Say no to synthetic: America needs real meat, not lab slop



The push for lab-grown and artificial meat is no accident. It is a coordinated campaign to reframe how Americans think about food. From glowing media coverage to celebrity endorsements, the message is clear: Ranching is destructive, eating real meat is backward, and the future belongs to synthetic substitutes.

Beneath the glossy propaganda lies a troubling experiment — one that threatens the livelihoods of ranchers, undermines food security, and hands more control of the food supply to corporate and global elites.

What ‘fake meat’ really means

Plant-based “meat” products like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods use plant matter mixed with additives to mimic the flavor and texture of beef. Lab-grown “meat” is even more radical: animal cells cultivated in bioreactors through a chemical process, then marketed as the real thing.

These companies aren’t simply offering another option at the grocery store. They are trying to redefine what counts as food — and consolidate who controls it.

Both are ultra-processed concoctions. They imitate rather than nourish, raising serious questions about their long-term effects on human health.

Under normal circumstances, such products would remain niche novelties. But with heavy investment from billionaires like Bill Gates, development has accelerated. Gates has argued that “all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef” and poured millions into the industry. At the same time, mainstream media outlets have worked overtime to present lab-grown and plant-based meats as inevitable, urgent, and morally superior.

Follow the money

The driving force is not consumer demand. It is financial interest. These companies aren’t simply offering another option at the grocery store. They are trying to redefine what counts as food — and consolidate who controls it.

Consumers are told they are “saving the planet.” In reality, they are enriching investors and empowering corporations that want to dominate the food supply chain.

What’s in it?

The supposed “better” alternatives raise their own health concerns. Plant-based burgers are not vegetables pressed into patties but chemical cocktails that include methylcellulose, a laxative additive, and soy leghemoglobin, a genetically engineered substance designed to mimic myoglobin, the protein in meat that people often mistake for blood.

Lab-grown meat, even less tested, relies on processes with no precedent at scale. Regulators are barely beginning to study safety issues. Meanwhile, we already know ultra-processed foods shorten lives. A 19-year study linked high consumption of such foods to a 31% higher mortality rate, along with increased rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

To assume that fake meat will escape these dangers is wishful thinking.

The attack on ranchers

If this were merely a matter of consumer choice, the stakes would be lower. But the movement does more than promote itself. It vilifies ranching, branding cattlemen as climate villains.

That message lands hardest when ranchers are already under siege. U.S. cattle numbers have fallen to 86.7 million head — the lowest since 1951. Since 2017, more than 100,000 beef operations have closed, a 15% decline. Rising feed costs, volatile markets, and the dominance of giant packers already squeeze small producers. Fake meat could finish the job.

RELATED: Florida bans lab-grown ‘meat.’ Who’s next?

Photo by Nick Otto for the Washington Post

When family ranches collapse, food production falls even more under the control of corporate giants and investors with little connection to rural America. Transparency disappears. Communities lose their anchor. Consumers end up beholden to whoever controls the labs.

This push isn’t about “helping the planet.” It’s about gaining control and consolidating power.

What policymakers can do

Markets work only when buyers get honest information and producers compete on equal footing. State and federal officials should:

  • Require clear labels (“plant-based” or “cell-cultivated”) so shoppers know what they are buying.
  • Police false environmental or health claims.
  • Enforce competition laws to keep big buyers from crushing small ranchers.
  • Improve price transparency.
  • Help local producers connect with consumers and earn fair value for sustainable grazing.

Supporting ranchers and strengthening antitrust enforcement would do more for food security and public health than subsidizing experimental startups.

Keep food real

Fake meat is sold as progress. In reality, it risks damaging our health, weakening our food supply, and destroying the ranchers who have long fed the nation.

Even if lab-grown meat proves harmless, centralizing control over food erodes transparency, accountability, and community. The future of food should not be synthetic. It should be local, rooted in real ranching, and kept in the hands of Americans who have nourished this country for generations.

Biden’s Lawfare Nearly Ripped This South Dakota Ranching Family Apart

This family faced jail sentences so extreme 'they were told to find alternatives to raise their young children,' Ag Secretary Brooke Rollins said.

Look At Beef To Understand Why U.S. Trade Needs A Makeover

The imbalance within this industry illustrates the broader trade issues that leave the U.S. at a disadvantage.

Trump’s New Agriculture Secretary Needs To Tackle Six Issues That Affect Every Farmer — And Every American

Nothing appears on your plate appears without agriculture. The next USDA secretary will navigate complex issues to keep the food system sustainable.

Netflix’s ‘Beef’ Shows Nothing In The Secular World Can Fill Our Inner Void

Regardless of one’s station in life, we must turn to God to find true peace.

'Dark climate change religion': Middle school teacher feeds sixth-graders bugs and climate alarmist propaganda



Utah's Nebo School District seeks to "prepare students to succeed in school and life." Apparently, that preparation now involves eating bugs and developing a dislike of beef.

Fox News Digital reported that a middle school in the district recently provided sixth-grade students with bugs to eat as part of an English assignment concerning the specter of anthropogenic climate change.

What are the details?

Students were instructed to write an essay on March 7 arguing in support of the consumption of insects rather than cows. The assignment's baked-in presumption was that the mass production and consumption of insect-based foods contra beef will impact weather patterns to a lesser extent.

Children involved in this interactive agitprop were reportedly barred from disagreeing with the premise in their essays. Some students were even given extra credit to consume bugs, which the district admitted to sourcing from a commercial site.

Amanda Wright, a mother of one of the students in the class, challenged the school's principal over the assignment, noting it had made her daughter feel uncomfortable.

Wright suggested that the assignment was tantamount to "indoctrination" and part of a concerted effort to evangelize on behalf of a "dark climate change religion."

Following her initial complaint, Wright met with school administrators and recorded the conversation. Alison Hansen, the principal, was recorded saying "the assignment was about finding facts to support" the climate alarmist premise.

"All the evidence has suggested ... that we probably should be eating bugs – it's good for the environment, etc. But I didn't know that that was an offensive topic," said Kim Cutler, a teacher at Spring Canyon Middle School not presently listed on its faculty page.

Wright's daughter similarly captured evidence of climate dogmatism in the classroom.

"How come we can't state our opinion and write that we shouldn't be eating bugs?" asked the sixth-grader.

"Because we don't have any evidence to support it," said Cutler.

In 2019, Swedish researchers warned in the journal Trends in Ecology & Evolution that by rushing into the mass production and consumption of insects, "we risk creating an industry that replaces one environmental problem with another."

Whereas Cutler told Wright's daughter there was no evidence to support not eating bugs, experts at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences suggested there is similarly little evidence to suggest that the mass rearing of insects won't turn out to be calamitous.

"The emerging insects-as-food industry is increasingly promoted as a sustainable alternative to other animal protein production systems. However, the exact nature of its environmental benefits are uncertain because of the overwhelming lack of knowledge concerning almost every aspect of production: from suitable species, their housing and feed requirements, and potential for accidental release," said the researchers.

The researchers added, "If ecological sustainability is to be a hallmark of mass insect rearing for consumption, ecologists need to engage in research related to sustainability criteria that are directly linked to key elements of the development of the industry."

Cutler told the younger Wright, "It's kind of weird that I gave you a topic where there is only one right answer. We don't want to eat bugs and it's gross. But should we be eating bugs? Yeah, because we're killing the world by raising cows and animals. So we need to, not get rid of cows, but like, try to balance our diet so that not so much of our land is being used to raise cows, 'cause it's killing the ozone layer."

When the younger Wright attempted to raise an objection, Cutler said, "There's only one right answer to this essay. And it's that Americans should be eating bugs. Everyone in the world is eating them, it's healthy for the environment and there's just, there's only one right answer."

Fox News Digital indicated that Cutler later explained that the district had pushed bug-eating advocacy in its training.

The district admitted in a statement that extra credit had been offered in exchange for kids eating bugs and noted that upon Wright expressing concern, 'The student was offered another topic of the student’s choice. Remember this particular assignment is about finding facts versus opinions to support writing an argumentative essay."

Bugging out

TheBlaze has previously reported on the joint effort by climate alarmists and technocrats to preclude the masses from consuming real meat as part of a broader campaign to combat the specter of climate change.

The Guardian ran an op-ed in 2018 claiming, "Reducing our meat intake is crucial to avoiding climate breakdown, since food production accounts for about a quarter of all human-related greenhouse gas emissions, and is predicted to rise. In western countries, this means eating 90% less beef and five times as many beans and pulses."

A 2017 review published in the journal Agronomy for Sustainable Development suggested that rather than meat, humans could instead try eating weeds, micro-algae, and bugs.

The World Economic Forum ran an article in February 2022 touting bugs as "an excellent alternative source of protein" and a way to "significantly reduce our carbon footprint." The WEF author went so far as to suggest that insects are "part of a virtuous eco-cycle."

When speaking recently at the WEF, Siemens AG chairman Jim Hagemann similarly called on people to stop eating meat to curb the specter of anthropogenic climate change.

"If a billion people stop eating meat, I tell you, it has a big impact. Not only does it have a big impact on the current food system, but it will also inspire innovation of food systems," Hagemann told a crowd of technocrats in Davos, Switzerland.

Extra to foisting a bug diet on the population, alarmists have recommended lab-grown cancer-based synthetic meat as an alternative to eating real beef.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Even CNN Turns on Biden as His Ratings Plummet
play icon

Even CNN Turns on Biden as His Ratings Plummet

America's beef supply is expected to shrink as drought and rising production costs prevent ranchers from growing their herds



Beef prices are likely to continue rising as U.S. based cattle ranchers continue to shrink the size of their herds.

This move is expected to further constrain U.S. beef production in the coming months, the Wall Street Journal reported. Data from the federal government confirms that rising costs for feed and other expenses are encouraging ranchers to sell to sell calves into feedlots around the country at a faster rate which leaves fewer cattle available for slaughter. It is expected that this will become more pronounced later this year and into 2023.

Persistent drought conditions throughout the Western U.S. have decimated grazing pastures which causes cattle farmers to spend more money on supplemental feed which presents another major problem for the beef industry.

By 2023, beef production is expected to decline by 7% and cattle prices are expected to increase to record highs. These increased costs and shrinking supply pose serious problems for meatpackers like Tyson Foods Inc., JBS USA holdings Inc., Cargill Inc., and National Beef Packing Co. It is likely that the increased cost of beef production is already being passed onto consumers. The more expensive it is to raise and maintain cows, and as fewer cows are raised for slaughter, the more expensive beef products will eventually cost. Ground beef and chicken prices have already reached all-time highs.

Jeanie Alderson, a fourth-generation rancher in Birney, Montana, said that she sold about 75 aging mother cows from her heard of around 250 in recent months. Typically, Alderson would buy new cows in the spring to replace the ones she sold off but she said that it has been too expensive for her to take any more into her herd this year.

Alderson indicated that wildfires in the southeastern portion of Montana are burning up the pastures where her cattle typically feed and that some of her fellow Montana ranchers have had to spend more money on expensive livestock feeds. These additional expenses and hardships are causing ranchers to reduce the size of the herds.

Alderson said, “It’s really stressful. A lot of ranchers are in deep, deep debt and if they have to go more in debt, some people will go out of business in the next few years.”

Drought conditions and higher operating costs encouraged ranchers to rapidly cull beef cows in the first quarter of 2022, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Iowa State University estimates that American cattle producers have lost money five of the past eight months.

No BEEF for you? Here's how we can SOLVE the impending beef crisis



Glenn Beck predicts average Americans will not be eating beef in the future, thanks to America's current monopoly on meat processing that is all but destroying the small farmer.

There's already talk of switching to lab-engineered or plant-based "meat" and severely limiting how much land is used for cattle grazing. One of the strongest voices in Congress pushing back against these plans is Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).

Rep. Massie joined Glenn on the radio program to explain how farmers are being demolished by big-market regulations, but also to share some ways Congress can fight back. He gives an update on his efforts to pass the PRIME Act and solve the looming meat crises, without getting the government too involved.

Watch the video clip below for more details:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Change your DNA if You Love the Planet
play icon

Change your DNA if You Love the Planet