15 Comments
User's avatar
patrick.net/memes's avatar

This is entirely appropriate. Those "foods" are indeed not fit for human consumption, yet people should be able to buy them if they choose to.

But junk food is still a million times less important than banning the dangerous and defective mRNA jabs which continue to kill people every day.

Expand full comment
Sober Christian Gentleman's avatar

The system is protecting itself.

Expand full comment
Tonya's avatar

And I don't really need the government to warn me about or ban certain substances when they are in products that I still won't eat even with the less toxic replacement ingredients.

Wait until people realize GRAS substances (generally regarded as safe) are only classified as such because they are not tested for safety. “Regarded” is an opinion word, not a scientific fact, and it just means that they haven't tested them for safety because they don't want to know.

Expand full comment
Sober Christian Gentleman's avatar

Bait and switch.

Expand full comment
patrick.net/memes's avatar

Warnings like that would at least be an improvement over what we have now.

Expand full comment
Eve's avatar

That is another bullshit promise that might take effect in 2027 and only in Texas ? Why not taking effect immediately and Nation wide and signed not by a Governor from Texas but by executive order from President Trump?

Americans are poisoned by indredients banned in European Union and other country with a promise to follow the ban only in Texas? All this is a joke!

Expand full comment
Lenmor1776's avatar

President Trump would then appear to be a dictator. The point is for the ppl to have the freedoms to choose, even as obvious as it is to us.

Expand full comment
Lianne hall's avatar

99% of our food supply

Expand full comment
Jill's avatar

So, how long will you be able to ignore the open letter to RFKjr? Shall we pretend it didn't happen? This appears to be your strategy.

You know, antifreeze and sm-102 are in some products that are being pushed on human beings and other animals. Calley seems all good with those ingredients even though the material safety data sheet actually says : "not for use in humans or animals". Hmmm....it's almost like the MAHA leadership is astroturf and doesn't actually care about toxins being put into people.

Expand full comment
Sober Christian Gentleman's avatar

Astroturf rebrand to run out the clock and keep the depopulation program running...

Expand full comment
Lenmor1776's avatar

Again, it just has to be in plain sight so ppl can choose.

Expand full comment
Jill's avatar

It's not in plain sight. People cannot choose. Where there is shedding there is no consent. Where there is coercion, dementia and children, they can be no consent.

The government and its friends in big pharma are forbidden, by law, to produce, let alone endlessly flog a product designed to maim and kill people. This is called contracting for a crime. It is a criminal offense. It's like saying rape is fine as long as people know they could be raped.

In truth, rape is not lawful, even if people know they could be raped anywhere, anytime. Rape is a crime. Making weapons to kill people is a crime. It is not erased as a crime because some people know some of the ingredients in the weapon! The govt. and corporations need to be held criminally accountable for what they did and what they are still doing.

Expand full comment
Lenmor1776's avatar

Very true.

Expand full comment