04/21/2023 / By Ethan Huff
With the help of Ohio-based attorney Thomas Renz, Rep. Holly Jones (R-Mo.), Renz’s business manager, has crafted and filed a new legislative bill that would require meat and other food producers to label their products as having been gene-edited in the event that the animals and plants they were produced from got “vaccinated” with mRNA (messenger RNA) for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19).
Known as Missouri House Bill No. 1169, or HB 1169, the legislation was first introduced by Rep. Jones on February 15 of this year. Known colloquially as the “informed consent bill,” HB 1169 states that:
“Any product that has been created to act as, or exposed to processes that could result in the product potentially acting as, a gene therapy or that could otherwise possibly impact, alter, or introduce genetic material or a genetic change into the user of the product, individuals exposed to the product, or individuals exposed to others who have used the product shall be conspicuously labeled with the words ‘Potential Gene Therapy Product’ unless the product is known to be a gene therapy product,” the bill states.
Applied broadly, as is its intent, HB 1169 would basically require that all foods and medicines that have been tainted with mRNA be properly labeled as such so consumers can make an informed decision about whether or not to purchase and consume it.
“In other words, all foods, medicines, etc. that could even be semi-sort-of construed as gene therapy must be conspicuously labeled as such,” reports The Covid Blog.
“The bill would allow consumers to make informed shopping decisions when buying meat, eggs, milk and other products that come from mRNA-vaxxed cows and hogs. HB 1169 comes as U.S. meat producers have signaled that they will normalize the use of mRNA-based ‘vaccines’ for cattle and hogs nationwide as soon as this coming summer.
(Related: Learn more from our earlier coverage about the matter.)
It turns out that mRNA-tainted meat products have likely already been hiding in the food supply since around 2013 when billionaire eugenicist Bill Gates and his wife Melinda first started funding mRNA “vaccine” products for use in cows and pigs.
Billionaire electric vehicle (EV) guru Elon Musk is another mRNA promoter who just this past week tweeted his support for the use of mRNA in the human food supply.
“This will make some people upset, but I need to emphasize that accelerating synthetic mRNA technology was another silver lining,” Musk wrote, referring, presumably, to Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed fast-tracking for mRNA release. “It is a revolution in medicine, like going from analog to digital.”
“The Covid mRNA vaccine dosage level was too high and having a zillion booster shots was idiotic, causing more harm than good imo, but I am convinced that synthetic mRNA is the surest path to curing cancer, among other things.”
One wonders what these “other things” might be, but nevertheless, there you have it: Musk is no different than Gates when it comes to pushing gene-editing technologies on the human public. Musk is just another globalist like all the others, in other words.
Back in September, Australia’s New South Wales government partnered with Massachusetts-based biopharmaceutical company Tiba Biotech to unleash new bovine and swine mRNA injections at warp speed. The aim is to have these injections ready for mass deployment by August 1 of this year.
“If you enjoy pork chops, bacon, ham, etc. in the U.S., then you’ve likely already been consuming synthetic mRNA meat for the past decade,” The Covid Blog notes.
The latest news about the mRNA assault on the food supply can be found at Frankenfood.news.
Sources for this article include:
Tagged Under:
animals, big government, Big Pharma, Censored Science, Food Evolution, food freedom, food science, food supply, frankenfood, GMO, HB 1169, health freedom, Immunizations, informed consent, ingredients, Labeling, livestock, meat, mRNA, pharmaceutical fraud, vaccination, vaccine wars, vaccines, world agriculture
This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author