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.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.
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.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.
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
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?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
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?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
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...'
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.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?
Hopefully I won't live long enough to see that.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.
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.Hopefully I won't live long enough to see that.
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.
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.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.
Luckily a couple of people have done that already:May I suggest you take the table in the EAT Lancet diet report and feed it into a nutrition app
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.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/
Suggest you look on the WHO website and the EAT Lancet website and the Lancet website.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?