Well, not goodbye, but half-a-steak might as well be no steak!
quote
An international team of scientists has developed a diet it says can improve health while ensuring sustainable food production to reduce further damage to the planet.
The "planetary health diet" is based on cutting red meat and sugar consumption in half and upping intake of fruits, vegetables and nuts.
And it can prevent up to 11.6 million premature deaths without harming the planet, says the report published Wednesday in the medical journal The Lancet.
The authors warn that a global change in diet and food production is needed as 3 billion people across the world are malnourished -- which includes those who are under and overnourished -- and food production is overstepping environmental targets, driving climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution.
Honestly, humans are part of the ecosystem. We are not aliens (well most of us anyway). As such, everything we do is "natural". We do no more damage to the planet than a number of other natural phenomena.
This bright idea HAD to be founded by a board of idiots in my state.
It's yet another globalist's political "solution" in search of a problem.
"Horton believes that "nutrition has still failed to get the kind of political attention that is given to diseases such as AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria."
"The report suggests five strategies to ensure people can change their diets and not harm the planet in doing so: incentivizing people to eat healthier, shifting global production toward varied crops, intensifying agriculture sustainably, stricter rules around the governing of oceans and lands, and reducing food waste.
The very best way to "save the planet" and feed people is to keep central planner, socialists like these clowns OUT of power.
That study suggests a whopping 14g of meat per day? Here's some context ...
I have absolutely NO problem with people choosing to eat whatever and however much they sincerely believe keeps them happy and healthy...or even not.
What I DO have a problem with is government inserting itself into it with anything other than "benign advice" .....and there are even limits to that.
These so-called "studies" invariably conclude that "government intervention is necessary" in some way.
This crap is about "nutrition" in the same way that the "climate problem" has anything to do with the actual climate.
It is all ultimately about redistribution of wealth and resources on a global scale in the name of "social justice" or "fairness".
It's notable that none of these so-called "studies" ever seem to discuss how to produce more of everything for everyone and solely focus on what people must "sacrifice for the greater good".
("From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"....Karl Marx)
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-20-2019).]
It's a lab-made patty containing wheat and potato proteins, coconut oil, and heme, a soy-derived protein that is the key to the burger's meaty appearance and flavor.
Excerpt
quote
In 2018, the meat industry spent $6.52 million total in lobbying campaigns (amounts calculated by combining Livestock and Meat Processing and Products contributions from OpenSecrets). The National Cattlemen's Beef Association contributed the most with $678,100.
In his book “Meatonomics,” David Simon attempts to show how the money from the beef lobbying campaigns affects the federal government.
Excerpt
quote
While Farmerie is happy to serve the Impossible Burger as an alternative on his meat-centric menu, he doesn’t expect it to replace the traditional beef patty anytime soon.
If they could make health food that tasted like unhealthy food and was just as easy to prepare/eat, nobody would be fat. "If it tastes this bad, it must be good for you."
The impossible burger is a big step forward from what used to be a veggie burger, but the technology isn't there yet.
Part of another U.N. move back from when they called it "Global Warming". They already targeted meat production (raising animals) as a CO2 contributor then. But they concentrated on fuels first. This is just the next step...
Canada's Prime Minister panders the the U.N. on everything. I believe he wants the be U.N. Secretary General someday. So it's no surprise the new Canada Food Guide looks like this...
"The authors warn that a global change in diet and food production is needed as 3 billion people across the world are malnourished"
I wonder how much of that is due to horrible governments where those people live.
I believe you've hit the nail on the head. The world can and does produce and distribute plenty of good food, but some governments use starvation as a weapon. That has been done since the beginning of civilization and probably before.
The biggest threat to the production of food is the "greenies". Can you imagine a modern farm or ranch and the distribution network run under the "green new deal"? Implementation of such a plan would certainly cause mass starvation.
After the left succeeds in banning diesel powered farm equipment, do you think they will not start on animal abuse?
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 02-11-2019).]
If CO² is a problem (and in the opinion of many climate scientists, it is not), then one of the best things humanity could do is PLANT TREES!
This is where companies like Weyerhaeuser and Boise Cascade lead. The first time I ever heard the term "sustainable" was 40 years ago when I worked for Weyerhaeuser. To big lumber companies, lumber is a crop. Weyco alone has planted over 1,000,000,000 trees in the last ten years, relying on nearly eighty years of their own agricultural research.
This is where companies like Weyerhaeuser and Boise Cascade lead. The first time I ever heard the term "sustainable" was 40 years ago when I worked for Weyerhaeuser. To big lumber companies, lumber is a crop. Weyco alone has planted over 1,000,000,000 trees in the last ten years, relying on nearly eighty years of their own agricultural research.
"It is estimated that at the beginning of European settlement in 1630 the area of forest land that would become the United States was 423 million hectares or about 46 percent of the total land area. By 1907, the area of forest land had declined to an estimated 307 million hectares or 34 percent of the total land area. Forest area has been relatively stable since 1907. In 1997, 302 million hectares or 33 percent of the total land area of the United States was in forest land."
"It is estimated that at the beginning of European settlement in 1630 the area of forest land that would become the United States was 423 million hectares or about 46 percent of the total land area. By 1907, the area of forest land had declined to an estimated 307 million hectares or 34 percent of the total land area. Forest area has been relatively stable since 1907. In 1997, 302 million hectares or 33 percent of the total land area of the United States was in forest land."
I read a study years ago that said we (as a planet) have as many as triple the number of trees as we had after the industrial revolution.
There are a lot of conflicting reports, studies and outright BS, however I have also seen mention that we presently have more forested land in the U.S. now due to our aggressive fire fighting and forest management.
The majority of forest fires, and prairie fires prior to human habitation in larger areas of the United States were caused by lightning and those fires obviously ran unchecked until they consumed all the available fuel, (trees, brush and dry grass), or until rain or opposing wind extinguished them.
That doesn't, (or rarely), happen anymore.
By the way, I had a wonderful 18oz ribeye steak tonight with sautéed mushrooms and Caesar salad accompanied by a glass or two of iced tea. I ate that steak while sitting on the outdoor deck of the restaurant and watching an amazing sunset over the western Gulf of Mexico.
Not a pallid, sickly looking vegetarian anywhere in sight.
WE aren't the problem but, as usual, we get most, or all, of the blame:
I read an article a few years ago that said North America is being REforested (as opposed to deforested) by about 4-5%. Meanwhile, Brazil is bulldozing the rain forest for farm land.
Also notice that most of the deforestation is concentrated in equatorial regions. Those regions contain most of the rain forests. Not only does that affect the carbon cycle, but it also affects weather patterns.
...dead cow!
