Harvard’s Animal Law & Policy Clinic has sent a 20-page letter to the U. S. Department of Agriculture urging the agency to adopt a labeling approach for cell-based meat and poultry products that does not overly restrict speech and that respects the First Amendment’s of manufacturers to call lab-grown meant as “meat”:
In February, the USDA announced that it likely will initiate rule-making, a lengthy public process for drafting new regulations, to address labeling cell-based (or “cultivated”) meat and poultry products. Under an agreement with the FDA, the USDA ultimately is responsible for overseeing the labeling of these products, but the specific manner in which the agency will regulate product labels and product names remains unknown.
While these labeling regulations are still under development, our Harvard Law School Animal Law & Policy Clinic’s principle positions and requests are as follows:
-The U.S. Department of Agriculture should not establish new standards of identity and should not ban the use of common or usual meat and poultry terms or product names specified in existing standards of identity (such as “beef”, “burger”, “chicken”, “sausage”, etc.). Such a ban likely violates the First Amendment and its commercial speech protections.
-The U.S. Department of Agriculture should require disclosures or qualifying language on cell-based meat labels only when doing so is necessary to protect consumers from an increased food safety risk or material compositional difference.
-Before requiring any such disclosures or qualifiers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service should: 1) wait until it has had the opportunity to determine the composition and safety of finished cell-based meat products; 2) review actual proposed labels; and then, 3) assess what, if any, specific labeling requirements are essential on a case-by-case basis to protect consumers from being misled.
-The Harvard Animal Law & Policy Clinic further requests that the U.S. Department of Agriculture coordinate closely with the Food and Drug Administration as it develops its proposed cell-based meat labeling rules.
“These technologies all deserve as fair a chance as any other new technologies, and these companies should not have their First Amendment Rights infringed upon,” said Kelley McGill JD ’20 who worked on the letter with Clinical Instructor Nicole Negowetti.
It is virtually guaranteed that Harvard has received millions of dollars in research grants from the companies standing to make billions off these fake meat products — but, as we know, those companies are merely exercising their ‘free speech’ by giving Harvard millions in payola.
Why, it’s downright un-American to not allow lab-grown meat to be called real meat — and why should consumer need to know if the meat was grown in a lab if they couldn’t tell the difference anyway?
Ignorance is bliss, after all.
We saw a similar battle when food manufacturers fought tooth and nail against labeling GMO products — claiming that such labeling would unfairly “discriminate” against their products.
Even though there is mounting evidence that GMO foods are dangerous to animals and humans, the labeling requirement will never change.
It would take years of humans eating lab-grown meat to find out it’s long-term heath risks — and, of course, no one will drop dead who eats in a short-term study, so it will be given its GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) status by the regulators.
And so, the result will be that meat that is NOT grown in a lab will have labels stating, “Not cell-based product” or “Not lab-grown” or even more obscurely “No CBPs” or “No LGPs”.
In other words, lab-grown meats will eventually become the rule rather than the exception, just as GMO foods have become.
And consumers will be guilted into preferring lab-grown meat because it won’t cause bogus global warming the way real meat allegedly does.
And considering that much of the research and development for lab-grown meat is coming out of Israel, we can be assured that it will be enthusiastically endorsed by the mainstream media whores.
From a moral perspective, lab-grown meat would be a fantastic innovation made possible only by the science of the White race. No longer would animals have to suffer industrialized farming conditions followed by the pain and confusion of slaughter.
However, the article is right when it points out Israel’s interest in this technology. One can easily envision how the successful mass production of lab-grown meat could be used to justify the banning of animal husband and slaughter. First, the greater cost of lab-grown meat makes us just that much more economic slaves struggling to merely afford our very sustenance. Second, the banning of raised meat would make people dependent on a centralized industry for it, thus more controllable (and potentially starvable) than being able to raise chickens or pigs on your own property, or your local neighbor doing so and selling you the meat.
It is a shame that something that has the potential to alleviate unnecessary suffering (of animals) is more likely to be used to enslave us. But that’s what happens when you have jews among you. We will never be truly free until they are dealt with.
RTP, one of the biggest problems with converting to lab grown meat is cattle provide natural fertilizer to farm and grazing lands. Without all that manure, farmers and ranchers would have to fertilize only with chemical fertilizers which would result in the complete collapse of our eco systems. God designed nature so that both plants and animals would compliment each other and be essential to each other’s health and fertility — to benefit us. When that perfect balance is tinkered with science, the results often have unintended consequences.
It is not true that without manure, the only alternative is chemical fertilizers. Any one who’s had to do lawn care knows there are plenty of organic fertilizers that don’t come from cow manure.
It’s one thing to fertilize a suburban lawn with a manure alternative, such as mulching, but let’s see you do it with hundreds of acres of farmland, like my father in law did. Give me an affordable, essentially free, alternative to manure to use in large scale farming? Farmers have been using cow and horse manure for thousands of years on their land, and if there were a better alternative, they would have found it by now, don’t you think?
This must happen when moral law is superseded with the amoral commercial law. Traditional perception of law is exploited by the alien and soulless and moral code defined by the godless liar. All protected by the devil and idol of absolute freedom. Chinese and jew monopolize food industry. . They are the ne plus ultra of extracting profit from abysmal cruelty and depraved indifference to other living creatures. Be assured, we will all pay for this !
Praise the Lord
“Looks like meat, taste like meat, but isn’t meat at all.”
“Double plus good!”
May our Creator comfort our souls to endure such times.
To keep aside any sentiment of despair, despite all that is happening.
What troubles me is what’s the meaning of all this?
If you’re awake, you can’t conform yourself with this world/system, at the same time feeling stuck, because all the things around you are lies.
And if you dare to speak the truth, you are hateful, crazy, will lose your job, financially ruined, silenced, killed….
If anyone have an insight, please share. I don’t have any prospect/perspective in my life atm.
Psalms 91 is a great place to start. Keep the faith. YHWH bless.
I would simply say ‘read deuteronomy 28 – its talking to and about us…
Paving the way for Chinese “shit burgers” to flood the market…because our health is the gubmint’s #1 concern…