[mental4astro (Alexander)]

Forget the animal welfare aspect, the true significance of the "experiment" is designed to show CORPORATIONS how to maximise their profit. Notice how there was no mention on the quality of feed the 'frankenanimals' would be fed? It's no oversight. And, in the end, we are supposed to eat this! CORPORATIONS get around this by branding the stuff "product", not food - what you do with it after purchasing it is upto you. They didn't say it was "food". Use it as a necklace if you like.

Think I'm making this up? Read the back of your favourite brekkie cereal, soft drink, tin of beans: always reads "this product" & "serving suggestion", never does it mention FOOD or that you should actually eat the stuff. Go on, have a look as dispassionately as you can, forgetting that you are feeding this to your kids.

PS: Industrial processes that are involved in the manufacture of a product, even if they involve the use of chemicals, those chemicals DO NOT need to be listed in amoungst the ingredients, as it is part of an industrial process. It is not part of the strict "product" definition. You are not told that caustic soda is used in the "peeling process" of that tin of peaches in the pantry - its use is part of the industrial process. Reckon it is not in that tin? But it is not listed, is it.