Reduce Meat - Facts matter over dogma

[Mbaker]

It does not matter if I am listening to pundits on Sky, LBC or the presenters on the BBC, each time climate change is discussed "eat less meat is said". This has been repeated by politicians, influential family members of politicians and even royalty. There is a term is called "repetitive marketing", the more you repeat something the truer it becomes; had I not got sick with Type 2 I would definitely be on the bandwagon also - scary.

On Thursday 28th Oct' 21 At 08.04, 08.14 and 08.19, Nagga, Charlie and Sir Patrick Vallance repeated the advice to eat less meat in the same breath as flying less (up to 09.00 the total this was said was 6 times). Nagga and Charlie were just doing their job, but my criticism is that the fait accompli is never challenged despite evidence to the contrary. It is actually dangerous to my existence, and many others, that the Chief Scientific Officer is advising that the "medicine" I use should be reduced. Do not underestimate the power of his words, which essentially could be deemed government policy. Sir Patrick has accepted hook line and sinker "the science" that meat is damaging the environment; same old mistakes as with cholesterol and low fat - no challenge of the facts.

There a 2 things wrong and very shocking. The first is that the science is a joke, we cannot base policy on moving mathematical formulas and our expanding knowledge of where methane is additionally coming from. The second is that he does not understand the impact of his position on health. Once a reductionist argument is made and goes unchallenged, industry will not stop until the 30% reduction is 100% - this would condemn the carbohydrate intolerant to either higher carb whole foods (making their diabetes worse) or fake food meat like pet food, with an ingredients list as long as your arm, mostly consisting of soy and the like.

Rather than condemning millions, why not consider and act on facts such as -3.5 carbon sequestration from white oak pastures - try unseeing that. https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/blog/carbon-negative-grassfed-beef where does this leave the Quorn advert to convert meat eaters to their food like substance.

The BBC are pushing the less meat agenda, harder than anyone:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/ar...Y/the-one-show-one-change-for-our-planet-vote:

Food: Eat less dairy
Food: Eat less meat

An attack on health and British farming, especially following Brexit where we should be supporting our industries more, not hobbling them. Also an attack on democracy, where is the investigative journalism to fact check. Common sense is lacking, do they really believe the cows and sheep are causing the weather to change and seas to rise.

This is one of the reasons why meat is being vilified (proposed 30% reduction in meat due to climate impact, up from 20% a year before):

The above would destroy guts, 50% increase in fibre - ridiculous. Fruit and veg has been vibrant for generations. It has been made sweeter and sweeter by industry, and reports are telling us to effectively get more diabetic and slight of hand as to where exotic fruit come from in the context of climate change. Fruit and veg should be local and seasonal with no added sugars.

Do Facts Matter?
So the impact of meat on the climate has gone from 51% to 18 and further revised down to 14.5% world wide - not credible is it. In countries such as Britain with modern practices the impact from meat is around 3% of total emissions (if we accept the numbers provided).

As can be seen Agriculture is a sliver of the big ticket items, I didn't produce this graphic, this is a fact! It is similar in the States for meat.

Methane
The meat detractors hang their hats on formulas that they say show the said methane output from ruminants to be a significant multiplier compared to the longer lived output of CO2 from other sources. This relies on their mathematical equations being right - in short these are not universally agreed and more is being learned about methane from various sources and even the way methane is measured in the atmosphere. Below there is a critical point, which I will prime by saying, imagine if you were fined £100.00, would you feel aggrieved if this was then increased to £300.00 or even £400.00...... that is what "they" are doing with constant methane in an inverse manner.

Does it matter that the gold standard could be used to get circa less than net Zero:

Bottom right of the graphic above shows that both the Beyond Burger and Impossible Burger contribute more to climate change than properly raised cattle - doesn't fit the narrative but is accurate. A thought experiment, what would happen if the majority of ruminant farming was conducted in the same manner? This is the template that works and is described on this site https://savory.global/our-network/

The common sense side of me says teach these methods to those who produce more methane.

Or what about the hidden detail in the latest report from the IPCC - arguably the most influential authority on the planet:

IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07.pdf

It's there in black and white, previous estimates in regards to methane measurements could be up to 3 to 4 times over estimated! Should Sir Patrick, revisit his cutting meat sentiment.

Just to emphasis this is from the latest IPCC report, not from the meat industry:

This should have been world wide news, an over estimate of 3 to 4 times, hardly as small error. There's a pattern here, the numbers never add up, yet the eat less meat agenda persists. Anyone who has looked into this space knows that modern ruminants have replaced bison, wildebeest and the like - no climate change issues then, as methane is short lived compared to carbon.

This short video is a great explainer:

So just 2 points that demonstrate the lies that need to be true for the " " agenda to be realised and that fake food industry to have the same mandate that happened with "low fat" - how did that work for the world (obesity is essentially the same graph):

I am just a computer guy, and can put this together, without the hysteria of "something must be done", so lets slip in a trojan horse of getting meat reduced because of ideology. If mankind used similar science to get to the moon, crash after crash would have happened, the science is nowhere near compelling, and should not be given credence by virtue signalling that has a direct impact on human life.

The cost of ignorance
The Vegan / Plant Based movement advocates often state that it is not necessary to eat meat as there are alternatives. This view is provided by mega stars such as Sir Paul McCartney and his wife, and spread by films such as Game Changers (

). There are 2 issues with this view. The first is that whilst on paper plant foods can appear to have a similar profile to meat, plants do not have the same bio-availability (in lay terms 20 grams of protein is not seen as 20 grams by the human body, and in any event is less than a simple meat). In addition to obtain a similar profile to meat combinations of plants are required e.g. rice and peas, in large quantities - this is a massive sugar hit to a diabetic (actually any one). This leads into the second point. Type 2 diabetics have an intolerance to carbohydrates, so are generally contraindicated to Vegan foods, which are molecules of sugar; this point is the most important as diabetic complications are correlated to how sugary a person is.

Some further referential resources
https://www.youtube.com/user/dulcimerpete/videos
https://www.sacredcow.info/

 

[Member496333]

All about laundering tax payers’ money into the pockets of industries and their bedfellows in government. Nothing else. That’s why the science doesn’t make sense and never will.

 

[Grant_Vicat]

It does not matter if I am listening to pundits on Sky, LBC or the presenters on the BBC, each time climate change is discussed "eat less meat is said". This has been repeated by politicians, influential family members of politicians and even royalty. There is a term is called "repetitive marketing", the more you repeat something the truer it becomes; had I not got sick with Type 2 I would definitely be on the bandwagon also - scary.

On Thursday 28th Oct' 21 At 08.04, 08.14 and 08.19, Nagga, Charlie and Sir Patrick Vallance repeated the advice to eat less meat in the same breath as flying less (up to 09.00 the total this was said was 6 times). Nagga and Charlie were just doing their job, but my criticism is that the fait accompli is never challenged despite evidence to the contrary. It is actually dangerous to my existence, and many others, that the Chief Scientific Officer is advising that the "medicine" I use should be reduced. Do not underestimate the power of his words, which essentially could be deemed government policy. Sir Patrick has accepted hook line and sinker "the science" that meat is damaging the environment; same old mistakes as with cholesterol and low fat - no challenge of the facts.

There a 2 things wrong and very shocking. The first is that the science is a joke, we cannot base policy on moving mathematical formulas and our expanding knowledge of where methane is additionally coming from. The second is that he does not understand the impact of his position on health. Once a reductionist argument is made and goes unchallenged, industry will not stop until the 30% reduction is 100% - this would condemn the carbohydrate intolerant to either higher carb whole foods (making their diabetes worse) or fake food meat like pet food, with an ingredients list as long as your arm, mostly consisting of soy and the like.

Rather than condemning millions, why not consider and act on facts such as -3.5 carbon sequestration from white oak pastures - try unseeing that. https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/blog/carbon-negative-grassfed-beef where does this leave the Quorn advert to convert meat eaters to their food like substance.

The BBC are pushing the less meat agenda, harder than anyone:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/ar...Y/the-one-show-one-change-for-our-planet-vote:

Food: Eat less dairy
Food: Eat less meat

An attack on health and British farming, especially following Brexit where we should be supporting our industries more, not hobbling them. Also an attack on democracy, where is the investigative journalism to fact check. Common sense is lacking, do their really believe the cows and sheep are causing the weather to change and seas to raise.

This is one of the reasons why meat is being vilified (proposed 30% reduction in meat due to climate impact, up from 20% a year before):

View attachment 51842

The above would destroy guts, 50% increase in fibre - ridiculous. Fruit and veg has been vibrant for generations. It has been made sweeter and sweeter by industry, and reports are telling us to effectively get more diabetic and slight of hand as to where exotic fruit come from in the context of climate change. Fruit and veg should be local and seasonal with no added sugars.

Do Facts Matter?
So the impact of meat on the climate has gone from 51% to 18 and further revised down to 14.5% world wide - not credible is it. In countries such as Britain with modern practices the impact from meat is around 3% of total emissions (if we accept the numbers provided).

View attachment 51843

As can be seen Agriculture is a sliver of the big ticket items, I didn't produce this graphic, this is a fact! It is similar in the States for meat.

Methane
The meat detractors hang their hats on formulas that they say show the said methane output from ruminants to be a significant multiplier compared to the longer lived output of CO2 from other sources. This relies on their mathematical equations being right - in short these are not universally agreed and more is being learned about methane from various sources and even the way methane is measured in the atmosphere. Below there is a critical point, which I will prime by saying, imagine if you were fined £100.00, would you feel aggrieved if this was then increased to £300.00 or even £400.00...... that is what "they" are doing with constant methane in an inverse manner.

Does it matter that the gold standard could be used to get circa less than net Zero:

View attachment 51844

Bottom right of the graphic above shows that both the Beyond Burger and Impossible Burger contribute more to climate change than properly raised cattle - doesn't fit the narrative but is accurate. A thought experiment, what would happen if the majority of ruminant farming was conducted in the same manner? This is the template that works and is described on this site https://savory.global/our-network/

The common sense side of me says teach these methods to those who produce more methane.

Or what about the hidden detail in the latest report from the IPCC - arguably the most influential authority on the planet:

IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07.pdf

It's there in black and white, previous estimates in regards to methane measurements could be up to 3 to 4 times over estimated! Should Sir Patrick, revisit his cutting meat sentiment.

Just to emphasis this is from the latest IPCC report, not from the meat industry:
View attachment 51845

This should have been world wide news, an over estimate of 3 to 4 times, hardly as small error. There's a pattern here, the numbers never add up, yet the eat less meat agenda persists. Anyone who has looked into this space knows that modern ruminants have replaced bison, wildebeest and the like - no climate change issues then as methane is short lived compared to carbon.

This short video is a great explainer:

So just 2 points that demonstrate the lies that need to be true for the " " agenda to be realised and that fake food industry to have the same mandate that happened with "low fat" - how did that work for the world (obesity is essentially the same graph):

View attachment 51846

I am just a computer guy, and can put this together, without the hysteria of "something must be done", so lets slip in a trojan horse of getting meat reduced because of ideology. If mankind used similar science to get to the moon, crash after crash would have happened, the science is nowhere near compelling, and should not be given credence by virtue signaling that has a direct impact on human life.

The cost of ignorance
The Vegan / Plant Based movement advocates often state that it is not necessary to eat meat as there are alternatives. This view is provided by mega stars such as Sir Paul McCartney and his wife, and spread by films such as Game Changers (

). There are 2 issues with this view. The first is that whilst on paper plant foods can appear to have a similar profile to meat, plants do not have the same bio-availability (in lay terms 20 grams of protein is not seen as 20 grams by the human body, and in any event is less than a simple meat). In addition to obtain a similar profile to meat combinations of plants are required e.g. rice and peas, in large quantities - this is a massive sugar hit to a diabetic (actually any one). This leads into the second point. Type 2 diabetics have an intolerance to carbohydrates, so are generally contraindicated to Vegan foods, which are molecules of sugar; this point is the most important as diabetic complications are correlated to how sugary a person is.

Some further referential resources
https://www.youtube.com/user/dulcimerpete/videos
https://www.sacredcow.info/

Have they considered that by transferring plant eating from cattle to humans is simply transferring methane production from one source to the other?

 

[KennyA]

It does not matter if I am listening to pundits on Sky, LBC or the presenters on the BBC, each time climate change is discussed "eat less meat is said". This has been repeated by politicians, influential family members of politicians and even royalty. There is a term is called "repetitive marketing", the more you repeat something the truer it becomes; had I not got sick with Type 2 I would definitely be on the bandwagon also - scary.

On Thursday 28th Oct' 21 At 08.04, 08.14 and 08.19, Nagga, Charlie and Sir Patrick Vallance repeated the advice to eat less meat in the same breath as flying less (up to 09.00 the total this was said was 6 times). Nagga and Charlie were just doing their job, but my criticism is that the fait accompli is never challenged despite evidence to the contrary. It is actually dangerous to my existence, and many others, that the Chief Scientific Officer is advising that the "medicine" I use should be reduced. Do not underestimate the power of his words, which essentially could be deemed government policy. Sir Patrick has accepted hook line and sinker "the science" that meat is damaging the environment; same old mistakes as with cholesterol and low fat - no challenge of the facts.

There a 2 things wrong and very shocking. The first is that the science is a joke, we cannot base policy on moving mathematical formulas and our expanding knowledge of where methane is additionally coming from. The second is that he does not understand the impact of his position on health. Once a reductionist argument is made and goes unchallenged, industry will not stop until the 30% reduction is 100% - this would condemn the carbohydrate intolerant to either higher carb whole foods (making their diabetes worse) or fake food meat like pet food, with an ingredients list as long as your arm, mostly consisting of soy and the like.

Rather than condemning millions, why not consider and act on facts such as -3.5 carbon sequestration from white oak pastures - try unseeing that. https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/blog/carbon-negative-grassfed-beef where does this leave the Quorn advert to convert meat eaters to their food like substance.

The BBC are pushing the less meat agenda, harder than anyone:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/ar...Y/the-one-show-one-change-for-our-planet-vote:

Food: Eat less dairy
Food: Eat less meat

An attack on health and British farming, especially following Brexit where we should be supporting our industries more, not hobbling them. Also an attack on democracy, where is the investigative journalism to fact check. Common sense is lacking, do their really believe the cows and sheep are causing the weather to change and seas to raise.

This is one of the reasons why meat is being vilified (proposed 30% reduction in meat due to climate impact, up from 20% a year before):

View attachment 51842

The above would destroy guts, 50% increase in fibre - ridiculous. Fruit and veg has been vibrant for generations. It has been made sweeter and sweeter by industry, and reports are telling us to effectively get more diabetic and slight of hand as to where exotic fruit come from in the context of climate change. Fruit and veg should be local and seasonal with no added sugars.

Do Facts Matter?
So the impact of meat on the climate has gone from 51% to 18 and further revised down to 14.5% world wide - not credible is it. In countries such as Britain with modern practices the impact from meat is around 3% of total emissions (if we accept the numbers provided).

View attachment 51843

As can be seen Agriculture is a sliver of the big ticket items, I didn't produce this graphic, this is a fact! It is similar in the States for meat.

Methane
The meat detractors hang their hats on formulas that they say show the said methane output from ruminants to be a significant multiplier compared to the longer lived output of CO2 from other sources. This relies on their mathematical equations being right - in short these are not universally agreed and more is being learned about methane from various sources and even the way methane is measured in the atmosphere. Below there is a critical point, which I will prime by saying, imagine if you were fined £100.00, would you feel aggrieved if this was then increased to £300.00 or even £400.00...... that is what "they" are doing with constant methane in an inverse manner.

Does it matter that the gold standard could be used to get circa less than net Zero:

View attachment 51844

Bottom right of the graphic above shows that both the Beyond Burger and Impossible Burger contribute more to climate change than properly raised cattle - doesn't fit the narrative but is accurate. A thought experiment, what would happen if the majority of ruminant farming was conducted in the same manner? This is the template that works and is described on this site https://savory.global/our-network/

The common sense side of me says teach these methods to those who produce more methane.

Or what about the hidden detail in the latest report from the IPCC - arguably the most influential authority on the planet:

IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07.pdf

It's there in black and white, previous estimates in regards to methane measurements could be up to 3 to 4 times over estimated! Should Sir Patrick, revisit his cutting meat sentiment.

Just to emphasis this is from the latest IPCC report, not from the meat industry:
View attachment 51845

This should have been world wide news, an over estimate of 3 to 4 times, hardly as small error. There's a pattern here, the numbers never add up, yet the eat less meat agenda persists. Anyone who has looked into this space knows that modern ruminants have replaced bison, wildebeest and the like - no climate change issues then as methane is short lived compared to carbon.

This short video is a great explainer:

So just 2 points that demonstrate the lies that need to be true for the " " agenda to be realised and that fake food industry to have the same mandate that happened with "low fat" - how did that work for the world (obesity is essentially the same graph):

View attachment 51846

I am just a computer guy, and can put this together, without the hysteria of "something must be done", so lets slip in a trojan horse of getting meat reduced because of ideology. If mankind used similar science to get to the moon, crash after crash would have happened, the science is nowhere near compelling, and should not be given credence by virtue signaling that has a direct impact on human life.

The cost of ignorance
The Vegan / Plant Based movement advocates often state that it is not necessary to eat meat as there are alternatives. This view is provided by mega stars such as Sir Paul McCartney and his wife, and spread by films such as Game Changers (

). There are 2 issues with this view. The first is that whilst on paper plant foods can appear to have a similar profile to meat, plants do not have the same bio-availability (in lay terms 20 grams of protein is not seen as 20 grams by the human body, and in any event is less than a simple meat). In addition to obtain a similar profile to meat combinations of plants are required e.g. rice and peas, in large quantities - this is a massive sugar hit to a diabetic (actually any one). This leads into the second point. Type 2 diabetics have an intolerance to carbohydrates, so are generally contraindicated to Vegan foods, which are molecules of sugar; this point is the most important as diabetic complications are correlated to how sugary a person is.

Some further referential resources
https://www.youtube.com/user/dulcimerpete/videos
https://www.sacredcow.info/

Thank you for this excellent post. As you say, 99% of this is driven by already fixed views and dogma. "Science" is cherry-picked, manipulated or invented to support these positions. Given that almost all the fertiliser necessary for growing vegetables, grains, legumes and cereals comes from animals being bred for meat, dairy and other products, how is this change ever going to be achieved? Not that I think it should be. People were wittering on about not eating or using animal products long before the climate change bandwagon got rolling: just something else to hang on it.

 

[Mr_Pot]

Given that almost all the fertiliser necessary for growing vegetables, grains, legumes and cereals comes from animals being bred for meat, dairy and other products, how is this change ever going to be achieved?

About 15.8 million acres of cropland, equivalent to about 5 percent of all U.S. cropland, are fertilized with livestock manure. Most fertilizer is made from natural gas or mined in the US, it may be different in the UK. The farm behind my house uses human waste from the local sewage farm. The contribution of meat farming to global warming is so complicated it is difficult to get any clear facts.

 

[bulkbiker]

global warming

The term has now been dropped as it inconveniently stopped getting hotter hence the use of "climate change" an umbrella term that defies precise description.

 

[Mbaker]

Have they considered that by transferring plant eating from cattle to humans is simply transferring methane production from one source to the other?

It is very upsetting to me. I live within a farming community. On 2 occasions I have had to either cross a road or move away from a farmer spraying what smelt like the old days of paint solvent onto the crops. Each time a field is harvested more CO2 is released from the ground. The majority of food waste is plants, which when it rots causes increased methane - it is the story that just keeps on giving.

 

[Mr_Pot]

The term has now been dropped as it inconveniently stopped getting hotter

Achieving the 1.5 deg limit on warming won't be much a challenge then.

 

[Outlier]

I am fortunate enough to live in a first-world country with enough income to eat meat (the latter wasn't always the case). The 'meat is bad veg is good' mantra comes in part from vested interests and in part from ideology using fake science. None of it stands up to intelligent scrutiny.
I live in the countryside and can choose to eat local meat (farmed and wild) that lived and died in excellent conditions. I know that well-reared livestock and control of wildlife contributes importantly to landscape and ecology. I also know that growing and producing vegetarian food kills more life forms in greater quantities than idealists admit. To preserve crops in field and store, there has to be a lot of killing, some of it very dubious indeed in health terms and environmental kickback.
I support anyone's wish to live on whatever diet they choose. What I don't support starts from the point anyone tries to tell me that what I do is "bad".

 

[bulkbiker]

Achieving the 1.5 deg limit on warming won't be much a challenge then.

The arrogance of man that he thinks he can impact the weather is reminiscent of King Canute (and probably just as effective).

 

[KennyA]

About 15.8 million acres of cropland, equivalent to about 5 percent of all U.S. cropland, are fertilized with livestock manure. Most fertilizer is made from natural gas or mined in the US, it may be different in the UK. The farm behind my house uses human waste from the local sewage farm. The contribution of meat farming to global warming is so complicated it is difficult to get any clear facts.

You're right. I missed the rather important word "organic" from my post. Given that the argument is ultimately about about "climate change" caused by meat the opinion of the IPCC on "climate change " caused by artificial fertilizers is illuminating.

Synthetic fertilizer used in agriculture has wide-reaching environmental consequences. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Climate Change and Land, production of these fertilizers and associated land use practices are key drivers of global warming.[2] The use of fertilizer has also led to a number of direct environmental consequences: agricultural runoff which leads to downstream effects like ocean dead zones and waterway contamination, soil microbiome degradation,[3] and accumulation of toxins in ecosystems. Indirect environmental impacts include: the environmental impacts of fracking for natural gas used in the Haber process, the agricultural boom is partially responsible for the rapid growth in human population and large-scale industrial agricultural practices are associated with habitat destruction, pressure on biodiversity and agricultural soil loss.

In order to mitigate environmental and food security concerns, the international community has included food systems in Sustainable Development Goal 2 which focuses on creating a climate-friendly and sustainable food production system.[4] Most policy and regulatory approaches to address these issues focus on pivoting agricultural practices towards sustainable or regenerative agricultural practices: these use less synthetic fertilizers, better soil management (for example no-till agriculture) and more organic fertilizers.

 

[JTL]

When grass isn't grazed it withers and releases methane.
Isn't mother nature a ***** leaving methane all over the place!

 

[lindisfel]

A matter of fact most cow methane comes out the front of the cow!

With the intensive nature of modern farming they cannot keep the slurry on the pastures! They say they are manuring!
Actually most is washed off into the rivers and streams when it rains.
The two rivers that run into Moricambe bay in northwest Cumbria are virtually dead...The Waver and the Wampool. They were living ecosystems before silage and overstocking devastated the countryside and the environment agency are not interested.
Slurry is an embarrassment to them but some wont have it processed in biogas plants because think all the goodness is taking out of it!
Meanwhile the soils are depleated compared to the time when we had hay meadows and wildlife and insects were abundant.

There is another way, in the last interglacial the countryside was full of megafauna.
Given the best conditions it will support the planet and enough food for us all.
But it has to be done everywhere.
D.

 

[lindisfel]

I am fortunate enough to live in a first-world country with enough income to eat meat (the latter wasn't always the case). The 'meat is bad veg is good' mantra comes in part from vested interests and in part from ideology using fake science. None of it stands up to intelligent scrutiny.
I live in the countryside and can choose to eat local meat (farmed and wild) that lived and died in excellent conditions. I know that well-reared livestock and control of wildlife contributes importantly to landscape and ecology. I also know that growing and producing vegetarian food kills more life forms in greater quantities than idealists admit. To preserve crops in field and store, there has to be a lot of killing, some of it very dubious indeed in health terms and environmental kickback.
I support anyone's wish to live on whatever diet they choose. What I don't support starts from the point anyone tries to tell me that what I do is "bad".

The earth managed quite well through the last million years of glacials and interglacials añd primitive early man societies without a need for us to interfere!

 

[Riva_Roxaban]

My karma ran over your dogma.

I eat meat, and I will continue to the day I kark it.

Someone should have a whinge about the carbon footprint that eat solely fruit, nuts and vegetable eating groups make to global warming.

Edit: Clarity, forgot the nuts.

 

[Lamont D]

For me, and I have researched this but not as much as I should have.
Apparently after the second world war, with the U.S. being the dominant country in the free world and it's culture was bound to be influential because of the huge industrial output and the growth from small holdings to industrial farming, the Americans also politically motivated growth by helping Europe ensure peace, but with an eye on Russia and the Warsaw pact countries.
The American obsession with defeating communism was so apparent and the start of the cold war, there was a plan within a plan to maximise farming output.
The true purpose of this plan, is probably a similar stance Britain had in pre Victorian times. Trade and investment, to pamper to the elite and the establishment. And use the army and navy if necessary to gain these commodities.
There was a great deal of unnecessary acts before and since then and many wars and colonisation from many European countries.
Everything changed during the second world war and certain commodities were scarce and technology necessary to the future had to be secret.
One of these was food, the Americans realised that feeding the world was going to become really difficult as the likelihood of the population growth rate over the next few decades.,
There was suddenly a number of problems with coping with the nuclear threat and cold war, and the need for secrecy was foremost wether being in agriculture or technology..
What could the Americans do to change the perception of this state of affairs?

After the secret service got involved including CIA and military leaders and scientists employed by the secret services, with funding by stealth, this group of government appointees were asked to reinvent science in many areas of the economy. All of this was designed to use fake science and fake mismessaging, to make the world believe that certain fads were healthy and cause through entertainment, news, media and education. A form of propaganda that was even more thorough than anything seen by the Germans during ww2. This group used movies and stories that could be true but could be something else. Films and television became more patriotic to the American version of goodies and baddies. Western films depicted the baddies as outlaws or the indigenous peoples of the Americas as something to be discriminated against. This was what was going on in city's all through the U.S. Racism was rife and the race riots were triggered by the American way of life as a tactic to distract what was going on.
UFOs were brought to the forefront of the media, another distraction similar to watching the right hand do little, while the left hand picks your pocket.
The space race, the Korean war, the revival of neo Nazism due to the hatred of communists. The Berlin wall, the airlift, American military bases in strategic places around the world. Nuclear weapons program and always peace talks.
The Russians realising that certain things were ' not right' and the growth of spy novels and spy stories, James Bond and other similar entertainment, authors such as John le Carrie, pumped out books. All because the Russians knew that the technology of the modern world was far beyond mother Russia.
They needed to compete to keep the power bloc and never be invaded again.
What they didn't know in the sixties was that the US were creating big strides in technology especially in farming. The boffins were creating and cultivating different types of wheat, which was more productive and more resilient to disease. Along with the growth of massive areas just for wheat and dairy farmers.
As a result different areas of the states, started to grow other foodstuffs than cotton or tobacco, corn was replaced by wheat as the major crop.
Plant machinery such as the combine harvesters were necessary.
The numbers of working families dropped considerably during this period.
The growth in Palm oil, vegetable oils and olive oil, the western diet, as the new fast food outlets started popping up everywhere.
Because of the new variety of wheat and the means to process into the diversity of baked goods. However, this new process took the nutritional benefits out of the diet.
Why?
The whole reasoning behind what was going on in secret was to be one up on the communist bloc.
The necessity of protecting the secrets of the American government, especially in military hardware which could be decisive in a power struggle between the east and west.
Food?
Out of all this, the amount of fast food eaten throughout the world grew and television meals, the necessity to feast, don't go hungry. Cheap and nasty convenience foods, the microwave oven and plastic containers, fashion, toys, looking good and hairstyles, Christmas, Easter, birthdays and anniversaries, were just a growing trend to push the envelope of feeling guilty to purchase gifts.
Add to this, cars, boats, and television, movies and music.
Collecting prized items, such as stamps and antiques, also home design.
And so on.
This was the the promotion of America, which grew and grew and is still there.
The American health industry bought into the idea that cheap production food, could be healthy for you. As in eating a burger is a good meal including fries.
But it is a carb laden meal. And the development of vegetarian eating means it must be the meat is not healthy
The offering of children's deals and food designed for minors in packaged goods or in fast food places, the toys in cereal, kinder eggs, etc. Is repugnant but it does seem to work.
The growth of veganism during the early sixties was part of the hippy movement, which was a protest against the material world and the belief that killing animals for food is wrong. The government recognised the importance of finding the science behind this and asked the universities influenced by big business and multinationals to offer the world how healthy being vegan is for everyone.
Because of this 'proven' science, the food industry and the government's response was to confirm that having carbs in your diet is a necessity and vegan diet is healthy.
But this was playing into the hands of the secret service and the plan to divert the spotlight on American technology.
There are only two places in America where the freedom of information act is not applicable, one is area 51 in Nevada, the other is military base which houses documents and material, the true science of the last fifty years.

The truth is the fact, that if the American government had not invested in science and technology, and agricultural research could feed the world, even though it isn't healthy. The overriding thought that more of the world would be starved.
And despite the wealth of America, the majority of the American people would go hungry.​

 

[Riva_Roxaban]

The truth is the fact, that if the American government had not invested in science and technology, and agricultural research could feed the world, even though it isn't healthy. The overriding thought that more of the world would be starved.
And despite the wealth of America, the majority of the black and hispanic people of colour in America, people would go hungry.

Just rewrote this bit, because religous white supremacy is still on the rise in the USA and will never ever change.

 

[Lamont D]

The diversity in certain areas is an awful lot greater than that, but it makes more sense now. Thanks mate.

The gangs of New York is very loosely based on the New York riots in 1863.
The true story of this is harrowing and frightening.
President Lincoln needed more recruitment and passed the draft bill.
At this stage in the American civil war, recruiting black soldiers, was in its infancy and there was no black regiments from New York.
However, in the city, the Irish immigrants were dominant in the pecking order and the Irish had first refusal in employment. Of course, due to the type of jobs and not as many free blacks were residing in those areas. The Irish ran the lesser well off areas of the borough's.
The army recruitment drive, targeted the Irish as well as other European immigrants but not the blacks. Also because the Irish could see that the rich could hire someone to take their place and the draft did the rest eventually.
But not before the Irish realised that with the majority of the jobs were now vacant, the resident Irish family's would have no wages (except army pay, if it was sent home!) And the owners of the factories would need workers, and, seeing that the owners were already lining up the replacements. This the Irish knew was taking over the area and the Irish influence would not protect their families.
The outcome was a three day riot. There was eighteen black men killed and numerous injured. Many buildings destroyed and it took another regiment of regular soldiers to disperse the rioters and bring order to the city.
No one was charged.
No one went to court.
It was quickly forgotten because of the local politicians and police.

Many of the free blacks quickly left New York and ventured north to Canada and the cities on the border.
Also many runaway slaves were still getting returned to the plantations of the south and their owners. And the north encouraged it.
At the end of the war, the politicians, senators and representatives, were once again in charge of the running of the country. Many of them from the south were the same politicians who represented the southern states that declared cessation. And a few that in future would have cabinet positions, one became the Secretary of the army.
And was known to have fought with the confederate States army.
The elite of the southern states, still with plenty of influence, went to work on rebuilding their wealth and still used black workers to work on the plantations.

There was only white politicians and because of the law in America not much would change in the next hundred years.