Connect with us


US Regulators Approve the FIRST ‘Lab-Grown’ Meat

US Regulators Approve the FIRST 'Lab-Grown' Meat

( – U.S. officials gave their initial approval to the sale of chicken derived from animal cells, enabling two California companies to supply “lab-grown” poultry to American restaurant menus and possibly grocery store shelves.

The Agriculture Department approved the sale of what is now known as “cell-cultivated” or “cultured” meat as it leaves the lab and makes its way to dinner plates by Upside Foods and Good Meat.

These companies had been competing to be the first in the U.S. to sell meat that doesn’t come from slaughtered animals.

The decision ushers in a new era of meat production that aims to end animal suffering and significantly reduce the environmental effects of grazing, growing animal feed, and animal waste.

Josh Tetrick, co-founder and CEO of Eat Just, which runs Good Meat, stated, “We can do it in a different way instead of all of that land and all of that water that’s used to feed all of these animals that are slaughtered.”

The businesses were given the go-ahead for the federal inspections necessary to sell meat and poultry in the United States. After the U.S. Food and Drug Administration determined that the products from both companies were safe to eat, the action was taken a few months later.

Joinn Biologics, a manufacturing business that collaborates with Good Meat, can also produce the goods.

In steel tanks, cells from a living animal, a fertilized egg, or a specific bank of stored cells are used to develop the meat for consumption.

In the case of Upside, it emerges in substantial sheets that are subsequently shaped into items like chicken cutlets and sausages.

Good Meat processes large quantities of chicken cells into cutlets, nuggets, shredded meat, and satays in Singapore, the first country to permit it.

However, don’t expect to find this unique meat soon in American grocery shops. According to Ricardo San Martin, director of the Alt:Meat Lab at the University of California Berkeley, chicken raised in captivity is far more expensive to purchase than meat from entire, farmed birds and cannot yet be produced on the same scale as traditional meat.

The businesses intend to launch the new food in high-end eateries first. Upside has teamed with Bar Crenn in San Francisco. Good Meat meals will be offered at a chef and restaurateur Jose Andrés restaurant in Washington, D.C.

The items are meat, not meat alternatives like the Impossible Burger or offerings from Beyond Meat, which are produced from plant proteins and other components, company officials are careful to point out.

More than 150 businesses worldwide concentrate on meat made from cells, including chicken, swine, lamb, fish, and beef, which scientists claim has the most significant environmental impact.

Upside, a Berkeley-based company, runs a 70,000-square-foot facility in the nearby city of Emeryville. On a recent Tuesday, guests entered a pristine commercial kitchen where chef Jess Weaver was sautéing a chicken filet with tomatoes, capers, and green onions in a white wine butter sauce.

The completed product was paler than the chicken breast found in supermarkets. It appeared cooked, stank like other pan-fried poultry, and tasted the same.

“The most typical comment,” according to Amy Chen, chief operating officer of Upside, is “Oh, it tastes like chicken.”

At the 100,000-square-foot facility run by Alameda-based Good Meat, chef Zach Tyndall served a smoked chicken salad on a warm June afternoon.

He next offered a chicken “thigh” that was actually a potato puree with tiny purple cauliflower florets and a mushroom-vegetable demi-glace on top. The chicken from Good Meat will be pre-cooked and only need to be heated to use in various ways.

Chen acknowledged that eating chicken created from cells makes many people wary or even queasy.

We refer to it as the “ick factor,” she remarked.

A recent poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research confirmed the sentiment. One-half of American respondents said they were unlikely to test meat produced using animal cells.

Most of those who indicated they were reluctant to try it cited “it just sounds weird” as their primary reason when given a list of possible justifications. A majority of people believed it wouldn’t be safe.

However, Chen claimed that after people learn how meat is produced, they become more accepting. After tasting it, they are typically sold, too.

She remarked, “It’s the meat you’ve always known and loved.”

“Meat is grown beginning with the cells.” According to Chen, “Upside specialists extract cells from live animals and select the ones most likely to taste well, multiply quickly, and reliably, resulting in high-quality meat.”

Products made by Good Meat are produced using a master cell bank developed using a commercially accessible chicken cell line.

After the cell lines have been chosen, they are blended with a broth-like solution that contains the vitamins, salts, carbohydrates, fatty acids, amino acids, and other nutrients cells require to develop.

The cells develop and multiply swiftly inside the tanks called cultivators. Connective tissue and muscle cells congregate at the Upside to create broadsheets.

The sheets of chicken cells are taken out of the tanks after about three weeks and fashioned into cutlets, sausages, or other delicacies. Large quantities of Good Meat cells are then formed into various meat products.

Both businesses made clear that the initial production would be constrained. The Emeryville facility has a maximum annual production capacity of 50,000 pounds of cultured meat products.

Still, Upside officials said the ultimate goal is to increase that to 400,000 pounds. Officials from Good Meat wouldn’t speculate on a production target.

In contrast, the United States generates around 50 billion pounds of chicken annually.

According to Sebastian Bohn, who specializes in cell-based foods at CRB, a Missouri company that designs and constructs facilities for pharmaceutical, biotech, and food companies, said it could take a few years for customers to see the items in more restaurants and seven to ten years for them to reach a larger market.

The cost will still be another issue. Officials from Upside and Good Meat refused to disclose the price of a single chicken cutlet, only stating that it has dropped dramatically since the companies started providing demos.

The pricing is anticipated to eventually match premium organic chicken, which may cost up to $20 per pound.

San Martin expressed concern that cultured meat would end up being a rich people’s alternative to traditional meat. Still, it won’t have much environmental impact if it stays a niche product.

He stated, “It’s good if some high-end or wealthy people want to eat this instead of a chicken.” Will that imply that you will serve chicken to the underprivileged? Sincerely, I fail to see it.”

Tetrick asserted that he concurs with opponents’ worries over the difficulties of creating an inexpensive, new beef product for the global market.

But he emphasized that traditional meat production is so damaging to the planet that it requires an alternative — preferably one that doesn’t require giving up meat altogether.

Tetrick grew up eating chicken wings and barbeque in Alabama and declared, “I miss meat.”

He added, “There should be a different way that people can enjoy chicken, beef, and pork with their families.”

Copyright 2023,

Continue Reading


Democrat Mayor Welcomes Illegals to Denver


During a recent interview with CNBC, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston’s comments regarding the city’s approach to immigration underscore a troubling trend of prioritizing the interests of migrants over the well-being of American citizens.

Johnston’s admission that Denver is grappling with an influx of migrants is a damning indictment of the city’s failed open-door policies. Rather than acknowledging the inherent risks and challenges associated with unchecked migration, Johnston attempts to portray Denver’s approach as a delicate balancing act between compassion and pragmatism. However, his words betray a dangerous naivety that threatens to undermine the safety and prosperity of Denverites.

By championing an ideology of unlimited hospitality, Denver has effectively placed the burden of its misguided altruism squarely on the shoulders of its own citizens. Johnston’s assertion that the city is proud of its ability to manage the migrant crisis is not only arrogant but also deeply troubling. Instead of celebrating the city’s failure to control its borders, Denver should be prioritizing the needs and concerns of its own residents.

Johnston’s plea for federal assistance serves as a thinly veiled attempt to absolve Denver of its responsibility for the consequences of its reckless immigration policies. It is outrageous that hardworking taxpayers are expected to foot the bill for the city’s misguided generosity. Denverites should not be forced to accept cuts to city budgets and services in order to accommodate migrants who enter the country illegally.

Furthermore, Johnston’s insistence on portraying migrants as victims deserving of unwavering support only serves to exacerbate the problem. By perpetuating the myth of the noble migrant in need of rescue, Johnston glosses over the very real dangers and disruptions caused by uncontrolled immigration. Denverites deserve better than a mayor who prioritizes virtue signaling over their safety and prosperity.

It is time for Johnston and other proponents of open borders to face the harsh reality of their policies. Unrestricted immigration poses serious threats to national security, public safety, and economic stability. Denver cannot continue down this reckless path without risking irreparable harm to its own citizens.

In light of these challenges, it is imperative that Denver enact sensible immigration policies that prioritize the needs and interests of American citizens. This includes strengthening border security, enforcing immigration laws, and implementing measures to deter illegal immigration. Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust placed in Johnston by the people of Denver.


Illegals Get the VIP Treatment from Biden's DHS!

POLL: Should American cities welcome illegals?


Continue Reading


Texas Dem. Rep: No Taxes For Black Americans


In a recent episode of the “Black Lawyers Podcast,” Rep. Jasmine Crockett, a Democrat from Texas, ignited a firestorm of controversy with her proposal to exempt Black Americans from paying taxes as a form of reparations. This suggestion has triggered widespread outrage among conservatives, who see it as yet another attempt to further racialize American politics and deepen divisions within society.

Crockett’s proposition, which she herself admitted may not be successful due to the fact that many within the Black community are already struggling financially and may not be paying taxes, has been met with condemnation from conservative voices across the country. Critics argue that such a plan would not only be ineffective in addressing the underlying issues faced by Black Americans but would also exacerbate racial tensions and perpetuate a victimhood narrative.

By singling out one racial group for special treatment through tax exemptions, Crockett’s proposal threatens to further polarize an already divided nation along racial lines. Conservatives view this as yet another example of the left’s obsession with identity politics, where race takes precedence over individual merit and personal responsibility.

Moreover, Crockett’s suggestion of tax exemptions as a form of reparations is seen as deeply misguided and unfair. Conservatives argue that reparations, if they are to be considered at all, should be based on need and merit, rather than race. By proposing blanket tax exemptions based solely on race, Crockett fails to address the complex socioeconomic factors that contribute to inequality and disadvantage in America.

Conservatives also express concern about the lack of consistency and coordination between federal and state approaches to reparations. Crockett’s call for tax exemptions at the federal level raises questions about how such measures would interact with existing state-level initiatives, potentially leading to confusion and inequity in the distribution of resources.

As the debate over reparations continues to intensify, conservatives are calling for a more thoughtful and inclusive approach that focuses on addressing the root causes of inequality and promoting economic opportunity for all Americans, regardless of race. Crockett’s proposal, they argue, only serves to further entrench racial divisions and undermine efforts to achieve genuine unity and progress in the United States.



POLL: Should the federal government exempt black Americans from taxes?

Continue Reading


Whoopi Goldberg Claims Conservatives Want to “Bring Back Slavery”


In a recent episode of ABC’s “The View,” Whoopi Goldberg stirred controversy with her startling claim that some Republicans are inclined to “bring slavery back.” The comment, made during a discussion about the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to reinstate an 1864 abortion ban, has sparked widespread condemnation, with critics lambasting Goldberg for her inflammatory and unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Goldberg’s assertion, delivered in the heat of the panel discussion, has been roundly denounced as not only inflammatory but also deeply irresponsible. By equating Republican policies on abortion with a desire to resurrect one of the darkest chapters in American history, Goldberg not only demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the issues at hand but also showcased a troubling disregard for reasoned discourse.

Conservative voices have been particularly vocal in their condemnation of Goldberg’s remarks, highlighting the egregious nature of her comparison and the harm it does to meaningful dialogue. They argue that such hyperbolic and baseless accusations only serve to further polarize an already divided political landscape, making it increasingly difficult to find common ground on important issues.

Moreover, critics have pointed out the dangerous precedent set by Goldberg’s rhetoric, warning of the potential consequences of allowing such inflammatory statements to go unchallenged. They argue that by indulging in sensationalism and distortion, Goldberg not only does a disservice to the public discourse but also undermines the credibility of her own platform.

In the wake of the controversy, Goldberg has faced mounting pressure to retract or clarify her remarks, with many calling on her to apologize for the offense caused. However, as of yet, Goldberg has remained steadfast in her position, offering no indication of contrition or acknowledgment of the harm caused by her words.

Goldberg’s comments are part of a greater problem in American media and politics: One where conservative Americans are routinely demonized for their beliefs without consequence. This rhetoric should alarm all patriotic Americans interested in the free and honest discussion of ideas and politics.


POLL: Do you think conservatives want to bring back slavery?


Continue Reading