Your 'USA Made' meat might actually be from China; mRNA vaccines approved to be in it



If there’s one issue that a growing number of Americans are skeptical about — it’s our food supply. And according to Ben and Corley Spell, the founders of Good Ranchers, that skepticism is not misplaced.

“It’s getting harder and harder now that they keep changing laws and passing different things, and it’s so hard for consumers to know who to trust,” Ben tells Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable.”

“It’s mostly coming from Mexico, but you can import as long as it’s in a feedlot in the United States for 90 days,” he continues. “It can now get a USDA grade, where before it could only be USDA inspected.”

USDA prime or USDA choice labels used to be limited to meat that was born and harvested in the United States, but that has since changed.

“And why is that important for them to be born in the U.S.?” Stuckey asks.

“Agriculture is the backbone of our country, and farms and ranches are going out of business at an alarming rate,” Ben explains. “They can’t keep up. The price of meat keeps going up, and the price that the ranchers get is basically staying the same from decades ago.”

“As a whole, the American ranchers, the independent ranchers, they can’t keep up with the big conglomerates,” he adds.

But this isn’t the only issue facing America’s meat supply.

While Good Ranchers doesn’t sell meat that contains mRNA vaccines, they can't speak for everyone else.

In 2022, the USDA approved the use of an RNA based vaccine developed by Merck Animal Health. The vaccine became available on November 1, 2023, and with its newfound accessibility, there’s a possibility that pork products may be treated with this vaccine.

“We do get accused of fear-mongering, and that’s the last thing we want,” Ben tells Stuckey about the mRNA vaccines. “If we don’t talk about things, the government will just slide it in, and we will never know that’s what happened.”

Before the mRNA vaccine was legal for use, Ben and Corley publicly pledged not to use it, and that’s when the accusations of fear-mongering began.

“So many people were just like, ‘Oh well, it’s not even legal for use,’ and I’m like, ‘Yet,’” Ben recalls. “But if we don’t talk about this, and if people don’t get loud, let’s not wait until it is.”


Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Florida bans lab-grown 'meat.' Who’s next?



Last week, a Florida bill banning the sale of lab-grown meat went into effect. The bill is aimed at protecting American ranchers and farmers, targeting companies wanting to produce meat without killing the animal by using animal stem cells to create meat. It would not ban plant-based meats, like the famous Impossible burger.

Do we really want to synthesize meats with more chemicals that elites claim are safe?

After Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed the bill back in May, he took a jab at globalists and World Economic Forum elites, arguing that lab-grown meat threatens Americans.

“What we're protecting here is the [agriculture] industry against acts of man, against an ideological agenda that wants to finger agriculture as the problem, that views things like raising cattle as destroying our climate,” said DeSantis. The governor portrayed lab-grown meat advocates as “people who will lecture the rest of us about things like global warming — they will say that, you know, you can’t drive an internal combustion engine vehicle, they’ll say that agriculture is bad. Meanwhile, they're flying to Davos in their private jets, and they’re living like they would ever want to live.”

Food industrialization

Critics of the policy argue that the Florida bill prevents competition with Big Ag, which receives huge federal subsidies to industrialize broad sectors of the food supply. The large-scale agricultural lobby wants policies that ensure its continued domination of the food market. Unlike local farmers and ranchers who also benefit from the lab-grown meat ban, Big Ag frequently sacrifices food quality in favor of maximizing market control and efficiency.

While it’s true that Big Ag has driven the industrialization of food and lab-grown meat might have decreased its market power, the rise of synthetic meats has accelerated food industrialization due to its scalability and efficiency. When the technology becomes advanced enough — and if demand, whether voluntary or compulsory, rises to viable levels — scientists and technocrats will be able to produce petri-dish meat in a small lab in large quantities, increasing the supply of synthetic meats and crowding out meat produced by ranchers in local communities.

Much of America’s meats, fruits, and vegetables are already tainted with pesticides, chemicals, and fertilizers. Do we really want to synthesize meats with more chemicals that elites claim are safe?

It’s important to remember that curtailing Big Ag’s influence is not a goal in and of itself. Large-scale food production should be one of the means of delivering nutritious meals to American communities. Allowing synthetic meats to compete with processed hot dogs, for example, doesn’t actually provide a real alternative for Americans who want ethically sourced and healthy foods.

Protectionism

Other critics of Gov. DeSantis, playing a predictable theme, have accused him of food authoritarianism. A recent Reason article labeled DeSantis as “the real authoritarian” and accused him of unnecessarily framing cultured meat as a culture war issue. Such critics believe that protectionist regulations are harmful to individual liberty since consumers, not governments, should have the right to decide what they want to eat.

There is, however, no “right” to eat or sell whatever you want. Farmers can’t sell unpasteurized milk because that could cause disease. Fishermen can’t sell shark fins because that is unethical. So why should technocrats have the right to sell cultured meat if it's a threat to ranching? These situations aren’t exactly parallel, but they show precedent for prohibiting certain food products if legitimate threats arise.

Global elites have openly espoused anti-ranching sentiments, arguing that current levels of meat consumption should be cut back. At last year’s COP28 summit, the United Nations released a manifesto urging Americans to cut back on eating meat in order to meet the U.N.'s net-zero carbon emissions plan. Similarly, billionaire Bill Gates wants to drive down beef demand, which would be catastrophic for American ranchers and farmers.

“I do think all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef,” Gates recently told MIT Technology Review. “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.”

But encouraging globalist elites to replace all natural meat with cells grown in little petri dishes isn’t just dystopian; it threatens the American way of life. Ranching is part of the American way of life. Ranching helped build Texas, even before it was part of the United States, and it set up the foundation for America’s Western frontier. It’s more than just another economic activity; it’s a lifestyle ingrained into American tradition.

The meme that globalists are forcing patriotic Americans into eating bugs and living in pods to save the planet is becoming a reality. But there’s still time for state legislatures to follow Florida’s lead and pre-empt “enlightened” elites from imposing the dark scenario.

Senators Propose Bipartisan Bill To Keep Lab-Grown Meat Off The School Lunch Menu

A pair of bipartisan senators proposed legislation last week to keep lab-grown meat out of the school cafeteria.

Lab-grown chicken is already available for purchase?!



As you gather with friends and family to celebrate our country’s Independence Day, perhaps you should consider throwing some lab-grown chicken on the BBQ.

No, that was not a joke.

Well, the suggestion was a joke, but lab-grown chicken is very real indeed.

How do they make it, you ask?

Amy Chen, COO of Upside Foods, a food technology company in Berkeley, California, explains that “cultivated meat” is “real meat that is grown from animal cells.”

Scientists harvest animal cells via biopsies and place them in a “bath of cell food” until they develop into “types we normally eat, including those that make muscle, connective tissue, and fat.”

“Nothing sounds tastier than lab-grown chicken, does it?” Pat Gray sarcastically asks.

Chen says that the company's first product is chicken filets, but the company fully intends to expand into beef and other species.

“They [do] a biopsy, and here’s your dinner,” Pat laughs.

“There better be a neon orange sticker on lab-grown meat … that says ‘grown in a lab.’ That’s where I want government intervention right there – to warn me if I’m about to go to town on lab-grown meat,” Keith adds.


Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Will We Be FORCED to Eat Lab-Grown Chicken?

Will We Be FORCED to Eat Lab-Grown Chicken?

Report: Some lab-grown meat pushed by WEF and Bill Gates as a remedy for climate change is made of 'immortalized' cancer cells



Technocrats appear keen to preclude the masses from eating real meat in hopes of combatting the specter of climate change and making more money. While there is a significant push under way for people to surrender steaks, burgers, and hot dogs and instead eat bugs and algae, climate alarmists and elites alike are also hyping so-called synthetic "meat."

This alternative may prove too much to swallow for many consumers in light of the present lack of health data about what such laboratory productions might do to consumers, as well as Bloomberg's recent report underscoring how synthetic meat is, in many cases, cancer.

What's the background?

When peddling his book "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster" in 2021, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates told the MIT Technology Review 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."

Although Gates contends that fewer methane emissions from livestock flatulence will help combat climate change, it won't just be the planet that will allegedly benefit. He seeks to turn a significant profit, having invested in various companies that create faux meat and plant-based meat substitutes.

In his discussion of cancerous lab meats, Igor Chudov noted on his Substack that the World Economic Forum has also championed the replacement of real meat.

The WEF ran an article in 2019 — the same year Israeli start-up Aleph Farms claimed to be the first company to produce a steak in a lab — entitled, "You will be eating replacement meats within 20 years. Here's why," which claimed lab meats could be created more efficiently and had "fewer product risks than conventional meat."

Again, in 2020, it ran a piece claiming that lab meat was a "more sustainable solution" that would reverse deforestation and help limit global temperature rises.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said select lab-grown meats were safe for human consumption for the first time in November 2022, two years after Singapore became the first country to permit their sale.

Upside Foods, a California-based and Gates-backed company that makes so-called meat from chicken cells, was subsequently cleared to begin selling its product as soon as the U.S. Department of Agriculture inspected its facilities, reported CNN.

Reuters reported last month that Upside hopes to bring its doctored meat to restaurants as early as this year.

Another California-based lab-meat company, Good Meat, has an application pending with the FDA. The Netherlands-based Mosa Meat and Israel-based Believer Meats reportedly are also in talks with the FDA to bring their vat-grown meat simulacrum to American tables.

In addition to surmounting regulatory hurdles, Reuters noted these companies will also have to lock down the supply chain for the "nutrient mix to feed cells and for the massive bioreactors required to produce large quantities of cultivated meat."

A cancerous knock-off

A recent Bloomberg report noted that for decades, "companies such as Pfizer Inc. and Johnson & Johnson have cultured large volumes of cells to produce vaccines, monoclonal antibodies and other biotherapeutics. Now the idea is that we might as well eat these cells, too."

While lab-grown meat advocates contend their product is, at least on the cellular level, no different from real meat, the report stressed that "normal meat cells don't just keep dividing forever"; normal cells will only divide a few dozen times.

In order to get the cell cultures to multiply at the rates necessary to keep these doctored meat companies afloat, "several companies, including the Big Three, are quietly using what are called immortalized cells. ... Immortalized cells are a staple of medical research, but they are, technically speaking, precancerous and can be, in some cases, fully cancerous."

The first immortal cell line came from Henrietta Lacks, a black tobacco farmer from southern Virginia who had cervical cancer. The cells were taken and used without her knowledge or consent. Smithsonian magazine reported that her cancer cells have been used many times over, including in space for zero-gravity tests, in the polio vaccine, in cloning, in gene mapping, and for in-vitro fertilization.

These so-called immortal cells — modified to divide forever, thereby "defying the normal limits of growth ... mak[ing] them unmistakably more like cancer cells" — are grown in vats called bioreactors, where they ultimately generates tons of "cell mass."

The report indicated that some cancer researchers have downplayed the risk of consuming this cancerous lab meat, noting that "because the cells aren't human, it's essentially impossible for people who eat them to get cancer from them, or for the precancerous or cancerous cells to replicate inside people at all."

Joe Fassler, the author of the report, suggested that the real meat industry may weaponize the doctored meat's cancerous composition in a public-relations war, adding, "It's all too easy to imagine misleading Fox News chyrons about chicken tumors and cancer burgers."

While Fassler prejudged such hypothetical reports as misleading, he conceded that even "the cultured meat industry is anxious about its use of immortalized cells and is doing what it can to avoid the subject. In part, this is because scientists aren't as quick as journalists to use the words 'essentially impossible' in writing."

"Despite the informal scientific consensus around the safety of immortalized cells, there just aren't any long-term health studies to prove it," he wrote.

This may account for why Upside has investors and reporters who taste the company's pseudo-chicken sign a "creepy waiver," which reads, "The cultured meat and related food products in the Tasting are experimental. ... The properties are not completely known."

The hypothetical concerns about "chicken tumors and cancer burgers" may ultimately be discounted by climate alarmists and journalists, but scientists and industry legal teams are evidently reluctant to dismiss them altogether.

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