|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Tom Renz, an American lawyer and commentator, has published an article highlighting concerns about the safety of lab-grown meat, or mutated cancer meat, arguing that there is no real science to suggest that it is safe to eat, especially in the long term, and that consumers have the right to know exactly what they are eating.
The issue of lab-grown meat is not just about science, but also about the role of big corporations and government in promoting these products, and the potential for cronyism and profit to trump truth and public safety.
The lack of transparency and regulation around lab-grown meat means that consumers are essentially acting as guinea pigs, and it is up to consumers to demand answers and to advocate for clearer labelling and more comprehensive safety testing.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
In an article published yesterday, Tom Renz gave an overview of the legal and scientific of lab-grown “meat.”
The concept of lab-grown meat, also known as “cultivated” or “cell-based” meat, is being marketed as a solution to various issues, including climate change and factory farming, but it is actually more similar to a science experiment than a food product, Renz said.
His article “breaks down the science and the law around this disgusting product and [ ] suggests that [we] should think twice before joining Bill Gates in celebrating this fake meat.”
Lab-grown meat is created using immortalised cell lines, which are cells that have been genetically modified to divide indefinitely, similar to cancer cells, by switching on the enzyme telomerase, which allows them to dodge ageing and grow endlessly.
These immortalised cells share certain traits with cancer cells, including non-stop growth, genetic chaos and energy overdrive, which raises concerns about the safety of consuming these cells, as they can become unstable and pile up weird changes that make them unpredictable.
The issue of lab-grown meat is not just a scientific one, but also a legal and regulatory one.
The legal status of lab-grown meat is also uncertain, as it does not meet the definition of “meat” under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, which defines meat as coming from the muscles of animals. And the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires food to be safe and labelled correctly.
Companies such as those backed by Bill Gates and regulatory bodies such as the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) must consider the potential risks and consequences of producing and consuming these products.
The labelling of lab-grown “meat” is a problem. The FDA and USDA have approved lab-grown chicken but this has not clarified the legal issues. US law also bans food labels that mislead people and courts have ruled that labels must be clear and can’t just be technically true but they have to make sense to regular people, which could lead to lawsuits and legal troubles for companies producing lab-grown meat.
“Calling [lab-grown products] “meat” might not pass that test and I’m not even sure a corrupt FDA/USDA can get around that,” Renz wrote.
The production and sale of lab-grown meat may also be affected by state laws, such as those in Missouri and Texas, which protect traditional meat definitions, and companies may face legal headaches if they continue to use vague labels.
As already mentioned, the safety of lab-grown “meat” is a concern. The use of immortalised cell lines and genetic modification raises questions about the potential health risks of consuming these products.
Studies and research, including those published in Nature Reviews Cancer, Journal of Cellular Physiology, Trends in Cancer and Science have highlighted the similarities between lab-grown meat cells and cancer cells, and have warned about the potential risks and instability of these cells. A 2021 review published in Frontiers in Nutrition warned that cultured “meat” requires comprehensive safety research, which has not been done.
The FDA has approved lab-grown “meat” based on short-term safety checks, such as bacteria tests, but has not conducted long-term studies on the effects of consuming immortalised cells, which are cells that can grow indefinitely, similar to cancer cells. The FDA’s approval of lab-grown “meat” is based on incomplete data and the agency is taking a gamble with public health by allowing the sale of these products without proper safety testing.
The use of immortalised cells in lab-grown “meat” raises health concerns, including the potential for these cells to produce toxic proteins or to interfere with the body’s functions, and these risks are not fully understood due to the lack of long-term studies.
You can read Tom Renz’s full article HERE.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, World News
The FDA should be considered enemy of human health.
[…] Go to Source Follow altnews.org on Telegram […]
That looks disgusting 🤮
One has to remember that the FDA has very large back pockets and that impacts their decisions!!!!!
Has Bill Gates ever supported anything that does not harm humanity?
Why would this be different?
Increasingly, from one agency to the next, we see that we have been betrayed.
[…] It is unknown whether lab-grown “meat” is safe to eat and it does not meet the US legal definiti… Tom Renz, an American lawyer and commentator, has published an article highlighting concerns about the safety of lab-grown meat, or mutated cancer meat, arguing that there is no real science to suggest that it is safe to eat, especially in the long term, and that consumers have the right to know exactly what they are eating. […]
It was not KNOWN that the jab was safe OR effective AND it did not meet the definition of a vaccine, BUT the definition could be changed and people could be duped and murdered. Perhaps it will not be as easy to get people to swallow this scam.
[…] Read more: It is unknown whether lab-grown “meat” is safe to eat and it does not meet the US leg… […]
[…] Read more: It is unknown whether lab-grown “meat” is safe to eat and it does not meet the US leg… […]
[…] It is unknown whether lab-grown “meat” is safe to eat and it does not meet the US legal definiti… […]
[…] It is unknown whether lab-grown “meat” is safe to eat and it does not meet the US legal definiti… […]
[…] https://expose-news.com/2025/03/02/fda-gives-fake-meat-approval-to-be-sold/ […]
Soilant Green. Fiction becomes reality.