Is this an unbiassed report?

[Brunneria]

Following a few greenhouse gas and agricultural scientists on Twitter has convinced me that the vegan movement vastly over-sell the amount of GHG created by livestock in particular. All sectors pale into insignificance compared to the amount produced by the oil and gas industries. It's a red herring IMHO.

Yes, the concrete/building trade and certain types of agriculture (eg rice paddy fields) provide astonishing amounts of greenhouse gases too. But I suppose it is easier to use a single targeted message 'Don't eat meat!' than to say 'slow down your countries' economic growth with less use of fossil fuels, reduce the amount of new building you do, so your population has less work and fewer houses and offices, and you know all that healthy grain rice we are telling you to eat? Well...'

 

[Oldvatr]

Following a few greenhouse gas and agricultural scientists on Twitter has convinced me that the vegan movement vastly over-sell the amount of GHG created by livestock in particular. All sectors pale into insignificance compared to the amount produced by the oil and gas industries. It's a red herring IMHO.

Concrete use is up there with the big hitters, Volcanoes spew GHG on a large scale. What the vegans are pirposefully missing out of their 'debate' are the words Man Made GHG.

I have a problem with their science. Why is Methane the GHG of choice? It decays naturally within a short time unlike CO2, and it remains low in the stratosphere. Now a true GHG traps solar heat from escaping back out into the cosmos, and acts like a heat mirror allowing heat in but not out, This is what the glass in a greenhouse does and what your double glazing does, but Methane does not act in ths way. It absorbs and retains heat longer than the other gases n the air, but still releases it. But anerobic decay such as happens naturally in swamps, marshes, and haystacks all generate heat as the carbs decay into methane and Co2 and it happens without an animal involved at all. This is why marshes are misty places, and haystacks spontaneously catch fire. We run generators off the output of landfill and heat homes with the methane it gives off. So this aspect of the vegan prpopaganda is IMO incorrect.

 

[Oldvatr]

Todays Daily Telegraph reports that Tamara Lucas wrote in the UK's The Lancet "Strong evidence indicates that food production is among the largest drivers of global environmental change by contributing to climate change"

The reports chief author Tamra wants people to drastically cut back on eating red meat immediately and has even called for global veganism by 2050.

No comment that overpopulation is driving environmental change, and a consumption based economic theory leading to world pollution.

Hmmmm.

Also discussed on CNN and Euronews. Their version of Eatwell plate is also published. To be in place worldwide by 2050 at the latest. Eatwell Lancet has a lot of added sugars permitted. but only 1 egg a week. One half glass milk or other dairy a day (max) and approx less than 1 burger pattie worth of animal protein a day.

Copious amounts of vegetables, pulses, wholegrains and soy is encouraged, and also mucho nuts and seeds. Vegetable oils not animal fats. small amount of fish for the omega 3.

Edit to add:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46865204

 

[Indy51]

If anyone wants to hear from a prominent agricultural and GHG scientist, this interview of Dr Frank Mitloehner by Dianna Rodgers is excellent and very wide-ranging:

https://sustainabledish.com/podcast...n-livestock-production-with-frank-mitloehner/

 

[Oldvatr]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Here is one family trying out the new EAT Lancet diet plan
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47074333

Here is what some are saying about EAT Lancet
https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/news/eatlancet-report-one-sided

 

[Brunneria]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Here is one family trying out the new EAT Lancet diet plan
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47074333

Here is what some are saying about EAT Lancet
https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/news/eatlancet-report-one-sided

The mother in the BBC report feeds her 2 teenage daughters the EAT Lancet food for a week.

I wonder if she has read the Nutrition Coalition article.
Especially the bit where it quotes Georgia Ede saying:
This Report is Not for Children, Teen Girls, the Aged, Malnourished, etc…And For Everyone Else, You Still Need to Buy Supplements

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Here is one family trying out the new EAT Lancet diet plan
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47074333

Do you think the author is typical in that she believes that this way of eating is actually healthy without any doubts because it was in a paper published in a science journal? Or is she an anomaly?

 

[Oldvatr]

The mother in the BBC report feeds her 2 teenage daughters the EAT Lancet food for a week.

I wonder if she has read the Nutrition Coalition article.
Especially the bit where it quotes Georgia Ede saying:
This Report is Not for Children, Teen Girls, the Aged, Malnourished, etc…And For Everyone Else, You Still Need to Buy Supplements

Mayve she would if it was being reported in the media, but those avenues do not seem to be interested in publishing anything that detracts from the amazing Lancet Diet. Where else is the man or woman in the street going to hear about the alternatives? Who is going to tell them about the nutrient deficiencies for calcium iodine,, B6 B12 Vit D, DHA, EPA Vit A and heme iron that the Lancet diet will provide less than the RDA?

 

[Tophat1900]

Yes, the concrete/building trade and certain types of agriculture (eg rice paddy fields) provide astonishing amounts of greenhouse gases too. But I suppose it is easier to use a single targeted message 'Don't eat meat!' than to say 'slow down your countries' economic growth with less use of fossil fuels, reduce the amount of new building you do, so your population has less work and fewer houses and offices, and you know all that healthy grain rice we are telling you to eat? Well...'

They know governments won't pay any attention if they targeted the real culprits you mentioned.

 

[Oldvatr]

Do you think the author is typical in that she believes that this way of eating is actually healthy without any doubts because it was in a paper published in a science journal? Or is she an anomaly?

Unfortunately YES. There is no discourse or proper debate to counteract this blatant commercially and religiously motivated propaganda. The Media is being very silent in applyng their normal due diligence to make sure the content they are publishing is verifiable fact. So there are no voices being raised against this group and their messages. I posted some articles on Facebook, and within a very short space of time my posts were taken down. I tried to send mesenger mail to my friends, and they were blocked.

It really has nothing to do with saving the animals, since when implemented worldwide this will lead to the extinction of all ruminant species on the planet and also poultry and fish, since (a) no one will be making a living from looking after them. (b) to ensure compliance to this dictat, there will be stringent laws and enforcement in place (c) the group behind this plan are vegans, and will not stop at the current guidelines as published, but will make sure that their doctrine is fully implemented for not just food and alcohol, but clothing and way of existance.

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

Unfortunately YES. There is no discourse or proper debate to counteract this blatant commercially and religiously motivated propaganda. The Media is being very silent in applyng their normal due diligence to make sure the content they are publishing is verifiable fact. So there are no voices being raised against this group and their messages. I posted some articles on Facebook, and within a very short space of time my posts were taken down. I tried to send mesenger mail to my friends, and they were blocked.

It really has nothing to do with saving the animals, since when implemented worldwide this will lead to the extinction of all ruminant species on the planet and also poultry and fish, since (a) no one will be making a living from looking after them. (b) to ensure compliance to this dictat, there will be stringent laws and enforcement in place (c) the group behind this plan are vegans, and will not stop at the current guidelines as published, but will make sure that their doctrine is fully implemented for not just food and alcohol, but clothing and way of existance.

Hopefully I won't live long enough to see that.

 

[Oldvatr]

Hopefully I won't live long enough to see that.

Their plan is for the Diet to be implemented by 2030. with full compliance by 2050. These dates are now set in concrete by WHO in their forecasts for the future of the environment and sustainable food supply.

Canada and Brazil are probably going to adopt the diet this year. (or at least remove meat and dairy from their nutritional guidelines). Several UN countries are considering taxing meat production, and the USA is believed to be about to impose a 129% surcharge on meat products. How long do you intend hanging around for?

Edit to add:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...to-beat-climate-and-health-crises-says-report

Note Marco Springmann, the spokesman from Oxford Uni is a confirmend vegan activitist who is a co-author of the EAT Lancet Report. Small world? coincidence?

 

[Scott-C]

These dates are now set in concrete by WHO in their forecasts for the future of the environment and sustainable food supply.

Can you provide links to any primary domestic legislation, statutory instruments, regulations, directives, binding international treaties or conventions which prove this is now "set in concrete"?

Without those, it is not law and sounds more like a conspiracy theory.

 

[bulkbiker]

Can you provide links to any primary domestic legislation, statutory instruments, regulations, directives, binding international treaties or conventions which prove this is now "set in concrete"?

Without those, it is not law and sounds more like a conspiracy theory.

More a statement of intent at the moment by the WHO.. although Canada's new dietary guidelines are working towards them.
Conspiracy theory maybe but complacency could well be very deleterious to global health. With the money to be made from factory processed "vegan" food and the sponsors behind the Eat Lancet commission (Mainly food and pharma) we could well sleep walk into a disaster..

 

[Member496333]

Conspiracy theories are only theories if people aren’t conspiring to make them a reality.

 

[Oldvatr]

Can you provide links to any primary domestic legislation, statutory instruments, regulations, directives, binding international treaties or conventions which prove this is now "set in concrete"?

Without those, it is not law and sounds more like a conspiracy theory.

Suggest you look on the WHO website and the EAT Lancet website and the Lancet website. If you pull up the Apocene Diet report as published and held in archives, then Page 2 shows their corporate sponsoring links and who paid for the report in the main. What is not showing are some of the other links that exist, such as to the Wellcome Foundation, and the Rockefella Foundation. These last two are funding the presentations around the world to various governments such as the UK, EU Commission, Nigeria, India Australia etc.
They wer presenting to the EU comission, the UK Commission on Climate Change the UN General Assembly, and are currently in Mexico and the Phillipines. I am sure there are minutes of these meetings that could be unearthed.

As regards the Law, then yes you are so far correct in that this has not been placed into law per se, but if you read the Apocene Diet report, they make it very clear that this will be required to be in place by 2030. and is their stated goal. So I do not need conspiracy theory since this organisation is being very open about it. Their own words speak volumes.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/0...ents-develop-guidelines-promote-win-win-diets
It is noted as a Fact that the FAO has representatives employed in the EAT Lancet Consortium, and EAT Lancet has employees seconded to the FAO. The same is true of the Oxford Martin School responsible for providing much of the science backing up the Apocene Diet, The same is true for Harvard Medical School, which again provides 'evidence' used in justification. Their science claims do not hold up to scrutiny.

I have on another thread posted the changed Canadian version of Eatwell that define the guidelines for national nutrition, and the sections for meat and dairy that used to be there have been removed. Same with Brazil. USA is considering a Meat Tax, as has also been reported in our press so is the UK. These are not fancyful dreams of mine, the evidence is there on the internet.

May I suggest you take the table in the EAT Lancet diet report and feed it into a nutrition app and then see how it fares in terms of the RDA for micronutrients, and then decide if it is sustainable for humans long term.

 

[Indy51]

May I suggest you take the table in the EAT Lancet diet report and feed it into a nutrition app

Luckily a couple of people have done that already:

https://optimisingnutrition.com/2019/01/20/should-you-eat-lancet/
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2019/01/the-eat-lancet-diet-is-nutritionally-deficient/

 

[Oldvatr]

Some examples of these activists in action
https://metro.co.uk/2019/01/28/vega...nt-8404499/?ito=article.amp.share.top.twitter

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/173...ells-bullying-vegan-activists-to-bring-it-on/

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/17391831.vegan-activists-respond-to-defiant-burger-flipper/

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/173...isted-information-says-hisbe-boss/?ref=twtrec

 

[Oldvatr]

Luckily a couple of people have done that already:

https://optimisingnutrition.com/2019/01/20/should-you-eat-lancet/
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2019/01/the-eat-lancet-diet-is-nutritionally-deficient/

But my suggestion is that anyone doubting these stories can do this for themselves. That is an important point to make, I am trying not to rely on others who could be accused of being conspiracy theorists or just bloggers. I am suggesting that we can all do some basic research to uncover these matters, since that is what I was doing for the last year. I am surprised at the scale of their operations but not the means.

 

[Scott-C]

Suggest you look on the WHO website and the EAT Lancet website and the Lancet website.

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.