from Moonbattery: If this woman looks a little smug, it could be because she expects to come into lots of free money: A radical House Democrat plans to introduce a resolution that demands taxpayers give black Americans trillions of dollars in reparations for so-called “racial justice.” Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA) plans to introduce the Reparations Now Resolution […]

from TheSaltyCracker: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

Southern comfort in a slice of cake. READ MORE...

Comedian Jerry Seinfeld offered a quick retort and a smile when a heckler accused him of supporting "the genocide of babies in Gaza." A video of the incident, which occurred as he was leaving a New York Knicks game, was posted Wednesday on the Palestinian Assembly for Liberation’s Instagram page,...

Former interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and Department of Justice Pardon Attorney Ed Martin gave journalist Tucker Carlson a major update on the January 6 pipe bomber case. On Wednesday, Carlson posted his interview with Martin from "The Tucker Carlson Show" in which Martin said, "I've got...

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has quietly green lit the first-ever gene-edited pigs for human consumption, marking a controversial leap into the future of biotechnology. While corporate giants and biotech proponents celebrate this as a solution to disease-ridden factory farming, skeptics warn of hidden dangers—unintended genetic mutations, viral resistance, and a disturbing lack of transparency for consumers. As CRISPR-altered pork inches toward dinner tables, the question remains: Are we trading short-term agricultural gains for long-term health disasters? Article by Lance D. Johnson, republished with permission from Naturalnews.com Key points: The FDA approved gene-edited pigs resistant to Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS), a costly virus plaguing industrial pig farms. CRISPR technology removes a cellular receptor to block PRRS, but critics warn the virus could mutate into more dangerous strains. No labeling requirements mean consumers may unknowingly eat gene-edited pork as early as next year. Previous gene-editing experiments have led to unintended side effects, raising concerns about food safety. The approval follows a pattern of regulatory secrecy, with the FDA failing to prominently disclose the decision. The hidden cost of “disease-resistant” pork Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) has plagued pig farms for decades, causing massive economic losses. Genus, a British biotech firm, claims its CRISPR-edited pigs—engineered to lack the CD163 receptor targeted by PRRS—could be the answer. However, genetic modifications often have unintended consequences. In 2018, He Jiankui’s controversial CRISPR experiment on human embryos demonstrated the technology’s unpredictability. While pigs are not humans, similar risks exist: viruses evolve, and genetic alterations may disrupt biological functions in unforeseen ways. As one expert warned, PRRS has no simple fix—CRISPR may create new problems while solving old ones. He Jiankui’s controversial human embryo experiment He Jiankui used CRISPR to edit human embryos (targeting the CCR5 gene) to purportedly confer HIV resistance. Unintended consequences: Off-target effects or disruptions to other genes could lead to long-term health risks. Ethical violations: Lack of transparency, informed consent, and regulatory oversight raised global condemnation. Existential risks: Germline editing (heritable changes) could have unpredictable effects on future generations. The PRRS-resistant pig dilemma Genus’s CRISPR-edited pigs lack the CD163 receptor, theoretically making them immune to PRRS. Viral evolution: PRRS virus could adapt, rendering the genetic fix obsolete. Biological disruption: Removing CD163 (a multifunctional protein) may impair immune responses or metabolic functions. Unintended effects: Similar to He Jiankui’s experiment, CRISPR may introduce new vulnerabilities. The FDA’s silent approval and the labeling loophole The FDA quietly approved gene-edited pork without public debate, burying the decision in obscure regulatory documents. Even more concerning, Genus acknowledges that no labeling is required, leaving consumers unaware if their food contains CRISPR-modified meat. The Center for Food Safety has long advocated for transparency, arguing that people deserve the right to know what they’re eating. This secrecy mirrors past failures, such as AquaBounty’s GMO salmon, which faced consumer rejection. If history repeats, gene-edited pork may enter the market unnoticed—until public backlash forces a reckoning. A dangerous precedent: Who controls our food? The FDA’s approval of CRISPR pork sets a worrying trend, paving the way for gene-edited chickens, cattle, and other livestock with minimal oversight. Corporate interests, including Bill Gates—a major CRISPR proponent—are driving this agenda under the guise of solving food insecurity. But the lack of long-term safety studies and mandatory labeling raises ethical and health concerns. Critics warn that tampering with nature can backfire, introducing unforeseen risks to human health and ecosystems. As industrial agriculture pushes forward, food sovereignty—the right to choose what we eat—hangs in the balance. What you can do Buy organic – USDA-certified organic products prohibit GMOs, including CRISPR-edited meat. Support local farmers – Seek out transparent, ethical meat sources that avoid genetic modifications. Demand labeling – Advocate for laws requiring clear GMO labeling so consumers can make informed choices. Reduce industrial meat consumption – Opt for pasture-raised, non-GMO, and regenerative farming options. The CRISPR food revolution is already underway, but public awareness and resistance can shape its future. The question remains: Will we accept unregulated genetic experiments in our food, or demand accountability? Sources include: NaturalHealth365.com NationalPigAssociation.co.uk TechnologyReview.com