Calling Bullsh*t – human embryonic cells in food flavourings

Here are two links that claim that if you consume mass-produced foods from a large number of companies, you are effectively

Cannibalizing aborted babies, and committing a “satanic ritual”.

http://www.realfarmacy.com/popular-foods-aborted-fetal-cells/

http://www.mrcblog.com/2016/06/breaking-top-food-company-caught-using-aborted-babies-in-flavor-additives/

Where I’m concerned, sticking money in the pockets of the world’s worst monopolies is already an act of satanism in itself and all of us are guilty of it.  We all are guilty of having a bank account, to begin with, and of shopping at supermarket chains, etc. All of us who are online are pandering to the large computer corporations, which are in turn owned by those self-same billionaires that test food flavourants on fetal cell lines.

But concerning the “cannibalism” story above:

Note the careful wording.

Using aborted babies in flavour additives” is already bordering on an outright lie (unless we have genuine evidence that the actual baby cells end up in the food?).

“Using aborted fetal cells for producing flavour additives” is dangerously misleading.

I’m really sorry Snopes have bombed out on themselves; we could have used an honest site revising such stories.

Here’s the actual scoop:

(eww!  I hate it when puns creep up on me!)

Quote:

Companies like Kraft, PepsiCo, Nestle, have reportedly been working with Semonyx, a California-based company that uses aborted embryonic cells to test fake flavoring chemicals. According to GOP The Daily Dose, the  aborted human fetal cell line is known as “HEK-293,” and it’s used to find out how the human palate will react to synthetic flavors.

“What they don’t tell the public is that they are using HEK 293 — human embryonic kidney cells taken from an electively aborted baby to produce those receptors,” said Debi Vinnedge of the pro-life group Children of God for Life. “They could have easily chosen animal, insect, or other morally obtained human cells expressing the G protein for taste receptors.”

(Source: http://www.mrcblog.com/2016/06/breaking-top-food-company-caught-using-aborted-babies-in-flavor-additives/)

 

So that’s it?  They have obtained (probably bought) foetal aborted tissue from abortion clinics (probably with the ex-pregnant un-mother’s implied consent, most definitely without the foetus’ consent), cultivated a cell line in a petridish from the parts, made it grow in the labs, and then used it for testing flavours.

None of the cells actually goes into the flavouring; so forget about “cannibalistic”.  You’re not eating human cells or even human protein.

Instead, a small sample of the flavouring is presented to (possibly painted onto, or injected into) the cell lines.  This sample is never reused for anything else; imagine the effort of re-extracting it from the cells?  All they are seeing, is how these cells react to that chemical, so they can synthesize more of the same chemical which then gets stuffed into the “foods” they produce.

The cell lines never leave the lab.  The chemical that gets into your food never touches the cell lines.  It’s as simple as that.  (Not that synthetic chemicals in your food are exactly good for you…)

So the “satanic” question comes in exclusively about using abortus tissue cultures for anything commercial.  Or, for that matter, abortion itself, and the selling of the abortus tissue to commercial companies for commercial uses.

Disgusting and unethical?  For sure!

Cannibalistic?  Oh please!!

And “satanic”?  Oh my hat…

This is where it becomes very transparent which agenda pushes this deliberate skewed information.

The trouble with the entire abortion debate is this.

People who don’t want to agree fully with the “pro-choice” mainstream, are instantly labelled “pro-life”. 

(Little detour into semantics here.  How can “pro-life” be something negative?  “To life, to life, l’chaim!” sang the whole company of “Fiddler on the Roof”.  I’m 100% for life and not against it!  It’s on a level with calling someone who digs deeper than the media indoctrination, a “truther”.  The truth was something good to look for, last time I heard?  I find some of these “insults” hard to understand.)

“Oh, so you don’t think girls should use abortion as a free way of contraception?  You pro-lifer!  You must also feel that girls who are raped have no right to abort the rapist’s spawn!”

By pushing a person who doesn’t agree 100% with you, into the opposite camp, all you do is kill the conversation.  And by killing the conversation, you allow those same unethical, disgusting companies to continue making their profits out of other people’s misfortune.

Sadly, the “other camp” – the “pro-lifers” – while they do contain sensible, rational and questioning people who would like to put abortion clinics under investigation for selling off foetal body parts (to whomever for whatever purpose), nevertheless the loudest voices in that camp, and the ones attracting most of the attention, are the unscientific, emotional religious fundamentalists who base their judgement and battle cries on a book not all of us agree on.  The effect of their propaganda (like for instance this example of distortion of the facts to make a point about “cannibalism” and “satanism”) is so off-putting that it actually plays right into the hands of the mainstream, “pro-choicers”.

“You want to investigate that abortion clinic chain for unethical practices?  Do you really want to be called a pro-lifer and be associated with those loonies?”

We need to stop making everything into only 2 camps. 

Imagine having to pick one of these two statements as applying to you:

  1.  “I am always right.”
  2.  “I am always clueless.”

Which one of the two (there is no third option) would you pick?

You see:  The problem is that there is no third option!

Yes, we do want women to be allowed to abort their rapist’s spawn.

No, we don’t want teenagers getting into the fornication habit and using abortion as a cheap way of contraception.  Actually, we want them to learn responsibility before they start fornicating.  We want them to understand the consequences and be able to choose sensibly, not just be carried away primitively in the moment at every party.  We wouldn’t agree with them going to the toilet on the sidewalk, either!  And if they can’t say no to sex, will they say no to drugs when offered?  How about teaching delayed gratification, and choice versus consequence?

(Look again at semantics:  How “pro-choice” has been corrupted into meaning “pro-instant-gratification-plus-easy-abortion”.)

And:  No, we don’t want corrupt clinics to make stacks of money selling the body parts of aborted human foetuses!  Think of the logic:  The girl, if given the same money that her abortus is making for the clinic, would probably have opted to raise the baby herself instead of aborting!  Most abortions are driven by fear – existential fear of not being able to feed that child. How is that “pro-choice”?  Most girls who choose abortion feel they actually have no choice at all, as the alternative is destitution and death.

But concerning the “cannibalism”:

TBH:  Testing chemical flavours on animals is a lot more cruel than using a human tissue culture.  It’s not as though the already-dead foetus can feel anything anymore.  Morbid, sure!  Safer and less cruel than animal testing:  Too.

Why actually do we need synthetic flavourants?  The best tomato ketchup on the shelves here is made with tomatoes, vinegar and salt.

Conclusion:

The idealist in me recommends to everyone to grow your own food and go off the grid in order to sabotage such huge, disgusting commercial giants.  But then – oh shucks – you won’t be able to read my blog posts anymore!  What to do?

 

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Calling Bullsh*t – human embryonic cells in food flavourings

  1. Pingback: Calling Bullsh*t – human embryonic cells in food flavourings — the red ant | nz

  2. I cannot see anything unethical or disgusting about using human tissue, legitimately obtained, for experimental purposes. Far, far, better that than live animals, as you say. That is truly disgraceful and ‘satanic’ — for those intellectually stunted enough to credit such myths.

    • Using live animals for testing is indeed evil. If the human tissue were ethically obtained, that would be one thing – e.g. from live donors, or from deceased organ donors. However the unethical part comes in where abortion clinics are making it big business to sell off foetal tissues to all sorts of commercial interests, in other words they have a financial incentive far beyond “helping” young misguided pregnant teens. That’s the unethical part.

    • Again, if the clinics exist because of that, or if the cost of their little ‘mistakes’ is reduced thereby, it tends to balance out.
      It amounts to good practice, like recycling. Turns garbage into something useful.

    • I seriously hesitate to call human remains from a pregnancy termination, “garbage”. I know you meant it metaphorically, but for me it doesn’t gel.

    • That is all that any remains are, human or otherwise. To think that they have any other significance is emotion/superstition overriding common sense. What is done with them, after all? They are buried or burnt. If some form of recycling can be used, why not?

    • 🙂 Thank you kindly! Glad you’re finding it enjoyable. Sorry about the last Friday’s story post, I couldn’t even get to the computer, was overloaded. Will post a nice one this Friday.

Your thoughts on this:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s