Connect with us

Biden Administration

Pentagon Seeks to Feed Troops ‘Experimental’ Lab-Grown Meat to Reduce CO2 Footprint

Published

on

The Pentagon has partnered with a company to explore feeding America’s soldiers lab-grown meat in an effort to reduce the carbon footprint at Defense Department outposts. BioMADE, a public-private company with over $500 million in funding from the Defense Department, announced earlier this month that it is seeking proposals for “innovations in food production that reduce the CO2 footprint of food production at … DoD operational environments,” according to an online announcement.

Among these innovations is the development of “novel cell culture methods suitable for the production of cultivated meat/protein,” or lab-grown meat. This type of meat is grown in a laboratory from animal cells using various chemicals and processes. While lab-grown meat remains in its experimental stages, it has become a focal point in discussions about the efficacy and ethics of producing meat without animal slaughter.

BioMADE—which received a $450 million infusion of taxpayer funds earlier this year—asserts that lab-grown food products will help the Pentagon achieve a reduced carbon footprint. This initiative aligns with the Biden administration’s mandate to address climate change and other cultural issues, which critics often label as “woke.”

“Innovations in food production that reduce the CO2 footprint of food production at and/or transport to DoD operational environments are solicited,” the company stated in an informational document and accompanying press release. The proposals could include the production of nutrient-dense military rations via fermentation processes, utilizing one carbon molecule (C1) feedstocks for food production, and novel cell culture methods for cultivated meat/protein.

Additionally, BioMADE is inviting proposals for processes that convert greenhouse gases and projects that develop bioproducts to mitigate environmental impacts both regionally and globally. These include bioproducts to prevent or slow coastal erosion.

Critics argue that U.S. troops should not be test subjects for lab-grown meat products, which are still experimental. Jack Hubbard, executive director at the Center for the Environment and Welfare, a consumer group that analyzes emerging markets such as bioengineered meat, voiced strong opposition.

“Taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund the lab-grown meat sector,” Hubbard said. “Our troops deserve better than to be served lab-grown meat, produced in bioreactors with immortalized cells and chemicals. Unfortunately, this effort is being driven by an agenda that is political and anti-farmer. Our soldiers should never be used as guinea pigs.”

As part of its push to fund “alt-protein projects,” the Pentagon and its partners have made up to $2 million available for such initiatives, according to the publication Alt-Meat.

Supporters of these efforts argue that U.S. national security depends on addressing global change and embracing new technologies like lab-grown meat. Matt Spence, a former Defense Department official, wrote in a 2021 Slate piece that “one of the most immediate, politically feasible, and high-impact ways to do this [address climate change] is for the U.S. government to invest in and accelerate alternative ways to produce meat.”

However, recent studies, including one from the University of California, Davis, suggest that lab-grown meat may have a worse carbon footprint than retail beef. Derrick Risner, a member of UC Davis’s Department of Food Science and Technology, highlighted that “if companies are having to purify growth media to pharmaceutical levels, it uses more resources, which then increases global warming potential. If this product continues to be produced using the ‘pharma’ approach, it’s going to be worse for the environment and more expensive than conventional beef production.”

The Defense Department and BioMADE did not respond to requests for comment from the Washington Free Beacon.

As the debate continues, the Pentagon’s initiative to incorporate lab-grown meat into military diets remains a contentious topic, balancing the promise of technological advancement with concerns over practicality, ethics, and environmental impact.

Biden Administration

Former Obama-Biden Advisor Claims “The First Amendment Is Out of Control,” Hinders Government Action

Published

on

In a controversial opinion piece published recently, Tim Wu, an advisor to both the Obama and Biden administrations, argued that the First Amendment is becoming a significant obstacle to effective governance. The essay, titled “The First Amendment is Out of Control,” has sparked widespread debate and criticism.

Wu’s argument centers on the assertion that the First Amendment, designed to protect free speech, is now being exploited by powerful entities, including Big Tech companies, to resist regulation and oversight. He cites recent Supreme Court rulings regarding Texas and Florida laws aimed at regulating social media platforms as examples of this exploitation.

According to Wu, the collaboration between the government and major social media platforms is often hindered by the First Amendment, which is used as a defense to protect free speech in digital public forums. He suggests that this constitutional protection is being misused to prevent necessary government action aimed at safeguarding citizens.

Critics, however, argue that Wu’s perspective misinterprets the fundamental purpose of the First Amendment. They contend that the amendment’s role is precisely to protect citizens from government overreach and censorship, ensuring that free speech remains a cornerstone of democracy. The idea that the First Amendment is an obstacle rather than a protector is seen by many as a dangerous and misguided interpretation.

Furthermore, Wu’s essay touches on the issue of banning platforms like TikTok and implementing age verification laws, such as California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code. He suggests that the First Amendment stands in the way of these actions, which he believes are necessary for national security and protecting minors online. Critics counter that these measures, if implemented, could set precedents for broader and potentially harmful censorship practices.

Wu’s reference to the First Amendment as a “suicide pact,” borrowing language from a 1949 dissenting opinion in the Terminiello v. City of Chicago case, underscores the dramatic tone of his argument. He suggests that the amendment, while intended to safeguard freedoms, can also be interpreted in ways that undermine societal safety and security.

In conclusion, Tim Wu’s essay has reignited the debate over the balance between free speech and governmental regulation. While Wu argues that the First Amendment’s current application hinders effective governance and protection of citizens, his critics maintain that the amendment is essential for safeguarding democratic principles and preventing government overreach. As this debate continues, the interpretation and application of the First Amendment remain at the forefront of discussions about free speech and public safety in the digital age.

SOURCE: NEW YORK TIMES

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

DHS and FBI Issue Warning About Large Fourth of July Events as ‘Attractive’ Targets for

Published

on

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a warning on Wednesday regarding potential threats to large Fourth of July celebrations. According to an internal bulletin obtained by ABC News, these events are considered “attractive” targets for lone offenders and small groups with malicious intentions.

The bulletin emphasizes the risk posed by individuals and small groups who might exploit the gatherings for terrorism or other harmful activities. The warning comes as the nation prepares for Independence Day festivities, which traditionally draw large crowds to public spaces.

The FBI and DHS are urging local law enforcement and event organizers to increase vigilance and security measures. The agencies highlight the importance of public awareness and cooperation, encouraging individuals to report any suspicious activities immediately.

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

Biden is 7 Times More Popular with Ukrainians than Trump, Poll Reveals

Published

on

In a recent poll conducted by The Counteroffensive/Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, President Joe Biden emerges as significantly more popular among Ukrainians compared to former President Donald Trump. This inaugural poll offers insights into Ukrainian sentiment towards American leadership during their ongoing conflict with Russia.

According to The Hill, a striking 46.7 percent of Ukrainian respondents expressed a preference for President Biden as the leader they believe would better support Ukraine’s war effort. In contrast, only 6.5 percent of those polled favored Trump in this regard.

Continue Reading

Trending