Farmers: Don't Contaminate our Food!
If Vaxxed or Gene-Altered, Food Needs Labeling & Consumers Demand Informed Consent
The heroic Dr. Mercola was right when he wrote one of the most frustrating aspects of the livestock genetically-altering vaccine controversy is “... industry didn’t tell us they were using novel gene therapy to spin up customized ‘vaccines’ in weeks without any safety testing.” He summarizes the shocking disclosure:
“Americans have been eating pork treated with gene therapy for nearly five years already, and even more of our meat supply is about to get the same treatment. mRNA-lipid nanoparticle shots for avian influenza are in the works, as are mRNA shots for cows. Lobbyists for the Cattlemen’s Association recently confirmed they intend to use mRNA “vaccines” in cattle, which might affect both dairy and beef.”
COVID-19’s hysteria collapsed all trust in government health authorities, so secrecy is a non-starter. Attorney Tom Renz is right that the bill Missouri is considering to prohibit gene-altering health care without disclosure and consent needs replicating in all of the 50 States. Further, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must prohibit food sales without labels identifying (and limiting) all vaccines and any gene alteration.
The latter is important for any food label because industry is trying to replace animal meat with that genetically engineered in a lab, without any notice to the public! The former is necessary because even organic farms allow vaccination – under ridiculously inadequate testing procedures – something consumers certainly deserve to be informed about. It seems that vaccines have become an excuse for farms to remain as factory farms, where animals suffer stress that hurts their immunity, rendering them more susceptible to disease and being unhealthy.
Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) has a bill to incentivize factory farms to end their abusive practice of small lot-housing of the animals, their feed and their feces, and Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) has a bill to allow superior, local-meat processing (to address one study in which USDA-inspected facilities suffer 150 weekly hygiene violations such as meat contaminated with blood, septicemic disease, and feces). And if there is an outbreak of, say, Foot and Mouth Disease, the protocols short of vaccination are clear: slaughter of infected animals, movement bans, tracing, quarantine and surveillance. Farms that restore traditional practices learn about alternatives to over-vaccination.
USDA guidelines already allow beef to be labeled “No Hormones Administered,” so amending this label should be easy. The FDA inspects insanitary conditions on farms and slaughterhouses, which can include adulteration via excessive residues from drugs (including growth-distorting antibiotics), so their “tolerance” guidelines could be strengthened to forbid vaccines that alter genetics. The FDA’s “withdrawal” periods (during which no drugs may be administered to the animal so that any remaining drug residues in the meat at time of slaughter are thought to be safe for human consumption) should also be extended because of the industry’s manipulation of vaccines that hamper cell destruction of mRNA.
Defenders of Big Pharma claim withdrawal periods are sufficiently long – 2 months usually, but sometimes almost as little as 2 weeks – to protect humans from dangerous residues. But the esteemed Dr. Campbell found the COVID-19 mRNA to last at least one month in humans, while others have found life-long existence of injected spike in animals. As Mr. Renz asks:
“We also do know that these [human COVID-19] jabs were demonstrated, in vitro, to alter the genetic makeup of some cells and I would say it is incredibly likely that they do this outside the Petri dish.
“Given that we are now talking about a new level of genetic engineering with unknown effects and no long-term studies, do the potential genetic changes the mRNA injections facilitate pose a long-term risk to humans who ingest the altered food? Before you say no, wouldn’t you prefer it be tested rather than being the subject of the experiment?”
Surely consumers deserve informed consent and transparent labeling – including the animals’ treatment records and if the product was genetically modified – of any food they are eating! Anything less is fraudulent and misleading.