Is this an unbiassed report?

[Oldvatr]

On the very first page it says this:

The diet is quite flexible and allows for adaptation to dietary needs, personal preferences and cultural traditions. Vegetarian and vegan diets are two healthy options within the planet health diet but are personal choices.​

https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/

So you just say your dietary preference is to eat meat because it assists T2 management.

Nothing about it is saying "compulsory" to me. If adopted, it'll be like the current Eatwell plate - you can take it or leave it.

I don't think you have read the report at all. May I suggest you do so, and read whay it says about replacing livestock farmland and feed sources with increased

human plant based food production. That is why Cargill is one of the people paying for this study - they supply the tools and fertilizers used in monoculture farming. That is why Monsanto and Bayer are in the Collaboration, When I suggested you do some of your own research, then a scan of the EAT Lancet website will bring up their 20 point plan for 2050, and their 10 point plan for 2020. These are their roadmap and they are blindingly clear as to their intentions for the human race.

Edit: Apologies. The Lancet Hub and the EAT Lancet websites have both been re-written, and my store of weblinks to the really useful stuff no longer work. The Personnel profiles have been 'corrected; and now show minimal info on the participants. It seems they realise that there was 'too much information' and are now fluffy bunny. There certainly were some documents in the EAT Stockholm hub that showed a more militant approach, but that is being toned down now. However, rest assured that the original combatants are still in charge.

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

On the very first page it says this:

The diet is quite flexible and allows for adaptation to dietary needs, personal preferences and cultural traditions. Vegetarian and vegan diets are two healthy options within the planet health diet but are personal choices.​

https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/

So you just say your dietary preference is to eat meat because it assists T2 management.

Nothing about it is saying "compulsory" to me. If adopted, it'll be like the current Eatwell plate - you can take it or leave it.

It's not compulsory....yet. Right now they are just trying to persuade people not to eat meat or at least eat very little meat, either for their health, the environment, or animal welfare...whatever works. They're hoping that the vast majority of people buy into these nutty ideas, then the persuasion will turn to things like meat taxes, restricting meat production, then outright banning it and only allowing fake lab meat.

 

[bulkbiker]

On the very first page it says this:

The diet is quite flexible and allows for adaptation to dietary needs, personal preferences and cultural traditions. Vegetarian and vegan diets are two healthy options within the planet health diet but are personal choices.​

https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/

So you just say your dietary preference is to eat meat because it assists T2 management.

Nothing about it is saying "compulsory" to me. If adopted, it'll be like the current Eatwell plate - you can take it or leave it.

Yes it's all lovely and cuddly with bunnies running around the fields until you get to this bit

Section 4: Framework for a Great Food Transformation

"However, the scale of change to the food system is unlikely to be successful if left to the individual or the whim of consumer choice. This change requires reframing at the population and systemic level. By contrast, hard policy interventions include laws, fiscal measures, subsidies and penalties, trade reconfiguration, and other economic and structural measures. These interventions alter conditions in which the whole population exists. The type of interventions adopted is the prerogative of governments, people, and processes. However, countries and authorities should not restrict themselves to narrow measures or soft interventions. Too often policy remains at the soft end of the policy ladder."

Which is slightly more chilling no?

 

[Member496333]

Yes it's all lovely and cuddly with bunnies running around the fields until you get to this bit

Section 4: Framework for a Great Food Transformation

"However, the scale of change to the food system is unlikely to be successful if left to the individual or the whim of consumer choice. This change requires reframing at the population and systemic level. By contrast, hard policy interventions include laws, fiscal measures, subsidies and penalties, trade reconfiguration, and other economic and structural measures. These interventions alter conditions in which the whole population exists. The type of interventions adopted is the prerogative of governments, people, and processes. However, countries and authorities should not restrict themselves to narrow measures or soft interventions. Too often policy remains at the soft end of the policy ladder."

Which is slightly more chilling no?

So basically force people to eat a diet prescribed by the anointed. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail but sometimes I wonder. Never underestimate the power of money.

 

[Scott-C]

Which is slightly more chilling no?

Ooh, well spotted, that man!

Might have a closer look at it later.

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

Anyone here ever read Future Food by Colin Tudge?

Yes - I personally disagree with his anti-meat philosophy.

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

Another response to the EAT-Lancet thing (mainly about whether cattle are bad for the environment):

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/01/whats-really-behind-the-plant-based-diet-agenda/

 

[rmz80]

Notice opening picture on report shows an Avocado. These need 37 gallons of water EACH to grow in California. One Almond seed requires 1.1 gallons!

I suspect the report was written by a water company

 

[Mike d]

Religions assume all guises

 

[Brunneria]

Hi All,

Some posts have been deleted from this thread because they broke the following forum rules:

A1. The Diabetes Forum is our Member interaction area, where questions are asked and exchanges of views take place. Please ask questions, provide answers, start debates and challenge where appropriate - but please be compassionate, considerate and kind towards others. Civil debate is healthy, but rudeness, bullying and/or Member belittling is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.

A3. Respect others’ differences. Do not disparage because they do not share your opinion or way of doing things.

Also C7 and C10.

If anyone wishes to read the full rules (always helpful to know what will and won't get you moderated), then there is a link to them in my signature.

 

[Oldvatr]

Religions assume all guises

When you find out that the founders of many major businesses such as Kelloggs, Nestle, Wellcome et al were all senior members of the 7th Day Adventists, and that much of the so called scientific proof for the vegan and WFPB movements comes from the ADVENT2 study, then your comment is not far removed from reality, When you see who is funding and supporting EAT Lancet reports then the circle draws to a close, and it does indeed make one wonder who is the real power behind this upsurge in actiivism. It is clear that EAT is dancing to someone else's tune and the people running it are mere pawns in the game.

It is certainly not about animal welfare, nor is it about our health. Both of these will suffer if the Apocene diet is mandated on the world, The message on saving the planet is also skewed since the science they base it on is theirs. If you look at the long list of papers referenced by the report you will find that most of them were authored and conducted by the same scientists supposedly independently working out whats best for the planet. The FRESH study in which the climate decisions they make are based on was their own Lancet report written by the same people.

There is NO independence either in the sources or the resulting reports since they even admit in their report that it was reviewed by all the authors before launch and that is their peeor review. NOPE. These guys are collectively rewriting the science as we sit here. It is like ISIS rewriting history.

 

[kitedoc]

Yes it's all lovely and cuddly with bunnies running around the fields until you get to this bit

Section 4: Framework for a Great Food Transformation

"However, the scale of change to the food system is unlikely to be successful if left to the individual or the whim of consumer choice. This change requires reframing at the population and systemic level. By contrast, hard policy interventions include laws, fiscal measures, subsidies and penalties, trade reconfiguration, and other economic and structural measures. These interventions alter conditions in which the whole population exists. The type of interventions adopted is the prerogative of governments, people, and processes. However, countries and authorities should not restrict themselves to narrow measures or soft interventions. Too often policy remains at the soft end of the policy ladder."

Which is slightly more chilling no?

A different sort of 'Animal Farm', renamed 'Plant Farm' but with similar ideology.

 

[Oldvatr]

I wondered why they use the term Apocene in their reports. Then I looked it up. It is often assumed to mean man made, but it has different interpretation in these reports. It is used to describe creations by man, i.e. the changes in climate due solely to man. So a herd of wild buffalo is not Apocene and do not contribute to the climate or GHG. Cows being bred for meat consumption or clothing ARE Apocene and cause GHG Thus when the FRESH study into climate effects looks at methane then it ignores all natural occurring sources, and removes these from the standard Geophysical quanta that normal scientists use. Thus the effect of cattle becomes twice as important as other sources in terms of percentage. The rest of the world uses 26% as the methane contribution from agriculture on a global basis(i,e, all farming not just animals , but EAT uses 52% (for ruminant beasts alone) This inflates their message nicely thank you, There are many examples in their studies like this where they choose to ignore the inconvenient truths.

The studies they reference are mainly meta studies of prospective studies, i.e. are not real expeimental data but based on food questionaires. In the Advent 2 study, the church conducting the study had 2 questionaires that the people answered 6 years apart, and then the analysis assumes that these people continued using the same diet for the full period of the study, then they projected it forward for 20 years, So the data became meaningless and then they could and did manipulate the figures to give the answer they wanted, You will see that Advent2 is referenced in several places in the Eat Lancet diet study. and also in FRESH.

 

[kitedoc]

Questionaires are often like surveys: the questions. scoring and interpretation are designed to give the answer that one wishes.
Conflict of interest and discussion of shortfalls/possible inaccuracies and how managed are rarely included.
The world of food propaganda is well and alive watered by religiosity, BIG FOOD et al.
Are the habitats of the fragrant buffalo and other native animals to be overtaken by plant and fungus farms ?
No, they will be reserves for big game hunting by the enterpreneurs!!

 

[Oldvatr]

.

I found the original pre launch document. This doc has been deleted from their website so no longer officially exists, bur some of us managed to get a copy before that happened, Unfortunately it is too large to attach here. There is a section in it that discusses all the options open to governments such as banning, restricting sources, taxing, regulating, and finally educating the masses. This latter #option# was deemed to not be feasible by 2050 and was not followed up in the prelaunch doc, BUT is where their final launch report ends up with. They chickened out there for the moment.

Edit to add: I have now managed to extract the relevant section in Table 6 which I attach

 

[Mr_Pot]

A different sort of 'Animal Farm', renamed 'Plant Farm' but with similar ideology.

Two legs bad, four legs good, no legs best?

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

"Hotel mogul Petter Stordalen tucked into the 20,000 calorie burger in Las Vegas
He posted photo despite funding study calling on meat consumption to be cut
The study claimed that people should only eat a quarter of a bacon rasher a day
But he ate burger made of a stack of eight beef patties and 20 rashers of bacon"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...nding-study-calling-meat-consumption-cut.html

 

[Oldvatr]

"Hotel mogul Petter Stordalen tucked into the 20,000 calorie burger in Las Vegas
He posted photo despite funding study calling on meat consumption to be cut
The study claimed that people should only eat a quarter of a bacon rasher a day
But he ate burger made of a stack of eight beef patties and 20 rashers of bacon"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...nding-study-calling-meat-consumption-cut.html

The new diet is not in place yet, so why not? It is his wife who is the vegan, and his chain of hotels have only recently gone meat free (and only for a few days because all the guests checked out, and meat is back on the menu, Money talked back to him this time, I guess)

 

[Guzzler]

That is Stordalen's meat ration for the next 14 years.... and he'll be sleeping on the sofa.

 

[Oldvatr]

That is Stordalen's meat ration for the next 14 years.... and he'll be sleeping on the sofa.

Actually he will be sleeping outside according to this POV article
https://theconversation.com/why-we-shouldnt-all-be-vegan-109308

Edit to add: this webzine is actually pro vegan so this commentary piece is out of character?