Who Gives a Cluck?

I'll get right to the best part: In 1945, Colorado farmer Lloyd Olsen was preparing to sell a chicken when he hit a snag. As Sy Montgomery explains in What the Chicken Knows, Olsen "failed to kill the rooster when his ax missed the bird's carotid artery and left one ear and most of the brain stem intact. … He grew from two and a half pounds to eight, and attained national fame as Mike the Headless Chicken on the sideshow circuit from 1945 to 1947." What Mike did on the circuit, presumably, was run around like a chicken with his head cut off.

The post Who Gives a Cluck? appeared first on .

'Very stupid': New York Times beclowns itself with botched 'fact-check,' proving RFK Jr.'s point



Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Donald Trump's proposed Health and Human Services secretary, has pledged to "Make America Healthy Again" primarily by tackling the "chronic disease epidemic" and the corporate capture of federal regulatory agencies.

The environmental lawyer's adjacency to the Republican president and his recent criticism of experimental gene therapies have made him a frequent target for criticism by lawmaking recipients of Big Pharma lobbying money and the liberal media. In their efforts to dunk on Kennedy, establishmentarians have in many cases exposed their true loyalties as well as their aversion to inconvenient facts.

The New York Times is now among the outfits that has risked such exposure in its desperation to characterize Kennedy as "wrong."

'The science shows that these dyes cause hyperactivity in children, can disrupt the immune system, and are contaminated with carcinogens.'

By attempting to miss a point that Kennedy was making in a recent interview, the Times' Christina Jewett and Julie Creswell unwittingly defended his thesis. Critics have since descended upon the liberal publication, mocking it over its botched fact-check.

At the outset of their article, titled "Kennedy’s Vow to Take On Big Food Could Alienate His New G.O.P. Allies," Jewett and Creswell wrote, "Boxes of brightly colored breakfast cereals, vivid orange Doritos and dazzling blue M&Ms may find themselves under attack in the new Trump administration."

After highlighting why food titans that produce unhealthy products are "nervous" about the incoming administration, Jewett and Creswell tried nitpicking through some of Kennedy's concerns, zeroing in on his recent remarks about the ingredients of Kellogg's Froot Loops cereal.

In September, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) moderated a four-hour round table discussion on Capitol Hill about American health and nutrition.

During her presentation, Vani Hari, a critic of the food industry who founded FoodBabe, shared the ingredient lists for multiple food products in the U.S. versus in Europe and stressed the need for limits on additives and dyes in breakfast cereals.

Together with Jason Karp, founder and CEO of the healthy living organization HumanCo., Hari highlighted the color difference between the Froot Loops cereal produced for American consumption and the version produced for consumption in Canada.

The brighter artificial colors are more attractive to children — and helpful with sales — but apparently harmful to their health.

Hari recently told Blaze News:

The science shows that these dyes cause hyperactivity in children, can disrupt the immune system, and are contaminated with carcinogens. There are safer colors available made from fruits and vegetables, such as beets and carrots. Food companies already don't use artificial dyes en masse in Europe because they don’t want to slap warning labels on their products that say they 'may cause adverse effects on attention in children.' If food companies like Kellogg's can reformulate their products without artificial dyes to sell in other countries, there is no reason why they can’t do that also here in America.

The food activist added, "As there are over 10,000 food additives approved for use in the United States, while Europe only allows 400, the [incoming] administration should prioritize taking control of the alarming amount of food additives in our food supply."

'This is of particular concern for fetuses and babies under the age of 6 months, whose blood-brain barrier is not fully developed.'

Kennedy appeared on Fox News the following day and referenced Hari's presentation, saying, "A box of Froot Loops from Canada or from Europe ... has a completely different group of ingredients. It's actually colored with vegetable oils, which are safe. Ours are colored with chemical oils, which are very, very dangerous."

Following the election, Kennedy revisited the example in a MSNBC interview, saying offhand, "Why do we have Froot Loops in this country that have 18 or 19 ingredients, and you go to Canada and it's got two or three?"

The Times seized on Kennedy's critique of Froot Loop, writing:

Mr. Kennedy has singled out Froot Loops as an example of a product with too many artificial ingredients, questioning why the Canadian version has fewer than the U.S. version. But he was wrong. The ingredient list is roughly the same, although Canada's has natural colorings made from blueberries and carrots while the U.S. product contains red dye 40, yellow 5 and blue 1 as well as Butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT, a lab-made chemical that is used "for freshness," according to the ingredient label.

In the same paragraph that the Times claimed Kennedy was wrong about Froot Loops having more artificial ingredients in Canada than in the U.S., the liberal publication effectively pointed out he was right on the money.

According to the National Library of Medicine, butylated hydroxytoluene — used as a preservative in fats and oils as well as in packaging material for fat-containing foods — has been shown in animal studies to increase serum cholesterol, reduce growth in baby rats, and increase absolute liver weight. The NLM and the Canadian government also recognize BHT as harmful to the environment.

Red dye 40 is made from petroleum and has been approved by the FDA for use in food and drinks. It has been linked in some studies to hyperactivity disorders in children. The Cleveland Clinic indicated that red dye 40 also has various potential side effects, including depression, irritability, and migraines.

Yellow dye 5 or tartazine is another synthetic food colorant linked to numerous adverse health effects. It is reportedly restricted in Austria and Norway owing to the allergies, asthma, skin rashes, hyperactivity, and migraines it can apparently cause.

A 2021 paper in the peer-reviewed journal Advances in Nutrition noted that blue dye 1 has been found to cause chromosomal aberrations and "was found to inhibit neurite growth and act synergistically with L-glutamic acid in vitro, suggesting the potential for neurotoxicity. This is of particular concern for fetuses and babies under the age of 6 months, whose blood-brain barrier is not fully developed."

'This is beyond absurd.'

The paper noted further that having found blue dye 1 to have cytotoxic and genotoxic effects, some researchers "advise that caution must be exercised when using it for coloring food."

Children are the biggest consumers of such artificial food dyes.

Critics blasted the Times over its bizarre "fact-check," which said he was wrong then unwittingly explained why he was right.

"This is what passes for a 'fact check' at The New York Times," wrote Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk. "The media lie a lot, but fortunately for us, they are also VERY stupid."

"Americans are being poisoned under the status quo food and health institutions, and regime media wants you to believe that Bobby Kennedy pushing for reform is somehow the problem. Make it make sense!" added Kirk.

Molecular biologist Dr. Richard H. Ebright of Rutgers University tweeted, "I read the paragraph multiple times yesterday, trying to make sense of what the idiot writer had written. I could only conclude that the idiot writer had written the equivalent of '2 + 2 = 5.'"

One critic quipped, "'As you see, the ingredient list is just completely identical, except the US product contains formaldehyde, cyanide, and nearly undetectable levels of saxitoxin."

"Crazy," tweeted Elon Musk.

Pershing Square Capital Management founder Bill Ackman wrote, "This is beyond absurd. The @nytimes says @RobertKennedyJr 'was wrong' about Froot Loops having too many artificial ingredients compared to its Canadian version, and then goes on to explain the artificial colorings and preservatives in the U.S. vs the Canadian version. @RobertKennedyJr is right and The NY Times is an embarrassment."

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) noted, "In their defense, their comedy writers are really strong."

The Times has since blamed an "editing error" and rewritten its Orwellian paragraph to read:

Mr. Kennedy has singled out Froot Loops as an example of a product with too many ingredients. In an interview with MSNBC on Nov. 6, he questioned the overall ingredient count: 'Why do we have Froot Loops in this country that have 18 or 19 ingredients and you go to Canada and it has two or three?' Mr. Kennedy asked. He was wrong on the ingredient count, they are roughly the same. But the Canadian version does have natural colorings made from blueberries and carrots while the U.S. product contains red dye 40, yellow 5 and blue 1 as well as Butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT, a lab-made chemical that is used 'for freshness, according to the ingredient label.

The New York Times' credibility has taken a massive hit in recent months and years. After all, it was an exponent of the Russian collusion hoax; falsely claimed Trump supporters killed U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick with a fire extinguisher; falsely reported on the basis of terrorist propaganda that Israel blew up a Gazan hospital; and suggested that the Babylon Bee, a satire website, was a "far-right misinformation site."

Despite its trouble getting the facts right, it recently teamed up with Media Matters to get BlazeTV hosts censored, citing concerns over "misinformation."

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

Make French Fries Great Again

If Trump can take small steps toward making our food real again, Americans will be able to have their French fries and eat them too.

Nothing changes: House GOP greenlights $1.5 trillion inflation bomb



After handing Joe Biden and Kamala Harris everything they wanted on budget bills for the past two years, the duplicitous Republican-controlled House isn’t finished with its inflationary spending spree. Now, more than half of the House Republican Conference has sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and other House Republican leaders urging them to pass the statist farm bill during the upcoming lame-duck session.

Even after pushing through the Biden-Harris continuing resolution and railing against inflation on the campaign trail, Republicans can’t seem to control their appetite for the very policies fueling inflation, especially in the food industry.

As we hope for a victory less than three weeks from now, we better start planning for how this time will be different.

The $1.5 trillion farm and food stamp reauthorization bill is a prime example of the WWE-style fake political battles between the two parties. Every chance they get to reform, cut, or devolve programs to the states, Republicans not only fail to make a dent in the staggering level of inflationary spending, but they also add to the deficit above the existing baseline whenever they control Congress. They bicker over the rate of increase and some minor aspects of the program, only to give Democrats 95% of what they want, all while pretending to fight over 1% of the issue.

This reauthorization consists mostly of food stamps and other food assistance programs, amounting to about $1.2 trillion over five years. As for the remaining agricultural portions, both parties seem to agree on continuing nanny-state farm programs that bankrupt the country, distort agriculture and land-use markets, create monopolies for wealthy interests, and nationalize our food production.

In the House Agriculture Committee hearing earlier this year, both parties fought fiercely over the rate of food stamp increases, yet they ultimately agreed to lock in a baseline that is double what it was in 2008. Neither side proposed reforms, such as transitioning the program to the states, where anti-dependency initiatives like “Hope Florida” helped 27,500 individuals leave the program.

As a result, H.R. 8467, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024, passed the committee on May 23 with a 31-21 vote. Four Democrats joined every Republican in supporting the bill.

The 954-page monstrosity, which combines urban food stamp interests with large-scale farming interests, was designed to increase the overall price tag and extend federal control over state programs. The bill formalizes Biden’s illegal expansion of the Thrifty Food Plan and locks in a three-year annual cost-of-living increase. Ironically, this was viewed as a conservative win, as Democrats had pushed for even greater program growth during the amendment process.

Republicans secured "savings" by preventing further growth in food stamps, only to redirect $40 billion into farm subsidies. These subsidies fuel venture socialism at its worst, distorting agricultural decisions, enriching the wealthiest landowners — often foreign — and inflating land prices. Federal crop insurance has had the same effect on farming that Obamacare had on health care: driving up costs, accelerating mergers, and squeezing out independent farmers, much like it did to independent doctors. Just 10% of farmers receive 56% of subsidies.

A 2017 Congressional Research Service report noted that 94% of farm subsidies under Title I go to just six commodities, with 46% going to corn. Corn already benefits from the ethanol mandate, requiring fuel producers to blend ethanol into the national gasoline supply. Despite these six commodities receiving 94% of the subsidies, they only account for 27% of total farm output. The report suggests this disparity "merits further inspection of how the programs function across program crops."

Additionally, 54% of all cropland is rented, not owned, according to the USDA, with the highest concentration of rental land in crops receiving the most subsidies. Thus, this is more of a landowner subsidy bill than a farmer subsidy bill.

Government intervention in farming, much like health care, picks winners and losers. Under these farm bills, you're a winner if you grow large-acre crops like corn, cotton, and soybeans, or if Southern Republicans fight for low-acreage crops like peanuts and rice. If the government stayed out of it, the private sector would manage crop insurance, just as it does with car and homeowners' insurance. Instead, crop insurance has become a market-distorted mess, much like medical insurance.

Food, like COVID, has become the new frontier for government overreach. The government wants to take over farming and push you toward unhealthy, expensive food, just as it did with medical care. These federal farm programs further skew the playing field away from local farmers and toward corporate farming lobbyists. Biden plans to mandate electronic IDs for all cattle, and nothing in this bill blocks that terrible rule.

Under the guise of “conservation,” the government spends $14 billion paying farmers to leave land dormant. In 2018, Donald Trump vowed to cut these programs, which allow rich companies to buy land and keep it idle. Yet, the last farm bill, passed under a GOP trifecta, fully funded and expanded these programs. As a result, wealthy landowners profit, and land costs continue to skyrocket, just like any subsidized asset bubble. While the House GOP version omits some of the garbage climate-change rhetoric, it fully preserves the absurd conservation programs, which undermine the goal of food independence.

Here we stand 16 months after Kevin McCarthy’s debt-ceiling increase (which Mike Johnson supported), and our debt has grown $4.3 trillion — almost as fast as during the lockdown year itself. How exactly will we cure inflation, especially with food, if we continue to push these massive farm bills without any meaningful, systemic reforms or at least without devolving these programs to the states where they cannot print their way out of debt?

As we hope for a victory less than three weeks from now, we better start planning for how this time will be different.

Blaze News original: One company's pet project: Build a future for lab-grown meat



The “cultivated meat” industry appears to be experiencing serious growing pains.

The sector that once had investors salivating now faces significant technological, financial, and legal challenges — as well as the ever-present fear that consumers just won't bite.

'The same people who are doomsaying it now were hyping it five years ago.'

While American players in the lab-grown meat market apparently prefer to suffer in silence — of the 20 startups Align contacted, none responded — we did find one British company forging ahead by targeting a considerably less picky demographic: dogs and cats.

And once their pets are on board, can people be far behind?

Where's the beef?

Things were a lot different just five years ago, when investors' appetites for this new, cruelty-free way to get hamburgers seemed insatiable. Why raise a calf into a fulsome cow, then brain it for chuck when you can simply:

  1. Secure a sample of cells from that cow;
  2. Take a sub-selection of those cells to grow a “bank” of cells for later use;
  3. Deposit some of the banked cells into a tightly controlled tank called a bioreactor, not wholly unlike those you might find in a brewery;
  4. Supply the cells with nutrients and other factors (including inorganic salts, vitamins, oxygen, amino acids, glucose, and in some cases fetal bovine serum);
  5. Introduce other factors after the cells have multiplied many billions of times over, further modifying the clumping mass of monstrous potential;
  6. And harvest the resulting cellular material for processing and preparation?

Six simple steps to getting a product genetically indistinguishable from the real thing.

A recipe for success

Deep-pocketed juggernauts and wide-eyed hopefuls alike were keen to try their hand at this novel and supposedly ethical way of growing money-makers in bioreactors. The idea practically sold itself. Near-universal was the emphasis on sparing livestock from slaughter.

A number of companies — including a few that now live on only in disgruntled investors’ memories — also laid it on thick with green appeals, noting that with fewer cows and chickens, less farmland and water will be needed. While there are indications that lab-grown meat will still have a significant carbon footprint, fewer cows might also mean less methane emissions.

Others noted that their products are hormone-, steroid-, and antibiotic-free.

Still other companies argued that lab-grown meat can help out with food security — reinforcing the supply chain and helping to meet the increasing global demand for meat.

Venture capital liked what they were cooking — especially with the market beginning to lose its appetite for plant-based meat.

It helped that there had been incredible technological progress over a short period of time, driving down the cost to lab-grow a hamburger from $300,000 to less than $10. Regulators were keen to clear the way — at least stateside, where both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture approved select prospects for retail.

So bullish was Israel-based Believer Meats that the company broke ground on the largest cultivated meat production facility in the world, set to open its doors next year North Carolina, signaling to those still in trials that it might actually be possible to fire off imitation chicken for something other than pop-up food demos.

Trimming the fat

That was then. Turns out making lab-grown meat into a viable business is harder than many thought. Investment has dropped off, and reality has set in. Those players still remaining are trimming the fat. A winnowing is under way.

SCiFi Foods and New Age Eats are two among numerous companies that won’t see the bloodless promised land.

Not even Upside Foods, the company that first received FDA approval for its “cultured chicken cell material” in November 2022, made it into 2024 unscathed.

Months after Upside rebuked Bloomberg for suggesting it lacked a path to scale its product and spiked plans for an Illinois-based factory, Wired indicated in July that Upside CEO Uma Valeti notified employees that he was canning 26 people; that leadership teams were going to be restructured to “reduce top-heavy structures”; and that he was pausing the “large-scale tissue program.”

The Good Food Institute recently noted in its annual state of the industry report that cultivated meat and seafood companies raised $225.9 million global in 2023. The previous year, the industry raised $922.3 million.

When accounting for the delta, the GFI — a cellular agriculture advocacy group founded by PETA veteran Bruce Friedrich — noted that last year, “companies and investors alike faced elevated inflation, rising interest rates, and a mixed economic outlook.”

Although keen to put a positive spin on a mixed year, the GFI acknowledged that Good Meat, Upside Foods, and other companies “continued to wrestle with the difficulties of scaling production beyond limited quantities, and sectors of the media took a more skeptical view of cultivated meat’s market viability.”

Bugging out

Amid such technological and financial problems, there are also legislative and narrative setbacks. Italy banned cultivated meat November 2023. Florida led the way in the U.S., and Alabama followed.

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis noted after ratifying legislation in May to ban lab-grown meat in Florida, “Today, Florida is fighting back against the global elite’s plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish or bugs to achieve their authoritarian goals.”

The support cultivated meat has received from outfits like the World Economic Forum and personalities like Bill Gates has bolstered such suspicions. Bill Gates — a big investor in some of the early companies — told the MIT Technology Review in 2021 that "all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef. You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they're going to make it taste even better over time. Eventually, that green premium is modest enough that you can sort of change the [behavior of] people or use regulation to totally shift the demand."

Pleased to Meatly

But to CEO Owen Ensor of the U.K.-based Meatly, this recent downturn is just business as usual.

Meatly CEO Owen EnsorMeatly

When asked to characterize the state of play in the cultivated food industry, Ensor says, “There’s wave-one companies who probably started five-plus years ago and raised pretty significant amounts of money — or some of them did — and tried to scale up without reducing costs. That burned a lot of capital and they weren’t necessarily able to find the most efficient ways of reducing costs.”

According to Ensor, wave-two companies that kicked off sometime in the last two or three years — including Meatly — have for the most part been far more streamlined — “very much focused on cost reduction and on finding ways to make this commercially viable as quickly as possible and with as little capital as needed.”

In May, Meatly revealed one of the ways it would cut costs, announcing the development of a protein-free culture medium that costs roughly $1.34 for 33.8 ounces — hundreds of dollars cheaper than typical alternatives.

“I do think there will be companies that won’t make it out of those cycles,” says Ensor. “And that’s very natural. There’re a lot of different people trying different approaches. Some of those work and some of those don’t. I think a limited number of companies is better. Then the capital can be more concentrated.”

David Kaplan, a director of the Tufts University Center for Cellular Agriculture who is keeping a close watch on the industry, apparently agrees. Kaplan recently told AgFunderNews, “What we’re seeing is a normal contraction and rebirth that has to happen in any new industry or technology.”

“I think consolidation from the early-stage companies is normal, and then things will start growing again. It’s going to be cyclical,” added Kaplan.

When pressed on whether “big-time consolidation” is coming down the pike, Ensor expresses uncertainty about the “big-time” modifier but indicates “there’ll be emerging winners out of this phase of cultivating.”

Hold the doom

Ensor sees a new phase on the horizon, one in which companies begin licensing their technologies and specializing.

With this in mind, says Ensor, it is “very premature to be making predictions on such an early-stage, fast-moving industry.”

The vegan CEO further notes that this disenchantment is most pronounced among those who rushed to hype cultivated meat early in its infancy.

“The same people who are doomsaying it now were hyping it five years ago,” says Ensor. “We need a bit more calm thinking.”

"Calm" is certainly one way to describe Meatly's strategy of not overpromising or growing too fast.

“We didn’t really do any PR for the first two and a half years until we had some rock-solid progress on media [cell culture medium] cost and regulatory approval,” says Ensor. “We’re just doing our job.”

Dogged determination

That keep-your-head-down approach is also apparent in Meatly's willingness to keep its ambition relatively modest, at least for now. The company recently won approval to sell cultivated meat for pet food in the United Kingdom — an apparent global first.

When asked whether there were fewer obstacles for pet food than for human food on his side of the Atlantic, Ensor notes that the regulatory pathways are faster and the consumers “are less fussy about what things look like.”

In his answer, however, Ensor appears to give away the plot: “Pet food is more straightforward and that’s why we’ve started with pet food.”

“You said, ‘started.’ Is there an ambition to go into human food?” this reporter asks the Meatly CEO. “And if so, then is that just into the U.K. and Europe, or, you think, in the States as well?”

“There’s definitely an opportunity,” Ensor responds.

“A lot of strategy and a lot of our success so far has been to be very fast and to be very focused, and so we are focused on pet food for now. But we see it on two sides. One is we’re creating the first cultivated meat products, and secondly, we’re creating the technology and processes need to scale it in a commercially viable manner.”

That technology could have applications in the bio-pharma industry as well, says Ensor.

Scaling up

In the near term, Meatly will be focused on cost reduction. In about six to nine months, the company plans to begin methodically scaling up.

“We’re going from the moment producing kilograms a month to hopefully, by the end of next year, hundreds of kilograms into tons per month, and then the 18 months after that, producing hundreds of tons per month,” says Ensor. “Then we’d be able to replicate that mode quite quickly.”

Ensor speculates that these products will be ready for retail sale “hopefully in the next five years."

Taking a bite out of tumor rumors

Skepticism about cultivated meat has been fueled in part by health concerns, particularly about the use of immortalized cells, as well as by concerns over some of the groups and personalities driving meat substitutes.

Bloomberg, for instance, insinuated in a February 2023 feature that lab-grown meat was effectively the stuff of tumorous masses, noting:

The big honking asterisk is that normal meat cells don’t just keep dividing forever. To get the cell cultures to grow at rates big enough to power a business, several companies, including the Big Three, are quietly using what are called immortalized cells, something most people have never eaten intentionally. Immortalized cells are a staple of medical research, but they are, technically speaking, precancerous and can be, in some cases, fully cancerous.

Joe Fassler, the author of the report, suggested that the meat industry might weaponize fears about immortalized cells, adding, "It's all too easy to imagine misleading Fox News chyrons about chicken tumors and cancer burgers."

Ensor echos what some of the companies contacted by Bloomberg said at the time: “Immortalized cells are safe, robust cells that have been used in bio-pharma for the last 40 years and are the most efficient way of growing cells.”

“There’s no risk with immortalized cells,” continues Ensor:

I know there have been some social media claims around cancer. The difference: Cancer cells are immortalized, but they’re also invasive and you have to have those two attributes. So you can have non-invasive immortalized cells and you can have invasive immortalized cells. No mainstream publication has ever talked about the cancer cells because it has no scientific basis whatsoever.

Ensor notes that the kind of immortalized cells used at Meatly have been used in vaccine production cellular therapies for the past three decades.

Nothing to hide

Ensor is eager to explain "how the sausage is made":

We take cells from a chicken egg. We do that one time, and from that we can grow an infinite amount of them forevermore. And we do that … by putting it in a bioreactor, which is a large steel vessel, so at scale this looks like a microbrewery. It’s a similar process to making beer or yogurt. And you feed it the nutrients that the cells need — so that is amino acids, minerals, vitamins.

After a series of cell duplications, Ensor’s team goes to harvest, which involves spinning the cells free from the leftover nutrients.

To Ensor, going into such detail is the best way to combat misinformation about lab-grown meat: “We need to make sure we’re articulating what we’re doing, sharing transparently and openly about why we’re so excited about it — why I’m excited to feed this to my pets and why I’m excited to one day eat it myself."

Room for more?

If there's one lesson to take from all the efforts to displace meat, it's this: Never underestimate the competition.

According to Statista Market Insights, U.S. sales of faux meat reached $1.4 billion last year, a drop in the bucket compared to the roughly $124 billion raked in by the real thing.

It hasn't been easy for plant-based meat substitutes to find their way into American kitchens, and it’s unclear whether cultivated meat will fare any better. By entering through the pet door, Meatly hopes to show that a viable path to the table begins on the floor.

EXCLUSIVE: 'People are starving' — prepper advocate brings aid to Helene-ravaged North Carolina



Jason Nelson texted me the Sunday after Hurricane Helene destroyed homes and lives throughout the East Coast. Nelson is the CEO and co-founder of Prepper All-Naturals, marketed at PrepperBeef.com. He’s also a combat-disabled vet.

As a Marine, he joined the civil affairs and psychological operations branch of the military, where he was assigned to humanitarian missions.

'The reason Western North Carolina is suffering right now is because they want them to. That's it.'

“I leave tomorrow morning,” he wrote. “People are starving.” He offered to pick me up on the way. Sadly, I couldn’t join, but after Jason returned home, we spoke via video about his experience. Here’s the entire interview:

Asheville or bust

Nelson drove $60,000 worth of freeze-dried beef — about 7,000 portions — from Waco, Texas, setting off at 7:30 a.m. on Monday morning. He arrived in Asheville at 2:30 a.m. on Tuesday, only to be back on the road by 3:00 a.m. after dropping off the supplies.

With the help of a volunteer who split the drive with him, Nelson made it back home by 11:30 p.m. that same day. Now, he's coordinating a range of services across Western North Carolina to ensure that aid reaches those who need it most.

Cracks in the system

Nelson has become a symbol of grassroots resilience, an advocate for food independence, and a man who backs up his beliefs with action.

His recent trip to North Carolina highlights his commitment not just to his business but to the broader mission of ensuring that people have food, no matter the circumstances.

Nelson saw the cracks in a system that many still take for granted — the globalized, centralized food chain.

For him, the North Carolina mission wasn’t just about handing out food; it was a microcosm of the larger battle he’s been waging through his company, Prepper Beef.

Nelson’s philosophy centers on localized supply chains, a concept that hits particularly close to home in disaster zones like those affected by Hurricane Helene.

Jason has years of experience with on-the-ground humanitarian crises from every angle. I asked him how severe the damage from Hurricane Helene is and the resultant chaos compared to what he’s seen.

“I mean, you'd be better off with a parking lot,” he told me. “You can work at a parking lot. That's it. I'd be better off in Afghanistan, where I've got to convince terrorists to come together and work together. Because the government cares about putting money into Afghanistan.”

Long lines

In the hurricane’s aftermath, people stood in long lines for basics — water, canned goods, and, in some cases, freeze-dried meals, including Nelson’s high-quality beef.

Prepper All-Naturals, marketed at PrepperBeef.com, uses 100% Texas-born and -bred cattle.

The aid may have come from multiple sources, but the message Nelson delivered to the people of North Carolina was clear: Localized food production isn’t just an economic model; it’s a lifeline.

He added, “The reason Western North Carolina is suffering right now is because they want them to. That's it.”

Supply chain risk

Hurricane Helene’s path of destruction left thousands without power, running water, or food. Flooded highways and downed communication towers slowed aid, leaving many stranded.

Working with local emergency responders, church groups, and community leaders, Nelson helped coordinate the distribution of essentials in towns that hadn’t seen relief in days.

“It’s devastating,” Nelson told me, "but it’s also a reminder of how fragile our system is. It doesn’t take much — a storm, an outage — for everything to fall apart. And if we’re relying on food shipped in from halfway across the world, we’re putting ourselves at risk.”

Nelson’s point is hard to argue with, especially when looking at the state of supply chains post-hurricane. With ports shut down and air transport delayed, imported goods were among the first to disappear from store shelves.

Localize it

What makes Nelson’s trip to North Carolina more than just another humanitarian mission is the depth of his conviction and his reasonable indignation.

“There's so much to this, and it's a complex thing,” he told me. “It’s not that they are ill funded, ill trained. The national resources we could bring to bear have been instead brought to bear to serve communities that have welcomed illegal immigrants instead.”

In Nelson’s eyes, the disaster response in North Carolina illustrates a larger societal issue. When a hurricane hits, people can’t rely on distant supply chains. They need food grown close to home, processed by businesses that understand local needs, and distributed without the bureaucratic hurdles that come with large-scale government aid programs.

The hopeful success of his efforts in North Carolina underscores his belief that decentralized, localized supply chains are key to weathering future crises, be they natural disasters or man-made economic disruptions.

Prepping for the future

In North Carolina, Nelson’s donations weren’t just meals — they were a symbol of self-reliance. Families who had lost everything found comfort in the freeze-dried beef, not just because it provided nutrition but because it embodied the idea that Americans can still take care of their own.

“We don’t need to rely on anyone else,” Nelson told me. “We have everything we need right here.”

His trip to North Carolina solidified that belief. Seeing the devastation firsthand only reinforced his mission: to protect America’s food supply chain by keeping it local, sustainable, and out of the hands of global corporations and governments

Food security

For Nelson, local food systems are the only way forward. His experience in North Carolina, amid the wreckage of Hurricane Helene, served as both a warning and a lesson: If the country doesn’t start paying attention to where its food comes from, it might find itself helpless when the next disaster strikes.

“I want you to think about supply chains,” he told me, “and how normal storehouses only have about two weeks' worth of supplies and they constantly depend on this resupply. Well, those are washed out. They're not just washed out. It's your primaries, your secondaries, your downstream supply chains.”

Nelson’s trip to North Carolina was more than an act of charity. It was a rallying cry for the kind of change he believes will protect America’s future.

As he loaded the last boxes of freeze-dried beef into the back of a relief truck, he must have thought: If we want to survive what’s coming, we need to start growing, processing, and consuming locally. Anything less is putting our freedom — and our lives — at risk.

“Food security is the next target,” Nelson told me. “And when it’s gone, it won’t just be about what we eat — it’ll be about who we are as a nation.”

Can America be healthy without losing its humanity?



Recent calls to “Make America Healthy Again” are a welcome message at a time of mass food production, rising heart disease and various forms of cancer, and generally sedentary lives. A recent episode of Tucker Carlson’s podcast focused on the current status of health in America, especially the increase of chronic illnesses and the medical establishment’s insistence on treating sick Americans with prescription drugs, injections, and unnecessary surgeries. Instead, as Tucker and his guests argued, we should be asking what Americans are eating and what we can do — both collectively and individually — to heal ourselves.

Many factors influence this debate: Big Pharma, Big Agriculture, the medical establishment, and proper environmental stewardship without climate change ideology. Calling the corruption in all these areas “widespread” would be an understatement.

How can we define moderation in a society that is full of imbalance in almost every sphere of life?

Other important factors often go unnoticed in discussions about health. How we care for our bodies and minds is closely linked to Aristotelian moderation and a food culture that fosters lasting connections with others.

A tunnel-vision focus on “getting healthy” can create an obsession that severely harms our relationships with friends and family. This phenomenon even has a name: orthorexia nervosa. Unlike other eating disorders, it may stem from good intentions, but counting calories can lead to an obsessive need for complete control over food selection and preparation. This compulsion is not always about weight but about finding the purest ingredients, turning food and eating into matters of metrics, chemistry, and constant bodily monitoring.

Holiday meals and celebrations have been ruined by family members who insist that any food other than what they have chosen is poisonous and toxic. They claim allergies, to be on a perpetual diet, or that “I’m not that hungry.” They sit at the dinner table, staring at their clean plate, perhaps slightly embarrassed but mostly indignant about their dysfunction.

Such people have essentially alienated themselves from any sense of community and connection with others. They often inflict such neuroses on their own children. One wonders what will become of children raised on a steady diet of joylessness and fear.

Refusing a piece of fruit from a friend or family member because you can’t be sure if it’s organic is as dysfunctional as overeating and thinking that processed food has no effect on one’s health. What happened to moderation? More importantly, how can we define moderation in a society that is full of imbalance in almost every sphere of life?

Aristotle deemed moderation to be one of the moral virtues, and any sort of excess is bound to destroy that virtue. This includes our bodily health, which, for Aristotle, is inevitably connected to the notion of excellence.

In Book II of the “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle writes that “the excellence of a human being will be that disposition which makes him a good human being and which enables him to perform his function well.” In other words, to be human is to recognize the meaning of life itself, and the possible greatness we are made for. The notion of teleology is essential for our understanding of virtue — we are not a haphazard mess but living beings who should be moving toward harmony and order.

For Aristotle, both excess and deficiency will lead us away from the possibility of greatness and order, and this applies to our bodily health as well. It isn’t enough to simply measure the amount of food we eat, but we must understand that being moderate about eating and our health is a question of morality, not mere science. In other words, the decisions we make to steer away from excess and deficiency reveal the nature of our character.

Another element in this debate that is woefully missing has to do with food culture. Ideally, we share a meal with someone — a figurative or literal breaking of bread. There is a sacred dimension to all of this — the enjoyment of food is not simply based on appetite but on joyand gratitude for those around us.

I am reminded of Isak Dinesen’s short story “Babette’s Feast,” which encapsulates the joy and gratitude inherent in eating and sharing a meal with others. Babette Hersant is a French refugee in 19th-century Denmark, where she works as a housekeeper for two unmarried sisters. Babette wins the lottery, and instead of going back to France, she decides to make a feast for the sisters and their guests as a sign of gratitude and appreciation of being in their home.

The sisters live an ascetic life, and Babette’s meal awakens their senses. They not only feel enjoyment of eating but also of relating to the guests at the table. Instead of ascetic moralism, the sisters begin to show vulnerability that opens the possibility of forming a much deeper relationship with Babette.

One of the guests, ColonelLöwenhielm, is so taken by the feast that he decides to give a speech toasting this bounty and beautiful creation. “Man, my friends,” says the Colonel, “is frail and foolish. But in our human foolishness and short-sightedness we imagine divine grace to be finite. For this reason, we tremble. … But the moment comes when our eyes are opened, and we see and realize that our eyes are opened, and we see and realize that grace is infinite.”

This moment could only have come from an authentic connection between human beings and not through overeating or orthorexia, which inevitably lead to alienation and atomization.

Self-governance in all matters — resisting the influence of government, Big Pharma, or any other corrupt establishment to alter our behavior or nature — lies at the heart of personal freedom. But this depends on one crucial element: virtue. When virtue, especially moderation, is present and paired with joy and gratitude, food and health go beyond mere statistics and become a pathway to human greatness.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

Along With America, Alex Clark Is Waking Up To The Lies Of ‘Big Food’

I am grateful to Alex Clark and others like her who have taken on the fight against the food lies we’ve all been fed for years.

Beaver: America's other red meat?



In America, we love poultry and beef.

Ninety percent of us consume chicken, averaging about 90 pounds per person annually. Beef is a bit less popular but still substantial. Americans eat around 60 pounds per person per year.

'To be completely honest, if you want the taste of a beaver, go outside, grab some tree bark and yard clippings, cover them in BBQ sauce, and take a bite.'

By contrast, only 25% of us regularly indulge in lamb — just one pound per person per year of this nutrient-dense meat. And if you narrow that group further, you’ll find the rare breed of super-carnivores who eat beaver.

Skin your own

Andy Hickman, a seasoned trapper, offers this perspective: “I have no idea why people don’t eat beaver meat more often. Trappers often give it away in big buckets, sometimes for free, and trapping seasons and bag limits are generous in many states. It’s tremendously nutritious and tasty — at pennies on the dollar.”

I reached out to Hickman, who is working on an article about beaver meat. He suggested I “spend some time trapping beavers, or at least with some trappers,” adding that “by skinning and cooking a beaver yourself, and tasting the meat, you’d learn all you need to know for your assignment.”

The idea was unappealing — not because I shy away from unusual food. I’ve tried alligator in onion-ring form and tasted a range of alternative cuisines during my stint as an English teacher in Spain: blood sausage (delicious), pig’s feet (gross), bull’s tail (like pot roast), tripe stew (good for hangovers), and lamb intestines (very chewy).

My hesitation lies in the hunting aspect. I should hunt, given my prolific meat-eating, but I find myself unable to.

Still, if a beaver were to attack one of my kids, I’d certainly fire up the grill. But there’s another question: Aren’t beavers supposed to be laid-back and cool?

Trapper keepers

Beaver meat holds deep historical significance in North America. For Native Americans, beavers were a crucial food source, providing both meat and fur. Their reverence for the animal dates back to at least the 1400s.

As European settlers moved westward, beaver meat gained new appreciation. The beaver population dwindled as the animals were trapped out of the East Coast, with settlers pursuing them farther west. In the 1800s, Lewis and Clark detailed beavers in their journals, including a recipe for beaver bait and preparation instructions.

The Catholic Church even weighed in on the dietary status of beavers. In the 17th century, it classified beavers as “aquatic mammals,” allowing Catholics to consume their meat during Lent and Fridays when they abstained from land-based meat. This classification led to a spike in beaver meat consumption.

Tail to testicle

Despite its history, finding someone who has eaten beaver meat is surprisingly difficult. Even among my most dedicated hunter friends, there are few who have tasted it.

One friend mentioned that while he’s killed beavers, he’s never eaten them. He noted that “mountain man writings always said beaver tail was the best meat around,” though he added that a beaver is "basically a rat that eats bark.”

Quora users offer mixed reviews: “To be completely honest, if you want the taste of a beaver, go outside, grab some tree bark and yard clippings, cover them in BBQ sauce, and take a bite. It seriously tasted like a tree with BBQ sauce. I would say to try it just to say you’ve tried it, but it’s nasty. It was tough, oily, and just nasty.”

The oldest edition of "The Joy of Cooking" included a beaver recipe. Beaver tail, once a delicacy, was praised for its fattiness, likened to pork or fatty beef cuts.

Historically, beaver meat was versatile, featured in stews, roasts, and smoked dishes, with its richness best showcased through slow cooking.

Today it's a rare find in mainstream markets but remains a delicacy in certain regions, particularly among trappers and in rural communities across Canada and the U.S. Specialty game markets and wild game dinners occasionally feature it.

Beaver is definitely on the menu at Exotic Meat Market, a California-based company that sells a wide range of exotic meats: emu, yak, raccoon, camel, shark, armadillo, rattlesnake, bobcat, antelope, iguana, possum, reindeer, turtle, and guinea pig.

Beaver-wise, the company offers everything from tail to testicles.

Perhaps beaver is due for a comeback. Might Michelin-star restaurants one day include roasted beaver tail on their menus? If beaver were more than just a historical curiosity and became a staple in our diet, could it reshape our culinary landscape? For now, the beaver remains an enigma — an intriguing symbol of history and taste, just a dam away from our everyday dining.

The ultimate burger showdown: Whataburger vs. In-N-Out



If you have ever lived in Texas (or if you have ever met a Texan), you have heard of Whataburger.

With 740 locations in Texas alone, the iconic orange and white combo permeates the culture in a way that rivals no other fast food chain I’ve ever seen. Whataburger embodies “go big or go home.”

However, as the Californians have migrated to the Lone Star State, they brought In-N-Out with them. The Californian chain has cropped up in 43 locations, and it’s caused quite the divide. Their Christian values feel right at home in South, but challenging the state burger has ruffled some feathers.

The score must be settled. One burger must reign supreme. So we conducted an experiment.

Grace, a New Hampshire native, recently moved to Texas. Since her palate had not yet been exposed to either Whataburger or In-N-Out, she was the perfect test subject.

We devised a super-detailed, ultra-specific, rigidly-scientific process to test the merits of the warring burger joints.

1. Acquire the burgers

The two burgers had to be as similar as possible. A classic Number One with cheese from Whataburger with fries (and its patented spicy ketchup on the side, of course). A Combo Number Two cheeseburger with fries from In-N-Out. Sticking to the basics was essential if the chains were to be judged by merit alone. The Honey Butter Chicken Biscuit will have to wait.

2. Remove all branding

The orange and white packaging was discarded along with the Bible-verse-adorned bag. The burgers and fries were placed on plates, and then we were ready to bring in our subject.

3. Taste the burgers

Since we neglected to bring a blindfold for our blind tasting, Grace used the honor system and kept her eyes closed during the tasting. Unbeknownst to her, we served her the Whataburger burger and fries first. In-N-Out was next.

4. Tabulate the results

After we guided Grace’s hands to the Whataburger fries, the reception to the Texas classic was positive. However, she noted that “they need[ed] more salt.” According to Grace, most things need more salt. The burger was received with a bit less enthusiasm.

The In-N-Out fries were deemed soggier than the Whataburger fries. They also required more salt. In a fortunate turn of events for the Californians, the burger was immediately proclaimed superior to Whataburger’s.

Apparently, the ideal meal is fries from Whataburger and a cheeseburger from In-N-Out. But, as there can be only one winner, Grace announced that In-N-Out took the cake.

For all the Whataburger loyalists out there (like me), don’t despair. In-N-Out doesn’t have a Sweet and Spicy Bacon Burger or a Honey Butter Chicken Biscuit. There are just some things that the simplicity of the In-N-Out cheeseburger can’t beat.

But it’s safe to say that the Californian chain’s values are worth supporting. The Bible verses hidden on the packaging reflect IN-N-OUT owner and president Lynsi Snyder’s personal faith in Jesus. So maybe it’s worth switching it up once in a while to support a company that values faith in Christ.

If it counts for anything, Whataburger is still better (in my humble Texan opinion). But I digress.