cannibalism became surprisingly prevalent. The state had to set up an anti-cannibalism squad, and hundreds of people were accused of eating their neighbors or, in some cases, their family members. (Ron Rosenbaum shares many of the gruesome details in a book review for Slate.) The grisly episode makes vivid the deprivations of the early Soviet era. That many Americans may have never heard of it illustrates another fact about cannibalism — it's something no one ever wants to think about. It's relegated to disgust, tabloid voyeurism, and lame jokes, and those all contribute to a general ignorance of the subject. Historians and anthropologists, however, have tried to study the history and science of cannibalism over the years: why it happens, when it occurs, and who's affected. It tests the ultimate boundaries of cultural relativism, health, and ritual. Though this list isn't at all comprehensive, it catalogs some of the unusual things about cannibalism you might have missed. Turns out there are a lot of myths about cannibalism — and how it's been practiced over time. Here are a few surprising things experts have learned: 1) Humans are mostly hard-wired against cannibalism — but not always There's a good biological reason why cannibalism is taboo in virtually every culture: Eating other humans can make you sick. Specifically, eating the brain of another human being can cause kuru — a brain disease that's similar to mad cow disease. Kuru occurs because our brains contain prions that transmit the disease. Symptoms begin with trembling and end in death. What's surprising, though, is that this isn't always the case. Among anthropologists, the Fore people in Papua New Guinea are known for cannibalism. Up until the late 1950s, they ate the bodies of relatives to cleanse their spirits. Thousands of Fore contracted kuru and died ("kuru" actually comes from the Fore word for shaking). But not all of them fell victim to the disease: Over the last 200 years, some Fore have also developed a genetic mutation that protects them from the prions that transmit kuru. The Fore were adapting to cannibalism — with natural selection possibly playing a role in reducing their susceptibility to disease. Scientists have been trying to study this further, but in recent decades, cannibalism has been declining among the Fore because of changing social mores and laws. If that continues, kuru may be wiped out entirely. 2) Animals are mostly hard-wired against cannibalism — but not always Cannibalism is rare in the animal kingdom — except when it isn't. A few years ago, Natalie Angier of the New York Times chronicled the tales of the cane toad, caecilian, redback spider, and other animals that eat their own species. The cane toad, for instance, actually prefers cane toad eggs to other options. How can that possibly be a good idea? Here's Angier: "Researchers propose three motives. The practice speeds up maturation; it eliminates future rivals who, given a mother toad’s reproductive cycle, are almost certainly unrelated to you; and it means exploiting an abundant resource that others find toxic but to which you are immune." Those evolutionary imperatives extend to a wide range of organisms — even including occasional cannibalistic dalliances from animals like the sloth bear. As Mary Bates described in Wired, it's not unknown for sloth bears to eat members of their own family (possibly because they're under stress). These human and animal cases are more than curious footnotes. They show that evolution can work in ways that run counter to our cultural values. Evolution happens through natural selection and doesn't always line up with things we might value as a society, and evolved cannibalistic behavior illustrates that important distinction. 3) "Cannibalism" was named after people who might not have been cannibals A few basic questions about cannibalism are difficult for historians to answer: How many groups practiced cannibalism? When did it start? And how common is it? Those questions are tough because "cannibalism" has been used throughout time to describe many different things. That's also the reason most modern anthropologists and scientists prefer the term "anthropophagy" to "cannibalism." There are cultures that engaged in cannibalism as a ritualistic practice, but there are also times when people resorted to cannibalism during famine. And at times, the word "cannibalism" has been used to describe all sorts of tactics — and people — seen as savage. Cannibalism is occasionally descriptive, occasionally circumstantial, and occasionally an indirect ethnic slur. Case in point: The word "cannibalism" itself comes from the name that the Spanish gave to the Caribs (Caníbales). The Spanish accused the Caribbean tribe of ritualistically eating their enemies, but modern-day scholars have doubts that it actually happened. Because the Caribs were engaged in an anti-colonial battle with a host of European powers, many historians now argue that the cannibalism rumors were just a propaganda tactic by the Spanish meant to stir up fears. On the other hand, we have some evidence the Caribs used body parts as trophies, so cannibalism is a possibility — especially as an intimidation measure or act of war. However, most of our initial testimony comes from Columbus, who had many reasons, both personal and political, to make the Caribs seem as savage as possible. 4) Cannibalistic rituals could be surprisingly complex One of the first prominent European accounts of cannibals appeared in Montaigne's late-1500s essay Of Cannibals. In addition to being an invaluable anthropological record of the Tupi people in what is now Brazil, the essay sheds light on the intricate practice of cannibalism at the time. Sometimes, the Tupi lived with their captives for months before they were eaten. And they sang to each other. As Montaigne recorded, the captors taunted captives by "entertain[ing] them with threats of their coming death." And the captives replied in a fashion that was like a song or chant. Montaigne writes: I have a song composed by a prisoner which contains this challenge, that they should all come boldly and gather to dine off him, for they will be eating at the same time their own fathers and grandfathers, who have served to feed and nourish his body. "These muscles," he says, "this flesh and these veins are your own, poor fools that you are." Musicologist Gary Tomlinson, who wrote about the Tupi in The Singing of the New World, describes it as an "economy of flesh" that passed through the warring tribes for generations. "It was a transaction across generations in these warring societies," Tomlinson says. "They were saying, 'In the future, you will be captured by my people, and we will eat you.' The transaction goes on and on." 5) Cannibalism was practiced in Colonial America Many people might think of cannibalism in distant history and undeveloped countries. But cannibalism was a feature of early American history too. In 2013, archaeologists revealed they'd found evidence of cannibalism in Colonial Jamestown — an indication of just how desperate early Colonial life had been. Specifically, they discovered markings on the skull of a 14-year-old girl that strongly indicated she'd been eaten by settlers during the particularly difficult winter of 1609. It was more concrete evidence for something historians had read stories about for years. As Howard Zinn excerpted in A People's History of the United States, one government report painted a grim picture of that winter: Driven thru insufferable hunger to eat those things which nature most abhorred, the flesh and excrements of man as well of our own nation as of an Indian. 6) The Donner Party wasn't solely about cannibalism When most people think of cannibalism in America, they probably think of the Donner Party — the famous travelers who resorted to the practice when they were stuck in the snowy Sierra Nevada mountains while traveling west in 1846. What's surprising, however, is contemporary accounts of the trip focused less on the lurid accounts of cannibalism and more on the breadth of hardship that the party endured. As Donner Party historian Kristin Johnson notes: "Out of the more than 300 newspaper articles about the Donner Party published in 1847, the most common headline is a variation of 'From California' ... a mere seven [headlines] contain the word 'cannibalism.'" Accounts tended to highlight the fact that the party only resorted to cannibalism after eating boiled animal bones, hides, and even a beloved dog, Uno. What's more, many people were just as interested in legends about the Donner Party's buried treasure as they were in the cannibalism. In the 1890s, a Sacramento newspaper reported that treasure rumors made the people of Truckee, California, "feverish with excitement" and included discoveries that would "delight the heart of a numismatist." The treasure was probably a myth, but it shows that the story was considered far more complicated — and less purely shocking — than it is today. 7) Cannibalism was sometimes used as a medical treatment There are many horrifying examples of cannibalism in Europe throughout history. But one of the most bizarre is that cannibalism was occasionally seen as a remedy. To pick one example, in Germany from the 1600s to 1800s, executioners often had a bizarre side job that supplemented their income: selling leftover body parts as medicine. As described in Kathy Stuart's Defiled Trades and Social Outcasts, human fat was sold as a remedy for broken bones, sprains, and arthritis. Usually, this human fat was rubbed as a balm, not eaten. However, apothecaries regularly stocked fat, flesh, and bone, and there are also examples of a human skull being ground into a fine powder and mixed with liquid to treat epilepsy. That treatment may sound strange, but remember that eating placenta has become a modern-day health fad. Most of the time, the popular verdict on cannibalism is clear — don't do it. But occasionally, what's cannibalism and what isn't has been surprisingly hard to define. Human Flesh Looks Like Beef, But the Taste Is More Elusive It’s like pork. Or maybe veal. Even if you have no desire to eat the flesh of fellow humans, it's not so uncommon to wonder from time to time what human flesh looks and tastes like. io9 recently took up the first question and explained that human flesh firmly falls into the red meat camp. Beef, they concluded, would be the closest visual equivalent of a human fillet or rump roast. io9 explains the science behind the color: Muscle's red color can be traced to the presence of a richly pigmented protein called myoglobin and, more specifically, hemes, the chemical compounds that myoglobin uses to bind and store oxygen as a fuel source for active muscles. According to the Meat Science section of Texas A&M University's Department of Animal Science, pork, lamb and beef average 2, 6 and 8 milligrams of myoglobin per gram of muscle (that translates to a myoglobin concentration of 0.2%, 0.6% and 0.8%), respectively. The concentration of myoglobin in human muscle tissues is relatively high – even relative to pigs, sheep and cows, coming in at close to 20 mg per gram of certain muscle fibers, or a 2% concentration of myoglobin. But, according to the testimony of people who have actually eaten other people, the taste of human meat does not reflect its beef-like appearance. Both serial killers and Polynesian cannibals have described human as being most akin to pork. But not all cannibals agree with this description. William Seabrook, an author and journalist, traveled to West Africa in the 1920s and later described an encounter with man-flesh in great detail in his book, Jungle Ways. Human, he said, in fact tastes like veal. Here's Seabrook's description: It was like good, fully developed veal, not young, but not yet beef. It was very definitely like that, and it was not like any other meat I had ever tasted. It was so nearly like good, fully developed veal that I think no person with a palate of ordinary, normal sensitiveness could distinguish it from veal. It was mild, good meat with no other sharply defined or highly characteristic taste such as for instance, goat, high game, and pork have. The steak was slightly tougher than prime veal, a little stringy, but not too tough or stringy to be agreeably edible. The roast, from which I cut and ate a central slice, was tender, and in color, texture, smell as well as taste, strengthened my certainty that of all the meats we habitually know, veal is the one meat to which this meat is accurately comparable. This account is the most descriptive to date, but it has also been called into question. As Slate reports, Seabrook "later confessed that the distrustful tribesmen never allowed him to partake in their traditions." Instead, the author insisted that he attained samples of human flesh from a Parisian hospital and cooked it up himself. Regardless of Seabrook's credibility, however, Slate points out that, like any meat, the flavor of human would likely depend a great deal on how it is prepared, and also what cut is sampled. The Azande tribe's human stew likely tastes entirely different from the deep-fried, parsley-strewn human genitals a Japanese exhibitionist artist recently served at a dinner party. In the end, both pork and veal might be accurate approximations to the flavor of human meat, though—thankfully—most will never find out for themselves. How To Cook Human? Cooking human is an incredibly challenging task, and there are many ways to do it wrong. If you’re looking to improve your skills, here are a few tips: Start with a basic recipe: This is the most important thing—start with something that you know how to make! Try cookbooks or online resources for recipes that are easy and inexpensive to follow. Use quality ingredients: It’s worth using high-quality ingredients when cooking human. Not only will this result in better results, but you’ll also be able to pronounce the ingredients correctly if you have to share them with others. Be patient: Cooks need time and patience to get the best results. Don’t give up until your food is cooked through; otherwise, you’ll end up with tough, rubbery meat instead of tender, juicy flesh. What Part Of The Human Is Best To Eat? What part of the human is best to eat For many people, it seems that the stomach is the best place to eat. However, there are other parts of the human body that can be very good choices for eating. How Do You Cook A Human Heart? Cooking a human heart is a difficult task, but it can be done using various methods. One common method is to cook the heart in oil. At What Temperature Do Humans Start To Cook? Cooking at different temperatures depends on what foods are being cooked. Humans start to cook at around 100 degrees Celsius, which is the temperature that is found in most kitchens. What Human Organ Can You Eat? If you’re thinking about eating human organs, you might be wondering what kind of organ you can eat. There are many different types of organs that can be eaten, so it’s important to think about what would fit your personal needs and preferences. Here are five human organ recipes that might help get your taste buds working. What Are Humans Truly Meant To Eat? Humans have been eating a variety of different things for centuries, but what are humans truly meant to eat? In general, humans are meant to Eat plant-based proteins. However, some people believe that humans should also eat meat, as it is an important part of human history and culture. There is no right or wrong answer to this question, and it is up to each individual to decide what they believe. What Does Eating A Heart Taste Like? Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, and it’s one of the top causes of death in many other countries. There are many ways to prevent heart disease, but some people still get it. In fact, heart disease is the number one cause of death from developing chronic diseases in men and women over 60 years old. Heart disease can be caused by a variety of things, but the most common cause is cholesterol levels getting too high. Cholesterol is a substance that helps make our body work well. High cholesterol can lead to heart attacks and strokes, which can kill you quickly. There are various ways to lower your cholesterol levels, but they all come with their own risks. Can Heart Be Eaten Raw? Humans have the ability to eat other human organs, but there is currently no definitive answer as to whether or not heart can be eaten raw. There are a few potential reasons why heart could theoretically be eaten raw. First, because the heart is an important organ in the body, it may be seen as a fair trade when consuming other human organs. Additionally, Heart can potentially taste delicious and may be enjoyed by some individuals for its alluring value. What Is Human Heart Taste Like? Human hearts have a unique taste that is often perceived as unpleasant. The reason for this is still unknown, but it could be due to the high level of cholesterol and other lipids in human hearts. Can You Cook With Human Fat? Cooking with human fat has been known to give dishes a unique flavor and texture that is often unmatched by other cooking methods. However, some people are hesitant to cook with human fat because they worry it could lead to health problems. However, cooking with human fat doesn’t need to be a problem – in fact, it can be an incredibly healthy way to cook food. Here are 5 ways you can use human fat for cooking: Make a healthier version of your current favorite dish – using human fat will add some of the missing flavors and textures that make certain dishes so delicious. For example, adding oil or butter to a dish before adding the human fat will give it a richer flavor and better texture. What Does Pig Heart Taste Like? This question has been asked for years, and there is no definitive answer. However, some experts say that pigs have a distinct, earthy taste to their hearts. This is likely due to the pork’s diet being Heavy in animal protein and grains. How Do I Prepare My Heart To Eat? Heart health is everyone’s top priority, and it’s important to know how to prepare your heart in order to be healthy. There are a few things you can do in order to help improve your heart health, including eating a balanced diet, exercising regularly and avoiding smoking. In addition, it’s important to learn how to recognize warning signs of heart disease and take appropriate steps to prevent them from happening. What Human Can Not Eat? What humans cannot eat is a topic of much debate. Some believe that what humans cannot eat, they are not meant to eat. Others believe that what humans cannot eat, they should not be able to because it is an essential part of their diet. There is no right or wrong answer to this question, it is up to each individual to decide what they believe. Is Organ Meat Tasty? Organ meat is a type of meat that comes from the stomach and intestines of an animal. Some people are very interested in eating organ meat, as it is thought to be some of the most delicious food out there. While there are many different types of organ meat, there is one that stands out above all others – liver. Liver is a high-quality source of nutrients, including protein and omega-3 fatty acids. It can also help to boost the immune system and provide important vitamins and minerals. What Can Humans Eat And Not Eat? What can humans eat and not eat? Humans have been eating and creating their own diets for centuries. For some, this has been a safe way to maintain their health. For others, this has been a way to survive in an ever-changing world. Eating what we can and avoid eating what we cannot is one of the most important decisions we make as humans. What Did We Eat 1000 Years Ago? In the past 1000 years, humans have drastically changed their diet. Because of this, archaeologists have been exploring ancient food artifacts to try and learn more about what was eaten back then. While many items have been found, especially in the Old World, there is still much that is unknown about what people ate 10,000 years ago. One of the most significant changes that humans made to their diet was the addition of animal fats and oils to their food supply. This led to a shift in how our stomach works and allowed us to eat more protein and other nutrients than we would have otherwise possible. Additionally, due to this change, humans also began consuming a greater number of calories than they currently do. How Lab-grown meat is made cows, cats, dogs, fish, and human body soylent green - https://rumble.com/v2854lw-how-lab-grown-meat-is-made-cows-cats-dogs-fish-and-human-body-soylent-green.html How Lab-grown meat is made cows, cats, dogs, fish, and human body. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday announced it has cleared all lab-grown meat product as safe for human consumption for the first time. In a news release, the agency said that after reviewing information from 100s foods company is making from cultured chicken, cats, dogs. cows and baby cells, it has “no further questions at this time about the 100s firm’s safety conclusion.” The agency noted that before can bring its products to the market, the facility in which the food is made will have to meet inspection standards from the FDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the USDA-Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). “The world is experiencing a food revolution and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is committed to supporting innovation in the lab-grown from cows, cats, dogs, baby in are food supply. As an example of that commitment, today we are announcing that we have completed our first pre-market consultation of a human food made from cultured lab-grown from cows, cats, dogs, human baby and other animal cells.” Eating cats and dog and fish Alive Educational Film ** GRAPHIC ** Green Eggs and Ham - https://rumble.com/v284oc1-eating-cats-and-dog-and-fish-alive-educational-film-graphic-green-eggs-and-.html Asia is the continent on which the consumption of dog meat is most widespread, with as many as 30 million dogs killed for human consumption each year according to estimates by the Humane Society International. This estimate includes many family pets, which are often illegally stolen from their homes and taken to be slaughtered. The consumption of dog meat is said to be most common in China, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, and the Nagaland region in India, but it is not considered widespread in any of these locations. Moreover, the practice is becoming less popular in many countries, where younger generations are more likely to regard dogs and cats as companions rather than cuisine. Truth Behind Meat Production Chicken Waffle Beef Burger An Eye-Opening Exploration - https://rumble.com/v2mmrac-truth-behind-meat-production-chicken-waffle-beef-burger-an-eye-opening-expl.html Narrated by Oscar-nominee James Cromwell, this powerful film takes viewers on an eye-opening exploration behind the closed doors of the nation's largest industrial farms, hatcheries, and slaughter plants -- revealing the often-unseen journey that animals make from Farm to Fridge. If this documentary moves you, please take a moment to consider if these animals lives are worth taking for merely taste. Thinking about going vegan? The Truth About the Meat Industry What is left out of our food labels? Behind the cow industry are disturbing secrets you are not supposed to know. Supermarket beef has become an industrialized, unnatural product laced with lies beyond the labels. What actually happens to that meat before it reaches grocery store shelves? In this blog I’ll unveil the dirty truth behind the cattle slaughter process everyone needs to hear. Pedophile's Eating Alive And Aborted Baby And Young Kids Too Rejuvenating Potion https://rumble.com/v2q0z7u-pedophiles-eating-alive-and-aborted-baby-and-young-kids-too-rejuvenating-po.html Planned Parenthood Kills Them and Then Sells Their Organs. Which is Worse? Planned Parenthood Is Largest Food Suppliers Human Meat In The World Today. "You Are What You Eat." Most of us have likely heard this saying before and are familiar with its simple and sensible meaning. When we were younger, this adage taught us (hopefully) to take care of what we put into our bodies because the food we eat can have a direct affect on our health as a whole. Selling Human Meat Per Planned Parenthood Rules All Sell At Cost/Lost For Non-Profit Organization.

An episode of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution aired on April 12, 2011, depicted Jamie Oliver decrying the use of "pink slime" in the food supply and in school lunches. In the episode, Oliver douses beef trimmings in liquid ammonia while explaining what the product is and why he is disgusted with it. But, unfortunately, a simple beef product that is regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), has been used for decades, and is 100% beef, has fallen victim to gaining the “pink slime” nickname. It’s also been at the center of some sensationalized news stories. With lingering bad press still impacting feelings toward our beloved ground beef, we thought it would be helpful to shed some light on the pink slime hype. “Pink slime” is a colloquial term for Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB). LFTB refers to smaller pieces of lean meat that are added to ground beef to produce a leaner product utilizing as much of meat from an animal as possible. The term “pink slime” was not developed by the food industry. Rather it was a nickname developed by a scientist (Gerald Zirnstein, a former USDA microbiologist) to describe LFTB. There are two types of LFTB: boneless lean beef trimmings (BLBT) and finely textured beef (FTB). Both are beef that is cut away from steaks and roasts and had the fat removed through a process that is similar to how cream is separated from milk. BLTB and FTB differ in the process that provides antimicrobial protection. By using this food processing technique to maximize beef processing, the meat producers are able to prevent food waste, save resources, and produce a safe meat product. These processors aim to be sustainable and also to keep costs of ground beef down (by using all the meat from the cow, you reduce waste, which helps keep costs low). Specifically for BLBT, the meat is treated with a small amount of ammonium hydroxide, an antimicrobial agent, which is water and ammonia mixed together. Ammonium hydroxide was declared safe by the Food and Drug Administration in 1974 and is used to produce a number of other products too, such as puddings and baked goods. In the process to produce LFTB, the meat gains a soft, malleable texture. For finely textured beef, processors use citric acid as the antimicrobial treatment. Citric acid, which can be found naturally in plants and animals, is another food processing substance that has been declared safe by the FDA and its use is also regulated. Yes, LFTB is safe. As mentioned above, LFTB, like all other beef, is a government-regulated and inspected food product to ensure quality and safety. Like all ground beef, LFTB must meet the same safety requirements enforced by the USDA–Food Safety Inspection Service (USDA–FSIS). In addition, any ammonia residues that remain in the BLBT after processing are not harmful, as naturally occurring ammonia can be found in other everyday foods such as onions, ketchup, and cheese. Come to think of it, these are key ingredients needed to make up a great cheeseburger. Our current beef supplies – whether from a grocery store or restaurant – are safe and do not need to be avoided (with or without the addition of LFTB). However, manufacturers do want consumers to be educated and have a choice. While not required, companies have implemented voluntary labeling of LFTB presence within beef products. In addition, consuming lean beef products can be a healthy source of protein as well as many micronutrients like iron.

Don't Drink It Ever! Let Me Show You Why You Shouldn't Consume It Ever... Most Soda Pop Brands. So Where Is The Outrage About Poison Food Sold In U.S.A. To Kill You For Profit Today. It also floods the bloodstream with glucose, causing insulin levels to spike. This high "glycemic load," a measure of how quickly blood sugar rises, can have long-term consequences for the way the body processes food, leading to a long-term dysregulation of the hormonal systems. These hormones tell the body to store more fat at the expense of providing calories to keep things running. The body, starved of energy, craves food—meaning we are forever hungry, even when we overeat. Coca-Cola: One of the most well-known soft drink brands globally, recognized by 95% of internet respondents in the U.S. It is available in various flavors and formulations, including Coca-Cola Zero Sugar and Coca-Cola Cherry. Pepsi: The second largest soda brand, with a brand awareness of 94% in the U.S. Pepsi offers a range of flavors such as Pepsi Max, Diet Pepsi, and Pepsi Wild Cherry. PepsiCo, the company behind Pepsi, has a long history dating back to 1893. Dr Pepper: A unique blend of 23 flavors, Dr Pepper has been growing in popularity, especially among Generation Z. It is owned by Keurig Dr Pepper and is recognized for its distinctive taste. Sprite: A lemon-lime flavored soda with a 95% brand recognition in the U.S. Sprite has expanded its product line to include variants like Sprite Zero Sugar, Sprite Cranberry, and Sprite Tropical Mix. 7UP: Known for its lemon-lime flavor, 7UP is manufactured by Keurig Dr Pepper in the U.S. and by PepsiCo in other regions. It has a significant global presence, particularly strong in North America and parts of Europe. Diet Coke: Introduced in 1982 as a sugar-free alternative to Coca-Cola, Diet Coke has a distinct flavor profile and has expanded to include flavors like Diet Coke Lime, Diet Coke Cherry, and Diet Coke Ginger Lime. Mountain Dew: A popular citrus-flavored soda, Mountain Dew has various flavors and is owned by PepsiCo. Fanta: A fruit-flavored soda available in over 190 countries, Fanta enjoys extensive global sales and strong brand recognition. Diet Pepsi: A variant of Pepsi, Diet Pepsi is popular in the diet soda market and is available in various flavors. Starry: A rebranded version of Sierra Mist, Starry is a regional soda that was previously widely available in certain areas. These brands represent a diverse range of flavors and formulations, catering to different tastes and preferences across the globe. Tens Of Millions Americans Are Addicted to 1,000+ Brands 'Ultra-Processed' Foods, and It's Killing Us Today In 2025. Being severely overweight has never been so dangerous. During the COVID-19 epidemic, Americans who are obese, without any other risk factors, were hospitalized at three times the rate of those who weren't, by some estimates. When combined with other diet-related health conditions such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes, obesity raises the risk of hospitalization sixfold and the risk of death twelvefold. Those numbers have raised the stakes in the nation's epidemic of diet-related disease and added to the growing alarm of politicians and nutrition experts, some of whom are starting to call upon regulators to rein in food companies. They're pushing measures similar to those used to curb the influence of tobacco companies in the 1990s, such as limiting the marketing of certain kinds of food to children and actively discouraging the consumption of key ingredients—chief among them, sugar. At issue is the explosive growth in a broad class of food products that are not merely processed in the conventional sense to lengthen shelf life, but are also often modified to maximize flavor, visual appeal, texture, odor and the speed with which they are digested. These foods are made by deconstructing natural food into its chemical constituents, modifying them and recombining them into new forms that bear little resemblance to anything found in nature. So radically are they altered that nutrition scientists have given them a new name: ultra-processed. Ultra-processed foods are often designed to directly target the vulnerabilities of the human brain—in particular, to exploit the way the brain processes pleasurable sensations. They often deliver a signal to the brain's reward centers so quick and potent, some neuroscientists believe, that many people find it as addictive as opioids or nicotine. Lab-made creations such as chips, hot dogs, enriched bagels and American cheese have been a staple of the American diet since the 1980s. In recent years, however, the varieties of these foods have multiplied on store shelves and in fast-food restaurants. In 2017 and 2018, they accounted for 57 percent of the calories consumed by the average American—up from 54 percent in 2001 and 2002, according to one study. "We've gotten really good at stripping out and refining and processing sugars and fats into these really potent vehicles, and they've gotten cheaper to make," says Ashley Gearhardt, a psychology professor at the University of Michigan who studies food and addiction. "Then we combine them into totally novel food products that are so much more rewarding than anything our brains ever evolved to handle. That's why so many of us can't stop eating them." The implications are worrisome. Half of American adults now have diabetes or pre-diabetes, three quarters of adults are overweight and about 100 million, or 42 percent, are obese, by the standards of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Among children between 2 and 5 years old, one in 10 are already obese. Among teens, that number is one in five. Our food, in other words, is literally killing us. Food companies have tricked our brains into making us complicit, and our elected officials are complicit, too. What's needed is a better understanding of exactly how processed foods make us sick and a public reckoning with Big Food's role in the nation's health crisis. So far, policymakers have shown little appetite for scrutinizing the tactics of the powerful food lobby, but the pressure to curb consumption of ultra-processed foods is growing. The nation's food crisis seems to be playing out in ways eerily reminiscent of the early days of tobacco smoking more than half a century ago, before regulators caught up with Big Tobacco. (It's no coincidence that many tobacco companies later acquired food companies.) This time, it's Big Food peddling harmful and possibly addictive products. "We have now the accumulated evidence, particularly in the last five years, that people who eat more ultra-processed foods have higher risk of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, depression, cancer, renal and liver diseases," says Marion Nestle, a professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. "The studies have been overwhelming. There've been hundreds and hundreds of them. There's no doubt that this is not a good thing. It is a problem." Proof of Harm A few years ago, Kevin Hall set out to debunk the theory, espoused by a growing number of nutritionists, that Americans were getting fatter and sicker because of the complex industrial and chemical processing that food companies were using to make their products appealing. Hall believed the explanation had more to do with Americans simply eating too many calories, fats and sugars. The notion that extra processing might be causing the problem struck him as "ridiculous." To prove it, Hall, who runs a research laboratory that studies the regulation of metabolism and body weight at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), ran a controlled experiment that he thought would show beyond a doubt that processing wasn't as important as nutrients. He paid 20 volunteers $5,000 apiece to move into an NIH facility in Bethesda, Maryland, for one month. He divided the volunteers into two groups. One ate mainly healthy food derived from simple ingredients with minimal processing, such as Greek yogurt, beef tender roast and shrimp scampi with spaghetti. The other group ate Honey Nut Cheerios, Chef Boyardee beef ravioli, Eggo pancakes and other processed foods—the kind most overweight people in America eat. Hall and his colleagues did their best to ensure that the only significant difference between the two groups was in how much processed food they consumed. Each group ate diets that were nutritionally identical in every way Hall and his team could think of, containing the same amounts of sugar, salt, fat, fiber, macronutrients, carbohydrates and calories. Both groups of volunteers were allowed to eat as much as they wanted. After they finished a meal, their leftovers were carried down a couple floors and delivered to a team of nutritionists in a laboratory, who precisely weighed and characterized everything left on the plate. Hall, it turns out, had it all wrong—processing, in fact, made all the difference. The subjects in Hall's study who subsisted on Cheerios and Chef Boyardee gained one pound per week on average and consumed in excess of 500 calories a day more than the group with the healthier diet. What's more, when they later switched to a natural diet, they dropped the extra weight. The conclusion: whatever food company chemists are doing to food, it makes people fatter. The results opened up a new avenue of inquiry for Hall and his colleagues. What was it about the ultra-processed food that prompted this overindulgence and weight gain? The question is a matter of intense speculation and debate in the world of nutrition science—a debate that can only be solved with more research. What's clear, however, is that the ultra-processed foods favored by a vast proportion of Americans are causing harm. The Two-Year Cupcake Humans have been modifying food since hunter-gathers discovered fire and figured out how to barbeque stone-age animals. Ten thousand years ago, ancient Mesopotamians and Egyptians learned how to smoke, salt and dry their food to preserve it. In the 19th century, pasteurization and canning techniques vastly expanded the capacity for long-term storage and transport of food. Processed food, as we know it today, arrived in the first half of the 20th century. That's when food engineers figured out how to use modified potato starch to form pork, ham, sugar, water and sodium nitrate into a pliable gelatinous blob that would fit into a rectangular tin emblazoned with the word "Spam." Two World Wars, the Space Race and increasing consumer demand for fast meals with a long shelf life that could support the lifestyle of the expanding middle class financed the scientific efforts necessary to give us spray drying, evaporation, freeze-drying and a sophisticated understanding of how to make a decent tasting cupcake you can put on a shelf and still eat two years later. By the early 2000s, Americans were getting more than half of their calories from chicken nuggets, artificially sweetened canned food, potato chips and other man-made concoctions. Nutritionists didn't create a language to describe this trend until 2009. That year, Carlos A. Monteiro, a lanky, curly-haired professor of nutrition at the University of Sao Paulo, introduced the "NOVA Food Classification system," a novel grouping of foods based not on their nutritional content but according to the extent and purpose of the physical, biological and chemical processes applied to them after they were separated from nature. He coined the term "ultra-processed," (as opposed to "minimally processed" or simply "processed") to refer to "industrial formulations made entirely or mostly from substances extracted from foods (oils, fats, sugar, starch and proteins), derived from food constituents (hydrogenated fats and modified starch), or synthesized in laboratories from food substrates or other organic sources (such as flavor enhancers, colors and food additives used to make the product hyper-palatable). Monteira excluded foods that had been exposed to simple processes like drying, fermentation, pasteurization or other processes that might subtract part of the food (frozen vegetables, dried pasta or eggs). He also carved out exceptions for products manufactured by industry with the use of salt, sugar, oil or other substances added to natural or minimally processed foods to preserve or to make them more palatable, but that could still be recognized as versions of the original foods—usually foods that had just two or three ingredients (such as beef jerky, or freshly made bread). Ultra-processed food, by contrast, was meant to include Frankenstein-like creations that were often made up of added sugar, salt, fat and starches extracted from natural occurring foods and then blended with artificial colors, flavors and stabilizers to hold it all together. Soft drinks, hot dogs, cold cuts, packaged cookies and salty snacks like pretzel rods all qualified, as did many frozen dinners and canned entrees. "They are not food," Monteiro says. "They are formulations. They contain chemical compounds that do not belong to food—that should not belong to foods." Many researchers dismiss Monteiro's classification system as overly broad. The category of "ultra-processed foods," after all, encompasses a wide variety of different products with endlessly varied nutritional profiles. It lumps Twinkies, Doritos and diet soda together with protein-rich entrees like Perdue Chicken tenders, which are made from the rib meat of an actual chicken and then combined with dextrose, sugar, guar gum, yellow corn flour and other ingredients, and Hormel Beef and bean chili, made from actual beef, beans and crushed tomatoes and combined with less than 2 percent modified cornstarch, soy flour and caramel color. Nonetheless, by defining a new category that represents levels of processing, he gave public health experts and epidemiologists the language to discuss how industrial chemists had changed food—and how to measure their inventions against a wide array of health problems. The strength of those associations soon began to generate attention. Toxic Sugar Although scientists haven't figured out how ultra-processed foods cause people to gain weight—which of the thousands of chemicals, additives, nutrients actually lead to worse health outcomes—the market forces that have guided food manufacturers are clear enough. Between 1980 and 2000, the period in which obesity and metabolic diseases began to rocket upwards, the number of calories available for purchase in the U.S. food supply increased 20 percent, from about 3,200 per person per day to 4,000, which dramatically increased competition for the limited attention and stomach capacity of the American consumer. Nestle, the author of many books on the politics of food policy, suggests that federal farm subsidies that ensured surplus crops, such as corn, made it to market, along with the widespread adoption of cheap additives in the 1970s like high fructose corn syrup, were among the factors that drove this overproduction. Meanwhile in the 1980s, activist stockholders stepped up pressure on food companies to grow their quarterly growth profits to keep the stock prices rising. All of this fueled a high-stakes arms race in the food industry between competing product development and marketing teams. "If you're trying to sell your food product and make a profit in an environment in which there's twice as many calories as anybody needs," says Nestle, "you either have to get people to buy yours instead of somebody else's or to get everybody to eat more in general." To sell more, food companies made their products ubiquitous. They sold them in bookstores and libraries. They set up in clothing stores, drugstores and gas stations. They offered up bigger portions and created more cartoon characters to sell cereal, using tactics pioneered and perfected by Big Tobacco, which by then had begun to diversify from cigarettes into food. They also called in scientists, who helped devise ingenious marketing techniques and scientific innovations to sell more food. Michael Moss devotes a chapter of his 2013 book Salt Sugar Fat to the exploits of Howard Moskowitz, an industry star who pioneered the use of advanced mathematics and computational science to "optimize" food products so that they created the most powerful cravings. Over the years, Moskowitz reengineered a wide array of products, ranging from General Mills breakfast cereals to Prego Spaghetti sauce, by testing out modifications in color, smell, packaging, taste and texture on human guinea pigs, and then feeding the data into a sophisticated mathematical model that "maps out the ingredients to the sensory perceptions these ingredients create, so that I can just dial up the product," Moskowitz explained to Moss. The most important weapon in Big Food's arsenal turns out to be sugar. Moskowitz coined the term "bliss point" to describe the "perfect amount" of the sweetness in a product to maximize consumption. By focusing on the bliss point, Moss argues, food companies have changed the American palate in ways that predispose us to overeating the bad stuff (potato chips and ice cream) and pushing the good stuff (broccoli and asparagus) to the side. Recent studies, he says, show that 66 percent of the food in grocery stores now contain added sweeteners. "These companies have learned how to find and exploit our basic instincts that attract us to food," says Moss, whose latest book, Hooked, examines the addictiveness of the food. "The problem isn't that these companies have engineered the perfect amount of sweetness for things like soda, cookies or ice cream. It's that they've marched around the grocery store, adding sugar to stuff that didn't used to be sweet, like bread and yogurts and spaghetti sauce. This has created this expectancy that everything should be sweet." Fructose, one of the most commonly used sweeteners, is now present in many foods at concentrations unheard of in nature, according Robert Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist affiliated with UC San Francisco and author of Metabolical, about the dangers of processed food. In recent years, studies have shown that fructose destroys or inactivates several key enzymes needed for the healthy functioning of mitochondria, the power plants in human cells that convert simple sugars into ATP, the form of energy we use to carry out the functions of the human body and brain. This disruption in energy conversion causes a backlog of unprocessed glucose to circulate in the bloodstream. Sensing the excess glucose, the pancreas floods the system with the hormone insulin, which tells the body to remove the glucose from the bloodstream and store it as fat. Some of this fat tends to build up on the liver, which the body relies upon to filter, process and balance the blood leaving the stomach. The liver becomes sick and the problem worsens. Starved of the energy our mitochondria would normally provide, we eat more. "It shouldn't be surprising that kids are getting type-two diabetes and fatty-liver disease that used to be the diseases of alcohol," he says. "We now know that fructose is a mitochondrial toxin, which turns into fat in the liver and is metabolized by the liver in ways virtually identical to how alcohol is metabolized." Sugar isn't even the worst problem in the American diet. More damaging still is the consumption of processed grains, used in corn flakes, white bread and many other products. These grains are stripped of their outer shell, known as the "bran," and their inner germ, which contains fiber, fatty acids and nutrients, leaving only the carbohydrates. The human body digests these liberated carbohydrates much faster than when they're locked inside the grains. "Instead of sitting in the stomach and gradually being broken down into glucose, it begins to break down as soon as it gets to your mouth and is almost fully digested by the time it has moved through the stomach, and all absorbed by the time it gets to your small bowel," says Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and dean of the nutrition department at Tufts University. This rapid digestion starves the gut bacteria, which we rely on for healthy functioning of the digestive system, leading to increased gut permeability that in turn may allow bacteria and toxins to enter the bloodstream and cause widespread inflammation, a factor in a wide variety of diseases such as celiac disease, diabetes, asthma, Alzheimer's and cancer. It also floods the bloodstream with glucose, causing insulin levels to spike. This high "glycemic load," a measure of how quickly blood sugar rises, can have long-term consequences for the way the body processes food, leading to a long-term dysregulation of the hormonal systems. These hormones tell the body to store more fat at the expense of providing calories to keep things running. The body, starved of energy, craves food—meaning we are forever hungry, even when we overeat. "Having seen thousands of patients with obesity, I think people can show a lot of discipline around food choice and selection if they experience benefits," says David Ludwig, a pediatric endocrinologist at Boston Children's Hospital and a professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health. "I think what we have trouble with consistently is resisting extreme hunger." As Addictive as Heroin Some researchers suggest the change in our diet may also be changing our brains, rewiring them with aberrant patterns that lead to compulsive eating, and possibly even addiction. Nora Volkow, a neuroscientist who is now Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) at the NIH, was one of the first to begin researching food addiction in 1980s. She was struck by similarities between the compulsive behaviors and experiences reported by drug addicts and alcoholics and those reported by obese patients who claimed to be unable to control their eating. In recent years, she says, evidence has emerged from her lab and others linking the pathological brain activation patterns seen in drug addicts to those seen in many obese research subjects and compulsive overeaters. "When I first started to speak about it, there was a complete and absolute rejection, almost anger, from people who insisted it was an endocrinological disease, not a disease of addiction," she says. "But that's an artificial distinction. If you look at it from the outside, what is the difference between nicotine and an ultra-processed food if both have been designed optimally to generate that compulsive response—a response that manipulates the dopaminergic system in a way that you don't find in natural foods?" Nicole Avena began studying whether or not sugar could actually meet the scientific criteria for other addictive substances in the early 2000s after hearing from recovering drug addicts that they found it more difficult to quit sugar than heroin. Avena, an associate professor of neuroscience at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, found that sugar, in both animals and humans, led to binging, withdrawal and craving—all components of addiction typically seen in drugs of abuse. She also saw neurochemical and neuroimaging changes in the brain virtually identical to those found in drug addicts. Sugar, when combined with other ingredients present in ultra-processed food, was more addictive still. In rats, sugar was found to be as addictive as cocaine. "Our brains just aren't designed to be able to process these different types of ingredients in the quantities that we're being exposed to," says Avena. Ultra-processed foods have something else in common with nicotine: Some of the biggest producers of processed foods were, from the 1980s to the end of the 2000s, known as Big Tobacco. In 1985, RJ Reynolds acquired Nabisco for $4.9 billion, and Phillip Morris acquired General Foods in a $5.75 billion deal that was then the largest takeover in U.S. history outside of the oil industry. Phillip Morris added Kraft to its portfolio in 1988 and rebranded itself as Altria in 2003. (RJR flipped Nabisco to Phillip Morris in 2000, which in turn spun off Kraft from its international tobacco business in 2007.) UM's Gearhardt has been studying the events that led up the groundbreaking 1988 Surgeon General's report that deemed nicotine addictive, and the benchmarks used to do so, despite a concerted effort by one of the most powerful lobbies in the nation to prevent it. One of the most important factors producing an addiction is the speed with which a drug hits the body and lights up the reward centers of the brain. By the time Big Tobacco began acquiring food companies, they had decades of experience studying and optimizing the speed with which their products delivered nicotine to the brain. They continued to harness that science in their food products. "Many of these ultra-processed foods are almost pre-chewed for us," she says. "They melt in your mouth immediately. There's no protein, there's no water, there's no fiber slowing them down. It's going to hit your taste buds and light up your reward and motivation centers of the brain immediately. Then there's a secondary hit of dopamine when it gets absorbed into the body." Taking on Big Food The threat is so grave that policymakers have recently shown glimmers of a newfound willingness to take on the food industry. A report by the General Accounting Office in August, commissioned by members of Congress on the powerful House appropriations committee to review diet-related chronic health conditions and federal efforts to address them, painted a grim picture. More than 30 percent of young people aged 17 to 24 no longer qualify for U.S. military service because of their weight. Diet-related ailments such as cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes soaked up 54 percent of the U.S. government's $383.6 billion in health care spending, which includes Medicare and Medicaid, in 2018. They accounted for about one-quarter of the nation's total $1.5 trillion in health care spending in 2018 and were associated with 1,487,411 deaths—more than half of deaths from all causes. Recently policymakers on both sides of the aisle called for a White House conference along the lines of the 1969 conference on food, nutrition and health. That meeting, called by then-President Richard Nixon to address the hunger crisis, resulted in the creation of the special supplemental nutrition program for Woman, Infants and children (SNAP) and the school lunch program, among other things. "Now we face a second food crisis," said Senator Cory Booker, who chaired a farm subcommittee earlier this month that focused on the GAO report. "Despite being the wealthiest nation in the world, we have created a food system that relentlessly encourages the overeating of empty calories that are literally making us sick and causing us to spend an ever-increasing amount of taxpayer dollars—literally, trillions of dollars a year—on health care costs to treat diet related diseases." Nobody is under any illusions that solutions will come easy. In recent years, public health officials have launched major campaigns to deal with what many consider to be the lowest hanging fruit: regulations to reduce soda consumption through taxes and limitations on how federal and state food assistance can be spent, among other measures. The food industry, which has poured tens of millions of dollars into lobbying, campaign contributions and influencing public opinion, has fought back ferociously. In California, where four cities have passed soda taxes, the beverage industry spent $7 million promoting a 2018 ballot initiative that would have made it harder for cities to raise taxes of any kind. The industry dropped the initiative after lawmakers agreed to implement a 12-year moratorium on local taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks. The word "ultra-processed foods" appears in U.S. dietary guidelines only in the references, says NYU's Nestle, because if it appeared more prominently "the food industry would go berserk." She notes that in 2015, when a scientific committee recommended changing guidelines to encourage Americans to eat less meat for reasons of "health and sustainability," industry lobbyists convinced Congress to insert language into a spending bill ordering the Department of Agriculture to change it. "We could put restrictions on portion size, put restrictions on advertising and marketing, change federal subsidy policies to subsidize healthier foods and make them more available," Nestle says. "There's a whole lot of things we could do. But you can't do anything without taking on the food industry. And nobody wants to do that because they're very powerful—everybody eats and loves their products. Anytime anybody talks about taking on the food industry, all of a sudden we have charges of 'nanny statism.'" (In response to a request for an interview, a spokeswoman for the Consumer Brands Association, which represents companies that manufacture food, beverages, household and personal care products, suggested Newsweek reach out to the SNAC International, formerly the Snack Food Association, which did not respond to inquiries.) Congress has been slow to address the obesity crisis. Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford, an obesity medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, has been among those advocating for the passage of a bipartisan bill that would require Medicare to cover medications, behavioral therapy, dietician visits and other approved therapies to treat obesity. The bill has been introduced in both the House and Senate every year since 2013, but Congress has not passed it. It will take time, research and public pressure to change minds in Washington, advocates say. For now, the best hope for a solution is to catalyze a groundswell of consumer demand for products that are healthier. Many food companies have recognized that diet-friendly, healthy choices are in demand and can move products. Which brings us back to the science. To change minds, scientists—and the food industry itself—will need a better understanding of precisely what it is about the nation's diet that is feeding the public health crisis. "We need to better understand what the mechanisms are that are driving the deleterious effects of ultra-processed food so we can target policies and potential reformulations to improve the health of the nation." "We need a national nutrition moonshot," says Tufts Mozaffarian. "We're drowning under an epidemic of diet-related disease." Hall, for one, plans to run another comparison study to make sure people aren't simply eating more because the food tastes better. This time he'll make sure the processed and unprocessed dishes both taste equally delicious, as judged by independent tasters. The results will hopefully bring us another step closer to understanding and, eventually, action. USDA-FDA Food Industry Corruption Today The search results highlight concerns about government corruption and the widespread use of plastic chemicals in the food industry. Here’s a breakdown of the key findings: FDA Loophole: A legal loophole allows companies to add new additives to food without approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This has led to potentially harmful substances entering the food supply. GRAS System: The FDA’s “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) system allows companies to self-certify the safety of additives, without independent testing or FDA oversight. This has resulted in thousands of untested additives being used in food production. Phthalates and BPA: Consumer Reports found phthalates and BPA, chemicals used to make plastic, in various food products, including fast food and supermarket staples. These chemicals can interfere with hormone production and increase the risk of health problems. Conflict of Interest: A former FDA employee pleaded guilty to a conflict of interest, involving over $126,000 worth of jobs performed at an FDA facility by a company in which he had a direct financial interest. This incident highlights the potential for corruption within the agency. USDA-FDA Oversight: The search results also highlight the complex and sometimes confusing regulatory landscape between the USDA and FDA. While the USDA primarily oversees meat and poultry, the FDA regulates most processed foods. This has led to inconsistent labeling and inspection practices. The FDA does approve of microplastics or nanoplastics as ingredients added to food like in fake cheeses. Additionally, the FDA acknowledges that microplastics and nano-plastics may be present in food due to environmental contamination, but emphasizes that their presence alone does not indicate a risk or violate FDA regulations unless it creates a health concern. The FDA has approved the use of certain wood fibers, specifically cellulose, as a food additive we eat today. So What if everything you have ever been told about nutrition was wrong? That following the 'food pyramid' is killing you. Well, it is. This idea that bread, cereals, grains, rice and pasta should form the mainstay of your diet is beyond ridiculous, it's dangerous. https://www.nutritiondiagnostics.com.au/blogs/news/the-food-pyramid-is-killing-you Blood chemistry confirms this. The food pyramid promotes a diet that is high in sugar (carbohydrates) and low in healthy fats. It's a recipe for poor nutrition, and poor nutrition is the recipe for malnutrition. Malnutrition leads to mineral deficiencies and imbalances in body chemistry - ultimately manifesting in chronic disease. The 3,791 Substances Added to Food inventory replaces what was previously known as Everything Added to Foods in the United States (EAFUS). https://www.hfpappexternal.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/index.cfm?set=FoodSubstances&sort=Sortterm_ID&order=ASC&showAll=true&type=basic&search= The Substances Added to Food inventory includes the following types of ingredients regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA): It is important to note that the inventory is only a partial list of food ingredients. Inclusion in this inventory of information from non-FDA entities does not indicate an FDA approval or evaluation of this use. USDA-FDA Food Industry Corruption The search results highlight concerns about government corruption and the widespread use of plastic chemicals in the food industry. Here’s a breakdown of the key findings: FDA Loophole: A legal loophole allows companies to add new additives to food without approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This has led to potentially harmful substances entering the food supply. GRAS System: The FDA’s “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) system allows companies to self-certify the safety of additives, without independent testing or FDA oversight. This has resulted in thousands of untested additives being used in food production. Where The Outrage Poison Food Jillian Michaels Receives Standing Ovation After Speech - https://rumble.com/v5wjosh-where-the-outrage-poison-food-jillian-michaels-receives-standing-ovation-af.html So Where Is The Outrage About Poison Food Sold In U.S.A. To Kill You For Profit Today. Yes Everyone In The Last 30 Years Is Eating Poison Food Right Now. Jillian Michaels Receives Standing Ovation After Speech At Health Roundtable Jillian Michaels Receives Ovation. According to the search results, Jillian Michaels received a standing ovation after delivering a speech at a health roundtable hosted by Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, titled “American Health and Nutrition: A Second Opinion”. During her testimony, she described the chronic disease epidemic in the US as an “extinction-level event” and criticized major corporations for promoting ultra-processed foods (UPFs) that contribute to the widespread health decline. 600 Billion Dollars Poison Ingredient Making Your Food Toxic To Eat Processed Food - https://rumble.com/v2mesq8-600-billion-dollars-poison-ingredient-making-your-food-toxic-to-eat-process.html Nina deserves a lot more accreditation on this video, she was one of the first people to shed light on the problems with seed oils and the history of how they came to be. Top Ten Toxic Food Ingredients in Processed Food - Any food that has been canned, dehydrated, or had chemicals added to it is a processed food, and these foods make up about 60 percent of the average American diet. - Most of us don't think of the food we eat as poison, but some of the ingredients commonly found in processed foods can be considered toxic. By "toxic," I mean chemicals or highly processed ingredients that aren't good for you or can cause harm to your health. I'm talking about refined grains, trans fats, high fructose corn syrup, and all the other artificial junk you can't even pronounce on the ingredient lists. So It Appears that the concept of “Poison Food for Profit” refers to the alleged practice of intentionally contaminating food products for financial gain. This notion is supported by various sources, including: Foodborne illnesses: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that 48 million people in the United States contract some form of food poisoning every year, with 128,000 hospitalizations. This suggests that food contamination is a significant public health issue. Corporate interests: The article “Opinion: Poison in My Groceries” from Motif (2019) argues that big pharma and food conglomerates prioritize profits over public health, leading to the use of additives and substances linked to adverse health effects. Additives and contaminants: The article highlights the presence of coloring agents, dyes, and other substances in food products, including those linked to hyperactivity, organ damage, cancer, birth defects, and allergic reactions. FDA oversight: The same article criticizes the FDA’s perceived lack of effective regulation, citing the agency’s reliance on industry funding and the revolving door between FDA employees and pharmaceutical companies. There is something deeply disquieting about cannibalism. Motives and technicalities do not matter; eating human flesh is now universally considered revolting, whatever the circumstances. However, if we trust a long line of anthropologists and ethnographers, this has not always been the case in all parts of the world and is therefore not self-evident. Stripped of all cultural context and psychological connotations and in purely detached terms, the act of cannibalizing a corpse might be considered a victimless crime, the victim of the act being a lifeless body destined to decay anyway. And yet, cannibalism is instinctively perceived in virtually all cultures today as grisly violence and, more than that, a violation of all that makes us human. It is probably this perception that led some scholars to question whether human beings could ever have engaged in such practices, except in the most wretched conditions. This Is How Really Meat Hot Dogs Are Made And How Lab-Grown Meat Is Made From Beef, Chickens, Cats, Dogs, Fish To Human Body Meat Hot Dogs Are Made And Has FDA's Approval For The First Time Although access to it has been limited throughout the years, lab-cultivated meat is not a new concept. You already know how the old saying goes: "If you love hot dogs, you'd better not look too closely at how they're made with human meat. https://rumble.com/playlists/b5nqs1HsYxs Any food that has been canned, dehydrated, or had chemicals added to it is a processed food, and these foods make up about 60 percent of the average American diet. They've taken over, and we have to FIGHT BACK. Know which toxic food ingredients to avoid: 1. Palm Oil When a regular fat like corn, soybean, or palm oil is blasted with hydrogen and turned into a solid, it becomes a trans fat. These evil anti-nutrients help packaged foods stay "fresh," meaning that the food can sit on the supermarket shelf for years without ever getting stale or rotting. Eating junk food with trans fats raises your "bad" LDL cholesterol and triglycerides and lowers your "good" HDL. These fats also increase your risk of blood clots and heart attack. Avoid palm oil and other trans fats like the plague, and kiss fried foods goodbye too, since they're usually fried in one of these freakish trans-fatty oils. 2. Shortening Ditch any food that lists shortening or partially hydrogenated oil as an ingredient, since these are also evil trans fats. In addition to clogging your arteries and causing obesity, they also increase your risk of metabolic syndrome. Choose healthier monounsaturated fats, such as olive, peanut and canola oils and foods that contain unsaturated omega-3 fatty acids instead. 3. White Flour, Rice, Pasta, and Bread When a whole grain is refined, most of its nutrients are sucked out in an effort to extend its shelf life. Both the bran and germ are removed, and therefore all the fiber, vitamins, and minerals. Because these stripped down, refined grains are devoid of fiber and other nutrients, they're also easy to digest — TOO EASY. They send your blood sugar and insulin skyrocketing, which can lead to all sorts of problems. Replace processed grains with whole grains, like brown or wild rice, whole-wheat breads and pastas, barley, and oatmeal. 4. High Fructose Corn Syrup The evil king of all refined grains is high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). The amount of refined sugar we consume has declined over the past 40 years, but we're consuming almost 20 times as much HFCS. According to researchers at Tufts University, Americans consume more calories from HFCS than any other source. It's in practically EVERYTHING. It increases triglycerides, boosts fat-storing hormones, and drives people to overeat and gain weight. Adopt my zero-tolerance policy, and steer clear of this sweet "poison." 5. Artificial Sweeteners Aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal), saccharin (Sweet'N Low, SugarTwin), and sucralose (Splenda) may be even harder on our metabolic systems than plain old sugar. These supposedly diet-friendly sweeteners may actually be doing more harm than good! Studies suggest that artificial sweeteners trick the brain into forgetting that sweetness means extra calories, making people more likely to keep eating sweet treats without abandon. Nip it in the bud. Scan ingredient labels and ban all artificial sweeteners from entering your mouth. 6. Sodium Benzoate and Potassium Benzoate These preservatives are sometimes added to soda to prevent mold from growing, but benzene is a known carcinogen that is also linked with serious thyroid damage. Dangerous levels of benzene can build up when plastic bottles of soda are exposed to heat or when the preservatives are combined with ascorbic acid (vitamin C). Don't risk it, people 7. Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA) BHA is another potentially cancer-causing preservative, but it has been deemed safe by the FDA. Its job is to help prevent spoilage and food poisoning, but it's a major endocrine disruptor and can seriously mess with your hormones. BHA is in HUNDREDS of foods. It's also found in food packaging and cosmetics. BHA has many aliases. You can look them up. Or you can follow my advice and DITCH processed foods altogether. 8. Sodium Nitrates and Sodium Nitrites No that's not a typo. These two different preservatives are found in processed meats like bacon, lunch meat, and hot dogs. They're some of the worst offenders, and they're believed to cause colon cancer and metabolic syndrome, which can lead to diabetes. Protect your health by always choosing fresh, organic meats. 9. Blue, Green, Red, and Yellow The artificial colors blue 1 and 2, green 3, red 3, and yellow 6 have been linked to thyroid, adrenal, bladder, kidney, and brain cancers. Always seek out foods with the fewest artificial chemicals, especially when shopping for your kids. Look for color-free medications and natural food products that don't contain artificial colors like these. 10. MSG Monosodium glutamate is a processed "flavor enhancer." While glutamates are present in some natural foods, such as meat and cheese, the ones exploited by the processed-foods industry are separated from their host proteins through hydrolysis. The jury is still out on how harmful MSG may be, but high levels of free glutamates have been shown to seriously screw with brain chemistry. Don't fall prey to chemical flavor enhancing. Just play it safe and flavor your food naturally. Whole Foods Market is often seen as the benchmark for products to be considered. The following list contains ingredients that Whole Foods Market finds unacceptable in food products, as posted on their website. Using a preservative to keep your fair trade chocolate shelf-stable? Are you sure the colors in your organic hard candies are up to WFM standards? Go ahead any questionable names in your ingredient deck—if they pop up on the list, reformulation may be in the cards for your natural product. Note: This list is reprinted in full from Whole Foods Market’s website. It’s a living list, so be sure to check back for future updates. https://peoplesfood.coop/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Unacceptable-Ingredients-2.pdf 50 Jaw-droppingly Toxic Food Ingredients & Artificial Additives to Avoid ? Yes ? There have been great advances in food preparation in the last century. These days, well over half of the foods that we can buy in a typical supermarket are pre packaged or prepared. They need either no or minimal preparation before being ready to eat. However, there is a dark side to this convenience. Most of the foods on our shelves also contain chemicals and additives that are known to harm either the human body or laboratory animals. If they harm animals, they can harm you too. Most of the ingredients that you should avoid fall into one of three areas: food additives, artificial sweeteners and artificial colors. More and more experts are agreeing that you are wise to try to avoid as many chemicals in your foods as possible. By shopping in mostly the produce, dairy and meat sections of your grocery store, you can avoid many of the harmful food additives listed below. However, all of us need to be on our guard, because some of these ingredients also are used in meats, dairy products and even produce. What does this have to do with Public health? The health of our country is determined by the things we consume. This ultimately adds massive costs to our healthcare system as more and more people experience disease from eating processed foods and additives. Food Additives to Avoid While FDA generally recognizes most additives on this list as ‘safe,’ there are growing concerns about the safety of many common food additives, if consumed in large quantities. 01. Sodium nitrate: Added to processed meats to stop bacterial growth. Linked to cancer in humans. (Worst Offender) 02. Sulfites: Used to keep prepared foods fresh. Can cause breathing difficulties in those sensitive to the ingredient. 03. Azodicarbonamide: Used in bagels and buns. Can cause asthma. 04. Potassium bromate: Added to breads to increase volume. Linked to cancer in humans. 05. Propyl gallate: Added to fat-containing products. Linked to cancer in humans 06. BHA/BHT: A fat preservative, used in foods to extend shelf life. Linked to cancerous tumor growth. 07. Propylene glycol: Better known as antifreeze. Thickens dairy products and salad dressing. Deemed ‘generally’ safe by FDA. 08. Butane: Put in chicken nuggets to keep them tasting fresh. A known carcinogen. 09. Monosodium glutamate (MSG): Flavor enhancer that can cause headaches. Linked in animal studies to nerve damage, heart problems and seizures. 10. Disodium inosinate: In snack foods. Contains MSG. 11. Disodium guanylate: Also used in snack foods, and contains MSG. 12. Enriched flour: Used in many snack foods. A refined starch that is made from toxic ingredients. 13. Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH): Geneticially-engineered version of natural growth hormone in cows. Boosts milk production in cows. Contains high levels of IGF-1, which is thought cause various types of cancer. 14. Refined vegetable oil: Includes soybean oil, corn oil, safflower oil, canola oil, and peanut oil. High in omega-6 fats, which are thought to cause heart disease and cancer. 15. Sodium benzoate: Used as a preservative in salad dressing and carbonated beverages. A known carcinogen and may cause damage our DNA. 16. Brominated vegetable oil: Keeps flavor oils in soft drinks suspended. Bromate is a poison and can cause organ damage and birth defects. Not required to be listed on food labels. 17. Propyl gallate: Found in meats, popcorn, soup mixes and frozen dinners. Shown to cause cancer in rats. Banned in some countries. Deemed safe by FDA. 18. Olestra: Fat-like substance that is unabsorbed by the body. Used in place of natural fats in some snack foods. Can cause digestive problems, and also not healthy for the heart. 19. Carrageenan: Stabilizer and thickening agent used in many prepared foods. Can cause ulcers and cancer. 20. Polysorbate 60: A thickener that is used in baked goods. Can cause cancer in laboratory animals. 21. Camauba wax: Used in chewing gums and to glaze certain foods. Can cause cancer and tumors. 22. Magnesium sulphate: Used in tofu, and can cause cancer in laboratory animals. 23. Chlorine dioxide: Used in bleaching flour. Can cause tumors and hyperactivity in children. 24. Paraben: Used to stop mold and yeast forming in foods. Can disrupt hormones in the body, and could be linked to breast cancer. 25. Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose: Used as a thickener in salad dressings. Could cause cancer in high quantities. 26. Aluminum: A preservative in some packaged foods that can cause cancer. Artificial Sweeteners to Avoid Artificial sweeteners are regulated by FDA, just as food additives are, but this does not apply to products ‘generally recognized as safe. 27. Saccharin: Carcinogen found to cause bladder cancer in rats. (Worst Offender) 28. Aspartame: An excitotoxin and thought to be a carcinogen. Can cause dizziness, headaches, blurred vision and stomach problems. 29. High fructose corn syrup: Sweetener made from corn starch. Made from genetically-modified corn. Causes obesity, diabetes, heart problems, arthritis and insulin resistance. 30. Acesulfame potassium: Used with other artificial sweeteners in diet sodas and ice cream. Linked to lung and breast tumors in rats. 31. Sucralose: Splenda. Can cause swelling of liver and kidneys and a shrinkage of the thymus gland. 32. Agave nectar: Sweetener derived from a cactus. Contains high levels of fructose, which causes insulin resistance, liver disease and inflammation of body tissues. 33. Bleached starch: Can be used in many dairy products. Thought to be related to asthma and skin irritations. 34. Tert butylhydroquinone: Used to preserve fish products. Could cause stomach tumors at high doses. Artificial Food Colorings to Avoid Food colorings are used to give foods a more attractive appearance, but some experts believe they cause serious health problems, including asthma and hyperactivity in children. 35. Red #40: Found in many foods to alter color. All modern food dyes are derived from petroleum. A carcinogen that is linked to cancer in some studies. Also can cause hyperactivity in children. Banned in some European countries. (Worst Offender) 36. Blue #1: Used in bakery products, candy and soft drinks. Can damage chromosomes and lead to cancer. 37. Blue #2: Used in candy and pet food beverages. Can cause brain tumors 38. Citrus red #1: Sprayed on oranges to make them look ripe. Can damage chromosomes and lead to cancer. 39. Citrus red #2: Used to color oranges. Can cause cancer if you eat the peel. 40. Green #3: Used in candy and beverages. May cause bladder tumors. 41. Yellow #5: Used in desserts, candy and baked goods. Thought to cause kidney tumors, according to some studies. 42. Yellow #6: A carcinogen used in sausage, beverages and baked goods. Thought to cause kidney tumors, according to some studies. 43. Red #2: A food coloring that may cause both asthma and cancer. 44. Red #3: A carcinogen. that is added to cherry pie filling, ice cream and baked goods. May cause nerve damage and thyroid cancer. 45. Caramel coloring: In soft drinks, sauces, pastries and breads. When made with ammonia, it can cause cancer in mice. Food companies not required to disclose if this ingredient is made with ammonia. 46. Brown HT: Used in many packaged foods. Can cause hyperactivity in children, asthma and cancer. 47. Orange B: A food dye that is used in hot dog and sausage casings. High doses are bad for the liver and bile duct. 48. Bixin: Food coloring that can cause hyperactivity in children and asthma. 49. Norbixin: Food coloring that can cause hyperactivity in children and asthma. 50. Annatto: Food coloring that can cause hyperactivity in children and asthma. Bioengineered (GMO) Foods ingredients - https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/BE_Consumer.pdf GMO Genetically Modified Organisms Transgenic Crops and Recombinant DNA Technology - https://rumble.com/v2dn1zu-gmo-genetically-modified-organisms-transgenic-crops-and-recombinant-dna-tec.html - Genetically Modified Organisms ? - So Poor Johnny doesn't like "healthy" food. What could possibly persuade him to eat all his "veggies"? If you could save lives by producing vaccines in transgenic bananas, would you? In the debate over large-scale commercialization and use of GMOs, where should we draw the line? you may use this film Only if it stays intact. No part of it. may be removed or used in part without our permission. People have been altering the genomes of plants and animals for many years using traditional breeding techniques. Artificial selection for specific, desired traits has resulted in a variety of different organisms, ranging from sweet corn to hairless cats. But this artificial selection, in which organisms that exhibit specific traits are chosen to breed subsequent generations, has been limited to naturally occurring variations. In recent decades, however, advances in the field of genetic engineering have allowed for precise control over the genetic changes introduced into an organism. Today, we can incorporate new genes from one species into a completely unrelated species through genetic engineering, optimizing agricultural performance or facilitating the production of valuable pharmaceutical substances. Crop plants, farm animals, and soil bacteria are some of the more prominent examples of organisms that have been subject to genetic engineering. Current Use of Genetically Modified Organisms Agricultural plants are one of the most frequently cited examples of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Some benefits of genetic engineering in agriculture are increased crop yields, reduced costs for food or drug production, reduced need for pesticides, enhanced nutrient composition and food quality, resistance to pests and disease, greater food security, and medical benefits to the world's growing population. An Introduction To Plant Breeding-Teaching Us about Preparing for a Plant Pandemic? - https://rumble.com/v2hf5zq-an-introduction-to-plant-breeding-teaching-us-about-preparing-for-a-plant-p.html - Plant breeding is a technique through which genetic traits of a plant are changed. Some desirable traits are incorporated to produce a new variety. This technique is mainly used to improve the quality of food crop, to produce high yielding crop varieties and also provide resistance to diseases and pests. Teach Us about Preparing for a Plant Pandemic ? The question is not whether we’ll experience such an event; it’s whether we’ll be ready when it strikes As the world continues to fight COVID-19, the menace of infectious disease has never been more apparent. The next devastating pandemic could strike plants. Agricultural pathogens are evolving and spreading at a troubling rate—and the COVID pandemic offers important lessons for how we should prepare for them. You Will Get Your Plant Derived Vaccines Explained in 12 Minutes Or Death 2 You ? - https://rumble.com/v2heu0u-you-will-get-your-plant-derived-vaccines-explained-in-12-minutes-or-death-2.html - PMI Announces Medicago to Supply Up to 76 Million Doses of Its Plant-Derived COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate A Philip Morris International subsidiary is a shareholder in a biopharmaceutical company that reached agreements with two departments of the Canadian government to accelerate its COVID-19 vaccine candidate efforts. Since 2008, Philip Morris Investments B.V. (PMIBV), a subsidiary of Philip Morris International (PMI) (NYSE: PM), has been a shareholder of Medicago (in which it currently holds an approximately one-third equity stake) and has supported Medicago’s innovative plant-derived research and development focused on vaccines. The investment is consistent with PMI’s own efforts to leverage science and innovation. Japan-based Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation (MTPC) is the majority shareholder and PMIBV’s partner in Medicago. Among other things, PMIBV and MTPC will contribute additional funding to support Medicago’s efforts to develop a COVID-19 vaccine candidate. What’s in a Covid-19 Vaccine? - Everyone Will Now Get Edible Vaccine in Your Food - https://rumble.com/v2hecds-whats-in-a-covid-19-vaccine-everyone-will-now-get-edible-vaccine-in-your-fo.html - Plant biologist injecting tiny amounts of virus into tomato, potato, lettuce leaves. University of Ottawa plant biologist Allyson MacLean demonstrates the process for injecting edible plants with bacterial solution, which will hopefully cause the leaves to gradually produce a vaccine for COVID-19. Eating your veggies isn't only good for you — it may someday protect you against COVID-19. In-Depth Plant-Based Covid-19 Vaccine People Testing's Now-You Will Eat Your Shot - https://rumble.com/v2hftq4-in-depth-plant-based-covid-19-vaccine-people-testings-now-you-will-eat-your.html - Anti-GMO forces target New Breeding Techniques (NBTs) despite similarities to conventional crops For years, critics of GMOs have focused on the idea that modern technologies have allowed plant breeders to take genetic material from one species and add it to another—adding ‘foreign genes’, they call it. These transgenic crosses are responsible for most of the GMO crops that dominate US farmland. But they’ve also offered a rallying point for critics, who’ve built a deceptive narrative around the idea that these “Frankenfoods” should be feared and shunned by consumers. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): Transgenic Crops and Recombinant DNA Technology - If you could save lives by producing vaccines in transgenic bananas, would you? In the debate over large-scale commercialization and use of GMOs, where should we draw the line? People have been altering the genomes of plants and animals for many years using traditional breeding techniques. Artificial selection for specific, desired traits has resulted in a variety of different organisms, ranging from sweet corn to hairless cats. But this artificial selection, in which organisms that exhibit specific traits are chosen to breed subsequent generations, has been limited to naturally occurring variations. In recent decades, however, advances in the field of genetic engineering have allowed for precise control over the genetic changes introduced into an organism. Today, we can incorporate new genes from one species into a completely unrelated species through genetic engineering, optimizing agricultural performance or facilitating the production of valuable pharmaceutical substances. Crop plants, farm animals, and soil bacteria are some of the more prominent examples of organisms that have been subject to genetic engineering. How Lab-grown meat is made cows, cats, dogs, fish, and human body soylent green - https://rumble.com/v2854lw-how-lab-grown-meat-is-made-cows-cats-dogs-fish-and-human-body-soylent-green.html How Lab-grown meat is made cows, cats, dogs, fish, and human body. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday announced it has cleared all lab-grown meat product as safe for human consumption for the first time. In a news release, the agency said that after reviewing information from 100s foods company is making from cultured chicken, cats, dogs. cows and baby cells, it has “no further questions at this time about the 100s firm’s safety conclusion.” The agency noted that before can bring its products to the market, the facility in which the food is made will have to meet inspection standards from the FDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the USDA-Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). “The world is experiencing a food revolution and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is committed to supporting innovation in the lab-grown from cows, cats, dogs, baby in are food supply. As an example of that commitment, today we are announcing that we have completed our first pre-market consultation of a human food made from cultured lab-grown from cows, cats, dogs, human baby and other animal cells.” Eating cats and dog and fish Alive Educational Film ** GRAPHIC ** Green Eggs and Ham - https://rumble.com/v284oc1-eating-cats-and-dog-and-fish-alive-educational-film-graphic-green-eggs-and-.html Asia is the continent on which the consumption of dog meat is most widespread, with as many as 30 million dogs killed for human consumption each year according to estimates by the Humane Society International. This estimate includes many family pets, which are often illegally stolen from their homes and taken to be slaughtered. The consumption of dog meat is said to be most common in China, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, and the Nagaland region in India, but it is not considered widespread in any of these locations. Moreover, the practice is becoming less popular in many countries, where younger generations are more likely to regard dogs and cats as companions rather than cuisine. Truth Behind Meat Production Chicken Waffle Beef Burger An Eye-Opening Exploration - https://rumble.com/v2mmrac-truth-behind-meat-production-chicken-waffle-beef-burger-an-eye-opening-expl.html Narrated by Oscar-nominee James Cromwell, this powerful film takes viewers on an eye-opening exploration behind the closed doors of the nation's largest industrial farms, hatcheries, and slaughter plants -- revealing the often-unseen journey that animals make from Farm to Fridge. If this documentary moves you, please take a moment to consider if these animals lives are worth taking for merely taste. Thinking about going vegan? Pedophile's Eating Alive And Aborted Baby And Young Kids Too Rejuvenating Potion - https://rumble.com/v2q0z7u-pedophiles-eating-alive-and-aborted-baby-and-young-kids-too-rejuvenating-po.html The Truth About the Meat Industry. What is left out of our food labels? Behind the cow industry are disturbing secrets you are not supposed to know. Supermarket beef has become an industrialized, unnatural product laced with lies beyond the labels. What actually happens to that meat before it reaches grocery store shelves? In this blog I’ll unveil the dirty truth behind the cattle slaughter process everyone needs to hear. Note: We Want You And Other Peoples With A Open Mind To Think Of This Channel 888+ Video's As A Encyclopedia Set. (Not Every Word Or Topics In This Encyclopedia Set Is For Every Person To Read & Some People Will Hate And Other Will Like This Channel Topics... But Remember In The U.S.A. Its Called Freedom Of Speech For Everyone In This World Today). Also In A Dictionary Words And Meanings Change Over Time Too. We at this channel would like to add this quote for everyone to open your own mind this year: Your body diet is not only what you eat. It is also what you watch, what you listen to, what you read, the people you hang out with and the things you subject your mind, body and soul too. Always be mindful of the things you put into your body emotionally, spiritually and physically. Thank You Everyone Who Watch Our Video's To Help Other In 2025.

This Is How Really Meat Hot Dogs Are Made And How Lab-Grown Meat Is Made From Beef, Chickens, Cats, Dogs, Fish To Human Body Meat Hot Dogs Are Made And Has FDA's Approval For The First Time Although access to it has been limited throughout the years, lab-cultivated meat is not a new concept. You already know how the old saying goes: "If you love hot dogs, you'd better not look too closely at how they're made." The fact is, whether you love your hot dogs fried at home in butter, or steamed in a container of murky water from a pushcart in the big city, whether you take your dogs plain with just a dab of mustard, or piled high with tomato, pickles, neon-green relish, and celery salt, you probably haven't spent a lot of time squinting too closely at that tube of cylindrical cased meat. Hot dogs have long been a favorite target among hardcore vegans and your woke friends with the more refined palates, who would never think of "poisoning their bodies" with such a heavily processed amalgamation of animal parts. The humble hot dog has taken a lot of heat for its perceived low-quality ingredients, seemingly questionable manufacturing and packaging processes, the lack of nutritional value, and thepotential linkbetween the consumption of processed meats and certain serious illnesses, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and some types of cancer. But for all of the scary headlines, most of us don't fully understand how hot dogs are manufactured. We took a look at the entire process, from start to finish, and were surprised by what we found. Join us, as we take a detailed look at how hot dogs are really made. Many of us take the existence of hot dogs for granted. After all, they've always been there for us, whether as a quick after-school snack or a late-night post-pub crawl bit of "get home" fuel. But where did hot dogs come from in the first place, and how did they become such a popular American dietary staple? While humans have been making ground up animal meat into sausages for literallythousands of years, the product that we came to think of as the "hot dog" was developed much later. Some credit Frankfurt, Germany with the invention of hot dogs as early as 1484. Other leading hot dog scholars contend that the invention probablyoccurred in Vienna, Austria. Still others believe that the modern-day hot dog came even later, when Johann Georghehner (who was from Coburg, Germany) produced the"dachshund"sausagein the 1600s. Whichever version of hot dog history you choose to believe, the product didn't arrive on American shores until the 1850s, when German immigrants Charles Feltman and Antoine Feuchtwanger began selling "dachshund sausages" topped with sauerkraut from a pushcart in Coney Island, New York. The product caught on at baseball parks, and Americans quickly developed a new national pastime: Eating hot dogs. Ah, trimmings. It's a vague word designed to hide all manner of sins, isn't it? Early in human meat-eating evolutionary history, someone noticed that after carving all of the ribs, steaks, chops, hams, legs, and cheeks out of an animal, there was apile of unappealing stuff leftoverthat really shouldn't go to waste. And it's this desire to use every part of the animal, which led to the invention of sausage, and eventually hot dogs. Whether you choose beef, chicken, or pork hot dogs, chances are they're made up of a bunch of different animal parts that most wouldn't consider "prime cuts." TheFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) defines those as:"The raw meat materials used for precooked-cooked products are lower-grade muscle trimmings, fatty tissues, head meat, animal feet, animal skin, blood, liver and other edible slaughter by-products." Sure, the term "slaughter by-products" may not exactly whet your appetite, but making hot dogs means making sure that no parts of the animals we raise and systematically kill go to waste, and that's a concept that most of us can get behind. Before the real down-and-dirty business of hot dog manufacturing can begin, all of those unsavory trimmings have to be ground down into a more manageable, uniform product. Most often, the types of meat used in hot dogs are some combination of pork, beef, chicken, or turkey. In the Unites States, hot dogs that containsketchier cuts of meatmust be labeled as containing "Byproducts" (organ meats) or "Variety Meats" (raw skeletal muscle).Those containing byproducts must be listed and called out by species on the ingredient panel. So-called "mechanically separated meat," whereby pork bone (but never cow bone; thanks, Mad Cow Disease) is pushed at high pressure through a sieve to scrape every last remaining scrap of usable meat off the carcass is permitted, but this kind of meat cannot make up more that 20 percent of the contents of the finished product. The trimmings, along with assorted by products and variety meats, are loaded into giant meat grinders, similar to the ones you've seen the butcher using to grind hamburger at the grocery store. All of those different animal parts are finely ground at this stage, to form a sort of loose, pebbly-textured meat mashup. After the all the components are ground together, with the resulting product looking more like usable meat and less like a disparate pile of scrapped animal garbage, it's time to start adding the flavor and texture ingredients that help differentiate one hot dog brand from the next. Regulations dictatethat finished hot dogs can contain up to 30 percent fat, and up to 10 percent added water. A full 3.5 percent of a hot dog can be made up of "non-meat binders and extenders," which can include dry milk or cereal. An additional 2 percent can be isolated soy protein, and all of these "extra" ingredients must be designated on the label. The meat mixture might receivea heavy doseof salt (sodium phosphate, which keeps things moist), and additional preservatives and seasonings, which may include artificial and natural flavors, spices, corn syrup, or additional water. The exact recipes and proportions of ingredients vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, which is why all hot dogs tend to taste a little bit different from one another. After the ground hot dog mixture has been appropriately seasoned and had all the preservatives andbacteria-inhibiting agentsadded, it's time for the really gross part. For many, this is the stage of the hot dog making process that is accompanied by visuals that will haunt your dreams. The entire mixture is blended with water until it is smooth, resulting in a pale pink meat mixture that's roughly the color and consistency of bad buffet restaurant soft serve ice cream. And since nature abhors a too-dry wiener, additional water is added to get the consistency of the slurry just right. The meat mixture is typically pureed again at this stage, and the excess air in the raw hot dog batter isvacuumed outof the meat in order to make the finished hot dog more dense and have a firmer texture. From there, it's on to the casing machines, to give the hot dogs their familiar shape that's perfect for buns. While natural-cased hot dogs (which are typically made from thecleaned intestinesof sheep or lamb) are growing in popularity, thanks in part to their characteristic snap, the biggest retail hot dog brands in the United States tend to be skinless. But whether they end up on supermarket shelves in a casing or not, casing the meat puree is still a big step in the manufacturing process; it's what gives hot dogs their signature shape. After all of that pink meat batter passes inspection, it is pumped into anautomatic stuffing and linking machine. The meat is blasted at high pressure into tube-shaped, cellulose casings (made fromsynthetic material), which are then twisted at precise intervals to produce a long string of equally-sized hot dogs. The production rate of these machines is incredibly fast; in fact, it takesjust 35 secondsto produce a chain of hot dogs so long it would span the length of a soccer field... twice. After being stuffed into their cellulose casings and twisted intoprecise lengths (usually about 5 inches), the hot dogs still need to be fully cooked before they can move to the next step in the manufacturing process. At this point the hot dog strands are loaded onto giant conveyor racks and are first rolled through a shower of liquid smoke before moving into an oven with several cooking zones. Here, they are thoroughly cookedunder controlled temperature and humidity conditions, and all that liquid smoke has a chance to permeate the casing for an added boost of flavor while they bake. After the cooking process is complete, the fresh-from-the-oven hot dogs get one more shower, this time withcold saltwater, which helps toquickly drop their temperature and get them ready for packaging. But first we've got to deal with those inedible cellulose casings... After cooking and cooling, the hot dog links are moved via conveyorto an automatic peeling machine, to strip them of their cellulose casings. Once they hit the peeler, the cellulose casings are sliced open with a tiny knife, and then the hot dogs are blasted with aburst of high-pressure steam, which blows off the casing and leaves just the bare naked hot dog remaining. This all happens much more quickly than the time it took you to even read that sentence; a typical hot dog peeling machine can process upwards of 700 hot dogs per minute (or about 11-1/2 hot dogs per second), shooting them rapid-fire out the other side of the peeling machine like a firehose that dispenses a heavy stream of whole hot dogs instead of water, which by the way, would be singularly ineffective at keeping a house from burning down, but delicious nonetheless. After being smoked, receiving their cooling spray of life-giving saltwater, and being stripped of their casing, the nearly-finished hot dogs move along a conveyor belt where they receive a finalinspection. The hot dogs get a quality control check to ensure they're the proper weight, and only tubed meat that could be considered flawless (which is a term that we use somewhat loosely,now that we know what's inside of them) makes it through these final quality control checks, before being passed off for packaging. Hot dogs which are damaged, broken, or torn at any point in the process are pulled from the line and prevented from entering the packaging process, ensuring that every package of hot dogs you crack open for a backyard barbecue is consistent, perfect, and ready to hit the grill. Because honestly? If you ever opened a package of hot dogs to find a mutilated, shredded mess, you would never buy that brand again. Ah, the final step, when hot dogs can begin the last part of their journey from "pile of meat scraps" to finished product, nestled all cozy and delicious in a steamed bun at your backyard barbecue. After the cellulose casings are removed and the finished hot dogs receive a final quality control check, the hot dogs make their way to the packaging machinery. Here, hot dogs arelined up on sheets of plastic film printed with all of the graphics and marketing claptrap commonly found on supermarket dogs. The film is folded over and vacuum-sealed to preserve the hot dogs' flavor and extend their shelf life, and then transported to a stamping machine, which prints a freshness date on each individual package. After packaging, the finished hot dogs are shuffled off into boxing machines, loaded onto pallets, and shipped in refrigerated trucks to supermarkets, to be loaded into shopping carts and shoved down the gullets of families nationwide. The entire process may seem like a long, complicated journey, but it all happens remarkably quickly; it takes just a few hours to manufacture each batch of hot dogs, from the time the meat first rolls into the factory, to the time the delicious finished product is boxed up and shipped out. Hot dogs are just about as American as baseball games and apple pie. Whether you prefer yours simple with a squeeze of mustard, or you'd rather load it up with chili, cheese, and onions, chances are you'll partake in at a few of them this year. At least that's the assumption, given the statistics shared by the National Hot Dog and Sausage Council (yes, that's a real thing). Their website states that in 2018 Americans spent more than $3 billion on hot dogs, and are expected to consume more than 7 billion of the popular wieners between the months of May and September — you know, "peak hot dog season." But just because hot dogs are so popular (they're practically a staple at barbecues and baseball games), that doesn't mean they're the best thing you can put in your body. These cylinders of encased meat have a few dirty secrets lurking inside — especially if you're buying the cheapest versions on the market. Here are the things you don't really want to know about hot dogs, but that may help you make better buying decisions when you do throw a package in your shopping basket. Look, everyone's heard the horror stories about finding foreign objects in food. Fast food joints tend to be big culprits, but the reality is, sometimes things go wrong in food processing, and items you don't really want to eat end up in your favorite fare. Unfortunately, hot dog manufacturers can't claim a completely clean record on this front. According to a 2015 article published in TIME magazine, 38 people had reported to the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service that they had found foreign objects in their hot dogs. Of course, 38 people is a small number given how many hot dogs are consumed each year, but remember, those are just the ones who took the time to make a report. So what types of items have people found in their franks?The TIME magazine article reports the following (just to name a few): "A piece of rubber band" Tiny, hard white pieces of plastic "A clump of hair or something ratlike" "The tip of a razorblade" "Glass shards" Various pieces of metal (a wire, a staple, a button) "A piece of bone" "What looks like insect larva" While the list is enough to make a person swear off hot dogs for life, the article also points out that hot dog recalls are relatively rare, so you can (mostly)trust that the hot dogs you buy won't come with an extra side of metal or plastic. When you're starving and don't have a minute to spare, it's easy to think you can hit up the fridge, grab a hot dog, and eat it cold, right?Like other sandwich meats, hot dogs are already cooked, so it shouldn't cause a problem. And yet, according to John Muir Health, hot dogs (along with items like potato salad, chicken, and egg dishes) are "frequent offenders"for food poisoning.And if you've ever had food poisoning, you know you want to avoid another bout of this stomach issue at all costs. According to an article published by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration(FDA), the issue comes down to hot dogs getting contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes after being processed and packaged. The FDA's clear advice — always reheat hot dogs until they're "steaming hot,"and if you can't reheat a hot dog before eating it, you need to find something else to eat. It's just not a good idea to eat a cold, straight-from-the-package wiener. So you probably understand that your hot dog (usually)comes stuffed inside a casing. This casing gives the hot dog its shape and also helps keep all the juices inside. If you've ever pricked a hot dog with a fork before putting it in a pot of boiling water or in the microwave, what you're doing is opening up the casing just a smidge to allow steam to exit the casing while the hot dog cooks. What you might not realize, though, is that whenever a label says "natural casing"or the ingredients include an item like "encased in sheep casing"or "encased in lamb casing,"what that really means is that the hot dog is encased in animal intestines. Yum, right? Here's the thing, though — it sounds gross, but it's not unsanitary or unhealthy (at least, not any more so than eating that hot dog in the first place). A writer for HuffPostconducted an interview with Boyd Adelman, the president of Sabrett, a hot dog manufacturer, in 2017. In this interview, Adelman explained that the intestines are completely cleaned before being used, so there's no risk of fecal contamination. And when you choose hot dogs with natural casings, you're helping reduce food waste and promote consuming the whole animal when animals are butchered for food.That said, if you can't stomach eating animal intestines, look for skinless hot dogs — these are prepared with cellulose casings that are removed before packaging. When you think hot dog, you think "meat,"right?What else could a hot dog possibly be?And if you take the time to read ingredient labels, meat is typically listed as the first ingredient, followed by water, on hot dog labels. But that's not exactly true. According to a study titled "Applying Morphologic Techniques to Evaluate Hotdogs:What Is in the Hotdogs We Eat?" published in 2008 in the Annals of Diagnostic Pathology, scientists analyzed eight different brands of hot dogs to determine what, exactly, each hot dog consisted of. While "meat"(i.e., skeletal muscle — don't freak out, whenever you eat meat, you're pretty much always eating a combination of skeletal muscle and fat — that's literally what meat is) was listed as the first ingredient across the board, the actual skeletal muscle in each brand ranged from just 2.9 percent to 21.2 percent by volume, while water accounted for 44 percent to 69 percent of the weight of each hot dog. So yeah, your hot dog is mostly water. And a little bit of meat. And what else, you might ask?Well, if you really want to know, it's a "variety of tissues,"including bone, collagen, blood vessels, plant material, peripheral nerve, adipose tissue (fat), cartilage, and skin. Yikes. But if it helps at all, the study also noted that "brain tissue was not present."Thank goodness for small blessings? Okay, so beyond knowing the specific type of animal tissue you're consuming when you eat a hot dog, you might want to know what part of the body these tissues are being derived from, right?Well, hopefully, you understand that hot dogs aren't encasing prime cuts of beef or pork inside those cellulose or animal casings. It's not like you're paying an exorbitant amount for your package of dogs, even when you buy the high-end variety, so you have to know you're eating meat that's considered lower-grade. According to a 2017 article published in Business Insider, hot dogs start with meat "trimmings."This vague descriptor basically means that the meat is taken from the "leftovers"of an animal after all the other, better cuts of meat are cut away. The article goes on to specify that these "trimmings" may come from lower-grade muscle, fatty tissues, head meat, animal feet, animal skin, blood, liver, and other "edible slaughter by-products." And that "head meat"? It's literally what it sounds like. Meat removed from the bones of an animal's head, which may include the cheeks. Unless the hot dog ingredients include the label "byproducts" or "variety meats," it won't contain meat from the snout or lips. It also won't include eyes or brains... so that makes it better? Just remember, you typically get what you pay for — buying kosher dogs or 100-percent beef, chicken, or pork hot dogs is likely to be a better option if you're trying to steer clear of the less desirable "trimmings." You probably haven't heard dietitians touting the health benefits of hot dogs as a way to reduce your risk of obesity, heart disease, or diabetes. That's because, obviously, hot dogs aren't a beacon of health. According to theOscar Mayer website, the classic beef wiener contains 12 grams of fat (5 grams saturated), and 360 milligrams sodium. And that's just the hot dog. How often do you eat a single hot dog plain, without a bun or extra toppings?Probably rarely, if ever. If you're chowing down on two or three dogs in a sitting, along with a bun and an assortment of condiments, a single meal could rack up your fat and sodium intake pretty quick. Once in a blue moon, a meal like that won't do much damage, but if hot dogs are a staple in your weekly diet, it might be time to reassess. Do keep in mind, though, that there are lots of different varieties of hot dogs on the market, including chicken dogs, turkey dogs, and lower-fat beef or pork dogs. You can even find tofu- or soy-based vegetarian versions. Each product will have its own nutritional information, and some might have lower levels of fat and sodium. Maybe you've seen the videos. Maybe you've heard about them. Maybe you've been putting your head in the sand to ignore the rumors about how hot dogs are made so you can enjoy your frankfurter in blissful ignorance. Well, if you're ready to take off your blinders, here's the deal:Hot dog making is pretty gross. There's a five-minute How It's Made YouTube video you can watch if you're so inclined. Word to the wise:Don't watch it while eating... especially if you're eating hot dogs. Depending on whether your hot dog contains "meat"or "mechanically separated meat,"as defined by the USDA, in the list of ingredients, you may or may not be getting "extra calcium"(i.e. bone shavings)in your hot dog. If your favorite hot dog uses the word "meat"in its ingredients, it was likely separated from the animal using "meat recovery systems"or "advanced meat bone separation."This is similar in appearance to "hand separated meat." If your favorite hot dog uses the word "mechanically separated meat,"you're consuming "batter-like or paste-like meat product produced by forcing bones, with attached edible meat, under high pressure through a sieve or similar device to separate the bone from the edible meat tissue."Sounds lovely, right? So what exactly does the "mechanically separated meat" (MSM) used in many (but not all)hot dogs look like?The USDA might call it "batter-like or paste-like meat product" –neither of which sounds all that appetizing — but it still sounds better than "white slime,"right?Well, when you buy hot dogs that include the phrases "mechanically separated meat"or "mechanically separated poultry" (MSP) in the ingredient list,you're consuming white slime. White slime is what results when the bones of what's left of an animal and the remainder of the bones' attached tissue get forced under high pressure through a sieve, pumping out the edible portions while leaving the bones behind. The edible portions come out in a paste-like substance that amounts to meat sludge. It's this sludge, slime, paste, or batter (you choose your preferred descriptor)that then getspumped into casings before being cooked and packaged into your favorite cookout treat. If you can't handle this reality, read your ingredient labels. Higher-end hot dogs that include "meat"on the label (doesn't matter what kind of meat — beef, pork, chicken, or turkey), rather than MSM or MSP don't utilize white slime. Think for a second about what happens when you cook beef, pork, turkey, or chicken without any seasonings — you end up with a gray or white-ish meat, right?And considering hot dogs are pre-cooked using one or two of these various meats before being packaged, it just makes sense that hot dogs should look gray or white-ish. And yet, most hot dogs on the shelves of your local grocery store have a nice pink hue. So what gives? A 2018 article published in Inverse points to sodium nitrite or sodium nitrate. These compounds are used in processed meats to help preserve meat and add flavor, but they also help give these meats their appetizing pink or red color. A fresh cut piece of steak is nice and red, right? But as it gets older it loses its red color. This has to do with the myoglobin in meat turning red when bound to oxygen. Over time, oxygen "falls away"and the meat loses its red tint.Sodium nitrite, on the other hand, can bind to myoglobin in place of oxygen and create this same "heme"that has a red hue. But unlike oxygen, it doesn't "fall away"as quickly, providing meat with a red tint for much longer. The problem?As the article in Inverse points out, nitrites and nitrates have been linked to incidences of cancer. If you're concerned, look for hot dogs made without preservatives. Most people would do well to eat fewer hot dogs overall. And by "fewer,"let's say most people should limit consumption to a few hot dogs a month. As in, two or three. Total. But that's most people, not people involved in the weird, weird world of competitive eating. In the world of competitive eating, particularly for the world-famous Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest which is held annually on the Fourth of July, competitive eaters have 10 minutes to stuff their faces with as many hot dogs and buns as they can. Sporting News reported that in 2018, a new world record was set by Joey Chestnut when he demolished 74 hot dogs. Think about that for a second — 74 hot dogs. If contestants are consuming Nathan's Skinless Beef Franks, Chestnut consumed 9,620 calories, 888 grams of fat (370 saturated), and 35,520 milligrams sodium in 10 minutes. That's downright obscene. According to another article in Sporting News, in 2019, winners of the contest (Chestnut won in 2017 and 2019, too) earned a $10,000 purse — and if someone can consume 74 hot dogs in 10 minutes, the purse was well-earned. Kids love hot dogs. And parents love feeding kids hot dogs because:1)they're inexpensive, 2)like chicken nuggets, they're practically guaranteed to be eaten without protest, 3)they're quick and easy to make, and 4)kids can choose their own toppings and customize to their heart's content. Unfortunately, the long, lean tube-shape of the humble hot dog is practically identical in shape and size to a human esophagus. According to John Hopkins Medicine, choking on hot dogs is the leading cause of food-related choking in kids under 3 years old. So while your little one might want to eat a hot dog the way you do — encased in a bun straight off the grill — it's best to slice or mince their dogs into much, much smaller, less tube-like pieces. And it's not just the littlest kids that you need to think about — according to an article in The Washington Post, choking on food is the 19th leading cause of death in the United States, with about 17-percent of food-related choking deaths attributed to hot dogs. So, yeah, maybe everyone should start enjoying their hot dogs like Shake Shack's "flat top style,"which are sliced in half before being grilled. Anything to help save a life, right? There's something quintessentially American about hot dogs. At best, they're a staple of long, lazy summer days and at worst, they're suspicious tubes of mystery meat in a casing you probably don't want to ask too many questions about. The nature of hot dogs means there are a lot of stories about what, exactly, is in them. It's nothing new, and it's not going to stop any time soon, either. Snopes says in 2017, a fake news story from World News Daily Report started making rounds on the internet, claiming a hot dog vendor in New York City had been caught using meat from real dogs for the dogs he was selling on the street. It was a completely false news story, but the idea that there's good hot dogs and very, very bad hot dogs is still pretty accurate. Mystery meat aside, there are definitely some hot dogs that'll be a hit when they come off any grill, and some you should probably avoid. Let's talk hot dogs, and the ones you should — and shouldn't — pick up this summer. If you're looking for a delicious dog with a more than a little history and some serious Americana cred, look no further than Nathan's Famous. Nathan was a very real person named Nathan Handwerker, and his hot dogs shot to fame after he staged a Fourth of July hot-dog eating contest in 1916. The event became an annual one, and the Smithsonian says the popularity of the Polish immigrant's five cent frankfurters skyrocketed from there. Even at the turn of the century, people were pretty suspicious of hot dogs. Handwerker even hired men and dressed them as doctors to convince the public his dogs were healthy, and it worked. And they're still the same dogs you get today. Thrillist says the recipe isn't just called "original," it really is. It hasn't changed since 1916 since Nathan himself developed the recipe, so if you want some great dogs with a ton of history and some classic Americana, you can't go wrong with Nathan's. Gluten-free hot dogs might seem like a bit of an odd thing to talk about, but for those diagnosed with celiac disease, it's a huge deal. When VeryWell Fit put gluten-free hot dogs under the spotlight, they found that they're not all created equal. According to the FDA, hot dogs can be labeled gluten-free if their gluten content is less than 20 parts per million. There are a number of brands that meet the criteria, and more who don't. Many — like popular Hebrew National — can be considered to contain no gluten, but at the same time, they're not gluten-free. That happens when they're prepared in a facility where gluten cross-contamination is a possibility, and that brings us to Sabrett. They're one of the few hot dog manufacturers that have a gluten-free certification from the Gluten-Free Certification Organization, and they go beyond what the FDA requires. Their gluten content is less than 10 parts per million, so if you're looking for something you can serve safely, Sabrett is it. By now, everyone has heard about the World Health Organization's declaration that processed meats were classified as a group one carcinogen. Part of the problem with these types of meats is the nitrate and nitrite content. According to The Guardian, the official ruling is that problem meats are generally those that have been salted and cured — like most hot dogs — and that's where Applegate Farms hot dogs come in. Fox News named them as the best all-beef hot dogs you can buy, for a few reasons. They're uncured, which means they don't have any added nitrates or nitrites, which are usually added to cured meats to help with the preservation process. They're also fairly low in sodium (for hot dogs), with only 330 mg per dog. Calorie-counters won't be too offended either, as they clock in at just 110 calories per dog. They also go above and beyond industry standards when it comes to animal welfare, using only animals raised with no antibiotics, no crates, plenty of space, and no painful alterations to teeth, tails, toes, and beaks. When Berkeley Wellness took a shot at finding a healthier hot dog, they found it was challenging at best. Hot dogs definitely aren't a health food, but you should be able to eat a couple without ruining your day or your diet, right? One of the healthiest options they found was Boar's Head Lite Beef Frankfurters, a 90-calorie dog that only contains 6 grams of fat and 270 mg of sodium. That might not sound horribly healthy, but many of the popular brands of hot dogs will provide you with a few days' worth of calories and sodium in a single meal. There's another bonus to these, too. If the idea of that mechanically-separated meat makes you squirm a bit, Insider reports Boar's Head only uses whole-muscle meats. That should make almost anyone feel better about serving up a platter of hot dogs. There's another super-healthy option buried among the many, many different kinds of hot dogs, and it's made by Trader Joe's. Their All Natural Uncured Chicken Hot Dogs were named the best chicken dog by Health, and it's no wonder: They only contain 60 calories, 250 mg of sodium, and 2.5 grams of fat. They also come with a decent amount of protein — 9 grams — and no mystery meat, just chicken. (And no, not all chicken dogs are created equal: Rocky's has five times the fat and twice the sodium!) If you're looking for another reason to try chicken hot dogs, the Environmental Working Group has it. They looked at the total greenhouse gas emissions for all different kinds of food, and found that while lamb, beef, and pork were pretty high on the charts, chicken ended up being the most efficient meat and the best for the planet. Go green, grab some chicken dogs! It's all right if you grew up on Ball Park franks, they're a popular brand. But you're an adult now and you know better, so let's look at just how bad these are for you. Berkeley Wellness listed them as one of the hot dogs you should absolutely pass on, because not only are they 190 calories and 16 grams of fat each, but each one contains between a quarter and a third of your entire daily recommendation for sodium. The American Heart Association recommends you try to limit yourself to around 1,500 mg a day, and that's made even harder when you consider each Ball Park frank has around 550 mg — before toppings. That's just for the standard, regular-size dogs, so you can just imagine what you're getting in the jumbo dogs. Curious? A single Grillmaster dog clocks in at 260 calories, 24 grams of fat, and 780 mg of sodium. Even their Lean dogs aren't incredibly friendly when it comes to sodium — they contain 480 mg — so maybe just skip the old favorites and try something new. These make the "bad" list not just because they're bad for you, but because they're masquerading as being good. You'll probably glance at them, think the lower-fat turkey hot dogs are a good idea, and that's all the farther you'll go. But they're fairly high-calorie (having 100 calories each), and they're high in fat and sodium, too. With 8 grams of fat and 510 mg of sodium (via CBS News), these definitely aren't a healthy grill option. Oscar Mayer's Light Wieners (made with turkey and pork) get an honorable mention here, too. Even though they boast they contain less fat and calories than their heftier cousins, they're still going to set your diet back in a pretty impressive way with 6 grams of fat each. And in case that tempts you to have an extra one, you should also know each one has 380 mg of sodium (via CBS News). That adds up very, very fast. This one's a little different, because it's a problem that's so widespread across all different brands of veggie dogs that it's worth talking about. People have different reasons for becoming vegetarian, and if you think a vegetarian hot dog is a good idea for any of your meat-free friends and family, there's a good chance you're mistaken. In 2015, Clear Food did a deep-dive into just what's in a hot dog, and looked at the genome sequences from 75 different brands of hot dogs. They found (via USA Today) that 14 percent of them didn't contain what the package claimed — and that included veggie dogs. Ten percent of hot dogs labeled as vegetarian contained meat products of some sort, and that means there's pretty good odds you're getting meat in your veggie dog. The report didn't name the brands, and instead, they suggested it's a widespread problem across the industry. (In all fairness, Hebrew National, Butterball, Eckrich, and McCormick brands were found to be among the most honest when it came to matching contents and packaging.) Clear Food's 2015 hot dog testing found another disturbing trend, one that seems to suggest that sometimes, food myths are there for a reason. Hot dogs have always had a reputation as being mystery meat, and they found that a lot of the time, we absolutely don't know what's in them. There are a huge number of people who avoid pork products, and you'd hope labels like "Kosher" and "Halal" reflect what's in the dog. Clear Food found (via Apollo Hospitals) that's not always true, and that three percent of their sample group was made up of hot dogs that swapped in pork as a substitution for chicken or turkey. Worse, some of them were still labeled as Kosher and Halal. If you're avoiding pork for any reason, you might want to think twice about pork-free hot dogs. They might not contain what you think they contain. Who doesn't love a corn dog? They come with an extra dose of nostalgia and that's great, but Morning Star's vegetarian corn dogs come with a whole bunch of other stuff, too. First, let's point out that since they're vegetarian, it's our default setting to believe they're going to be better for us than a meat-filled dog. That's not entirely true, especially when it's a corn dog! These clock in at 150 calories each (which isn't terrible, for a corn dog), but they also have a pretty shocking 470 mg of sodium. To recap, that's around a third of what you should be eating for the entire day, all on a single stick (via CBS News). There's another problem here, too. Not only are they full of fillers, extenders, and ingredients designed to mimic the texture of meat, they're so heavily processed those vegetarian ingredients aren't even recognizable anymore. Having confidence in the authenticity of your food ingredients is essential to protect your brand against food fraud: a topic of increasing concern in the food industry and an area highly regulated by authorities through food labelling regulations. Food fraud costs the food industry around $15 billion globally1, 2 however the complexity of the food supply chain is challenging the abilities of analytical tools used for traceability of ingredients. The Thermo Scientific™ Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) Food Authenticity Workflow brings the power of NGS technology to your lab making it possible to identify the plant, fish and meat species contained in the most complex food samples. Let us help you to protect your customers and your reputation against intentional, or accidental, adulteration. Lab-Grown And Real Human Meat Was FDA Approved Cannibalism A Sprit Cooking https://rumble.com/v2mnkmi-lab-grown-and-real-human-meat-was-fda-approved-cannibalism-a-sprit-cooking.html There is something deeply disquieting about cannibalism. Motives and technicalities do not matter; eating human flesh is now universally considered revolting, whatever the circumstances. However, if we trust a long line of anthropologists and ethnographers, this has not always been the case in all parts of the world and is therefore not self-evident. How Americans And World Are Tricked Into Buying Fake Food Learn the Difference ? https://rumble.com/v2mkfre-how-americans-and-world-are-tricked-into-buying-fake-food-learn-the-differe.html The food in your kitchen cabinets may not be what it seems. Fraudsters motivated by economic gain secretly infiltrate the global food market through a variety of means, including counterfeits, dilutions, substitution and mislabeling, according to the Global Food Safety Initiative. This may not only harm consumers’ wallets, but it can also put public health and safety at risk. Some estimates say food fraud affects at least 1% of the global food industry at a cost as high as $40 billion a year, according to the FDA. 600 Billion Dollars Poison Ingredient Making Your Food Toxic To Eat Processed Food https://rumble.com/v2mesq8-600-billion-dollars-poison-ingredient-making-your-food-toxic-to-eat-process.html Nina deserves a lot more accreditation on this video, she was one of the first people to shed light on the problems with seed oils and the history of how they came to be. Top Ten Toxic Food Ingredients in Processed Food - Any food that has been canned, dehydrated, or had chemicals added to it is a processed food, and these foods make up about 60 percent of the average American diet. - Most of us don't think of the food we eat as poison, but some of the ingredients commonly found in processed foods can be considered toxic. By "toxic," I mean chemicals or highly processed ingredients that aren't good for you or can cause harm to your health. I'm talking about refined grains, trans fats, high fructose corn syrup, and all the other artificial junk you can't even pronounce on the ingredient lists. What is left out of our food labels? Behind the cow industry are disturbing secrets you are not supposed to know. Supermarket beef has become an industrialized, unnatural product laced with lies beyond the labels. What actually happens to that meat before it reaches grocery store shelves? In this blog I’ll unveil the dirty truth behind the cattle slaughter process everyone needs to hear. Human Meat Project - New Shake 'N Bake Fetus - Campbell Cream of Fetus Soup? https://rumble.com/v2qkf5y-human-meat-project-new-shake-n-bake-fetus-campbell-cream-of-fetus-soup.html Welcome to the Human Meat Project, we are the human meat donation program. By donating bodies for human consumption, we are taking action to solve overpopulation, which leads to climate change and the greenhouse effect caused by the mass farming of livestock animals in order to feed the world. How About A New Shake 'N Bake Kitty Flavors - Like Aborted Fetus ? or Campbell Cream of Fetus Soup If you have a craving for Aborted Fetus Soup, then we’ve got some bad news for you. An Oklahoma Senator, Ralph Shortey, has now outlawed “the manufacture or sale of food or products which use aborted human fetuses.” Planned Parenthood Kills Them and Then Sells Their Organs. Which is Worse? Planned Parenthood Is Largest Food Suppliers Human Meat In The World Today. "You Are What You Eat." Most of us have likely heard this saying before and are familiar with its simple and sensible meaning. When we were younger, this adage taught us (hopefully) to take care of what we put into our bodies because the food we eat can have a direct affect on our health as a whole. Selling Human Meat Per Planned Parenthood Rules All Sell At Cost/Lost For Non-Profit Organization. Federal law prohibits the commercial sell of human meat and trafficking of fetal tissue for profit and carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a $500,000 fine. (Key Word Is (( 4 Profit )) Per Federal Law and Pedophile's Eating Alive And Aborted Baby and Kids... Is O.K. If Only Sell Human Meat Is At Cost or At A Lost. P.S. Planned Parenthood Only Sell Human Meat At Cost/Lost... After Paying All Employee Hourly Wages and Other Cost To Run A Not-For-Profit Organization. Not only must the organization meet the requirements that the state where it is organized sets for non-profits, but it must also meet complex IRS regulations. These regulations are used not only to determine if the organization is exempt from tax under the organization's activities as a non-profit organization. What Is Lab Grown Meat ? How Is It Made From Beef To Human Meat Cell Guide Etc. https://rumble.com/v31vj1c-what-is-lab-grown-meat-how-is-it-made-from-beef-to-human-meat-cell-guide-et.html How Lab-Grown Meat Is Made From Beef, Chickens, Cats, Dogs, Fish To Human Body Meat And Has FDA's Approval For The First Time human body meat. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it has cleared all lab-grown meat product as safe for human consumption for the first time. In a news release, the agency said that after reviewing information from 100s foods company is making from cultured chicken, cats, dogs. cows and baby cells, it has “no further questions at this time about the 100s firm’s safety conclusion.” The agency noted that before can bring its products to the market, the facility in which the food is made will have to meet inspection standards from the FDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the USDA-Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). “The world is experiencing a food revolution and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is committed to supporting innovation in the lab-grown from cows, cats, dogs, baby in are food supply. As an example of that commitment, today we are announcing that we have completed our first pre-market consultation of a human food made from cultured lab-grown from cows, cats, dogs, human baby and other animal cells.” Eating cats and dog and fish Alive Educational Film ** GRAPHIC ** Green Eggs and Ham - https://rumble.com/v284oc1-eating-cats-and-dog-and-fish-alive-educational-film-graphic-green-eggs-and-.html Asia is the continent on which the consumption of dog meat is most widespread, with as many as 30 million dogs killed for human consumption each year according to estimates by the Humane Society International. This estimate includes many family pets, which are often illegally stolen from their homes and taken to be slaughtered. The consumption of dog meat is said to be most common in China, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, and the Nagaland region in India, but it is not considered widespread in any of these locations. Moreover, the practice is becoming less popular in many countries, where younger generations are more likely to regard dogs and cats as companions rather than cuisine. Truth Behind Meat Production Chicken Waffle Beef Burger An Eye-Opening Exploration - https://rumble.com/v2mmrac-truth-behind-meat-production-chicken-waffle-beef-burger-an-eye-opening-expl.html Narrated by Oscar-nominee James Cromwell, this powerful film takes viewers on an eye-opening exploration behind the closed doors of the nation's largest industrial farms, hatcheries, and slaughter plants -- revealing the often-unseen journey that animals make from Farm to Fridge. If this documentary moves you, please take a moment to consider if these animals lives are worth taking for merely taste. Thinking about going vegan? The Truth About the Meat Industry What is left out of our food labels? Behind the cow industry are disturbing secrets you are not supposed to know. Supermarket beef has become an industrialized, unnatural product laced with lies beyond the labels. What actually happens to that meat before it reaches grocery store shelves? In this blog I’ll unveil the dirty truth behind the cattle slaughter process everyone needs to hear. Pedophile's Eating Alive And Aborted Baby And Young Kids Too Rejuvenating Potion https://rumble.com/v2q0z7u-pedophiles-eating-alive-and-aborted-baby-and-young-kids-too-rejuvenating-po.html Planned Parenthood Kills Them and Then Sells Their Organs. Which is Worse? Planned Parenthood Is Largest Food Suppliers Human Meat In The World Today. "You Are What You Eat." Most of us have likely heard this saying before and are familiar with its simple and sensible meaning. When we were younger, this adage taught us (hopefully) to take care of what we put into our bodies because the food we eat can have a direct affect on our health as a whole. Selling Human Meat Per Planned Parenthood Rules All Sell At Cost/Lost For Non-Profit Organization. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg96052/html/CHRG-114hhrg96052.htm The Center for Medical Progress, whose undercover videos exposed Planned Parenthood leadership negotiating the harvesting and sale of aborted fetal body parts, released a new video today featuring Planned Parenthood officials’ sworn videotaped testimony about the sales. On November 16, 2022, the FDA approved UPSIDE Foods' request to grow meat from cells. According to the FDA, it stated that workers "have no further questions at this time about the firm's safety conclusion." In the past, people have been concerned about the labeling of cultivated meat, due to the nuances that would cause in the meatpacking and livestock industries, but the FDA clearly states that the company's goals are "to take living cells from chickens and grow the cells in a controlled environment to make the cultured animal cell food." UPSIDE Foods is the first cultivated meat company in the world and was founded in 2015, according to its website. It has the goal of "cultivating new foods to serve audiences around the world." However, according to Wired, the company's production facilities still need inspection by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) before it sells its food products, which then have to be checked for quality. Ouroboros Steak, a meat cultivated from human cells and expired blood, has been developed by a group of American scientists as a thought-provoking art piece to challenge the sustainability practices of the nascent cellular agriculture industry, which develops lab-grown products from existing cell cultures. Ouroboros Steak grow-your-own human meat kit is "technically" not cannibalism Once the stuff of science fiction, lab-grown meat made from cows, cats, dogs, fish, and now humans could become reality in some restaurants in the United States as early as this year. Besides cultured meat, the terms healthy meat, slaughter-free meat, in vitro meat, vat-grown meat, lab-grown meat, cell-based meat, clean meat, cultivated meat and synthetic meat have been used to describe the product. How Lab-grown meat is made cows, cats, dogs, fish, and human body. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday announced it has cleared all lab-grown meat product as safe for human consumption for the first time. In a news release, the agency said that after reviewing information from 100s foods company is making from cultured chicken, cats, dogs. cows and baby cells, it has “no further questions at this time about the 100s firm’s safety conclusion.” The agency noted that before can bring its products to the market, the facility in which the food is made will have to meet inspection standards from the FDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the USDA-Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). The world is experiencing a food revolution and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is committed to supporting innovation in the lab-grown from cows, cats, dogs, baby in are food supply. As an example of that commitment, today we are announcing that we have completed our first pre-market consultation of a human food made from cultured lab-grown from cows, cats, dogs, baby animal cells. What is lab-grown meat? How it's made, environmental impact and Your complete guide to the nutrition, ethics and sustainability of a food revolution in the making. It wasn’t long ago that the idea of the meat on our plates coming from vast stainless steel bioreactors, rather than farmed animals, seemed like science fiction. The notion has gone through numerous rebrands since its early positing as ‘vat meat’, which triggered unappealing visions of high-tech Spam. ‘Lab meat’ came next, as scientists perfected the recipe in small beakers in laboratories. Then came the more appetising-sounding ‘cultured meat’, as investment from high-profile individuals rocketed and producers positioned these products as having been brewed, just like beer. Now, ‘cultured meat’ has evolved to ‘cultivated meat’, which is the preferred term used by CEOs in the industry. Whatever you choose to call it, with the future of global food security in question, and farmed meat a key culprit in climate breakdown, slaughter-free meat is starting to look increasingly like the future of food. How is lab-grown meat made? Rather than being part of a living, breathing, eating and drinking animal, cultivated meat is grown in anything from a test tube to a stainless steel bioreactor. The process is borrowed from research into regenerative medicine, and in fact Prof Mark Post of Maastricht University, who cultured the world’s first burger in 2013, was previously working on repairing human heart tissue. Cells are acquired from an animal by harmless biopsy, then placed in a warm, sterile vessel with a solution called a growth medium, containing nutrients including salts, proteins and carbohydrates. Every 24 hours or so, the cells will have doubled. How different is cultivated meat from the real thing? Cellular farming doesn’t grow cuts of meat, with bone and skin, or fat marbled through it like a succulent ribeye steak. Muscle cells require different conditions and nutrients to fat cells, so they must be made separately. When the pure meat or fat is harvested, it is a formless paste of cells. This is why the first cultivated meat products served up have been chicken nuggets or burgers. The flavours, however, are of real meat. As they are produced in a sterile environment, there is less risk of contamination from disease and chemicals. This is in contrast to conventional agriculture where, says San-Francisco based Josh Tetrick, CEO of GOOD Meat, “you have a live animal slaughtered on the floor. If you look at the Salmonella, E. coli, faecal contamination that’s part of animal agriculture, it looks much better from a cultivated meat perspective than it does from a conventional meat perspective.” Is lab-grown meat as nutritious as regular meat? A spokesperson for UPSIDE Foods, a San Francisco-based leader in the cultivated meat arena, says that the nutrient profile will be similar, but it will also be possible to enhance or even personalise it. “We are exploring ways to improve the nutrient profiles of our products. Whether that’s less saturated fat and cholesterol, or more vitamins or healthy fats,” they said. “For instance, imagine if we could produce a steak with the fatty acid profile of salmon? Or what if consumers could customise the nutrient profile in their products to meet their dietary needs?” As there are so few cultivated meat products on the market requiring food labelling, we’ll have to wait to get a better understanding of the nutritional value. “You would never under any circumstance take a tumor out of an animal and use that to manufacture meat,” said Elliot Swartz, principal scientist at the Good Food Institute, a nonprofit think tank, whose work is focused on cultivated meat. Many companies that make lab-grown meat — also called “cell-cultivated” or “cultured” meat — start out by taking cells from different parts of an animal, including muscle or skin tissue. The false claim stems from the fact that these cells are then put through a process called immortalization, which allows them to replicate indefinitely. This means companies do not have to continually create cell lines from scratch, allowing for higher-scale production. Cancer cells are also considered immortalized, but that is only one trait that makes them cancerous. Other characteristics that can indicate cancer in cells include unpredictable, uncontrollable behavior or the creation of separate blood vessels, Swartz said. But cells intentionally immortalized to create lab-grown meat have behavior that is, by necessity, predictable and controllable. “All cancers are immortalized, but not all immortalized cells are cancer,” Swartz said. “So it’s sort of like how not all rectangles are squares.” Joe Regenstein, a professor emeritus of food science at Cornell University, and Marion Nestle, a professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, agreed that the claim spreading on social media is inaccurate. The Agriculture Department on June 21 gave two California companies — Upside Foods and Good Meat — the green light to sell lab-grown meat in the U.S. This move came months after the Food and Drug Administration deemed that products from both companies are safe to eat. And lab-grown meat is subject to food safety regulations, just as any other food product would be. For example, extensive research and testing ensures that cells used to produce the meat have been proven to maintain their stability and safety, Swartz said. Clean and controlled environments means that there is less risk of contaminants and foodborne pathogens, he added. Upside Foods and Good Meat both said in separate statements that their use of immortalized cells presents no risk to consumers. The companies pointed out that safety data on their manufacturing processes is publicly available in documentation provided to the FDA. This is part of AP’s effort to address widely shared misinformation, including work with outside companies and organizations to add factual context to misleading content that is circulating online. Cultivated meat, also known as cell-cultured meat or lab-grown meat, is real meat grown in a lab without having to raise or slaughter animals. The key ingredient in this innovative food category is real animal cells, which proliferate into biomass that is used to make cultivated chicken, lamb and other types of meat. Typically, the cells used to make cultivated meat are immortalized cells — cells that proliferate indefinitely. For curious consumers and others interested in better understanding how cultivated meat is made, we're explaining what immortalized cells are, why they are crucial for the production of lab-grown meat, different ways cultivated meat companies can source them, and common misconceptions about them.‍ Ouroboros Steak, a meat cultivated from human cells and expired blood, has been developed by a group of American scientists as a thought-provoking art piece to challenge the sustainability practices of the nascent cellular agriculture industry, which develops lab-grown products from existing cell cultures. Ouroboros Steak cuts out the need for other animals by drawing exclusively on human blood and cells. The process still relies on fetal bovine serum (FBS), which costs around $400 to $950 per liter, as a protein-rich growth supplement for animal cell cultures. The FDA cleared a lab-grown meat product developed by a California start-up as safe for human consumption, marking a key milestone for cell-cultivated meats to eventually become available in U.S. supermarkets and restaurants. Ouroboros Steak grow-your-own human meat kit is "technically" not cannibalism A group of American scientists and designers have developed a concept for a grow-your-own steak kit using human cells and blood to question the ethics of the cultured meat industry. Ouroboros Steak was previously exhibited at the Designs for Different Futures exhibition at the Philadelphia Museum of Art Although no lab-grown meat has so far approved for sale in any part of the world, the market is estimated to be worth $206 million and expected to grow to $572 million by 2025, largely due to the increasing environmental and ethical concerns about the mass rearing of livestock for human consumption. Among the companies hoping to bring cultured meat to market are Aleph Farms, which claims to have been the first company to make a lab-grown steak. Others have focused on substituting meat entirely, with Novameat creating a 3D-printed steak from vegetable proteins. Soylent Green isn't as evil as it is made out to be today Spoiler of the punchline of the whole movie... "Soylent Green is people!" In the film Soylent Green the big conspiracy is that human corpses are being recycled to make food for others to eat. While cannibalism is viewed in a negative light, it is almost socially acceptable in dire situations, which the world of Soylent Green is. The basic problem of the Soylent Green world is that there isn't enough food energy available to feed the population due to the poisoning of the land and recent poisoning of the ocean. While the powers that be and their science teams scramble to find a long-term solution to keeping humanity alive they have to implement stopgaps. The dead aren't going to contribute any more to society, and burning the bodies would waste the chemical energy in them. Converting them to food allows humanity to stay alive a little longer while a permanent solution is looked for. In the final scene of the film the fear is expressed that humans will be "bred like cattle" to feed the rich. This cannot be true, because it will always take more food to grow a human than you will get out of them -- thermodynamics demands it. Soylent Green can be a stopgap while looking for a long-term solution, but you can't sustain a society on it. No one is being bred for food. It's merely a dire situation where the powers that be are looking for a means to keep humanity alive while long-term options are being investigated. By publicizing the Soylent Green production process (and probably getting it shut down), the protagonist has perhaps doomed humanity to starvation if an alternative is not found in time, since cannibalism was keeping humanity alive a little longer than they would have been able to live otherwise. New York City has a population of 96 million, and only the elite pedophile's can afford spacious apartments, clean water, and natural food. The homes of the elite are fortified, with security systems and bodyguards for their tenants. Usually, they include concubines (who are referred to and used as "furniture"). The poor live in squalor, haul water from communal spigots, and eat highly processed wafers: Soylent Red, Soylent Yellow, and the latest product, far more flavorful and nutritious, Soylent Green. I never found Soylent Green plausible. If the Earth can no longer support the number of human beings it has, then the areas that don't have enough food will go to war to get food from others, and the resulting casualties will bring Earth's population down to manageable levels. Agenda 21 and 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change. ( Its 1432 Pages Long ) Thanks. https://planning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/publication/download_pdf/Growing-Smart-Legislative-Guidebook.pdf DEATH DECLARATION For 2030 Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development Wide World Now.

There is something deeply disquieting about cannibalism. Motives and technicalities do not matter; eating human flesh is now universally considered revolting, whatever the circumstances. However, if we trust a long line of anthropologists and ethnographers, this has not always been the case in all parts of the world and is therefore not self-evident. Stripped of all cultural context and psychological connotations and in purely detached terms, the act of cannibalising a corpse might be considered a victimless crime, the victim of the act being a lifeless body destined to decay anyway. And yet, cannibalism is instinctively perceived in virtually all cultures today as grisly violence and, more than that, a violation of all that makes us human. It is probably this perception that led some scholars to question whether human beings could ever have engaged in such practices, except in the most wretched conditions. William Arens’ controversial monograph The Man-Eating Myth has sometimes been understood as suggesting the rather extreme theory that cannibalism did not ever exist as an accepted custom in any society. Such a proposal is virtually impossible to prove – while one counter-example will instantly disprove it – but, in fact, the basic contention of the book appears to be something else – namely, that reports of cannibalism in faraway lands and among exotic peoples cannot be taken at face value, as they often serve ideological purposes and express deep-rooted stereotypes. The proposal that each and every report of a custom as instinctively repulsive to the vast majority of humans as cannibalism should be viewed with suspicion and analysed very carefully before accepting it seems to me eminently reasonable. Therefore, instead of joining the general debate on the existence or otherwise of customary cannibalism in primitive societies, the following paragraphs are concerned, first, with the reliability and implications of three medieval Arabic accounts of African anthropophagy, and secondly and on a more general plane, with medieval Muslim notions of savagery and civilisation and Muslim conceptions of the inviolability of the human body. The focal concern of this study owes a lot to the sensible proposition of William Arens: ‘The idea of “others” as cannibals, rather than the act, is the universal phenomenon. The significant question is not why people eat human flesh, but why one group invariably assumes that others do.’ 7 surprising facts about cannibalism white meat is rare and harder to get about 26% and black meat is easy to get about 62% other color's of meat is 12% and Cannibalism can show up at the most unexpected points in history and young human kids meat under 6 yrs. old are best an in fact tastes a lot like veal and human food as meat is sold all over the world. Most people don't associate cannibalism with the Soviet Union. But as Timothy Snyder describes in his book Bloodlands, the 1933 Stalin-imposed famine in Ukraine was so severe that cannibalism became surprisingly prevalent. The state had to set up an anti-cannibalism squad, and hundreds of people were accused of eating their neighbors or, in some cases, their family members. (Ron Rosenbaum shares many of the gruesome details in a book review for Slate.) The grisly episode makes vivid the deprivations of the early Soviet era. That many Americans may have never heard of it illustrates another fact about cannibalism — it's something no one ever wants to think about. It's relegated to disgust, tabloid voyeurism, and lame jokes, and those all contribute to a general ignorance of the subject. Historians and anthropologists, however, have tried to study the history and science of cannibalism over the years: why it happens, when it occurs, and who's affected. It tests the ultimate boundaries of cultural relativism, health, and ritual. Though this list isn't at all comprehensive, it catalogs some of the unusual things about cannibalism you might have missed. Turns out there are a lot of myths about cannibalism — and how it's been practiced over time. Here are a few surprising things experts have learned: 1) Humans are mostly hard-wired against cannibalism — but not always There's a good biological reason why cannibalism is taboo in virtually every culture: Eating other humans can make you sick. Specifically, eating the brain of another human being can cause kuru — a brain disease that's similar to mad cow disease. Kuru occurs because our brains contain prions that transmit the disease. Symptoms begin with trembling and end in death. What's surprising, though, is that this isn't always the case. Among anthropologists, the Fore people in Papua New Guinea are known for cannibalism. Up until the late 1950s, they ate the bodies of relatives to cleanse their spirits. Thousands of Fore contracted kuru and died ("kuru" actually comes from the Fore word for shaking). But not all of them fell victim to the disease: Over the last 200 years, some Fore have also developed a genetic mutation that protects them from the prions that transmit kuru. The Fore were adapting to cannibalism — with natural selection possibly playing a role in reducing their susceptibility to disease. Scientists have been trying to study this further, but in recent decades, cannibalism has been declining among the Fore because of changing social mores and laws. If that continues, kuru may be wiped out entirely. 2) Animals are mostly hard-wired against cannibalism — but not always Cannibalism is rare in the animal kingdom — except when it isn't. A few years ago, Natalie Angier of the New York Times chronicled the tales of the cane toad, caecilian, redback spider, and other animals that eat their own species. The cane toad, for instance, actually prefers cane toad eggs to other options. How can that possibly be a good idea? Here's Angier: "Researchers propose three motives. The practice speeds up maturation; it eliminates future rivals who, given a mother toad’s reproductive cycle, are almost certainly unrelated to you; and it means exploiting an abundant resource that others find toxic but to which you are immune." Those evolutionary imperatives extend to a wide range of organisms — even including occasional cannibalistic dalliances from animals like the sloth bear. As Mary Bates described in Wired, it's not unknown for sloth bears to eat members of their own family (possibly because they're under stress). These human and animal cases are more than curious footnotes. They show that evolution can work in ways that run counter to our cultural values. Evolution happens through natural selection and doesn't always line up with things we might value as a society, and evolved cannibalistic behavior illustrates that important distinction. 3) "Cannibalism" was named after people who might not have been cannibals A few basic questions about cannibalism are difficult for historians to answer: How many groups practiced cannibalism? When did it start? And how common is it? Those questions are tough because "cannibalism" has been used throughout time to describe many different things. That's also the reason most modern anthropologists and scientists prefer the term "anthropophagy" to "cannibalism." There are cultures that engaged in cannibalism as a ritualistic practice, but there are also times when people resorted to cannibalism during famine. And at times, the word "cannibalism" has been used to describe all sorts of tactics — and people — seen as savage. Cannibalism is occasionally descriptive, occasionally circumstantial, and occasionally an indirect ethnic slur. Case in point: The word "cannibalism" itself comes from the name that the Spanish gave to the Caribs (Caníbales). The Spanish accused the Caribbean tribe of ritualistically eating their enemies, but modern-day scholars have doubts that it actually happened. Because the Caribs were engaged in an anti-colonial battle with a host of European powers, many historians now argue that the cannibalism rumors were just a propaganda tactic by the Spanish meant to stir up fears. On the other hand, we have some evidence the Caribs used body parts as trophies, so cannibalism is a possibility — especially as an intimidation measure or act of war. However, most of our initial testimony comes from Columbus, who had many reasons, both personal and political, to make the Caribs seem as savage as possible. 4) Cannibalistic rituals could be surprisingly complex One of the first prominent European accounts of cannibals appeared in Montaigne's late-1500s essay Of Cannibals. In addition to being an invaluable anthropological record of the Tupi people in what is now Brazil, the essay sheds light on the intricate practice of cannibalism at the time. Sometimes, the Tupi lived with their captives for months before they were eaten. And they sang to each other. As Montaigne recorded, the captors taunted captives by "entertain[ing] them with threats of their coming death." And the captives replied in a fashion that was like a song or chant. Montaigne writes: I have a song composed by a prisoner which contains this challenge, that they should all come boldly and gather to dine off him, for they will be eating at the same time their own fathers and grandfathers, who have served to feed and nourish his body. "These muscles," he says, "this flesh and these veins are your own, poor fools that you are." Musicologist Gary Tomlinson, who wrote about the Tupi in The Singing of the New World, describes it as an "economy of flesh" that passed through the warring tribes for generations. "It was a transaction across generations in these warring societies," Tomlinson says. "They were saying, 'In the future, you will be captured by my people, and we will eat you.' The transaction goes on and on." 5) Cannibalism was practiced in Colonial America Many people might think of cannibalism in distant history and undeveloped countries. But cannibalism was a feature of early American history too. In 2013, archaeologists revealed they'd found evidence of cannibalism in Colonial Jamestown — an indication of just how desperate early Colonial life had been. Specifically, they discovered markings on the skull of a 14-year-old girl that strongly indicated she'd been eaten by settlers during the particularly difficult winter of 1609. It was more concrete evidence for something historians had read stories about for years. As Howard Zinn excerpted in A People's History of the United States, one government report painted a grim picture of that winter: Driven thru insufferable hunger to eat those things which nature most abhorred, the flesh and excrements of man as well of our own nation as of an Indian. 6) The Donner Party wasn't solely about cannibalism When most people think of cannibalism in America, they probably think of the Donner Party — the famous travelers who resorted to the practice when they were stuck in the snowy Sierra Nevada mountains while traveling west in 1846. What's surprising, however, is contemporary accounts of the trip focused less on the lurid accounts of cannibalism and more on the breadth of hardship that the party endured. As Donner Party historian Kristin Johnson notes: "Out of the more than 300 newspaper articles about the Donner Party published in 1847, the most common headline is a variation of 'From California' ... a mere seven [headlines] contain the word 'cannibalism.'" Accounts tended to highlight the fact that the party only resorted to cannibalism after eating boiled animal bones, hides, and even a beloved dog, Uno. What's more, many people were just as interested in legends about the Donner Party's buried treasure as they were in the cannibalism. In the 1890s, a Sacramento newspaper reported that treasure rumors made the people of Truckee, California, "feverish with excitement" and included discoveries that would "delight the heart of a numismatist." The treasure was probably a myth, but it shows that the story was considered far more complicated — and less purely shocking — than it is today. 7) Cannibalism was sometimes used as a medical treatment There are many horrifying examples of cannibalism in Europe throughout history. But one of the most bizarre is that cannibalism was occasionally seen as a remedy. To pick one example, in Germany from the 1600s to 1800s, executioners often had a bizarre side job that supplemented their income: selling leftover body parts as medicine. As described in Kathy Stuart's Defiled Trades and Social Outcasts, human fat was sold as a remedy for broken bones, sprains, and arthritis. Usually, this human fat was rubbed as a balm, not eaten. However, apothecaries regularly stocked fat, flesh, and bone, and there are also examples of a human skull being ground into a fine powder and mixed with liquid to treat epilepsy. That treatment may sound strange, but remember that eating placenta has become a modern-day health fad. Most of the time, the popular verdict on cannibalism is clear — don't do it. But occasionally, what's cannibalism and what isn't has been surprisingly hard to define. Disney Pedophile's Branson Necker Island 40 Miles To Epstein Orgy Island Global Elite. - https://rumble.com/v2dim5k-disney-pedophiles-branson-necker-island-40-miles-to-epstein-orgy-island-glo.html - Deep State Pedophiles Exposed: Child Trafficking, Hollywood Pedophiles, Major Companies, Politicians, Vatican, Deep State Demons Mother of Darkness Witch Hillary Clinton, Huma, & Anthony Weiner Exposed Deep State Pedophiles have been in the underground news more now than ever, with researchers and truth seekers looking for answers. Child trafficking is deeply-embedded within Hollywood, CIA, politicians and famous people. Perhaps you’ve heard of Pizzagate or Comet Ping Pong. The videos below tell the story on child trafficking by demonic predators. Isaac Kappy, actor, blew the whistle on Hollywood pedophiles and was suicided days later. Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. There is so much info on Human Trafficking of children by Hollywood Pedophiles and politicians (Deep State) that it would take days to type all. I will let these videos speak for themselves. Some organizations involved in pedophilia and human trafficking are Puma, Nike, the Vatican and Disney, just to name a few. As always, it’s up to you to make your own decisions on Hollywood pedophiles, Child Trafficking and how the Deep State is involved. Convicted sex offender Anthony Weiner, 55, 'is lobbying to be allowed inside his eight-year-old son's prestigious New York school causing panic among parents who have children the same age as the teen he sexted. Anthony Weiner has been lobbying to be allowed access to his son's school again, after he was blocked from the premises following his conviction for sexting a 15-year-old girl. The former US Congressman, 55, continued to take his eight-year-old son Jordan to school in New York after her served 18 months in prison, but he is only allowed to collect the child from the gate. Now Weiner – who represented New York's 9th congressional district for more than 12 years – reportedly wants to gain access to school grounds and it has upset parents of attendees. The disgraced politician not only wants to pick up his son from inside, but wishes to attend parent-teacher meetings, a source claimed. 'Parents are very upset,' the insider told Page Six. 'The school has kids that are 16 and 17 — the same age as [the kid] that he was [sexting] with.' The source has claimed the school in downtown Manhattan is considering letting Weiner back onto the grounds. It prompted worried parents to ask a representative to reach out to the New York Post, detailing the school's alleged consideration. The school - which has not been identified - declined to comment, Page Six reports. Weiner also declined to comment on their source's claim. Sex offenders are usually banned from places where children are commonly around. However the school board may make exceptions in certain circumstances to allow convicts pass the gate. Weiner's wife, Huma Abedin, filed for divorce in September 2017 before he was locked up for his sex offence. But she withdrew the petition in January 2018, deciding to settle the case privately. On October 31, 2017 the pair were spotted on the school run despite their rocky relationship. Then they were seen dropping Jordan off again on Halloween two years later. It was only last week that the parents were pictured in a rare moment together, without their child. Spirit Cooking Explained Satanic Ritual or Fun Dinner? Clinton Linked to Satanic Rituals Involving Kidnapped Children and Marina Abramovi The GOP’s decision to crown the birther king as its standard-bearer was an unprecedented triumph for the far-right fever swamp. But it also presented the media personalities who populate that infotainment complex with an unprecedented challenge: In a world where the Republican nominee raves about elections rigged by international bankers, calls for his political rival’s imprisonment (in between joking about her assassination), and insinuates that Barack Obama is in cahoots with ISIS, how, precisely, is an info-warrior supposed to retain his outsider’s edge? The answer, apparently, is to abandon conspiracy theories that merely span the entire globe, and embrace ones that extend into paranormal realms. Last month, Trump surrogate and InfoWars host Alex Jones revealed that Hillary Clinton is not simply an especially craven member of the Illuminati, but rather, a literal demon birthed in the bowels of hell. “She is an abject, psychopathic, demon from hell that as soon as she gets into power is going to try to destroy the planet,” Jones explained. “I mean, I was told by people around her that they think she’s demon-possessed, okay … They say, listen, Obama and Hillary both smell like sulfur … And they say listen, she’s a frickin’ demon and she stinks and so does Obama. I go, like what? Sulfur. They smell like hell.” If you’re wondering why the Drudge Report thinks Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta practices black magic, the short answer is: World-renowned performance artist Marina Abramovic once invited him to dinner. As for the long answer: Late Thursday night, someone discovered this dispatch from the latest WikiLeaks dump of Podesta’s hacked emails: Dear Tony, I am so looking forward to the Spirit Cooking dinner at my place. Do you think you will be able to let me know if your brother is joining? All my love, Marina The Tony addressed here is John’s brother, a powerful lobbyist and, as Spin’s Andy Cush notes, a prominent collector of contemporary art. The message here is, ostensibly, a dinner invitation that makes playful reference to one of Abramovic’s past works. But the title of that work made the far-right’s hair rise beneath its tin-foil hat: According to InfoWars, “Spirit Cooking,” refers to “a sacrament in the religion of Thelema,” which was founded by alleged “satanist Aleister Crowley.” (This definition was sourced from Everipedia). WikiLeaks, for its part, encouraged such sinister interpretations. Pedophile and A Pizza Secret Human Trafficking and Child Sex Ring Evidence - https://rumble.com/v2bbfv2-pedophile-and-a-pizza-secret-human-trafficking-and-child-sex-ring-evidence-.html - CIA Director Pompeo Oversees Capture Of UN Pedophile Who Leaked Video Of Hillary Clinton Killing Child (True ?) What is the real world evidence and sources for these words that I've seen shared so much? “hotdog” = boy “pizza” = girl “cheese” = little girl “pasta” = little boy “ice cream” = male prostitute “walnut” = person of color “map” = semen “sauce” = orgy - So I searching online for any evidence that "pizza," "hotdogs," "cheese," or "pasta" are code words used by pedophiles. Found nothing, yet this "fact" has been repeated in virtually every post about Pizzagate. What's the source? Of course it's possible that the only Pedophile using these words and their kid sex friends. It may be their own private language. Supreme Leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) Kim Jong-un—but with Pompeo’s duel-mission to this Asian nation, also, seeing him personally oversee the capture of top United Nations adviser Peter John Dalglish—who, in desperation just prior to his being apprehended, released to the “dark web” what is described as a “snuff film” showing Hillary Clinton and her top aid Huma Abedin torturing and murdering a child. What Do Sex Cults, Spirit Cooking, Cannibalism, and Will Ferrell Have to do With Each Other? WARNING: THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS DISTURBING IMAGERY. Would you agree to stand nude in front of a group of strangers while I, clad in black and masked, stood behind you and slingshotted a plateful of raw chicken hearts at you until they raised painful welts? No? How about gizzards? You philistine. You obviously have no appreciation for art. Marina Abramovic appreciates art in ways you would never think of. It was her namesake foundation that thought up the chicken-heart art, about which more below. Spirit Cooking Redux Remember Abramovic? She became a brief household name during the election when it was revealed she invited Hillary campaign chairman John Podesta to a “spirit cooking” dinner. Spirit cooking is mealtime art. Recipes include mixtures of pain and bodily fluids. The name of this avant-garde chef popped up again recently after the arrest of NXIVM sex-cult actress Allison Mack. Mack recruited, and attempted to recruit, famous women for the cult. Before her performance as prisoner, Mack without explanation intriguingly tweeted a headshot of Abramovic. It’s Pronounced Nix-ee-um So Abramovic, who preaches pain, is tied to Mack, who is tied to NXIVM. The latest news about NXIVM is that its resident doctor, Brandon Porter, has been charged with conducting illegal human experiments. One woman complained Porter made her “watch disturbing rape and dismemberment videos for a ‘fright study'”: “He continued to film my reaction for at least 10 minutes as I just sat there, dry heaving like I was going to puke and crying very hard,” Kobelt, a Canadian actress, said in the complaint to the Health Department, adding that Porter began showing her the violent images without warning. Porter reportedly did this to “as many as 100 people.” He is accused of showing “human subjects an actual video of the horrific and brutal murders and dismemberment of four women by machetes; and violent film clips, including a male African American being viciously stomped by a Nazi; a conscious male being forced to eat a portion of his own brain matter; and a graphic gang rape.” He is also charged with violating state law for improperly conducting studies on obsessive compulsive disorder, Tourette’s syndrome and one monitoring the brain waves of those who attended Nxivm programs. Does This Taste Funny to You? Cannibalism, as you can see, is another persistent theme. Of course, eating people can be very artistic. All the best people think so. Please Support The Stream: Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day. The singer Katy Perry does. In her popular video Bon Appétit the little-clothed Perry is peeled, peppered, powered and prepped by a team of chefs as a party of dinner guests watches in anticipation. The twist is that as the guests are about to dig in, the chefs release Perry and dismember the guests (blood flies everywhere) to serve to Perry! If that’s not art, nothing is. Perry took this art to the Whitney Museum in New York and preformed it live to astonished patrons. Perry’s head was in a plate surrounded by fruit. Museum patrons were told it is a real exhibit. Perhaps this art was in homage — a word art people use — to Marina Abramovic. Our spirit cooker earlier put on a cannibal dinner for a fundraiser at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles. Abramovic served up ersatz, but very realistic looking, human flesh and guts to patrons who were made to wear white lab coats so as not to spill viscera on their clothing. Nude actors and actresses laid on tables in the capacity of plates. That’s Not Funny, Man Among the many celebrities present — and who is more important than celebrities? — was Will Ferrell. He is the comedian who dressed as a demon on a recent TruTV show. He led the host of the show through a satanic ritual in which the host was covered in filth and degraded by chanting demonettes. But it was all good, dirty fun — and because it was on television, it was art. Ferrell was not the only celebrity to eat faux people and celebrate pain. And Abramovic is not the only artist working with these materials. Which brings us back to chicken hearts. Blurred Lines The Marina Abramovic Institute “explores, supports, and presents performance[s]” inspired by their master. The slingshotted chicken hearts were a portion of the piece entitled “Human Flesh.” The focus of the performance was pain. No doubt the artists and audience think they’re in on some kind of clever joke. In reality, they’re toying with forces they don’t understand, and can’t control. “Pain,” the description tells us, “creates tension between the public and the artist.” Boy, howdy, does it ever. Imagine the tension of those watching a nude woman “seen slapping herself until bruises and blisters formed on her skin.” Or of the performers who “set fire to their clothes, pressing the burning fabric against their flesh to extinguish the flames.” Or the guy who stubbed out cigarettes on himself. Or the man who was zinged by chicken hearts. I forgot to mention that after the slingshot performer had his way with the nude man, “the audience [was] invited to take part in bombarding him.” Thus “the line between performer and viewer is blurred, as the performance comes to an end.” No doubt the artists and audience think they’re in on some kind of clever joke. In reality, they’re toying with forces they don’t understand, and can’t control. Pizza Gate New Clues Pedophile Paintings Modern Art Or Disturbing Pizza Clues - https://rumble.com/v2bbt6i-pizza-gate-new-clues-pedophile-paintings-modern-art-or-disturbing-pizza-clu.html They say a picture says a thousand words, so you could be forgiven for thinking that the art and paintings surrounding the Pizzagate scandal practically scream, “Something is not right!” While modern art and all art in general is highly subjective, the provocative paintings and art that Pizzagate “conspiracy theorists” are pointing to does indeed show to many people that either those involved in this scandal have highly dubious artistic tastes or they are very sinister individuals who don’t mind flaunting their beliefs and practices. You be the judge First, you should know that James Alefantis, the owner of the Comet Ping Pong restaurant at the heart of the Pizzagate scandal, is not just a mere pizza peddler and restaurant owner. He was ranked number 49 in the top 50 list of the “Most Powerful People in Washington” by GQ magazine and his ex-partner was none other than David Brock, a man described by Time magazine as “one of the most influential operatives in the Democratic Party.” It is clear that far from being just a local D.C. restaurant that serves pizza, Comet Ping Pong is a place frequented by Washington’s political elite. To further connect the Pizzagate dots between James Alefantis, John Podesta, and Hillary Clinton, there have been various fundraising events revolving around Comet Ping Pong such as Pizza For Hillary, held on April 10, 2016, in which “Pizza Chef James Alefantis” was listed as special guest on the bill. So now that we know John Podesta, Hillary Clinton, and James Alefantis were all betrothed to the same political ideals, what of the suspicious Pizzagate paintings and art? Truth About Lab-Grown Meat idea is to eliminate the unethical treatment of animals - https://rumble.com/v28zci2-truth-about-lab-grown-meat-idea-is-to-eliminate-the-unethical-treatment-of-.html The average American consumes about 222 pounds of beef a year, or 2.4 burgers a day, according to US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Raising cows for beef production is very costly and the environmental impact of cow herds is problematic. Moreover, the crowded conditions of factory farms require that cows are fed antibiotics to counter disease, but the exposure to antibiotics and other chemicals remains in the meat. Cows are then slaughtered violently with a bolt to the head, skinned and gutted. Now, imagine taking a bite out of a juicy beef burger that does not require the slaughter of cows. The future in which your hamburger is grown from cells in a laboratory is quickly becoming a reality. The idea is to eliminate the unethical treatment of animals raised for food and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by culturing meat in a lab. In 2013, scientists created the first burger developed from cultured meat. Since then funding for lab grown meat has increased dramatically and many private companies and investors have joined the field. Recently, many start-ups interested in the new method of meat cultivation have begun to develop lab-grown meat, such as beef, pork, and seafood. Supported by investors, the start-up Memphis Meats received $1.7 million in resources to begin growing lab-grown meat, also known as clean meat. Clean meat is continuing to garner much interest from both the scientific and public field. The environmental impact of the current meat industry is problematic. Animal agriculture is accountable for about 4 percent of emissions in the US. Lab -grown meat offers a reduction of emission by eliminating the shipment of meats great distances to be processed and brought to local supermarkets. Instead, lab-grown meat could be directly grown in vitro meat facilities near consumers, cutting down on the energy needed to raise livestock, package, and ship meat products. Moreover, David Welch, the director of the Good Food Institute that promotes lab-grown meat, estimated that lab-grown meat uses up to 98 percent less water and and 90 percent less land. However, researchers from the University of Oxford found that methane emissions from cattle leave a short term impact on global warming, whereas carbon dioxide emission from the lab has long term impacts. Human Flesh Looks Like Beef, But the Taste Is More Elusive It’s like pork. Or maybe veal. Even if you have no desire to eat the flesh of fellow humans, it's not so uncommon to wonder from time to time what human flesh looks and tastes like. io9 recently took up the first question and explained that human flesh firmly falls into the red meat camp. Beef, they concluded, would be the closest visual equivalent of a human fillet or rump roast. io9 explains the science behind the color: Muscle's red color can be traced to the presence of a richly pigmented protein called myoglobin and, more specifically, hemes, the chemical compounds that myoglobin uses to bind and store oxygen as a fuel source for active muscles. According to the Meat Science section of Texas A&M University's Department of Animal Science, pork, lamb and beef average 2, 6 and 8 milligrams of myoglobin per gram of muscle (that translates to a myoglobin concentration of 0.2%, 0.6% and 0.8%), respectively. The concentration of myoglobin in human muscle tissues is relatively high – even relative to pigs, sheep and cows, coming in at close to 20 mg per gram of certain muscle fibers, or a 2% concentration of myoglobin. But, according to the testimony of people who have actually eaten other people, the taste of human meat does not reflect its beef-like appearance. Both serial killers and Polynesian cannibals have described human as being most akin to pork. But not all cannibals agree with this description. William Seabrook, an author and journalist, traveled to West Africa in the 1920s and later described an encounter with man-flesh in great detail in his book, Jungle Ways. Human, he said, in fact tastes like veal. Here's Seabrook's description: It was like good, fully developed veal, not young, but not yet beef. It was very definitely like that, and it was not like any other meat I had ever tasted. It was so nearly like good, fully developed veal that I think no person with a palate of ordinary, normal sensitiveness could distinguish it from veal. It was mild, good meat with no other sharply defined or highly characteristic taste such as for instance, goat, high game, and pork have. The steak was slightly tougher than prime veal, a little stringy, but not too tough or stringy to be agreeably edible. The roast, from which I cut and ate a central slice, was tender, and in color, texture, smell as well as taste, strengthened my certainty that of all the meats we habitually know, veal is the one meat to which this meat is accurately comparable. This account is the most descriptive to date, but it has also been called into question. As Slate reports, Seabrook "later confessed that the distrustful tribesmen never allowed him to partake in their traditions." Instead, the author insisted that he attained samples of human flesh from a Parisian hospital and cooked it up himself. Regardless of Seabrook's credibility, however, Slate points out that, like any meat, the flavor of human would likely depend a great deal on how it is prepared, and also what cut is sampled. The Azande tribe's human stew likely tastes entirely different from the deep-fried, parsley-strewn human genitals a Japanese exhibitionist artist recently served at a dinner party. In the end, both pork and veal might be accurate approximations to the flavor of human meat, though—thankfully—most will never find out for themselves. How To Cook Human? Cooking human is an incredibly challenging task, and there are many ways to do it wrong. If you’re looking to improve your skills, here are a few tips: Start with a basic recipe: This is the most important thing—start with something that you know how to make! Try cookbooks or online resources for recipes that are easy and inexpensive to follow. Use quality ingredients: It’s worth using high-quality ingredients when cooking human. Not only will this result in better results, but you’ll also be able to pronounce the ingredients correctly if you have to share them with others. Be patient: Cooks need time and patience to get the best results. Don’t give up until your food is cooked through; otherwise, you’ll end up with tough, rubbery meat instead of tender, juicy flesh. What Part Of The Human Is Best To Eat? What part of the human is best to eat For many people, it seems that the stomach is the best place to eat. However, there are other parts of the human body that can be very good choices for eating. How Do You Cook A Human Heart? Cooking a human heart is a difficult task, but it can be done using various methods. One common method is to cook the heart in oil. At What Temperature Do Humans Start To Cook? Cooking at different temperatures depends on what foods are being cooked. Humans start to cook at around 100 degrees Celsius, which is the temperature that is found in most kitchens. What Human Organ Can You Eat? If you’re thinking about eating human organs, you might be wondering what kind of organ you can eat. There are many different types of organs that can be eaten, so it’s important to think about what would fit your personal needs and preferences. Here are five human organ recipes that might help get your taste buds working. What Are Humans Truly Meant To Eat? Humans have been eating a variety of different things for centuries, but what are humans truly meant to eat? In general, humans are meant to Eat plant-based proteins. However, some people believe that humans should also eat meat, as it is an important part of human history and culture. There is no right or wrong answer to this question, and it is up to each individual to decide what they believe. What Does Eating A Heart Taste Like? Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, and it’s one of the top causes of death in many other countries. There are many ways to prevent heart disease, but some people still get it. In fact, heart disease is the number one cause of death from developing chronic diseases in men and women over 60 years old. Heart disease can be caused by a variety of things, but the most common cause is cholesterol levels getting too high. Cholesterol is a substance that helps make our body work well. High cholesterol can lead to heart attacks and strokes, which can kill you quickly. There are various ways to lower your cholesterol levels, but they all come with their own risks. Can Heart Be Eaten Raw? Humans have the ability to eat other human organs, but there is currently no definitive answer as to whether or not heart can be eaten raw. There are a few potential reasons why heart could theoretically be eaten raw. First, because the heart is an important organ in the body, it may be seen as a fair trade when consuming other human organs. Additionally, Heart can potentially taste delicious and may be enjoyed by some individuals for its alluring value. What Is Human Heart Taste Like? Human hearts have a unique taste that is often perceived as unpleasant. The reason for this is still unknown, but it could be due to the high level of cholesterol and other lipids in human hearts. Can You Cook With Human Fat? Cooking with human fat has been known to give dishes a unique flavor and texture that is often unmatched by other cooking methods. However, some people are hesitant to cook with human fat because they worry it could lead to health problems. However, cooking with human fat doesn’t need to be a problem – in fact, it can be an incredibly healthy way to cook food. Here are 5 ways you can use human fat for cooking: Make a healthier version of your current favorite dish – using human fat will add some of the missing flavors and textures that make certain dishes so delicious. For example, adding oil or butter to a dish before adding the human fat will give it a richer flavor and better texture. What Does Pig Heart Taste Like? This question has been asked for years, and there is no definitive answer. However, some experts say that pigs have a distinct, earthy taste to their hearts. This is likely due to the pork’s diet being Heavy in animal protein and grains. How Do I Prepare My Heart To Eat? Heart health is everyone’s top priority, and it’s important to know how to prepare your heart in order to be healthy. There are a few things you can do in order to help improve your heart health, including eating a balanced diet, exercising regularly and avoiding smoking. In addition, it’s important to learn how to recognize warning signs of heart disease and take appropriate steps to prevent them from happening. What Human Can Not Eat? What humans cannot eat is a topic of much debate. Some believe that what humans cannot eat, they are not meant to eat. Others believe that what humans cannot eat, they should not be able to because it is an essential part of their diet. There is no right or wrong answer to this question, it is up to each individual to decide what they believe. Is Organ Meat Tasty? Organ meat is a type of meat that comes from the stomach and intestines of an animal. Some people are very interested in eating organ meat, as it is thought to be some of the most delicious food out there. While there are many different types of organ meat, there is one that stands out above all others – liver. Liver is a high-quality source of nutrients, including protein and omega-3 fatty acids. It can also help to boost the immune system and provide important vitamins and minerals. What Can Humans Eat And Not Eat? What can humans eat and not eat? Humans have been eating and creating their own diets for centuries. For some, this has been a safe way to maintain their health. For others, this has been a way to survive in an ever-changing world. Eating what we can and avoid eating what we cannot is one of the most important decisions we make as humans. What Did We Eat 1000 Years Ago? In the past 1000 years, humans have drastically changed their diet. Because of this, archaeologists have been exploring ancient food artifacts to try and learn more about what was eaten back then. While many items have been found, especially in the Old World, there is still much that is unknown about what people ate 10,000 years ago. One of the most significant changes that humans made to their diet was the addition of animal fats and oils to their food supply. This led to a shift in how our stomach works and allowed us to eat more protein and other nutrients than we would have otherwise possible. Additionally, due to this change, humans also began consuming a greater number of calories than they currently do. How Lab-grown meat is made cows, cats, dogs, fish, and human body soylent green - https://rumble.com/v2854lw-how-lab-grown-meat-is-made-cows-cats-dogs-fish-and-human-body-soylent-green.html How Lab-grown meat is made cows, cats, dogs, fish, and human body. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday announced it has cleared all lab-grown meat product as safe for human consumption for the first time. In a news release, the agency said that after reviewing information from 100s foods company is making from cultured chicken, cats, dogs. cows and baby cells, it has “no further questions at this time about the 100s firm’s safety conclusion.” The agency noted that before can bring its products to the market, the facility in which the food is made will have to meet inspection standards from the FDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the USDA-Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). “The world is experiencing a food revolution and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is committed to supporting innovation in the lab-grown from cows, cats, dogs, baby in are food supply. As an example of that commitment, today we are announcing that we have completed our first pre-market consultation of a human food made from cultured lab-grown from cows, cats, dogs, human baby and other animal cells.” Eating cats and dog and fish Alive Educational Film ** GRAPHIC ** Green Eggs and Ham - https://rumble.com/v284oc1-eating-cats-and-dog-and-fish-alive-educational-film-graphic-green-eggs-and-.html Asia is the continent on which the consumption of dog meat is most widespread, with as many as 30 million dogs killed for human consumption each year according to estimates by the Humane Society International. This estimate includes many family pets, which are often illegally stolen from their homes and taken to be slaughtered. The consumption of dog meat is said to be most common in China, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, and the Nagaland region in India, but it is not considered widespread in any of these locations. Moreover, the practice is becoming less popular in many countries, where younger generations are more likely to regard dogs and cats as companions rather than cuisine. Truth Behind Meat Production Chicken Waffle Beef Burger An Eye-Opening Exploration - https://rumble.com/v2mmrac-truth-behind-meat-production-chicken-waffle-beef-burger-an-eye-opening-expl.html Narrated by Oscar-nominee James Cromwell, this powerful film takes viewers on an eye-opening exploration behind the closed doors of the nation's largest industrial farms, hatcheries, and slaughter plants -- revealing the often-unseen journey that animals make from Farm to Fridge. If this documentary moves you, please take a moment to consider if these animals lives are worth taking for merely taste. Thinking about going vegan? The Truth About the Meat Industry What is left out of our food labels? Behind the cow industry are disturbing secrets you are not supposed to know. Supermarket beef has become an industrialized, unnatural product laced with lies beyond the labels. What actually happens to that meat before it reaches grocery store shelves? In this blog I’ll unveil the dirty truth behind the cattle slaughter process everyone needs to hear. Islamic Law and Courts Are Alive and Well in U.S.A. vs. USC 1st Amendment Laws https://rumble.com/v2dcxd6-islamic-law-and-courts-are-alive-and-well-in-u.s.a.-vs.-usc-1st-amendment-l.html Similarly, the American legal system allows for individuals to create their own rules around things like wills and divorce settlements, so the court will uphold legally created documents that incorporate Islamic (or Jewish) law alongside personal wishes. Traditionally, the political system of the U.S. has viewed such arrangements positively, as extensions of individual liberty. While Muslims are among the newest religious immigrants to the United States, they are joining a long line of people who have had to accommodate their religious and personal needs to a new cultural and legal environment. Like all who came before them, Muslims have some issues that are difficult to fit into the mainstream. But, like other religious groups, these are challenges they meet with care and thought. Islamic law, far from being a strict, draconian code of medieval discipline, can adapt to new circumstances—a very American virtue. U.S. citizens should accept this Americanization of Islamic law with open arms. An Overview of the 1st Amendment First Amendment: Religion and Expression What is the First Amendment? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The First Amendment Defined: The First Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights was proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791. The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791. Stipulations of the 1st Amendment: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the passing or creation of any law that establishes a religious body and directly impedes an individual’s right to practice whichever religion they see fit. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights and the amendment which disables an entity or individual from practicing or enforcing a religious viewpoint which infringes on the freedom of speech, the right peaceable assemble, the freedom of the press, or which prohibits the petitioning for a governmental evaluation of grievances. In its infancy, the First Amendment only applied to laws enacted by Congress; however, the following Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court developed that the Due Process Clause attached to the Fourteenth Amendment applies the fundamental aspects of the First Amendment to each individual state, including all local governments within those states. The Establishment clause of the First Amendment is the primary pronouncement in the Amendment, stating that Congress cannot institute a law to establish a national religion for the preference of the U.S. government states that one religion does not favor another. As a result, the Establishment Clause effectively created a wall of separation between the church and state. How the First Amendment was created: When the original constitution was created there was significant opposition due to the lack of adequate guarantees for civil freedoms. To offer such liberties, the First Amendment (in addition to the rest of the Bill of Rights) was offered to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, and later adopted on December 15, 1791. Court Cases tied into the 1st Amendment In Sherbert v. Verner, the Supreme Court applied the strict scrutiny standard of review to the Establishment Clause, ruling that a state must demonstrate an overwhelming interest in restricting religious activities. In Employment Division v Smith, the Supreme Court went away from this standard by permitting governmental actions that were neutral regarding religious choices. Debs v. the United States on June 16, 1919, tested the limits of free speech in regards to the “clear and present danger” test. 1st Amendment: Freedom of Speech Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment and is re-established in the majority of state and federal laws. This particular clause typically protects an individual’s right to partake in even distasteful rhetoric, such as racist or sexist comments and distasteful remarks towards the public policy. Speech directed towards some subjects; however, such as child pornography or speech that incites an imminent threat, as well as commercial forms of speech are regulated. Pedophile's Eating Alive And Aborted Baby And Young Kids Too Rejuvenating Potion https://rumble.com/v2q0z7u-pedophiles-eating-alive-and-aborted-baby-and-young-kids-too-rejuvenating-po.html Planned Parenthood Kills Them and Then Sells Their Organs. Which is Worse? Planned Parenthood Is Largest Food Suppliers Human Meat In The World Today. "You Are What You Eat." Most of us have likely heard this saying before and are familiar with its simple and sensible meaning. When we were younger, this adage taught us (hopefully) to take care of what we put into our bodies because the food we eat can have a direct affect on our health as a whole. Selling Human Meat Per Planned Parenthood Rules All Sell At Cost/Lost For Non-Profit Organization.

How Lab-Grown Meat Is Made From Beef, Chickens, Cats, Dogs, Fish To Human Body Meat And Has FDA's Approval For The First Time Although access to it has been limited throughout the years,lab-cultivated meat is not a new concept. In fact, it first appeared in 2013 when scientist Mark Post and his team created the first hamburger made out of 20,000 lab-grown muscle fibers (via The Guardian). This was all done in a lab and without physically harming a cow, instantly making this concept intriguing to many. However, the issue was that this new food production method was not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and people also feared the substances used during the complicated biochemical process to extract the cells (via the Burdock Group). But it's been years since Post's creation, and there is still the same interest in lab-grown meat. In Singapore, where cell-grown meat has been approved, people were able to try GOOD Meat chicken. This innovative brand utilizes the animal cells to create traditional dishes such as chicken and rice, katsu chicken curry, and chicken caesar salad, according to Veg News. But now, Americans might be able to get a taste of lab-grown meat, with the FDA's most recent decree. On November 16, 2022, the FDA approved UPSIDE Foods' request to grow meat from cells. According to the FDA, it stated that workers "have no further questions at this time about the firm's safety conclusion." In the past, people have been concerned about the labeling of cultivated meat, due to the nuances that would cause in the meatpacking and livestock industries, but the FDA clearly states that the company's goals are "to take living cells from chickens and grow the cells in a controlled environment to make the cultured animal cell food." UPSIDE Foods is the first cultivated meat company in the world and was founded in 2015, according to its website. It has the goal of "cultivating new foods to serve audiences around the world." However, according to Wired, the company's production facilities still need inspection by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) before it sells its food products, which then have to be checked for quality. Ouroboros Steak, a meat cultivated from human cells and expired blood, has been developed by a group of American scientists as a thought-provoking art piece to challenge the sustainability practices of the nascent cellular agriculture industry, which develops lab-grown products from existing cell cultures. Ouroboros Steak grow-your-own human meat kit is "technically" not cannibalism Once the stuff of science fiction, lab-grown meat made from cows, cats, dogs, fish, and now humans could become reality in some restaurants in the United States as early as this year. Besides cultured meat, the terms healthy meat, slaughter-free meat, in vitro meat, vat-grown meat, lab-grown meat, cell-based meat, clean meat, cultivated meat and synthetic meat have been used to describe the product. How Lab-grown meat is made cows, cats, dogs, fish, and human body. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday announced it has cleared all lab-grown meat product as safe for human consumption for the first time. In a news release, the agency said that after reviewing information from 100s foods company is making from cultured chicken, cats, dogs. cows and baby cells, it has “no further questions at this time about the 100s firm’s safety conclusion.” The agency noted that before can bring its products to the market, the facility in which the food is made will have to meet inspection standards from the FDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the USDA-Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). The world is experiencing a food revolution and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is committed to supporting innovation in the lab-grown from cows, cats, dogs, baby in are food supply. As an example of that commitment, today we are announcing that we have completed our first pre-market consultation of a human food made from cultured lab-grown from cows, cats, dogs, baby animal cells. What is lab-grown meat? How it's made, environmental impact and Your complete guide to the nutrition, ethics and sustainability of a food revolution in the making. It wasn’t long ago that the idea of the meat on our plates coming from vast stainless steel bioreactors, rather than farmed animals, seemed like science fiction. The notion has gone through numerous rebrands since its early positing as ‘vat meat’, which triggered unappealing visions of high-tech Spam. ‘Lab meat’ came next, as scientists perfected the recipe in small beakers in laboratories. Then came the more appetising-sounding ‘cultured meat’, as investment from high-profile individuals rocketed and producers positioned these products as having been brewed, just like beer. Now, ‘cultured meat’ has evolved to ‘cultivated meat’, which is the preferred term used by CEOs in the industry. Whatever you choose to call it, with the future of global food security in question, and farmed meat a key culprit in climate breakdown, slaughter-free meat is starting to look increasingly like the future of food. How is lab-grown meat made? Rather than being part of a living, breathing, eating and drinking animal, cultivated meat is grown in anything from a test tube to a stainless steel bioreactor. The process is borrowed from research into regenerative medicine, and in fact Prof Mark Post of Maastricht University, who cultured the world’s first burger in 2013, was previously working on repairing human heart tissue. Cells are acquired from an animal by harmless biopsy, then placed in a warm, sterile vessel with a solution called a growth medium, containing nutrients including salts, proteins and carbohydrates. Every 24 hours or so, the cells will have doubled. How different is cultivated meat from the real thing? Cellular farming doesn’t grow cuts of meat, with bone and skin, or fat marbled through it like a succulent ribeye steak. Muscle cells require different conditions and nutrients to fat cells, so they must be made separately. When the pure meat or fat is harvested, it is a formless paste of cells. This is why the first cultivated meat products served up have been chicken nuggets or burgers. The flavours, however, are of real meat. As they are produced in a sterile environment, there is less risk of contamination from disease and chemicals. This is in contrast to conventional agriculture where, says San-Francisco based Josh Tetrick, CEO of GOOD Meat, “you have a live animal slaughtered on the floor. If you look at the Salmonella, E. coli, faecal contamination that’s part of animal agriculture, it looks much better from a cultivated meat perspective than it does from a conventional meat perspective.” Is lab-grown meat as nutritious as regular meat? A spokesperson for UPSIDE Foods, a San Francisco-based leader in the cultivated meat arena, says that the nutrient profile will be similar, but it will also be possible to enhance or even personalise it. “We are exploring ways to improve the nutrient profiles of our products. Whether that’s less saturated fat and cholesterol, or more vitamins or healthy fats,” they said. “For instance, imagine if we could produce a steak with the fatty acid profile of salmon? Or what if consumers could customise the nutrient profile in their products to meet their dietary needs?” As there are so few cultivated meat products on the market requiring food labelling, we’ll have to wait to get a better understanding of the nutritional value. When can people buy it? People in Singapore already can. Tetrick’s company, GOOD Meat, has been producing and selling its chicken in Singapore since December 2020 at special events, both in an upscale hotel restaurant and the legendary Mr Loo’s hawker stall. Breaded chicken and shredded chicken have both gone down well. Tetrick says the company has applied to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval in the US, but no timescale has been given. Other producers say that Western countries are still ironing out the details of how regulatory approval will work, but say they’ll be ready to scale up as soon as approval is given in the coming years. Is it better for the environment? The truth is, we can’t know until mass production is happening. Modelling the potential impacts of a fast-moving biotech industry that’s still in development is subject to many ifs and buts. One 2019 study from the University of Oxford warned that the energy used to make cultivated meat could release more greenhouse gases than traditional farming. Pelle Sinke, researcher at Netherlands-based sustainability consultancy CE Delft, who was not involved in the research, says the part of the study that assumed use of electricity generated by a large proportion of fossil fuels highlighted the importance of renewable energy for cultivated meat production. “In some scenarios, cultivated meat had a higher global warming effect, and in some scenarios a lower effect, depending on consumption levels, expected energy use for cultivated meat and the beef cattle system it was compared to,” he says. Sinke adds that the study doesn’t, however, take into account the lower land use of cultivated meat. “[There’s] the possibility to use that land for plant-based protein production, nature and extra renewable energy production, which in turn influences the CO2 emissions of cultivated meat,” he says. His own team has also been investigating the environmental impact and he says that while cultivated meat is no silver bullet to solve all the world’s problems, “it certainly has a lot of potential because it directly offers a more sustainable alternative to conventional meats. It is a more efficient way of converting crops into meat, and therefore much less land is needed to produce these crops. "But it does use more energy. For a lower carbon footprint than conventional meats, it is crucial that renewable energy sources are used in its production, including in the supply chain – importantly for the production of nutrients and other ingredients needed for the culture medium.” All of the companies contacted for this article – Mosa Meat, GOOD Meat and UPSIDE Foods – understand that building sustainable energy into production is essential. What challenges need to be overcome? A vegan growth medium Until recently, in order to kick-start cell division, about 20 per cent of the growth medium had to be foetal bovine serum, drawn from the blood of a cow foetus. Not only is the serum prohibitively expensive, but it’s also distinctly not vegetarian. But all the major players now claim to have developed an alternative. In early 2022, Post and his team published an academic paper about their foetal bovine serum alternative. The process uses genetically modifying yeast to produce the necessary proteins. This technology, called precision fermentation, is similar to how medical insulin is made (we have a lot more than beer and bread to thank yeast for!). Post says that there is a whole new burgeoning industry for producing vast vats of productive microorganisms. Tetrick admits, however, that there are still challenges with scaling up the alternatives, and that his chicken in Singapore is produced with foetal bovine serum. “[It’s] not because we want to, but because it was included when we initially submitted our application, because we hadn’t solved it when we submitted,” he says. “We’re awaiting regulatory approval to produce without it.” Mass production Tetrick says that scale is the next great hurdle to clear. You need to be churning out “a minimum of 15 million pounds [6.8 million kilos] per year at a facility, which is sort of a rule of thumb for national distribution across the US or Western Europe.” This will necessitate bioreactors that hold at least 200,000 litres, which has never been done in cell culture. “People eat it every week in Singapore… right now the largest size that we’re [producing in] is 1,200 litres, which is very small, relative to what is required. In my mind, this is the single biggest limiting step of the entire industry.” Only when produced at scale can the price come down and compete with cheap, intensively farmed meat. Meanwhile, GOOD Meat’s Singapore operation is currently running at a loss, selling hawker stall dishes for four Singapore dollars (around £2.50). When launched in the West, all the products will start off at expensive restaurants – adding cachet to their launches – and can only trickle down to affordable supermarket prices with economies of scale. Texture Yes, much of the world’s meat consumption consists of burgers, nuggets and sausages. But what if we want a juicy, cultivated steak? How do we turn meaty mush into a choice cut? It’s a fast-moving picture, but GOOD Meat’s current solution for their chicken products is to pair it with more structured vegetable proteins. Its offering in Singapore is 73 per cent chicken. “[And then the rest] is binders and fillers,” says Tetrick. “We’re trying to optimise it for the sensory and consumer experience: taste, texture, flavour profile, cost.” Cellular agriculture trailblazers argue that it’s cheap burgers and chicken that are using up the majority of the one-third of the planet that’s currently dedicated to growing farm-animal feed, so these products are both the most urgent and easiest to get to market. To achieve the texture of steak, says Tetrick, scaffold technology will be necessary, as a way of building structure inside the vessel. This scaffold will most likely be made using vegan collagen. Ethically, can everyone eat it? Now that the foetal bovine serum is out of the way, vegetarians could, ethically speaking, eat this meat – if they have an appetite for it. The religious element is a little trickier. For meat to be permissible under Islamic and Jewish laws, there are strict rules on how animals are slaughtered and how the meat is prepared. Cultivated meat is set to trigger lively debates among religious leaders around the world (interpretations of scriptures vary geographically), and has already started doing so in some zones. Would cultivating meat from kosher or halal meat cells solve the problem? In Indonesia, which has the world’s largest Muslim population, the influential Muslim organisation Nahdlatul Ulama has reportedly given a statement putting cultivated meat in “the category of carcass which is legally unclean and forbidden to be consumed.” In contrast, the Muslim-majority country Qatar is heavily investing in the technology, and building a production plant with GOOD Meat. Meanwhile, in the London Beth Din (Court of the Chief Rabbi), there’s excitement at the prospect of a meat that could be a neutral food, under kosher law. Foods in milk or meat categories must be kept separate, so to have a neutral meat could provide a convenient loophole. And it could eventually provide cheaper kosher meat, which traditionally tends to be expensive. As Rabbi Conway says: “This is an extraordinary breakthrough and potentially a very exciting development for the kosher consumer. If the meat was available on a commercial scale, we would need full details of the manufacturing process and the ingredients used to rule whether it was kosher, but potentially this could make life easier and cheaper for kosher consumers.” What would happen to farmers and their animals if cultivated meat takes off? “We envision that small-scale conventional farming will still be used for premium meat cuts and dairy products for years to come,” says Post. “This protein transition will happen over decades, and innovations rarely completely replace existing practices. Cellular agriculture has the potential to create a more balanced and symbiotic relationship between small-scale farmers, consumers and the planet.” Post’s team is already partnering with a farmer in the Netherlands, who keeps a free-roaming, high-quality herd of Limousins, raised not for slaughter, but for regular biopsies for Mosa Meat’s burgers. “The same way that crop farming currently provides feed for animals, we also require feed for our cells, using the same type of nutrients a cow needs,” says Post. “We will work with farmers to grow the crops needed to feed our beef cells.” UPSIDE Foods takes a similar view, while Tetrick says GOOD Meat is developing a beef line, culturing meat cells from a company called Toriyama, which is a high-end wagyu beef producer in Japan. “That’s another interesting thing about cultivating meat – you can use these high-end meat sources and the cost to do it isn’t any more,” Tetrick says. It’s not just meat that can be cultivated Dairy, without the cow From milk to ice-cream to cream cheese, Perfect Day’s milk protein is already available in over 5,000 stores across the US. But instead of being made by cattle, it’s produced by a fungus genetically programmed to create cow whey protein, using the same precision fermentation technology responsible for medical insulin. And the best bit: it’s lactose free. Egg whites, without the chicken Precision fermentation is used by Every Company to make egg white, as well as a soluble version of the protein that even the fussiest palate would be hard-pressed to taste or see, making it an ideal additive for protein-boosting drinks and other products. Bluefin tuna, but no fishing As the name suggests, Finless Foods is creating animal-free fish. The company cultures bluefin tuna cells in what it calls a microbrewery-style production facility. I was lucky enough to attend an early prototype testing in 2017, and I can confirm that the fish croquettes tasted subtly of a sea in which the cells had never swum. No-hunt exotic beasts Start-up Primeval Foods sees the next logical step in culturing meat cells as a chance to taste exotic, off-limits animals such as lion and zebra. After launching in 2022, Primeval Foods is already promising imminent tastings in London and New York, and has so far released pack shots of tiger steak and zebra sushi rolls. Is Lab-Grown Meat Really Meat? A labeling war is brewing. After centuries of a veritable monopoly, meat might have finally met its match. The challenger arises not from veggie burgers or tofu or seitan, but instead from labs where animal cells are being cultured and grown up into slabs that mimic (or, depending on whom you ask, mirror) meat. It currently goes by many names—in-vitro meat, cultured meat, lab-grown meat, clean meat—and it might soon be vying for a spot in the cold case next to more traditionally made fare. To put it bluntly: the kind that comes from living animals, slaughtered for food. Cultured-meat manufacturers like Just Inc. and Memphis Meats are hoping to provide consumers with meat that is just like its predecessor, that tastes and looks and feels and smells exactly the same as something you might get in stores today but will be more sustainable. Whether that will turn out to be true won’t be clear for some time. But there’s another, more immediate battle heating up between the cattle industry and these new entrants into the meaty ring. So buckle up and put on your wonkiest hat, because the labeling war is about to begin. In February, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association wrote a petition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, asking the government to ban cultured-meat companies from using the terms meat and beef at all. In response, a rival cattlemen’s association, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, wrote a letter opposing the petition. Cultured-meat companies also opposed the petition, for probably obvious reasons. In May, the Missouri Senate passed an omnibus bill that included a provision that “prohibits misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry,” and on June 1, then-Gov. Eric Greitens signed the bill into law before stepping down.* The Food and Drug Administration will be hearing comments about cultured meat, including how it should be labeled, in a public meeting on Thursday. This is not be the first time that food products meant to imitate or replace more traditional fare have faced questions about their labeling. In 1869, margarine was invented by a French chemist. As the butter replacement spread to the United States, dairy farmers raised the alarm. At the time, butter cost about 25 cents a pound, and margarine was roughly half the cost. “I would make the tax so high that the operation of the law would utterly destroy the manufacture of all counterfeit butter and cheese as I would destroy the manufacture of counterfeit coin or currency,” declared Wisconsin Rep. William Price. David Henderson, a representative from Iowa, compared margarine to the witches’ brew in Macbeth. They convinced the U.S. government to tax margarine at 2 cents a pound and lobbied against the use of yellow dyes to make the butter replacement look more buttery. By 1900, it was illegal in 30 states to dye margarine yellow, and a handful of states went even further, dictating that margarine had to be dyed an unappetizing pink. Canada outright banned margarine until 1948. The rise in vegetarian and vegan food options in supermarkets has given us a few more examples of mimics and their labels. Soymilk and almond milk have been a thorn in the side of the dairy lobby for more than 15 years. The Soyfoods Association of America petitioned the FDA back in 1997, asking for permission to call their products “soymilk,” starting a long battle between soy manufacturers and dairy farmers. Dairy farmers object to these beverages being called milk, but thus far the FDA hasn’t done anything to stop brands from using the word. But the debate over cultured meat is also fundamentally different from these earlier case studies, because unlike margarine or soymilk, cultured meat is biochemically identical to the substance it’s competing with. Which makes the question of labeling all the weirder and more complicated. The fight over how to label these products gets wonky pretty fast, but you can boil the debate down to three main questions: Who is going to make the rules, who gets to use the word meat, and what else should the labeling language say? Let’s start with jurisdiction, since it’s the wonkiest bit and we can get it out of the way pretty quickly. The USDA and the FDA both could have some say in how these products are labeled. The two agencies both deal with food and safety and labeling, but they have slightly different scopes. The FDA regulates drugs and dietary supplements, but it is also in charge of making sure that the foods on the market are “safe, wholesome, sanitary and properly labeled.” The USDA is responsible for overseeing agriculture in the U.S. and handles the labeling and safety of meat products. A representative from the Food Safety and Inspection Service arm of the USDA told me that FSIS “has jurisdictional authority over food labeling for products containing meat and poultry.” So the question of who is going to dictate the labeling of cultured meat is something of a riddle, because it really depends on whether you see cultured meat as meat. From a production standpoint, cultured meat is more in line with the way that drugs and supplements and additives are made in a lab, and that would make the FDA more qualified to oversee things. But from a final product standpoint, if the lab-grown meat is going to wind up on the shelf next to the traditionally slaughtered stuff, it seems like the USDA should take charge. This might seem like boring bureaucracy, and it sort of is, but it could make a big difference to the cattle industry’s fight. The two agencies have different track records when it comes to labeling. The FDA has allowed almond milk and soymilk products to keep their names, despite constant lobbying and lawsuits from the dairy industry. And it recently allowed Just’s eggless mayo replacement to use the term mayo on its packaging, even though the FDA’s own standards of identity define mayonnaise as “the emulsified semisolid food prepared from vegetable oil(s) … acidifying ingredients … and one or more of the egg yolk-containing ingredients.” That decision might pave the way for how the FDA sees cultured meat, since Just is also one of the major players on the lab-grown meat front. Is meat the muscle of an animal? Or is it the remains of a living creature? If the former, this lab-grown stuff is meat. If the latter, it’s not. All these decisions haven’t gone unnoticed by the cattlemen. While the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association don’t agree on whether the upstarts should be able to use the word meat, they would both prefer to see the USDA in charge. “USDA has a long-standing history of allowing only science based legally defensible principles,” says Danielle Beck, the director of government affairs at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. In the letter opposing the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association petition to ban cultured-meat companies from using the word meat, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association wrote, “Unfortunately, FDA has an established record of haphazard enforcement and a long-standing history of turning a blind eye to the law.” There’s a bit of a funny tangle here for the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, though. If it wants the USDA to take the reins, the product has to be considered meat. But it doesn’t want the product to be considered meat. Either way, it’s looking like the FDA might indeed be the one to steer this ship. In the statement announcing the Thursday meeting to hear comments on the cultured-meat question, the FDA suggested that it would likely be the one making decisions about cultured-meat labels, writing “both substances used in the manufacture of these products of animal cell culture technology and the products themselves that will be used for food are subject to FDA’s jurisdiction and applicable statutory and regulatory food safety and food labeling requirements.” If the FDA takes the reins here, cattlemen worry that they won’t get what they want when it comes to labeling. But what do they want, exactly? It turns out that different cattle lobbying groups want different things. This brings us to our second question, which is less bureaucratic, and more philosophical: What is meat anyway? Is this cultured meat truly meat? Should it be called meat in the first place? The lab-grown meat companies I spoke with are clear on their answer to this question: yes. “Our products meet the statutory definition of meat,” Eric Schulze, the vice president of product and regulation at Memphis Meats, told me by email. “Does it comes from an animal? Does it have the same biochemical makeup as meat? If yes, then it’s meat,” says Josh Tetrick, the CEO of Just. The cultured-meat companies also point to existing definitions on the books for meat that don’t preclude their products in any way. The Federal Meat Inspection Act defines meat this way: “the part of the muscle of any cattle, sheep, swine, or goats which is skeletal or which is found in the tongue, diaphragm, heart, or esophagus, with or without the accompanying and overlying fat, and the portions of bone (in bone-in product such as T-bone or porterhouse steak), skin, sinew, nerve, and blood vessels which normally accompany the muscle tissue and that are not separated from it in the process of dressing.” Under this admittedly unwieldy (and unappetizing) definition, meat grown in a lab from animal cells counts as meat. Of course, not everybody agrees that it should be called meat. Warren Love, one of the representatives in Missouri behind the state bill that would ban companies like Just and Memphis Meats from using the term meat, says, “We have no problem with them producing it, manufacturing it, whatever, we just don’t want it to be labeled as, and kind of hijack the name of meat. Meat is from a harvested animal.” Love, who’s a cattle rancher himself, says that without protecting the term meat, these new entrants into the market might dilute the goodwill that the beef industry has built up among consumers. “I guess you would call it protecting your brand,” he says. “I’m an old cowboy and I ride for the brand.” The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association’s petition to the USDA homes in on this argument, asking the department to create a new rule that specifically defines meat as “the tissue or flesh of animals that have been harvested in the traditional manner.” But that itself, specifically the “harvested in the traditional manner” part, isn’t defined in the petition. When I spoke with Lia Biondo, the director of policy and outreach for the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, she clarified for me: “Harvested in the traditional manner means slaughtered at a slaughterhouse.” But the term slaughterhouse doesn’t appear at all in the USCA petition, and some have raised concerns that this “traditional manner” definition might come back to bite the industry. Without a clear definition, detractors worry that defining meat this way might preclude the use of advanced technologies in the future. “That could prevent us from utilizing innovative breeding technologies or gene editing,” says Beck. If your eyes are glazing over at this point, you’re not alone. Amid all these long and unwieldy definitions and mental gymnastics, it’s easy to lose sight of the point of all of these labels in the first place. The reason the FDA or the USDA has these standards and definitions is to make sure that consumers aren’t confused. When they reach for a container that says it’s milk or butter or eggs or mayo, they should get what they think they’re getting. “We don’t want someone else who’s in there to buy bacon to pick up a product just by sight and by name, and not even read the label. And then get home and think ‘Ew, this is something grown in a lab,’ ” says Warren Love. “We just want that type of product to be labeled so it’s not confusing for someone who wants to purchase the nutritious wholesome meat.” So the real, big question here is what consumers think meat is. When people buy meat, what do they think they’re getting? Does the average consumer consider meat to be animal flesh? Or does she imagine a cow being sent to slaughter? Is meat the muscle of an animal? Or is it the remains of a living creature? If the former, this lab-grown stuff is meat. If the latter, it’s not. There isn’t really any data on this, so each party in this fight is free to assume that their preferred answer is the correct one. “We see it all the time: There’s imitation vanilla, there’s real vanilla,” Biondo says. “Personally, I’m cooking with real vanilla. Imitation crab and real crab, very different products, they’re labeled as such. We don’t think this is a novel request, that these companies have to operate under the same rules.” But the question at hand here is more complicated. Artificial crab is made from an entirely different animal. Cultured meat is made from the same animal, simply in a different way. Josh Tetrick, the CEO of Just, says that in any other situation, we wouldn’t be even having this debate. Think of electric cars, he says. The engine in an electric car is completely different from a traditional combustion machine. But we still call them cars. “Can you call an electric car a car? Of course you can! It’s a fucking car! It has tires and it takes you from place to place! It’s made up of the components we think of as a car.” The FDA hasn’t said what it will do about the meat terminology, but if its past history is any indication, it’s not unreasonable to guess that these cultured-meat companies will be allowed to use the terms meat and beef. And if they do, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association won’t be happy. “I have to say that this would be considered a loss,” Biondo told me. But her counterpart at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association isn’t worried about the terms beef and meat, as much as she’s concerned with the additional words that might be on cultured-meat packaging. “Our biggest goal is preventing the term clean meat,” Beck told me. “The term clean meat, to me it’s not science based, it’s not legally defensible, it’s not helpful to consumers, and ultimately it’s inherently disparaging to traditional beef products.” And this brings us to the last big question in this labeling war. Assuming they’re allowed to call their product meat (and I think that’s a fair assumption to make), what should the additional words and labeling be to clarify what kind of meat it is? Some cultured-meat advocates are pushing clean meat, arguing that this lab-grown meat is better for the environment. Others will likely go for cultured meat, a less controversial term. The FDA will almost certainly require additional labeling on packages, explaining that the meat is not made how most consumers are used to. What those additional terms and phrases might be are still to be seen, but we can look to the Just Mayo decision for clues. Tetrick’s company was asked to do a better job of explaining what “Just” meant on the label. It had to make the fact that the product was egg-free bigger and more obvious on the package and the little cracked-egg logo smaller. So for meat, companies might be asked to add clarifying language to their packaging that explains that the meat was grown in a lab. They might not be allowed to use images of whole cows on the package, either. Most likely, companies will put out products with certain labels, and those labels will be reviewed and course-corrected by the FDA. And the companies I spoke with weren’t opposed to being clear about what their product is, and how it’s different from traditional meat. They believe they’re creating something that consumers will want to buy, after all. And they’re hoping that people who want meat but don’t feel great about traditional meat slaughter and production will seek out their labels. “We want to talk about it, it’s an important thing, an exciting thing, and consumers will be excited about it,” Tetrick told me. Schulze added that “as a new entrant into the marketplace, we know that we have a lot of work to do to introduce ourselves, our process, and our product to regulators, industry partners, and consumers. We are committed to being transparent about our products and how they are made.” What these companies don’t want is to be legally mandated to use these terms and explanatory labels. Because eventually, the idea is that this kind of meat will replace slaughterhouses altogether. Tetrick says that he hopes to one day see lab-grown meat next to traditional meat without any kind of disclaimers. The cattlemen groups say they don’t mind companies like Memphis Meats and Just entering the market, but they want them to be clearly demarcated as a separate product. “We’re happy to compete for the center of the plate with any other protein out there, whether it’s chicken, a black bean burger, a plant-based burger that bleeds and sizzles like real meat, or whether it’s a lab-grown meat product, but ultimately our goal is ensuring consumers have enough information on hand to make informed decisions,” Beck told me. So far, these meat products aren’t widely available, and few people have tried them. Those who have admit that, for now, lab grown meat isn’t quite the same as the slaughtered stuff. “It had a familiar mouthfeel,” one taste tester said of the first ever lab-grown burger back in 2013. “It’s close to meat, but it’s not that juicy,” said another. None of the cattlemen association affiliates I spoke with had ever tasted cultured meat. But they are confident their product is superior, and always will be. And they want the labeling to reflect that. Warren Love, the Missouri state representative, said he probably wouldn’t even try cultured meat if he was offered. “No. I like Coca-Cola. I like the real thing. I’m particular about my food. I don’t even eat chicken nuggets. They’re all meat, but they’re … I’ve seen it made and I don’t want to eat it. But I do like a hot dog, and I love Spam.” Here's the thing about vegetarian recipes: they have a bit of a reputation as being, well, boring. Meat-loving families might think they'd be hard-pressed to find vegetarian recipes that they'll eat, much less ones that they like enough to put into their regular meal rotation. But that's because there's a bit of an image problem with veggie-heavy dishes and we're going to put the blame directly on those awful frozen veggie burgers of ye olde times. But vegetarian recipes have come a long way since then. It's no longer necessary to look at a meat-free meal as a chore that comes with an inevitable struggle at the dinner table. We've compiled a list of recipes that are incredibly delicious and just happen to be meat-free. If you're looking to mix up your meals with something that your whole family is going to love — and request again and again — then check out these meat-free options. Who knows? You might stop thinking of them as "vegetarian" and instead just think of them as another tasty meal your family loves. The World's largest cultured meat factory is being constructed in North Carolina. The 200,000 square feet factory owned by Believer Meats is set up to produce 10,000 metric tons of lab grown cancer meat per year. Israeli cultured meat outfit Believer Meats, known formerly as Future Meat, is looking to play a pivotal role in the availability of lab-grown meat products, and a new facility under construction in the US should help these efforts along. The company says it has broken ground on a new factory in North Carolina that will become the largest of its kind in the world, where the company's proprietary technology will be used to pump out cultivated meat by the metric ton. Along with startups like Impossible Foods, Believer Meats is endeavoring to drive down the cost of lab-grown meat, Lab-grown chicken and meat looks identical to standard meat. The cultivation process begins with cells extracted from real chickens or cows via biopsy using long needles, no doubt a painful process. Then the chicken cells are taken to a lab and grown in tanks. They are programmed to replicate time and time again. This supposed “meat” is actually made up of engineered cells (how they are genetically engineered is unclear), using some sort of genetic construct called onco-genes, which is typically used to make stem cells keep growing. In order to keep the cells growing, they are bathed in fetal serum (taken from chickens or cows) or some sort of synthetic serum alternative. However, this process of non-stop cell growth would encourage the growth of cancer cells as well. And whoever eats this “meat” could be exposing themselves to serious cancer risk. Touted as a process that is “cruelty free” and will "save the planet" this lab grown meat actually involves animal cruelty, poses a cancer risk to those that consume it, and will harm the environment. Within the tanks themselves, huge amounts of antibiotics and antimicrobials will have to be used to keep the “meat” and tanks sterile. Eating this meat will be equivalent to taking hefty doses of anti-biotics. And unlike a real animal which removes toxins through urine and feces, the toxins from the production process will remain in the meat and anyone eating it will be exposed. Likely this meat will be sold to restaurants many of whom use the worst possible ingredients to make a profit. Since its identical to regular meat, the end consumer will have no idea that he is eating lab grown meat. In order to compete in the meat market, companies will have to figure out how to grow this lab grown meat profitably. Many companies are scrambling to take part in this lab grown meat craze. Some companies are using bioreactors —very large vessels for containing biological reactions and processes. Which would implement a scaffold-based system to grow "meat," The scaffolding helps the cells differentiate into a specific meat-like formation. Bioreactors are bad for the environment. The process of making this "cultured" chicken is shrouded in mystery, evvery company using their own mystery engineering and growth serums. Zero transparency, and you can bet that its all toxic and as from away from "natural" as it gets. Engineering animal meat in laboratories will forever change the way food is "made". Taking away the last bit of real food we have left. It's Sad for all the people trying to hold on to eating proper healthy food as G-d created. Claim: - Cultivated meat is produced using “cancerous and pre-cancerous cells” Inaccurate: - Cultivated meat isn’t made of cancerous or pre-cancerous cells. The process uses cells that can divide indefinitely. While cancerous cells also have that capacity, this feature alone doesn’t make a cell cancerous. Misleading: - Equating cultivated meat to cancer cells has led to claims that consuming this product causes cancer in humans. For that to happen, the cells would first need to survive harvesting, food processing, storage, cooking, and digestion, which is extremely unlikely. Even if one cell entered the bloodstream alive, no evidence suggests that it would be able to grow within the consumer’s body or cause harm. CLAIM: Lab-grown meat is made out of cancerous animal cells. AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Meat grown in labs is made using cells taken from animals, but those cells are not cancerous and there are many safeguards in place to ensure that the end product is safe to consume, experts told The Associated Press. The false claim stems from the fact that, like cancer cells, those used in lab-grown meat often go through a process that allows them to divide indefinitely. But cells must exhibit other traits to be considered cancerous. THE FACTS: Following recent news that two companies were given the go-ahead to sell lab-grown meat in the U.S., some social media users are falsely claiming that the products are made from a dangerous source. One TikTok video, which had received more than 587,000 views by Friday, falsely states that the companies behind the products realized that “cancer cells” are the best source for “fast-replicating cells,” and so are using those as the “base” of the meat. “Lab grown meat is being cultivated from animal’s cancer cells because they replicate fastest,” reads a Facebook post. But this is categorically untrue, experts say. “You would never under any circumstance take a tumor out of an animal and use that to manufacture meat,” said Elliot Swartz, principal scientist at the Good Food Institute, a nonprofit think tank, whose work is focused on cultivated meat. Many companies that make lab-grown meat — also called “cell-cultivated” or “cultured” meat — start out by taking cells from different parts of an animal, including muscle or skin tissue. The false claim stems from the fact that these cells are then put through a process called immortalization, which allows them to replicate indefinitely. This means companies do not have to continually create cell lines from scratch, allowing for higher-scale production. Cancer cells are also considered immortalized, but that is only one trait that makes them cancerous. Other characteristics that can indicate cancer in cells include unpredictable, uncontrollable behavior or the creation of separate blood vessels, Swartz said. But cells intentionally immortalized to create lab-grown meat have behavior that is, by necessity, predictable and controllable. “All cancers are immortalized, but not all immortalized cells are cancer,” Swartz said. “So it’s sort of like how not all rectangles are squares.” Joe Regenstein, a professor emeritus of food science at Cornell University, and Marion Nestle, a professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, agreed that the claim spreading on social media is inaccurate. The Agriculture Department on June 21 gave two California companies — Upside Foods and Good Meat — the green light to sell lab-grown meat in the U.S. This move came months after the Food and Drug Administration deemed that products from both companies are safe to eat. And lab-grown meat is subject to food safety regulations, just as any other food product would be. For example, extensive research and testing ensures that cells used to produce the meat have been proven to maintain their stability and safety, Swartz said. Clean and controlled environments means that there is less risk of contaminants and foodborne pathogens, he added. Upside Foods and Good Meat both said in separate statements that their use of immortalized cells presents no risk to consumers. The companies pointed out that safety data on their manufacturing processes is publicly available in documentation provided to the FDA. This is part of AP’s effort to address widely shared misinformation, including work with outside companies and organizations to add factual context to misleading content that is circulating online. Cultivated meat, also known as cell-cultured meat or lab-grown meat, is real meat grown in a lab without having to raise or slaughter animals. The key ingredient in this innovative food category is real animal cells, which proliferate into biomass that is used to make cultivated chicken, lamb and other types of meat. Typically, the cells used to make cultivated meat are immortalized cells — cells that proliferate indefinitely. For curious consumers and others interested in better understanding how cultivated meat is made, we're explaining what immortalized cells are, why they are crucial for the production of lab-grown meat, different ways cultivated meat companies can source them, and common misconceptions about them.‍ CELL CULTURE 101: PRIMARY CELLS VS. IMMORTAL CELLS First, a necessary primer on the difference between primary cells and immortal cells. Primary cells are taken directly from animals — whether for research or to make cultivated meat — and can grow for just a few days in a lab. Immortal cells are cells which can be induced or propagated from primary cells, which are able to grow forever without limit. Here's a closer look: PRIMARY CELLS Primary cells are isolated directly from a living animal. This provides scientists with a small sample of cells; enough to line the bottom of a small cell culture dish. These original cells are known as primary cells and are essentially identical to cells inside of an animal's body. If provided with the right environmental conditions and "fed" with a nutrient-rich growth media, these primary cells will proliferate, just as they do inside an animal. But even in optimal conditions, most cells will only undergo a certain number of divisions before undergoing senescence, aging and dying. Believer Meat, discovered a process that allows animal cells to evade senescence and, therefore, proliferate indefinitely. Once these immortal cells were established, they guaranteed an infinite supply of the building blocks of meat. IMMORTAL CELLS Immortal cells are populations of cells that do not reach senescence or age. The cells continue to proliferate, growing and dividing, indefinitely. These cells can provide researchers — or cultivated meat makers, like us — with an indefinite supply of animal cells. ADVANTAGES OF IMMORTALIZED CELLS IN CULTIVATED MEAT To understand why cultivated meat companies need immortalized cells, it's helpful to imagine a tiny sample of cells under a microscope. Consider how many times those microscopic cells must multiply to create enough biomass to make a single chicken strip. Now imagine how much proliferation must take place to create millions of pounds of meat. For cultivated meat to eventually be widely available and accessible to consumers, the industry needs a constant supply of animal cells. Clearly, primary cells with limited expansion capabilities are not the most practical cells to use. One very impractical workaround is to continuously isolate new primary cells from donor animals. But besides being a very expensive way to maintain a supply of cells, this method needlessly ties animals to the cultivated meat-making process. The more efficient and animal-friendly way to produce big batches of animal cells, therefore, is to establish immortal cells that proliferate indefinitely. METHODS FOR ESTABLISHING IMMORTAL CELLS How can cells be "immortalized" or prevented from reaching senescence? There are three main methods used in the world of cultivated meat. ISOLATING NATURALLY IMMORTAL CELLS Stem cells are naturally immortal, an attractive characteristic for cultivated meat companies looking for a constant supply of cells. They can also differentiate types of cells such as muscle and fat. However, stem cells are expensive to grow and are extremely unstable. Tiny changes in the growth environment causes stem cells to differentiate and stop being immortal. IMMORTALIZATION THROUGH GENETIC MODIFICATION The most common way to immortalize cells is to genetically modify them to bypass senescence. This can be done by infecting cells with viruses or inserting pieces of DNA that contain genes that make cells immortal. While some companies may rely on genetic modification, this is not how we immortalize cells at Believer Meats. SPONTANEOUS IMMORTALIZATION Believer Meats developed a process to select cells that naturally immortalize in the lab, we call this process spontaneous immortalization. When cells grow in the laboratory, they compete with their neighbors. Naturally, the fastest growing cells overtake the culture, while cells undergoing senescence age and die. After a hundred generations, an immortal population of cells emerges from the culture. These cells do not undergo senescence or age. Believer's immortal chicken cells, for example, were established more than three years ago from a small sample of primary chicken cells obtained the ability to proliferate forever, and continue to do so for over 1,000 generations to date. Over the last few years, we've gained deep expertise in spontaneously immortalizing cells and now have immortal chicken, ovine, and beef cells that we use — and will use for years to come — to make our meat. . THE BIG C: WHY CULTIVATED MEAT CELLS ARE NOT CANCER CELLS Outside of the world of science, an average person might associate the concept of cellular immortality with cancer. However, cancer is a distinctly different process than the one used to create immortal cells for cultured meat. HOW DO BELIEVER MEAT’S IMMORTALIZED CELLS DIFFER FROM CANCER CELLS Cancer cells have very well defined hallmarks. Cancer cells lack the ability to repair their DNA from damage. Cancer cells' genetic material is unstable. Cancer cells can form tumors and invade tissues in the body. Believer Meat’s immortal cells are different. Our cells retain their ability to repair their DNA from damage. Our cells are genetically stable and have maintained that stability for over 1,000 generations. And finally, our cells can’t form tumors or invade tissues in the body. How do we know this? Because our scientists and their collaborators at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem ran a plethora of tests that were published in a high profile peer-reviewed paper in the prestigious journal Nature Food. In short, we found that our immortalized cells cannot form tumors, that they repair broken DNA very well, and lack any cancer-related mutations. WHY PEOPLE CANNOT GET CANCER FROM CELLS USED IN CULTIVATED MEAT Both independent experts and scientists at Believer Meats make clear that there is no way humans could get cancer from animal cells used to make lab-grown meat — or even from eating an actual animal that had cancer. Here's what some experts have said on this topic: Lucas Smith, an assistant professor in the College of Biological Sciences and School of Medicine at the University of California-Davis told USA Today that it would be “virtually impossible” for someone to get cancer even if they ate meat from an animal with cancer, and that we "know much more about the genetic makeup of cultivated meat cells than what we currently ingest from traditional meat." Robert Weinberg, a renowned Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist and cancer researcher, told Bloomberg that “it’s essentially impossible for a cell from one species to gain a foothold in the tissues of another species...So even if one were to take highly malignant cells from a cow and drink them, I don’t see what the problem would be.” Our own scientists explain that cells used to make our meat would be "very dead" before they ever reached a consumer (as a result of the freezing and high temperature extrusion process our products go through). But even if they weren't dead, consumers could "take cells directly from our bioreactor and eat them with a spoon" and still rest assured that they'd be safe. WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT IMMORTALIZED CELLS AND CULTIVATED MEAT The bottom line: immortalized cells are essential for the production of cultivated meat. Whether they are genetically modified or spontaneously immortalized (like our cells), these ever-proliferating cells provide companies with an endless supply of real animal biomass — the key building block of our products. We've demonstrated through rigorous peer-reviewed research that the cells Believer Meats use for cultured meat production are not related to cancer. And even under some extremely unlikely scenarios, scientists around the world agree that people could safely eat cultured meat. More importantly, the immortalized cells proliferating in labs today hold the potential to feed people around the world for many years to come and to save an untold number of animals from slaughter. Ouroboros Steak, a meat cultivated from human cells and expired blood, has been developed by a group of American scientists as a thought-provoking art piece to challenge the sustainability practices of the nascent cellular agriculture industry, which develops lab-grown products from existing cell cultures. Ouroboros Steak cuts out the need for other animals by drawing exclusively on human blood and cells. The process still relies on fetal bovine serum (FBS), which costs around $400 to $950 per liter, as a protein-rich growth supplement for animal cell cultures. The FDA cleared a lab-grown meat product developed by a California start-up as safe for human consumption, marking a key milestone for cell-cultivated meats to eventually become available in U.S. supermarkets and restaurants. Ouroboros Steak grow-your-own human meat kit is "technically" not cannibalism A group of American scientists and designers have developed a concept for a grow-your-own steak kit using human cells and blood to question the ethics of the cultured meat industry. Ouroboros Steak could be grown by the diner at home using their own cells, which are harvested from the inside of their cheek and fed serum derived from expired, donated blood. The resulting bite-sized pieces of meat, currently on display as prototypes at the Beazley Designs of the Year exhibition, are created entirely without causing harm to animals. The creators argued this cannot be said about the growing selection of cultured meat made from animal cells. Despite the lab-grown meat industry claiming to offer a more sustainable, cruelty-free alternative to factory farming, the process still relies on fetal bovine serum (FBS) as a protein-rich growth supplement for animal cell cultures. FBS, which costs around £300 to £700 per litre, is derived from the blood of calf fetuses after their pregnant mothers are slaughtered by the meat or dairy industry. So lab-grown meat remains a byproduct of polluting agricultural practices, much like regular meat. "Fetal bovine serum costs significant amounts of money and the lives of animals," said scientist Andrew Pelling, who developed the Ouroboros Steak with industrial designer Grace Knight and artist and researcher Orkan Telhan. "Although some lab-grown meat companies are claiming to have solved this problem, to our knowledge no independent, peer-reviewed, scientific studies have validated these claims," Pelling continued. "As the lab-grown meat industry is developing rapidly, it is important to develop designs that expose some of its underlying constraints in order to see beyond the hype." Human cells are fed with serum from expired blood donations Ouroboros Steak, named after the ancient symbol of the snake eating its own tail, cuts out the need for other animals by drawing exclusively on human blood and cells. The version on display at London's Design Museum was made using human cell cultures, which can be purchased for research and development purposes from the American Tissue Culture Collection (ATCC). They were fed with human serum derived from expired blood donations that would otherwise have been discarded or incinerated. The grow-it-yourself kit would include mycelium scaffolds (centre) and human serum (right) Amuse-bouche-sized steaks are preserved in resin and laid out on a plate complete with a placemat and silverware as a tongue-in-cheek nod to American diner culture. As part of the DIY kit, the team envisions users collecting cells from the inside of their own cheek using a cotton swab and depositing them onto pre-grown scaffolds made from mushroom mycelium. For around three months, these are stored in a warm environment such as a low-temperature oven and fed with human serum until the steak is fully grown. For display, the bite-sized steaks are preserved in resin "Expired human blood is a waste material in the medical system and is cheaper and more sustainable than FBS, but culturally less-accepted. People think that eating oneself is cannibalism, which technically this is not," said Knight. "Our design is scientifically and economically feasible but also ironic in many ways," Telhan added. "We are not promoting 'eating ourselves' as a realistic solution that will fix humans' protein needs. We rather ask a question: what would be the sacrifices we need to make to be able to keep consuming meat at the pace that we are? In the future, who will be able to afford animal meat and who may have no other option than culturing meat from themselves?" Ouroboros Steak was previously exhibited at the Designs for Different Futures exhibition at the Philadelphia Museum of Art Although no lab-grown meat has so far approved for sale in any part of the world, the market is estimated to be worth $206 million and expected to grow to $572 million by 2025, largely due to the increasing environmental and ethical concerns about the mass rearing of livestock for human consumption. Among the companies hoping to bring cultured meat to market are Aleph Farms, which claims to have been the first company to make a lab-grown steak. Others have focused on substituting meat entirely, with Novameat creating a 3D-printed steak from vegetable proteins. Soylent Green isn't as evil as it is made out to be today Spoiler of the punchline of the whole movie... "Soylent Green is people!" In the film Soylent Green the big conspiracy is that human corpses are being recycled to make food for others to eat. While cannibalism is viewed in a negative light, it is almost socially acceptable in dire situations, which the world of Soylent Green is. The basic problem of the Soylent Green world is that there isn't enough food energy available to feed the population due to the poisoning of the land and recent poisoning of the ocean. While the powers that be and their science teams scramble to find a long-term solution to keeping humanity alive they have to implement stopgaps. The dead aren't going to contribute any more to society, and burning the bodies would waste the chemical energy in them. Converting them to food allows humanity to stay alive a little longer while a permanent solution is looked for. In the final scene of the film the fear is expressed that humans will be "bred like cattle" to feed the rich. This cannot be true, because it will always take more food to grow a human than you will get out of them -- thermodynamics demands it. Soylent Green can be a stopgap while looking for a long-term solution, but you can't sustain a society on it. No one is being bred for food. It's merely a dire situation where the powers that be are looking for a means to keep humanity alive while long-term options are being investigated. By publicizing the Soylent Green production process (and probably getting it shut down), the protagonist has perhaps doomed humanity to starvation if an alternative is not found in time, since cannibalism was keeping humanity alive a little longer than they would have been able to live otherwise. New York City has a population of 96 million, and only the elite pedophile's can afford spacious apartments, clean water, and natural food. The homes of the elite are fortified, with security systems and bodyguards for their tenants. Usually, they include concubines (who are referred to and used as "furniture"). The poor live in squalor, haul water from communal spigots, and eat highly processed wafers: Soylent Red, Soylent Yellow, and the latest product, far more flavorful and nutritious, Soylent Green. I never found Soylent Green plausible. If the Earth can no longer support the number of human beings it has, then the areas that don't have enough food will go to war to get food from others, and the resulting casualties will bring Earth's population down to manageable levels. Agenda 21 and 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change. ( Its 1432 Pages Long ) Thanks. https://planning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/publication/download_pdf/Growing-Smart-Legislative-Guidebook.pdf DEATH DECLARATION For 2030 Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development Wide World Now.

In the latest effort to reduce emissions from agriculture, Ireland said it may kill all 2,000,000 cows. Meanwhile, climate activists have American farms and ranches in the crosshairs. This video shows several cattle in varying situations being shot to show and educate the people that don't know what happens when cattle are killed for human consumption out in the field (not in an abattoir).This video is not made to shock people. It is made to show that with the right skill, training and patience cattle can be humanely killed. You will see that the cattle are relaxed and in their own environment. The rifle used is a Ruger bolt action .22 Magnum. The ammunition used was "CCI". All of the cattle had their blood vessels severed immediately after they were shot. The animals were shot for the owner of them to eat. The animals were all shot on different days. The animals were all shot on different properties. The animals all died instantly. The animals that are together are together to lessen the stress on them as they are a herding animal and feel threatened and vulnerable when they are alone. When a standing animal is shot, it should instantly drop to the floor. In cattle, the neck contracts in a spasm for 5 to 10 seconds. These are normal reactions. Rhythmic breathing must be absent and the animal must not moan, bellow, or squeal. All eye reflexes should be absent. Gasping or gagging reflexes are permissible because they are signs of a dying brain. Within 10 seconds, the neck and head should be completely relaxed. ln a clinical situation and in a slaughter plant, the animal‘s limbs may make uncoordinated movements for several minutes. In the latest effort to reduce emissions from agriculture, Ireland said it may kill 2,000,000 cows. Meanwhile, climate activists have American farms and ranches in the crosshairs. Climate activists are coming for livestock producers and farmers. European governments have been targeting the agriculture industry for several years. The Telegraph reports that Ireland’s government may need to reduce that country’s cattle herds by 2,000,000 cows over the next three years to meet climate targets. In an effort to reduce nitrogen pollution, Reuters reported the European Union last month approved a $1.6 billion Dutch plan to buy out livestock farmers. Front And Center Now the Biden administration is targeting American agriculture. Special President Envoy For Climate John Kerry recently warned at a climate summit for the U.S. Department of Agriculture that the human race’s need to produce food to survive creates 33% of the world’s total greenhouse gasses. “We can’t get to net-zero. We don’t get this job done unless agriculture is front and center as part of the solution,” Kerry said. Microsoft Billionaire Bill Gates also is obsessing about cattle emissions, providing financial support to companies that are developing seaweed supplements and gas masks for cows. It’s ‘Groupthink’ Kacy Atkinson, an agricultural advocate who raises cattle in Albany County, told Cowboy State Daily that this conversation on emissions from the industry isn’t considering the beneficial impacts of cattle to the environment and the climate. “Groupthink happens a lot around the climate change conversation. We get tunnel visioned on one piece of it without considering the full ramifications of what's going to happen if we remove cattle from the land,” Atkinson said. She said cattle contribute to drought resistance, soil health and wildfire reduction. Just before cattle were introduced to North America and the industry began raising them, Atkinson said there were thousands of buffalo roaming the plains. Cows and buffalo are both ruminants, which is a type of animal that brings back food from its stomach and chews it again. These animals’ digestive systems produce methane emissions. Today’s cattle population is similar in numbers to that of the buffalo herds. “So, the methane emissions from ruminant animals aren’t anything new,” Atkinson said. Trapping Carbon Cattle also benefit plant life, Atkinson said. “You need ruminant animals to forage grasses, because they’re the only things that can,” she explained. Pigs, for example, are monogastric and can’t break down high fiber content in grasses. Cow’s digestive system can break the grasses down, and then they fertilize the ground. So, through proper cattle grazing management, Atkinson said the cattle she’s raising are helping plants to grow. In the atmosphere, the methane they burp out — most of it is released through the mouth of the animal — breaks down in 10 to 15 years into carbon dioxide and water. The plants that cattle help to grow use that carbon dioxide. The carbon then gets put back into the soil through the grasses’ roots. “So the cattle are essential in helping to keep that carbon trapped in the ground,” Atkinson said cattle have other benefits to the climate that are being ignored in the focus on just their emissions. Whenever soil cracks or fissures, it releases carbon into the air. The animals walking upon the soil compacts it and helps keep the carbon trapped in the soil. She said one study done by the University of Florida found that between 10% and 30% of the world’s carbon storage is found under the feet of U.S. cattle. Increasing Food Insecurity Brett Moline, spokesperson for the Wyoming Farm Bureau, told Cowboy State Daily that the regulations that would likely flow from ideas like Kerry’s would only make farming and ranching more expensive. Ultimately, those expenses would get passed down to the consumer. “It’s going to make food expensive, and we still have a large part of the population that is food-insecure,” Moline said. Of course, people aren’t going to stop eating. If farms in North America and Europe shut down, food production will move to countries with lax environmental regulations. The end result, Moline said, is less environmentally friendly farming producing the world’s food supply. As far as the climate impacts, Moline said those are getting blown out of proportion where everything is blamed on climate change, such as the drought in the past couple years. “Two years ago, it was drier than my jokes,” he said. “Now we’re getting wet again. Climate ebbs and flows.” Other Benefits Atkinson said that one in eight people in the U.S. is considered food insecure, which means they don’t have a sufficient source of nutrition. By removing cattle, Atkinson said, they’re just furthering that problem by eliminating a valuable protein source from the American diet. There also are a lot of food byproducts that cows consume as feed. This includes the leftover pulp from orange juice production, the hulls from almonds, and the peels of potatoes from making french fries. “All that would just end up in a landfill,” Atkinson said. Cattle are also not just a source of food. Products including some laundry detergents, nail polish remover, soaps, lotions, footballs, and pharmaceuticals are made from animal byproducts. “It would be a pretty significant undertaking to replace all of the things that we get from them,” Atkinson said. PETA calls climate change plan that culls 2,000,000 cows 'ridiculous': 'Government kill squads' won't help and The animal rights organization called on everyone to go vegan in order to save the planet. Ireland officials are discussing a plan to cull around 2,000,000 cows in an effort to combat climate change, according to multiple reports, causing backlash from Irish farmers. Amid the pressure from the European Union to fight climate change, one of the proposed plans would take place over three years by farmers voluntarily culling 665,000 cows a year, which would reduce the national dairy herd by 80%, and cost roughly $2.14 billion annually, according to the Telegraph. In a statement provided to Fox News Digital, a PETA spokesperson said how the dairy industry already "routinely slaughters ‘spent’ cows on a massive scale to boost profits." "Hiring government kill squads as a solution to the climate catastrophe is ridiculous when a global shift to vegan eating would discourage farmers from breeding these animals in the first place," the spokesperson said, adding that "PETA encourages everyone to start taking personal responsibility for saving the planet by going vegan." The cull, if decided upon, would be entirely voluntary and serve as part of a "retirement exit scheme" for farmers. Senator Pauline O'Reily, a member of Ireland's Green Party, said farmers won't restock herds at the same level, thus reducing the overall cow population overtime. "Over time, farmers don’t restock to the same level, as they did, so that over time, their herds are reducing," she said, "It isn’t a cull that is taking out cows and killing them, that’s not what it is. And that creates huge fear and anxiety amongst farmers." "Actually what this is, is an exit scheme for dairy farmers, I come from a dairy farming background myself, that the farmers themselves have asked for, and have called for. Because they can see the schemes, the environmental schemes that are oversubscribed. Every single environmental scheme in the country is oversubscribed. Farmers want to sign up to it, and dairy farmers also want to scheme, so that they can sign up to it, so that they get money in their pockets if they do reduce their herds. But it’s completely voluntary," she added. According to a response from a spokesperson for the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the policy is one of a number of "modeling documents" that is considered by the department, and a "final policy decision" had not been made. "As part of the normal work of Government Departments, various options for policy implementation are regularly considered," the Department stated. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland's agricultural sector accounted for 38% of national Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) emissions in 2021. The predominant byproducts were methane from livestock, and nitrous oxide from the use of nitrogen fertilizer and manure management. Methane gas from livestock contributes to a major portion of the world greenhouse gasses, with methane accounting for 44% of total livestock emissions, according to Food and Agricultural Organization of The United Nations. In an effort to curb emissions from animals and livestock, other countries have also considered culling large numbers of animals to meet climate goals. Stephanie Nash told 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' the government needs to stop telling farmers what to do A Tennessee farmer condemned the idea of forcing cows to wear masks and diapers to contain their methane emissions, saying the people who came up with the idea have "gone to loony town." French dairy giant Danone announced in mid-January it is considering putting masks on cows to trap their burps in an effort to reduce methane emissions by 30% come 2030. In the future, cows could also be forced to wear diapers to trap their flatulence. Stephanie Nash called the whole thing udder madness Wednesday on "Tucker Carlson Tonight." "Well, Tucker, you know, I'm not going to wear a mask. I'm not going to allow my cows to wear a mask," she said, Nash put a mask on one of her cows during the interview to test the theory but explained "she's not having it" and is "struggling to breathe." Livestock, especially cows and cattle, produce methane, a dangerous greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere, as part of their normal digestive process, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. New data from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition found livestock emissions-manure and gastroenteric releases - account for roughly 30% of methane emissions. Nash told host Tucker Carlson her farm is doing "big things to cut emissions." "We have ruminants on our farm that can digest byproducts. A good example is we feed our cows soybean meal that comes from soy oil production," she explained. "And you have to ask yourself, millions of tons per year – if we don't have cows to digest that byproduct, it has to go somewhere. It has to go to a landfill. It has to go on, you know, into a waste management. And that's going to be very harmful. That's going to leave an imprint, you know, for our country and gases going into our environment." Carlson asked if putting a diaper on a cow would even be feasible and wondered if the whole thing was a joke. "I think these people have gone to loony town. There's no possible way that I'm going to put a diaper on my cow," she stated. The Chapel Hill farmer said her cows have to be able to walk around, lay down, eat and drink water and generally live a comfortable life. "Our animals are under the best stewardship, and we want them to be as comfortable as possible. And telling me how to do my job is not the way to eliminate emissions. We have to be smart about this. We have to listen to the farmer [or] rancher and what is best for our animals." The woke environmentalists has put forth more methane than this globe can handle but yet they blame cows, they blame gas stoves, gas cars. They haven’t come up with any viable solutions other than destroying valuable paintings and emitting toxic fumes from their mouths. For the sake of their cause we see them jetting the globe, living in mansions, and buying more than they need that leaves huge carbon footprints, but they are ‘conscientious’ so somehow they are exempt. They don’t practice what they preach. They hide behind their carbon indiscretions while pointing fingers at us. Humane killing of cattle A firearm or a captive-bolt are both suitable methods for humanely killing adult cattle. The firearm should deliver at least the muzzle energy of a standard 0.22 magnum cartridge. For larger animals and bulls, 0.30 calibre high-power cartridges are recommended. For calves a rifle should deliver at least the muzzle energy of a standard 0.22 long rifle cartridge. Use of a captive bolt must deliver the correct charge and be followed by bleeding out to ensure death. Frontal method - suitable for firearm or captive bolt Aim the firearm at the point of intersection of lines taken diagonally from the top of each ear to the inside corner of the opposite eye (position A). Diagram with markings A, B and C to show recommended position on animal's head for human destruction of cattle Poll method The poll method is not recommended for cattle. Only use the poll method if accessing the frontal position is not possible. The animal is shot from above (position B) mid-way between each ear with the direction of aim down towards the muzzle of the animal. Temporal method - suitable for firearm only The animal is shot from the side so that the bullet enters the skull midway between the eye and the base of the ear on the same side of the head (position C). The bullet should be directed horizontally. The temporal position should only be used if frontal position is not possible. Note: Stunning (by captive bolt) does not necessarily result in death. Bleeding out must be carried out immediately to ensure death occurs. Blunt trauma The use of blunt trauma on newborn young calves less than 24 hours old must immediately be followed by bleeding out, while the animal is unconscious, to ensure death. There are so many reasons not to eat cows, but here are our top 10: 1. Your Body Will Thank You Eating beef products is a good way to increase your chances of becoming impotent and developing heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, and other health conditions. Every time you eat animal-derived foods, you’re also ingesting fecal material, antibiotics, dioxins, and a host of other substances, some toxic, that can accumulate in your body and remain there for years. 2. Cows Have Complex Feelings Cows are gentle social animals. They have the ability to recognize more than 100 other cows, and they form close friendships with members of their herd. Researchers report that cows grieve when their friends or family members die. Learn more fascinating facts and read awe-inspiring stories about cows and other animals in the bestselling book Animal kind. 3. Hormones: It’s What’s for Dinner To make cows grow at an unnaturally fast rate, the cattle industry implants them with pellets full of hormones. While low levels of naturally occurring hormones are found in various foods, many scientists are concerned that the artificial hormones implanted into cows cause health problems in humans who eat them. Many of these hormones are illegal in many countries. Not so delicious, right? 4. No One Should Be Tortured Cows endure routine mutilations, including branding, castration, and dehorning, that cause excruciating, prolonged pain—all without painkillers. After months on a severely crowded feedlot, they are then shipped without food or water to a slaughterhouse, where a metal rod is shot through their brains, they are hung upside down, and their throats are slit. Because line speeds are so fast, many animals are still conscious throughout the process. 5. Factory Farms Pollute Communities Runoff from factory farms and livestock grazing is one of the leading causes of pollution in our rivers and lakes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notes that bacteria and viruses can be carried by the runoff and that groundwater can be contaminated. Numerous studies and government reports have shown higher rates of miscarriages, respiratory problems, and neurological diseases among people who live near factory farms. 6. Animal Agriculture Pollutes the Planet By some estimates, animal agriculture is responsible for more greenhouse gases than all of the world’s transportation systems combined. According to the United Nations, a global shift toward vegan eating is vital if we are to combat the worst effects of the climate catastrophe. 7. Even Cowboys Don’t Eat Cows Anymore Howard Lyman was a fourth-generation cattle rancher who went vegan after learning about the effects of factory farming—he now tours the country promoting a vegan lifestyle. 8. Cows Are Amazing Escapees A few cows have managed to escape from slaughterhouses. One named Emily got away from a Massachusetts slaughterhouse, leapt over a 5-foot gate, and survived for several weeks in the woods during the New England winter before she was rescued. While some escapees like Emily and Freddie (below) are released to sanctuaries, the millions of nameless cows killed by the meat industry each year aren’t so lucky. 9. Eating Meat Is Stealing Food From People in Need It’s inefficient to grow grains and other feed crops for animals—only a fraction of what we feed them is actually turned into flesh that humans can eat. The vast majority is used by the animals to live and grow. The highly respected Worldwatch Institute says, “In a world where an estimated one in every six people goes hungry each day, … grain is used more efficiently when consumed directly by humans. Continued growth in meat output is dependent on feeding grain to animals, creating competition for grain between affluent meat eaters and the world’s poor.” 10. Vegan Meat Is Better Than Ever Leaving cows and other animals off your plate is easier than ever. You can now get tasty veggie burgers at numerous restaurants, including Denny’s, Johnny Rockets, and White Castle. Check out our favorite beef replacements, all of which are delicious and cholesterol- and cruelty-free. Transport to the Slaughterhouse Cattle who survive feedlots, dairy sheds, and veal farms face a hellish trip to the slaughterhouse. They are crammed onto trucks where they typically go without food, water, or rest for the duration of the journey, which can sometimes be days. Many cows collapse in hot weather; in the cold, cows sometimes freeze to the sides of the truck until workers pry them off with crowbars. By the time the exhausted cows reach the slaughterhouse, many are too sick or injured to walk. These cows, known to the meat and dairy industries as “downers,” often have ropes or chains tied around their legs so that they can be dragged off the trucks. Of those animals who arrive at the slaughterhouse healthy enough to walk, many are frightened and don’t want to leave the truck, so they are shocked with electric prods or dragged off with chains. “Uncooperative animals are beaten, they have prods poked in their faces and up their rectums,” says a former USDA inspector. In the summertime, when it’s 90, 95 degrees, they’re transporting cattle from 1,200 to 1,500 miles away on a trailer, 40 to 45 head crammed in there …. [In the winter], can you imagine if you were in the back of a trailer that’s open and the wind chill factor is minus 50 degrees, and that trailer is going 50 to 60 miles an hour? The animals are urinating and defecating right in the trailers, and after a while, it’s going to freeze, and their hooves are right in it. If they go down—well, you can imagine lying in there for 10 hours on a trip. —Former U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) veterinary inspector Dr. Lester Friedlander Slaughter: ‘They Die Piece by Piece’ After they are unloaded, cows are forced through a chute and shot in the head with a captive-bolt gun meant to stun them. But because the lines move so quickly and many workers are poorly trained, the technique often fails to render the animals insensible to pain. Ramon Moreno, a longtime slaughterhouse worker, told The Washington Post that he frequently has to cut the legs off completely conscious cows. “They blink. They make noises,” he says. “The head moves, the eyes are wide and looking around. … They die piece by piece.” Another worker, Martin Fuentes, told the Post that many animals are still alive and conscious for as long as seven minutes after their throats have been cut. “The line is never stopped simply because an animal is alive.” Because the industry makes more money the more animals it kills, workers who stop to alert officials to abuses at their slaughterhouse risk losing their jobs. The meat industry thrives on a workforce made up largely of impoverished and exploited workers, many of them immigrants who can never complain about poor working conditions or cruelty to animals for fear of being deported. The best way to help put an end to this cruelty is to stop eating meat and other animal products. Order PETA’s free vegetarian/vegan starter kit today for great tips and free recipes to help you make the transition to an animal-friendly diet. The Climate Crisis and Animal Agriculture, Explained While using public transportation, shopping with reusable bags, and taking shorter showers are all commendable, none of these actions has as big an impact on the environment as what you eat does. When it comes to the climate crisis, animal agriculture is a leading culprit. It’s simple, really: Water and land are used to grow crops to feed animals. Those crops and water are used to bulk up animals for slaughter. The animals emit noxious levels of CO2, methane gas, and excrement that pollute our air and waterways. Animals are transported in semi-trucks and processed in large factory-style slaughterhouses, and their body parts are packaged and shipped across the country. Of all the agricultural land in the U.S., 80 percent is used to raise animals for food and grow grain to feed them—that’s almost half the total land mass of the lower 48 states! On top of that, nearly half of all the water used in the U.S. goes to raising animals for food. The billions of chickens, turkeys, pigs, and cows who are crammed onto factory farms produce enormous amounts of methane, both during digestion and from the acres of cesspools filled with their feces. Scientists report that every pound of methane is more than 84 times as effective as carbon dioxide is at trapping heat in our atmosphere. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency shows that animal agriculture is the single largest source of methane emissions in the U.S. Burning fossil fuels (such as oil and gasoline) releases carbon dioxide, the primary gas responsible for the climate crisis. Producing 1 calorie from animal protein requires 11 times as much fossil fuel input—releasing 11 times as much carbon dioxide—as does producing 1 calorie from plant protein. The National Audubon Society, the World watch Institute, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and even Al Gore’s Live Earth say that raising animals for food damages the environment more than just about anything else that we do. Cattle ranching is the single biggest cause of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, accounting for 80% of it. The good news is you don’t have to buy a hybrid car or let “the yellow mellow” in the toilet all day in order to make a difference. You have the power to help the planet every time you sit down to eat! It’s a great time to be vegan. There are more vegan meat options than ever before, and they’re available everywhere, from your local co-op to big-box stores, including Target and Walmart. With so many options to choose from, it can be hard to figure out which ones to try first—so we’ve taken away the guesswork with this handy list. Beyond Meat Innovative company Beyond Meat is single-handedly changing the vegan meat game. What’s its secret? Its mouthwatering products are made with non-GMO, gluten-free pea protein. After the sensation of the “bloody” Beyond Burger, the brand launched several other products and formed partnerships with popular chains. Now you can find Beyond Meat’s vegan ground beef, sausages, meatballs, chicken, and jerky at grocery stores nationwide. Beyond Steak is the newest addition to this lineup. It’s great in stir-fries, salads, tacos, fajitas, and other dishes. Dr. Praeger’s Dr. Praeger’s vegan burgers have been a hit since they launched in 1994, but the brand has since expanded to offer a delicious variety of vegan meat items as well. Its Pure Plant Protein line features “beefy” burgers, crispy “chicken” tenders, ground “beef,” and a vegan breakfast sausage. Although many of the brand’s products are vegan, always be sure to double-check ingredients and look for the vegan logo on the label to be sure. OMNI Vegan meat brand OMNI has made waves in the food industry with its Omni Pork products, made from pea protein, soy, shiitake mushrooms, and rice. Omni Pork Luncheon “meat” is a healthier, animal-free option to use in recipes like “Spam” musubi, fried rice, and ramen. The brand also makes vegan pork ground and strips, and it’s launched a vegan seafood line as well. Before the Butcher This meatless meat brand offers its UNCUT Plant-Based Burgers in several grocery store chains in Southern California. The savory soy-based burgers cook up great on the grill. Try them in four different varieties: Burger, Savory Chicken Burger, Roasted Turkey Burger, and Breakfast Sausage Patty. Morning Star Farms Following PETA’s talks with Kellogg’s about offering more vegan products through its Morning Star Farms and Gardenburger brands, the company announced three reformulations of products from vegetarian to vegan. The tasty, improved items, which are now dairy– and egg-free, include Morning Star Farms’ Buffalo Chik Patties, Buffalo Wings, and Chik’n Nuggets, and BBQ Chik’n Nuggets. Look for the yellow “vegan” label on products in stores now and for even more vegan products by Morning Star in the future. Gardein We love that Gardein offers fishless fish, including a golden fishless fillet, as well as mini crabless cakes. Must-try product: Classic Meatless Meatballs. Tofurky Founded in 1980, Tofurky quickly became famous for its holiday roasts, but it’s known for many other delectable vegan products as well, including deli slices, veggie dogs, tempeh bacon, vegan pizza, and more. Field Roast Made with grain meat, Field Roast products include vegan sausages, deli slices, roasts, burgers, and even a meatloaf. Its famous vegan cheese Chao Slices are a great complement to what we consider a must-try product: the Field Burger. Yves Veggie Cuisine Yves has a wide range of vegan products, including Original Meatless Jumbo Hot Dogs, and Meatless Canadian Bacon. The company was founded in 1985 and continues to provide cholesterol-free vegan meat options to a growing demographic of compassionate consumers. Trader Joe’s A trip to Trader Joe’s is a pleasant experience for any vegan, as the grocery chain carries a large array of vegan meat products. Thanks to the law of supply and demand, the more yummy meatless products you buy, the more Trader Joe’s carries—so keep up the good work! Must-try product: Chickenless Crispy Tenders. Lightlife Lightlife offers a variety of vegan meat options, which are easy to identify, thanks to a prominent “certified vegan” logo on the package. Must-try product: Smart Dogs (veggie dogs) Boca Burger Boca Burger was born when a chef in Boca Raton, Florida, wanted to make a great veggie burger his way. His creation became such a hit that he had to set up shop in a warehouse next to his restaurant—his small kitchen simply couldn’t keep up with demand. Must-try product: Spicy Chik’n Patties. Sweet Earth Natural Foods Sweet Earth is well known for its seitan, burritos, and veggie burgers, but be sure to try the company’s other products, too, such as its “bacon” and three flavors of vegan ground round. Also, keep an eye out for its Awesome Burger, made from pea protein. Check the ingredient list to make sure your choice is vegan. Grass-fed cows won't save the climate, report finds Letting livestock graze doesn’t dramatically reduce greenhouse emissions. If you thought eating only "grass-fed" hamburgers could absolve you from climate change guilt, think again. There's a lack of evidence that livestock (such as cattle, sheep, and goats) dining on grassland has a lower carbon footprint than that fed on grains, as some environmentalists and "pro-pastoralists" claim, according to a new report by an international group of researchers led by the Food Climate Research Network (FCRN), based at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. "Switching to grass-fed beef and dairy does not solve the climate problem—only a reduction in consumption of livestock products will do that," says one of the report's authors, Pete Smith of the University of Aberdeen in the United Kingdom. Livestock is responsible for 14.5% of global greenhouse emissions, researchers estimate. The animals emit gases such as nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane in amounts that have significantly changed our atmosphere. And the impact is growing. As more people worldwide are lifted out of poverty, many more can afford to eat meat regularly; global demand for animal products, now 14 grams per person per day, is expected to more than double by 2050. Most modern-day cattle are raised on "landless systems," also known as feedlots, where the cattle have little space, no access to pastures, and are fed a grain-based diet. Proponents of this system argue that it is an efficient way to produce meat that helps prevent conversion of forests and other ecosystems to pasture. But feedlot systems are notorious for producing hydrogen sulfide and polluting waterways with animal waste, ammonia, pathogens, and antibiotics. Moreover, some experts say, because ruminant stomachs evolved to eat grass, feeding them soy or corn results in more greenhouse gas emissions. Letting ruminants graze is a better system, some argue. Plants take up CO2 through their leaves and, when they die, leave part of it in their roots, where it remains and is converted to other forms of life; that makes soil a giant carbon sink. But human activities such as deforestation and plowing have released much of the stored carbon, and "pro-pastoralists" suggest that grazing cattle can help restore grasslands and soil, sequestering massive amounts of CO2 in the process. The cows' manure would also recycle nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous to the soil, encouraging the growth of new vegetation and sequestering even more carbon. But the 127-page FCRN report released today, Grazed and Confused, says there is no evidence that grass-grazing cattle will make a difference. Grass-fed cattle do contribute to CO2 sequestration, the international group concluded after sifting through more than 100 papers—but only under ideal conditions. When too many animals roam a field, they will trample plants and soil and impede carbon storage; when it's too wet, carbon uptake is impeded as well. And even under the best of conditions, carbon sequestration is not at levels high enough to counteract the ruminants' own emissions, the report says. The findings don't sway advocates of grazing. Richard Young of the Sustainable Food Trust in Bristol, U.K., says the report is too quick to dismiss the importance of grazing in some regions. "For me it's very simple," he says. "In countries like the U.K. and Ireland, and on rangelands where rainfall is too unreliable for much crop production, we should continue to encourage and make possible ruminant production." Legislation and policy can help prevent overstocking, he says. "Farming becomes sustainable when it looks like an ecosystem," adds Richard Manning, the Helena, Montana–based author of Grassland: The History, Biology, Politics and Promise of the American Prairie. "It works when we mimic natural systems. And we have to include animals, because that's what's found in nature." Manning says the report also ignores other services grasslands provide, such as absorbing flood water and filtering runoff. And as the report acknowledges, conventionally raised beef has other environmental issues, Manning points out, such as increasing the demand for grains, and therefore cropland. In the end, the real solution is reducing global meat consumption, says Tim Benton, who studies sustainable agro-ecological systems at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom. "Our ever-increasing demand for meat is driving the planet in an unsustainable direction," Benton says. "No one farming system will fix it." What’s the beef with cows and the climate crisis? Reducing methane emissions is seen as the biggest opportunity for slowing global heating by 2040. About a third of human-caused methane emissions come from livestock, mostly from beef and dairy cattle, produced in the digestive process that allows ruminants (hoofed animals including cows, sheep and goats with four-part stomachs) to absorb plants. Cows and other farm animals produce about 14% of human-induced climate emissions, and it is methane from their burps and manure that is seen as both the biggest concern and best opportunity for tackling global heating. Although methane breaks down relatively quickly in the atmosphere, it is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Reducing these emissions has been touted as one of the most immediate opportunities to slow global heating ahead of the Cop26 UN climate talks in Glasgow. “Cutting methane is the biggest opportunity to slow warming between now and 2040,” Durwood Zaelke, a lead reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said in August. Options for reducing methane include alternative feeds for cattle, reducing food loss and waste, and cutting meat and dairy production. The UN wants a shift away from outsized meat and dairy industries, especially in high-income countries. Yet, production continues to rise. While the US and EU made a joint pledge last month to reduce methane emissions by almost a third in the next decade, there are no specific commitments for the farming sectors. “No country has a real target to reduce its livestock-related emissions or meat consumption,” says Christine Chemnitz, head of agricultural policy at Heinrich Böll Stiftung, an environmental NGO. New Zealand is the only country to pass legislation to cut greenhouse gases from livestock, but with farming emissions still rising, the government has been advised cow numbers will need to be cut to meet targets. The UK’s legally binding commitment to be net zero by 2050 has no specific targets for the farming sector. The government’s net zero plan only goes as far as committing that “75% of farmers in England will be engaged in low-carbon practices by 2030”. Scottish government climate plans have set a target for reducing emissions from farming to 9% below 2018 levels by 2032, but include no specifics on livestock. In Europe, Denmark has recently passed a legally binding target to reduce climate emissions from the agricultural sector by at least 55% by 2030 compared with 1990 levels, but again nothing specific on livestock. In the US, the state of California has a target for reducing emissions from the livestock sector by 40% below 2013 levels by 2030, but is not on track to meet that target. “The legally binding targets that we see from countries are not sector specific. They tend to set emissions targets with flexibility about how they are achieved,” says Ben Henderson, agricultural policy analyst at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Brazil and Argentina, two of the biggest producers of beef products and animal feed crops in the world, are reported to have argued strongly against UN recommendations that reducing meat consumption is necessary to cut greenhouse gas emissions. While countries may be wary of being tied into actions, the EU’s target of reducing emissions by at least 55% by 2030 is one commitment that is “definitely not fulfillable without reductions in livestock and meat consumption”, says Chemnitz. Northern Ireland, which has seen an increase in meat production in the past decade, could require an 86% cut in cattle and sheep numbers to meet its net zero target. While the Irish government has been advised that a 51% reduction in climate emissions by 2030 is not achievable with its ever-expanding dairy industry. “Like climate itself a decade or two ago, the science for needing to address agriculture and diets is strong, but the political will to skew the system to making [environmentally] harmful things less available and better things, like fruit and veg, more available and cheaper, and helping the market adjust to improve people’s health and the planet is lacking,” says Prof Tim Benton, research director at Chatham House. Despite the absence of climate-specific targets for livestock farming in Europe, there are environmental policies that could restrict the meat and dairy sectors. The Netherlands, for example, has recently been forced to propose radical plans to cut livestock numbers by almost a third to help lower ammonia pollution. Meat and dairy giants feed climate crisis by dragging their heels on methane World’s biggest livestock corporations ‘given free pass by governments’ over lack of clear targets to reduce emissions, say campaigners. A failure to take action on methane emissions by the world’s biggest meat and dairy companies is fuelling the climate crisis, say campaigners who have compiled the first ranking of what the animal protein sector is doing about the short-lived but potent greenhouse gas. Livestock generate about 32% of anthropogenic, or human-generated, methane, mainly from the planet’s billion-plus cattle. The new ranking, published today, names the three worst-performing meat and dairy corporations as two French companies – Groupe Bigard and Lactalis – and the Japanese company Itoham. The ranking was based on an examination of the companies’ climate targets “to see if they had any methane action plans or reporting and to see what research they were doing”, said Nuša Urbancic of Changing Markets Foundation, the ranking’s co-author. Even companies that ranked best – Switzerland’s Nestlé, France’s Danone and New Zealand’s Fonterra – were doing too little, said the report. For example, none of the 20 companies, which together represent the “vast majority” of livestock sector emissions, have concrete methane reduction targets, it said. Leading climate scientists have warned that methane is playing an ever greater role in global heating. Cutting methane emissions, it has been said, is the strongest lever we have to slow climate heating over the next 25 years. Cattle What’s the beef with cows and the climate crisis? Read more The company closest to having a methane action plan, the ranking found, was Nestlé, although it failed to “include any milestones or key performance indicators”. Anne Mottet, livestock director at the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, said companies were under no obligation to report emissions. However, she said the natural links between animal agriculture, methane, climate, food security and nutrition, all of which must be carefully balanced, made it “very important for governments and NGOs to engage with food companies on methane”. Although more than half the ranked companies were undertaking research into methane reduction, mainly via methane-reducing feed, the report said none appeared to be contemplating lowering animal numbers or replacing animals with other protein sources. “Most [of the ranked] companies are investing in alternative proteins, but [they are not] looking at alternative proteins as a replacement for animal production,” said Urbancic, who added that meat and dairy corporations were being “given a free pass by governments”. Responding to the criticisms, Groupe Bigard sent a report showing a 9% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions since 2015, but made no mention of methane. Fonterra said it includes methane from livestock in its annual sustainability report and that its “aspiration” is to reach net zero carbon by 2050. Nestlé said its ambition was to halve its emissions by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2050 at the latest. “One of the specific solutions we are exploring is related to the diet and digestion of livestock animals. By using feed alternatives, we can help minimise methane emissions,” it said. Danone said that while it did not have specific methane reduction targets, they were included in its ambition to reach net zero by 2050. Lactalis said it was exploring solutions to reduce methane emissions through innovation in feed, increasing yields per cow and providing technical support to farmers. Other companies did not respond to requests for comment or said they had no comment. Are Cows Climate Killers? Chicken, beef or pork: they might land on your plate, but are they climate killers? That debate has picked up steam in recent years amid greater awareness of climate issues and a growing trend of vegetarianism. American author Jonathan Safran Foer brought the issue to the forefront with his controversial book Eating Animals in which he condemns factory farming and commercial fisheries. Climate scientists and agricultural experts around the world, though, are on the fence. They are still working to determine the extent of the impact of the livestock industry on the environment. What remains undisputed is that animal husbandry does generate harmful emissions. Firstly, the animals themselves release emissions — cows, for example, produce methane gas in the digestion process. In addition, the entire industry contributes to the greenhouse gas effect, from the fertilizer on the fields to the transport of feed for the animals and the use of milking machines. The job of scientists, then, is to figure out just how high those emissions levels are. Yet they often use different research methods or factors in measuring emissions and come up with different results. And that has sparked a debate over which numbers to trust. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) says that animal husbandry is responsible for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, based on a 2006 study called “Livestock’s Long Shadow”. But in 2009, the Worldwatch Institute (WWI) released a study called “Livestock and climate change” — authored by two former World Bank environmental specialists, Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang — that placed the emissions level at an astonishing 51 percent. Finding middle ground Klaus Butterbach-Bahl is researching the relation between livestock and climate change at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany and the Livestock Research Institute in Nairobi, Kenya, and says he himself wonders how the measurements can vary as much as they do. Butterbach-Bahl and his colleagues believe that agriculture worldwide contributes to a third of global greenhouse gas emissions — a number he says has been published various times. Danish climate researcher Sonja Vermeulen and Oxford University professor John Ingram published a cornerstone, frequently cited study in 2012 called “Climate Change and Food Systems” in which they also attributed a third of global emissions to livestock. “The one-third value is considered the standard now,” Butterbach-Bahl says. “That incorporates changes in land use and the resulting effects on the climate.” When rainforest land in Brazil is cleared for a soybean farm, for example, crucial carbon storage capacity is destroyed: the soil binds CO2 and the forest itself acts as a massive carbon sink. The dark side of meat By including changes in land use, this form of analysis goes deeper than the FAO study. But how do researchers come to 51 percent? The Albert Schweitzer Foundation, a German animal protection organization, took a closer look and compared the WWI and FAO studies in detail. They found that both parties provided inconclusive data: the WWI exaggerated the data while the FAO took too narrow a perspective and worked with old data, the group says. The reality is that climate studies remain a world apart. The WWI, like many organizations, measures methane emissions from cows separately because the gas is considered 25 times more harmful than CO2. But the institute also includes lesser-known, more obscure factors, like the effect that the animals’ breathing has on global warming, and the number of missed opportunities to reforest plots of land. Those quantities make the entire evaluation difficult to understand, argue some. “You then have to wonder if you should have calculated every type of missed opportunity,” researchers at the Albert Schweizer say. Vegetarianism and the sacred cow All the contradictory data has sparked a new debate in Germany about vegetarianism and eco-friendly eating patterns. At the center of the discussion is the livestock industry’s high emissions rate. But veterinarian and author Anita Idel believes that livestock animals have been wrongly labeled as climate killers. She calls cows “landscape gardeners“ that have contributed to soil fertility for thousands of years. Not to mention that grazing generates humus, which binds CO2. “Most studies on the impact of livestock on the climate are unscientific,“ she argues, pointing out that researchers often take into account only one side of the problem. Sustainable livestock production avoids using synthetic fertilizers and relies on grass as feed rather than grains, soybeans or corn plants, Idel points out. “There is a massive need for more research comparing the various systems of animal husbandry,” she says. Instead, she believes the animals’ effect is often studied within the confines of industrial agriculture, which is already a climate offender. And Idel says synthetic nitrogen fertilizers that generate nitrous oxide are 300 times more harmful to the environment than CO2. “Limiting your studies to methane is interest-based and discriminates against sustainable agriculture,“ she says. Klaus Butterbach-Bahl says the answer is simple: the livestock industry must change, because too many animals over-graze land too often, and too intensely. Such degraded areas can no longer bind CO2. “We have to get away from that, just like we need to stop focusing on consuming large amounts of meat in our daily lives. A balanced diet would do us and the climate good,“ he says. “Your piece of schnitzel doesn’t have to be bigger than your plate — there’s simply no reason for that.” W0W! Truth Behind Meat Production Chicken Waffle Beef Burger An Eye-Opening Exploration. https://rumble.com/v2mmrac-truth-behind-meat-production-chicken-waffle-beef-burger-an-eye-opening-expl.html Narrated by Oscar-nominee James Cromwell, this powerful film takes viewers on an eye-opening exploration behind the closed doors of the nation's largest industrial farms, hatcheries, and slaughter plants -- revealing the often-unseen journey that animals make from Farm to Fridge. If this documentary moves you, please take a moment to consider if these animals lives are worth taking for merely taste. Thinking about going vegan? The Truth About the Meat Industry What is left out of our food labels? Behind the cow industry are disturbing secrets you are not supposed to know. Supermarket beef has become an industrialized, unnatural product laced with lies beyond the labels. What actually happens to that meat before it reaches grocery store shelves? In this blog I’ll unveil the dirty truth behind the cattle slaughter process everyone needs to hear.

Genetically Modified Organisms ? - So Poor Johnny doesn't like "healthy" food. What could possibly persuade him to eat all his "veggies"? If you could save lives by producing vaccines in transgenic bananas, would you? In the debate over large-scale commercialization and use of GMOs, where should we draw the line? ou may use this film Only if it stays intact. No part of it. may be removed or used in part without our permission. People have been altering the genomes of plants and animals for many years using traditional breeding techniques. Artificial selection for specific, desired traits has resulted in a variety of different organisms, ranging from sweet corn to hairless cats. But this artificial selection, in which organisms that exhibit specific traits are chosen to breed subsequent generations, has been limited to naturally occurring variations. In recent decades, however, advances in the field of genetic engineering have allowed for precise control over the genetic changes introduced into an organism. Today, we can incorporate new genes from one species into a completely unrelated species through genetic engineering, optimizing agricultural performance or facilitating the production of valuable pharmaceutical substances. Crop plants, farm animals, and soil bacteria are some of the more prominent examples of organisms that have been subject to genetic engineering. Current Use of Genetically Modified Organisms Agricultural plants are one of the most frequently cited examples of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Some benefits of genetic engineering in agriculture are increased crop yields, reduced costs for food or drug production, reduced need for pesticides, enhanced nutrient composition and food quality, resistance to pests and disease, greater food security, and medical benefits to the world's growing population. Advances have also been made in developing crops that mature faster and tolerate aluminum, boron, salt, drought, frost, and other environmental stressors, allowing plants to grow in conditions where they might not otherwise flourish (Table 1; Takeda & Matsuoka, 2008). Other applications include the production of nonprotein (bioplastic) or nonindustrial (ornamental plant) products. A number of animals have also been genetically engineered to increase yield and decrease susceptibility to disease. For example, salmon have been engineered to grow larger (Figure 1) and mature faster (Table 1), and cattle have been enhanced to exhibit resistance to mad cow disease (United States Department of Energy, 2007). The pharmaceutical industry is another frontier for the use of GMOs. In 1986, human growth hormone was the first protein pharmaceutical made in plants (Barta et al., 1986), and in 1989, the first antibody was produced (Hiatt et al., 1989). Both research groups used tobacco, which has since dominated the industry as the most intensively studied and utilized plant species for the expression of foreign genes (Ma et al., 2003). As of 2003, several types of antibodies produced in plants had made it to clinical trials. The use of genetically modified animals has also been indispensible in medical research. Transgenic animals are routinely bred to carry human genes, or mutations in specific genes, thus allowing the study of the progression and genetic determinants of various diseases. Potential GMO Applications Many industries stand to benefit from additional GMO research. For instance, a number of microorganisms are being considered as future clean fuel producers and biodegraders. In addition, genetically modified plants may someday be used to produce recombinant vaccines. In fact, the concept of an oral vaccine expressed in plants (fruits and vegetables) for direct consumption by individuals is being examined as a possible solution to the spread of disease in underdeveloped countries, one that would greatly reduce the costs associated with conducting large-scale vaccination campaigns. Work is currently underway to develop plant-derived vaccine candidates in potatoes and lettuce for hepatitis B virus (HBV), enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC), and Norwalk virus. Scientists are also looking into the production of other commercially valuable proteins in plants, such as spider silk protein and polymers that are used in surgery or tissue replacement (Ma et al., 2003). Genetically modified animals have even been used to grow transplant tissues and human transplant organs, a concept called xenotransplantation. The rich variety of uses for GMOs provides a number of valuable benefits to humans, but many people also worry about potential risks. Risks and Controversies Surrounding the Use of GMOs Despite the fact that the genes being transferred occur naturally in other species, there are unknown consequences to altering the natural state of an organism through foreign gene expression. After all, such alterations can change the organism's metabolism, growth rate, and/or response to external environmental factors. These consequences influence not only the GMO itself, but also the natural environment in which that organism is allowed to proliferate. Potential health risks to humans include the possibility of exposure to new allergens in genetically modified foods, as well as the transfer of antibiotic-resistant genes to gut flora. Horizontal gene transfer of pesticide, herbicide, or antibiotic resistance to other organisms would not only put humans at risk, but it would also cause ecological imbalances, allowing previously innocuous plants to grow uncontrolled, thus promoting the spread of disease among both plants and animals. Although the possibility of horizontal gene transfer between GMOs and other organisms cannot be denied, in reality, this risk is considered to be quite low. Horizontal gene transfer occurs naturally at a very low rate and, in most cases, cannot be simulated in an optimized laboratory environment without active modification of the target genome to increase susceptibility (Ma et al., 2003). In contrast, the alarming consequences of vertical gene transfer between GMOs and their wild-type counterparts have been highlighted by studying transgenic fish released into wild populations of the same species (Muir & Howard, 1999). The enhanced mating advantages of the genetically modified fish led to a reduction in the viability of their offspring. Thus, when a new transgene is introduced into a wild fish population, it propagates and may eventually threaten the viability of both the wild-type and the genetically modified organisms. Unintended Impacts on Other Species: The Bt Corn Controversy One example of public debate over the use of a genetically modified plant involves the case of Bt corn. Bt corn expresses a protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Prior to construction of the recombinant corn, the protein had long been known to be toxic to a number of pestiferous insects, including the monarch caterpillar, and it had been successfully used as an environmentally friendly insecticide for several years. The benefit of the expression of this protein by corn plants is a reduction in the amount of insecticide that farmers must apply to their crops. Unfortunately, seeds containing genes for recombinant proteins can cause unintentional spread of recombinant genes or exposure of non-target organisms to new toxic compounds in the environment. The now-famous Bt corn controversy started with a laboratory study by Losey et al. (1999) in which the mortality of monarch larvae was reportedly higher when fed with milkweed (their natural food supply) covered in pollen from transgenic corn than when fed milkweed covered with pollen from regular corn. The report by Losey et al. was followed by another publication (Jesse & Obrycki, 2000) suggesting that natural levels of Bt corn pollen in the field were harmful to monarchs. Debate ensued when scientists from other laboratories disputed the study, citing the extremely high concentration of pollen used in the laboratory study as unrealistic, and concluding that migratory patterns of monarchs do not place them in the vicinity of corn during the time it sheds pollen. For the next two years, six teams of researchers from government, academia, and industry investigated the issue and concluded that the risk of Bt corn to monarchs was "very low" (Sears et al., 2001), providing the basis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to approve Bt corn for an additional seven years. Unintended Economic Consequences Another concern associated with GMOs is that private companies will claim ownership of the organisms they create and not share them at a reasonable cost with the public. If these claims are correct, it is argued that use of genetically modified crops will hurt the economy and environment, because monoculture practices by large-scale farm production centers (who can afford the costly seeds) will dominate over the diversity contributed by small farmers who can't afford the technology. However, a recent meta-analysis of 15 studies reveals that, on average, two-thirds of the benefits of first-generation genetically modified crops are shared downstream, whereas only one-third accrues upstream (Demont et al., 2007). These benefit shares are exhibited in both industrial and developing countries. Therefore, the argument that private companies will not share ownership of GMOs is not supported by evidence from first-generation genetically modified crops. GMOs and the General Public: Philosophical and Religious Concerns In a 2007 survey of 1,000 American adults conducted by the International Food Information Council (IFIC), 33% of respondents believed that biotech food products would benefit them or their families, but 23% of respondents did not know biotech foods had already reached the market. In addition, only 5% of those polled said they would take action by altering their purchasing habits as a result of concerns associated with using biotech products. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, public acceptance trends in Europe and Asia are mixed depending on the country and current mood at the time of the survey (Hoban, 2004). Attitudes toward cloning, biotechnology, and genetically modified products differ depending upon people's level of education and interpretations of what each of these terms mean. Support varies for different types of biotechnology; however, it is consistently lower when animals are mentioned. Furthermore, even if the technologies are shared fairly, there are people who would still resist consumable GMOs, even with thorough testing for safety, because of personal or religious beliefs. The ethical issues surrounding GMOs include debate over our right to "play God," as well as the introduction of foreign material into foods that are abstained from for religious reasons. Some people believe that tampering with nature is intrinsically wrong, and others maintain that inserting plant genes in animals, or vice versa, is immoral. When it comes to genetically modified foods, those who feel strongly that the development of GMOs is against nature or religion have called for clear labeling rules so they can make informed selections when choosing which items to purchase. Respect for consumer choice and assumed risk is as important as having safeguards to prevent mixing of genetically modified products with non-genetically modified foods. In order to determine the requirements for such safeguards, there must be a definitive assessment of what constitutes a GMO and universal agreement on how products should be labeled. These issues are increasingly important to consider as the number of GMOs continues to increase due to improved laboratory techniques and tools for sequencing whole genomes, better processes for cloning and transferring genes, and improved understanding of gene expression systems. Thus, legislative practices that regulate this research have to keep pace. Prior to permitting commercial use of GMOs, governments perform risk assessments to determine the possible consequences of their use, but difficulties in estimating the impact of commercial GMO use makes regulation of these organisms a challenge. History of International Regulations for GMO Research and Development In 1971, the first debate over the risks to humans of exposure to GMOs began when a common intestinal microorganism, E. coli, was infected with DNA from a tumor-inducing virus (Devos et al., 2007). Initially, safety issues were a concern to individuals working in laboratories with GMOs, as well as nearby residents. However, later debate arose over concerns that recombinant organisms might be used as weapons. The growing debate, initially restricted to scientists, eventually spread to the public, and in 1974, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) established the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee to begin to address some of these issues. In the 1980s, when deliberate releases of GMOs to the environment were beginning to occur, the U.S. had very few regulations in place. Adherence to the guidelines provided by the NIH was voluntary for industry. Also during the 1980s, the use of transgenic plants was becoming a valuable endeavor for production of new pharmaceuticals, and individual companies, institutions, and whole countries were beginning to view biotechnology as a lucrative means of making money (Devos et al., 2007). Worldwide commercialization of biotech products sparked new debate over the patentability of living organisms, the adverse effects of exposure to recombinant proteins, confidentiality issues, the morality and credibility of scientists, the role of government in regulating science, and other issues. In the U.S., the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment initiatives were developed, and they were eventually adopted worldwide as a top-down approach to advising policymakers by forecasting the societal impacts of GMOs. Then, in 1986, a publication by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), called "Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations," became the first intergovernmental document to address issues surrounding the use of GMOs. This document recommended that risk assessments be performed on a case-by-case basis. Since then, the case-by-case approach to risk assessment for genetically modified products has been widely accepted; however, the U.S. has generally taken a product-based approach to assessment, whereas the European approach is more process based (Devos et al., 2007). Although in the past, thorough regulation was lacking in many countries, governments worldwide are now meeting the demands of the public and implementing stricter testing and labeling requirements for genetically modified crops. Increased Research and Improved Safety Go Hand in Hand Proponents of the use of GMOs believe that, with adequate research, these organisms can be safely commercialized. There are many experimental variations for expression and control of engineered genes that can be applied to minimize potential risks. Some of these practices are already necessary as a result of new legislation, such as avoiding superfluous DNA transfer (vector sequences) and replacing selectable marker genes commonly used in the lab (antibiotic resistance) with innocuous plant-derived markers (Ma et al., 2003). Issues such as the risk of vaccine-expressing plants being mixed in with normal foodstuffs might be overcome by having built-in identification factors, such as pigmentation, that facilitate monitoring and separation of genetically modified products from non-GMOs. Other built-in control techniques include having inducible promoters (e.g., induced by stress, chemicals, etc.), geographic isolation, using male-sterile plants, and separate growing seasons. GMOs benefit mankind when used for purposes such as increasing the availability and quality of food and medical care, and contributing to a cleaner environment. If used wisely, they could result in an improved economy without doing more harm than good, and they could also make the most of their potential to alleviate hunger and disease worldwide. However, the full potential of GMOs cannot be realized without due diligence and thorough attention to the risks associated with each new GMO on a case-by-case basis. GMO toxicity: fears and scientific analysis After genetically modified foods were introduced in the United States a few decades ago, people independently reported toxic effects caused by GMOs. One example is an anti-GMO advocacy group called the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), which reported that rats fed a diet containing a GMO potato had virtually every organ system adversely affected after just ten days of feeding. The IRT stated that the toxicity was the result of genetic modification techniques and not a specific case for that particular potato. They claimed the process of making the GMO caused it to be toxic and thus all GMOs were high risk for toxicity. Scientists across the U.S. and the rest of the world have sought to rigorously test the assertions of the IRT and others to uncover any possible toxicity caused by GMOs. To this end, many different types of modifications in various crops have been tested, and the studies have found no evidence that GMOs cause organ toxicity or other adverse health effects. An example of this research is a study carried out on a type of GMO potato that was genetically modified to contain the bar gene. The product of the bar gene is an enzyme that can detoxify herbicides and thus protects the potato from herbicidal treatment. In order to see if this GMO potato would have adverse effects on consumer health like those claimed by the IRT, a group of scientists at the National Institute of Toxicological Research in Seoul, Korea fed rats diets containing either GMO potato or non-GMO potato. For each diet, they tracked male and female rats. To carefully analyze the rats’ health, a histopathological examination of tissues and organs was conducted after the rats died. Histopathology is the examination of organs for disease at the microscopic level (think pathologist doing a biopsy). Histopathological examinations of the reproductive organs, liver, kidneys, and spleen showed no differences between GMO-eating and non-GMO-eating animals. Nobody has ever been killed by exposure to gamma rays from a cobalt-60 source used in food irradiation. But people die all the time from food poisoning that is preventable by this technology. We just need to put our worries in the proper perspective. One anti-irradiation advocate was heard to say: “When I shop, I seek mold as a confirmation that the food I am buying is not irradiated.” What silliness. Food irradiation is a technology used to improve the safety and extend the shelf life of foods by reducing or eliminating microorganisms and insects. It is considered a “cold” method, meaning it doesn’t use heat to kill germs, unlike pasteurization and canning which use heat. Food irradiation works by exposing food products to ionizing radiation, making them safer for the consumer. Irradiation does not make foods radioactive, compromise nutritional quality, or noticeably change the taste, texture, or appearance of food. In fact, any changes made by irradiation are so minimal that it is not easy to tell if a food has been irradiated. Food irradiation (the application of ionizing radiation to food) is a technology that improves the safety and extends the shelf life of foods by reducing or eliminating microorganisms and insects. Like pasteurizing milk and canning fruits and vegetables, irradiation can make food safer for the consumer. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for regulating the sources of radiation that are used to irradiate food. The FDA approves a source of radiation for use on foods only after it has determined that irradiating the food is safe. Irradiation can serve many purposes. Prevention of Foodborne Illness – to effectively eliminate organisms that cause foodborne illness, such as Salmonella and Escherichia coli (E. coli). Preservation – to destroy or inactivate organisms that cause spoilage and decomposition and extend the shelf life of foods. Control of Insects – to destroy insects in or on tropical fruits imported into the United States. Irradiation also decreases the need for other pest-control practices that may harm the fruit. Delay of Sprouting and Ripening – to inhibit sprouting (e.g., potatoes) and delay ripening of fruit to increase longevity. Sterilization – irradiation can be used to sterilize foods, which can then be stored for years without refrigeration. Sterilized foods are useful in hospitals for patients with severely impaired immune systems, such as patients with AIDS or Covid 19 shot's and or undergoing chemotherapy. Foods that are sterilized by irradiation are exposed to substantially higher levels of treatment than those approved for general use. There are three sources of radiation approved for use on foods. Gamma rays are emitted from radioactive forms of the element cobalt (Cobalt 60) or of the element cesium (Cesium 137). Gamma radiation is used routinely to sterilize medical, dental, and household products and is also used for the radiation treatment of cancer. X-rays are produced by reflecting a high-energy stream of electrons off a target substance (usually one of the heavy metals) into food. X-rays are also widely used in medicine and industry to produce images of internal structures. Electron beam (or e-beam) is similar to X-rays and is a stream of high-energy electrons propelled from an electron accelerator into food. The FDA has evaluated the safety of irradiated food for more than 30 years and has found the process to be safe. The World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have also endorsed the safety of irradiated food. The FDA has approved a variety of foods for irradiation in the United States including: Beef and Pork - Crustaceans (e.g., lobster, shrimp, and crab) - Fresh Fruits and Vegetables - Lettuce and Spinach - Poultry - Seeds for Sprouting (e.g., for alfalfa sprouts) - Shell Eggs - Shellfish - Molluscan - (e.g., oysters, clams, mussels, and scallops) - Spices and Seasonings. The FDA requires that irradiated foods bear the international symbol for irradiation. Look for the Radura symbol along with the statement “Treated with radiation” or “Treated by irradiation” on the food label. Bulk foods, such as fruits and vegetables, are required to be individually labeled or to have a label next to the sale container. The FDA does not require that individual ingredients in multi-ingredient foods (e.g., spices) be labeled. It is important to remember that irradiation is not a replacement for proper food handling practices by producers, processors, and consumers. Irradiated foods need to be stored, handled, and cooked in the same way as non-irradiated foods, because they could still become contaminated with disease-causing organisms after irradiation if the rules of basic food safety are not followed. irradiated food will kill you ? Irradiation is used to reduce or remove pathogens, such as bacteria and molds, that spoil food and cause food poisoning and other illness. It works by applying radiant energy waves to the food which absorbs energy and kills the bacteria that can cause food poisoning in a similar way that heat energy kills bacteria when food is cooked. Is Food Irradiation Dangerous? Try asking people what they are more scared of, exposing food to nuclear radiation or eating food contaminated by E. coli, Listeria or Salmonella bacteria. It’s a safe bet that many would rather take their chances with bacterial food poisoning than with food irradiation. Too bad because food irradiation can reduce the risk of bacterial food poisoning, but public fear keeps the technology from being more widely applied than it currently is. Try asking people what they are more scared of, exposing food to nuclear radiation or eating food contaminated by E. coli, Listeria or Salmonella bacteria. It’s a safe bet that many would rather take their chances with bacterial food poisoning than with food irradiation. Too bad because food irradiation can reduce the risk of bacterial food poisoning, but public fear keeps the technology from being more widely applied than it currently is. And this fear is mostly irrational. The idea behind food irradiation is to destroy bacteria by exposing them to free radicals which are highly reactive and can interrupt cell division. The needed free radicals are generated by bombarding the food with gamma rays released from a cobalt-60 source. This does not make the food radioactive or dangerous in any way. Food irradiation technology has been around a longtime and today most of the spices, herbs and dried vegetables we import are treated in this fashion without any problem ever having appeared. The technique can be used to prevent sprouting in potatoes, extend the shelf life of strawberries and reduce insect infestation in mangoes and papayas. The real potential benefit, though, would be in treating fresh and frozen meat to reduce the risk of Salmonella, E. coli and Listeria poisoning. The latter is a serious concern with ready- to-eat meat products such as sausages, luncheon meats and cooked ham. In any case, anyone desiring to avoid irradiated foods could easily do so because by law such foods have to be labeled with the symbol known as the radura. Some anti-irradiation activists claim that exposing foods to gamma rays destroys nutrients and gives rise to what they call unique “radiolytic products” of unknown toxicity. Gamma rays from cobalt-60 can destroy some of the A,C,E, and B vitamins but under the conditions used this effect is very small. True, on exposure to irradiation chemical bonds are broken and new molecules can form. Most have not been identified and tested but formaldehyde does form in irradiated starch, benzene in meat, peroxides in plant tissues and formic acid in sucrose. All such radiolytic products total no more than 30 ppm. There is more benzene in non-irradiated dairy products than in meat that has been irradiated. Countries such as Israel use irradiation on a large scale and no problems have been noted. In fact, some studies have shown that irradiation increases the concentration of some beneficial substances such as flavanols in citrus fruits. The one realistic concern with food irradiation concerns the cobalt-60 source. This has to be transported to the irradiation facility and in theory accidents can happen along the way. But current methods of transporting radioactive materials are very sophisticated and accidental release of radiation is extremely unlikely. Nobody has ever been killed by exposure to gamma rays from a cobalt-60 source used in food irradiation. But people die all the time from food poisoning that is preventable by this technology. We just need to put our worries in the proper perspective. One anti-irradiation advocate was heard to say: “When I shop, I seek mold as a confirmation that the food I am buying is not irradiated.” What silliness. Needless to say, some molds are highly toxic. Genetically modified organism (GMO) patents refer to intellectual property rights that the United States government issues to inventors of GMOs as a form of protection against infringement. GMOs are food products that have been artificially modified through genetic engineering to possess new traits and benefits. We currently live in the dawn of the age of modern biotechnology which has delivered many benefits to various industries, including that of the agricultural sector. Some of these benefits, which are passed onto society as a whole, have come thanks to companies being able to protect their intellectual property via patents, including genetically-modified organisms (GMO’s). However, there has been an aggressive push from science denialists from the anti-GMO camp to demonize this technology, which has combined with those who are against intellectual property rights and patent laws. This article examines the background to agribiotech and patent protection, arguments for and against GMO patents, and a final reasoning as to why the latter group are incorrect in their anti-science position. Introduction Humans have been engaging in biotechnology (that is, the use of living organisms and manipulation of their genes to produce goods) since the dawn of civilization; just look at the exploitation of yeast for the fermentation process to produce beer in ancient Sumeria and Babylonia in ~7000 BCE (Colwell, 2017). However, it wasn’t until 1972, when Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen first transferred DNA from one microorganism to another, that we found ourselves in the dawn of modern biotechnology (Cohen, et al., 1973). In contrast to the past, we now have a plethora of sophisticated and precise tools (such as the now famous method known as CRISPR) at our disposal to manipulate the genes of organisms to develop desired products (Gao, 2018). However, these tools have not come cheap, and are in fact the fruits of years of research and an enormous injection of capital. In fact, in the United States, it takes, on average, 8 years and $136 million to develop a new genetically-modified (GM) product for agricultural use, including getting through the intense regulatory hurdles (McDougall, 2011). Due to this significant investment, scientists, universities, and companies need to ensure staunch protection around their intellectual property (IP), and the most common method involves the use of patents. Patents, as defined by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), are ‘an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem’ (WIPO, n.d.). They afford the owners of a granted patent the right to exclude others from exploiting their IP for a period of, most commonly, 20 years. (Gwartney, 2009). This creates a temporary monopoly where the inventors have a chance (not a guarantee) to recoup expenses associated with the R&D that has gone into the development of a patented invention, without worrying about unfair competition (Clark, 2011). This is particularly important in the biomedical and biotechnological fields given the exceptionally high R&D costs associated with innovating. In fact, contrary to popular myth, patents in these fields do not hinder innovation, but rather facilitate it thanks to the use of licensing agreements, research exemptions from patent protections, and competitors being able to see the publicly available publish patent to then attempt to jump ahead to the next step in development (Clark, 2011). This article will present common arguments used both in favour of and against patenting genetically-modified organisms (GMO’s) in the agribiotech industry. Finally, the myths, misconceptions, and lies utilized by the anti-GMO and patent-skeptic community will be debunked through an evidence-based approach. Debunking the Misconceptions & Solidifying the Case for GMO Patent Rights Firstly, from a scientific perspective, one needs to merely look at the stark contrast in the type of references making claims about GMO’s and patents, with those against typically appearing in mere newspapers, blogs, and biased non-governmental organizations, rather than quality, peer-reviewed scientific and legal literature. Regarding the potential for environmental risk regarding the release of GMO’s, they are extensively tested with none causing problems, and also there is the worse risk of not using GMO crops to tackle food issues (Hall, 2016). And in terms of potential for future harm, well that applies to non-GMO’s too, but as study after study mounts showing the safety of GMO’s, the likelihood of an issue arising nears zero (Skeptical, 2015). One of the silliest arguments against GMO’s is the naturalistic fallacy, which is a logically fallacious argument; remember, smallpox is natural, floods are natural: nature simply does not care (Daston, 2015). It should also go without saying, that religious arguments are not to be taken seriously when we have a more rigorous system for understanding the world; science (Haggarty-Weir, 2018). Science and the scientific method are the best tools we have for exploring our understanding of the world around us and how things work. So any scientific issues should be dealt with scientifically, and not through delusion (aka, religion). In terms of the anti-patent arguments, the Supreme Court decision in 2013 has often been misrepresented; in fact synthetic genes are indeed patentable (Klusty & Weinmeyer, 2015). Also there were numerous issues with the reasoning used in the Myriad genetics case, but that’s still legally debatable. Next, when people bring up the terminator technology they are being either disingenuous or are ignorant, since the terminator technology has never actually been commercially used (Monsanto, 2017). Further, this is an issue of contracts law, not patent law (Scott, 2017). The argument of patents stifling innovation is also something that has been thoroughly debunked, and interested readers are encouraged to check out Clark, 2011 (see figure below) and Zhou, 2015. Finally, the argument that the patent litigation system favors big business due to the requisite costs is simply not GMO patent-specific and regards legal system reform (Gyles, 2014). I do agree that we should be aiming to equal legal playing fields, but that applies to all areas of society. Conclusions - Exploiting patents for GMO’s helps human society significantly advance, especially in the agricultural sector. It is imperative that we address the issue of GMO’s through the lens of science. That is to say, evidence over ideology. Otherwise we all risk losing out.