Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Vegetarian Diet? No Panacea for Environment or Health- Meat Lies Told To Justify Meat Tax

Sorry folks, a vegetarian diet is not a panacea for you or the planet. No matter how many lies the managerial classes tell on behalf of the elites. Take that Steve Paiken- Saw the promotional for this show- Didn’t watch it. Paiken is a member of the managerial class.

Link
People go vegetarian for lots of reasons, says the University of Alberta’s Timothy Caulfield: Animal welfare. Personal branding. The “health halo.”

It just won’t prolong their life, suggests a large new study.

Researchers who tracked nearly a quarter million adults aged 45 and older in New South Wales found no significant differences in all-cause mortality, meaning the likelihood of dying, of any death, between those who followed a complete, semi- (meat once a week or less) or pesco- (fish permitted) vegetarian diet, and regular meat eaters.

Caulfield, a Canada Research Chair in health law and policy and expert in celebrity health trends, said the study (in which he played no role) fits with an emerging body of evidence that vegetarian diets don’t reduce the risk of premature death.
Out of 16,836 deaths in total (6.9 per cent of total), there were 80 deaths in vegetarians (5.3 per cent) and 16,756 deaths (6.9 per cent) in others (which includes pesco-vegetarians and semi-vegetarians.)

After adjusting for other factors, such as age, smoking and alcohol consumption, and a history of ever being diagnosed with high blood pressure or conditions like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and stroke the researchers found no evidence that any of the variations of vegetarian diets had a protective effect on early death.
The article discusses the air of superiority ‘vegans’ have. Because they aren’t killing animals. (I’ve heard this on many occasions) Truth be told being a vegetarian doesn't guarantee a halo.

Plants take in Carbon Dioxide and give off oxygen

Vegetarian and healthy diets 'could be more harmful to the environment', according to new report

According to new research from Carnegie Mellon University, following the USDA recommendations to consume more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood is more harmful to the environment because those foods have relatively high resource uses and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per calorie. Published in Environment Systems and Decisions, the study measured the changes in energy use, blue water footprint and GHG emissions associated with U.S. food consumption patterns.
Bacon and Lettuce
“Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon,” said Paul Fischbeck, professor of social and decisions sciences and engineering and public policy. “Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie (that's energy) than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken.”
However, eating the recommended “healthier” foods — a mix of fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood — increased the environmental impact in all three categories: Energy use went up by 38 percent, water use by 10 percent and GHG emissions by 6 percent. 
“There’s a complex relationship between diet and the environment,” Tom said. “What is good for us health-wise isn’t always what’s best for the environment. That’s important for public officials to know and for them to be cognizant of these tradeoffs as they develop or continue to develop dietary guidelines in the future.”
Indeed there is a complex relationship between diet and environment-

Vegetarians tend to consume soy- Abundantly. Contributing to an increase in herbicide use.
“However, the study did find evidence that both maize and soybean farmers increased herbicide use during the last five years of the study, indicating that weed resistance is a growing problem for both groups”
Contributing to an increase in herbicides, which kills everything-Increased herbicide use for gmo crops isn't an inducement for halos

Affecting human fertility negatively- Link
Seeking healthful foods, Americans are eating more soy than ever. But recent research with animals shows that consuming large amounts could have harmful effects on female fertility and reproductive development.

Soy is ubiquitous in the American diet. Over a quarter of all infant formula sold is made with it, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration promotes it in foods to reduce the risk of heart disease. School lunch programs across the country are even adding soy to hamburger patties.

Many of soy’s health benefits have been linked to isoflavones—plant compounds that mimic estrogen. But animal studies suggest that eating large amounts of those estrogenic compounds might reduce fertility in women, trigger premature puberty and disrupt development of fetuses and children.


 Eating plants also kills the plant. In other words vegetarians are consuming death- plant death- and insect death. Pollinator death. Etc. That's one of the memes regarding meat consumption- "You're eating death"There is no consumption for survival, by any living creature, that does not depend completely on other life being lost. Period.
 
-Birds of prey kill all kinds of animals. From small animals to other birds.
-Cats eat mice.
-Possums eat grubs.
-Birds eat worms and insects.
-Coyotes kill deer
-Fox hunt ducks
-Aardvarks eat ants.
-Fish eat other fish
Etc., etc.,


Cows eat greens  (not gmo corn in factory farms)- we consume cows


Reality is just so.... real. Sigh.
Then there is the “big lie” regarding meat  (Real actual facts vs politicized spin science )
Science stands in the way of meat tax agenda

"High on their list of policy goals is a tax on meat, akin to tobacco and alcohol “sin taxes.”

The theory is that meat, especially beef, is disproportionately responsible for greenhouse gas emissions and if we were able to change how people eat, primarily in wealthier countries like the U.S., we could take a significant bite out of climate change.


A blueprint to achieve the meat tax is laid out in a November report by Chatham House, a London-based think tank. The group concedes that the issue is “complex.”

Yet it advises governments to push for the taxes through publicly funded public relations campaigns which make the matter appear clear-cut, because “public respond best to simple messages.”
This is an unusual recommendation for a group known for promoting open debate.
Chatham House 'suggests' that governments fund PR campaigns employing simple messages to convince us all that meat should be taxed. Think tank pushing the elite agendas. People like Steve Paiken (managerial class) deliver. And of course they can brainwash children beginning in school... Teachers being the managerial classes also
For radical animal rights groups and puritanical health crusaders, promoting vegetarian diets is, well, a red-meat issue. But the environmental case against meat is a stretch, requiring fuzzy math and politicized science.

Those backing the taxes cite the United Nation’s Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model, or GLEAM, which concluded in 2013 that livestock, including beef, milk production, and poultry, accounts for 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

However, the model was not developed as fodder for anti-meat campaigns, but rather as a tool to guide the livestock industry toward more sustainable production.

Using GLEAM as scientific evidence to argue against meat consumption is as far-fetched as it would be to fight organic agriculture because it relies on manure, a source of methane and nitrous oxide, both greenhouse gases. No wonder advocates want to keep their messaging simple.
The idea that reducing meat consumption would make both humans and the earth healthier is challenged by consideration of the environmental impact of alternatives.
For instance, almonds, a darling of health food advocates, are highly water-intensive. The U.N. hasn’t yet calculated the water-footprint of your almond milk-based smoothie.
The lesson: if you want to advocate for meat taxes, follow the advice of the experts and keep it simple (for the simple minded) Otherwise, the science will get in the way of your agenda.
Yup a meat tax- Like a sin tax!
The impetus for this post which has been on the back burner for quite a while appeared just the other day

LIE: Could a tax on meat help us save the planet?- NO! NO, no, no, no.Nadda
More Lies

Can we please stop believing lies presented to us as 'simple messages' appealing to our emotions?

22 comments:

  1. With issues regarding to this, I dunno if my observation is correct. But since the western civilisation has broken their bonds with their spiritual selves they try to fill it menial things like these. Specially those with lots of time seem to be seeking ways to make their lives more complicated than it needs to be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " But since the western civilisation has broken their bonds with their spiritual selves they try to fill it menial things like these"

      Yes, the break with the spiritual has been negative for mankind in general and I don't necessarily mean organized religion.
      It's just that understanding/comprehension/contemplation and acceptance of being a part of this world- earth and heavens

      "Specially those with lots of time seem to be seeking ways to make their lives more complicated than it needs to be"

      I like that observation- interesting
      Sort of like how people make themselves "busy' by really doing nothing

      Delete
  2. And something else which I am wholeheartedly against. With the attitude they had in the past I would think these kind of experiments would be classified under nazi-science, but here we are
    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15112

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I saw that in the news today and of course, it's obvious where that's heading

      brave new world

      Delete
  3. The other side of this is their fantasy of feeding us meat grown in a lab. Of course, if this does happen I'm sure it will be subject to the same stringent testing as the GMO industry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gmo animal products have been legally, on the market since 2007. At least in the usa (land of the free ;))

      Delete
    2. Modern Kant- wasn't there even talk of celebrity flesh eating?

      http://io9.gizmodo.com/i-think-perhaps-we-were-speaking-of-two-different-techn-1532652221

      "An alleged startup claims that it wants to make and sell "artisinal salami" made from celebrity tissue samples. Even if it's a joke, it raises the question: What are the ethics of consuming lab-grown human meat?

      BiteLabs claims to be a biotech startup focused on cultivating and selling celebrity meat for human consumption. Perhaps taking inspiration from Brandon Cronenberg's film Antiviral, in which people can infect themselves with celebrity pathogens and eat meat grown from celebrity cells, BiteLabs says that it would biopsy celebrities, cultivate their tissue in a lab, and then mix it with animal meats to create their sausages"

      Even if untrue, which I doubt, you know that there would be people willing to eat that refuse

      Delete
    3. So far Nora, to my knowledge we don't have that here in Canada- but there is news of a GMO Fish Farm in PEI- an application has been made

      Yuk!! It will obviously go well beyond the fish farm

      Delete
    4. @penny Congress allowed for cloned animal products i.e.: meat & diary, to enter the food market in 2007. Not sure if everyone deems cloned animals as gmo, however I do. Thanks!

      Delete
    5. (I apologize now if this is a repost) in re to gmo meat in the USA here's what I meant, cloned animals have been legally dispersed in our food supply since 2007. That includes dairy and meat. I've also heard of the gmo fisheries. Thanks!

      Delete
    6. Welcome Nora!

      (there was two of these, but, I just let one through)

      and I would deem cloned meat as a form of gmo, for sure!

      Delete
  4. I always want to fly a bunch of these idiots and drop them off in the middle of Siberia or the Artic and see if they can survive a winter without eating meat.
    Humans are virtually the only species that doesn't produce Vitamin C and the Eskimos get their dose of Vitamin C by eating the viscera of other animals.
    The only reason these people are able follow this kind of diet is because the invention of trains, planes and motor transport made it possible for people to obtain out of season fruits and vegetables the whole year round.
    The supply of fruits and vegetables is pretty restricted even in a Northern European winter.
    These fad diets are also the result of virtually complete urbanisation nobody has contact with the countryside anymore. I remember my grandmother killing and plucking hens and geese, milking cows and collecting eggs. That was the way of life for pratically all humanity until the industrial revolution. Children have died on Vegan diets and I know of one child that has suffered retardation because of the mother's insistence on a vegetarian diet. This is child abuse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi hunt
      "These fad diets are also the result of virtually complete urbanisation nobody has contact with the countryside anymore"

      Agree 100 percent with that statement- The urbanization of humanity has left us adrift and out of touch with all reality- that's not a grandiose statement either- that's a statement of fact

      I forage- I know what plants, mushrooms etc to eat
      I gather and dry herbs-

      Could the urban vegan do that? Highly doubtful. They go to the grocery store and purchase their shipped in produce and espouse the righteousness of their ways- but that food has a cost same as any other food.

      Veganism and children don't mix IMO- Growing brains and bodies need fat and meat- Human organs rely on it.

      http://www.livescience.com/24875-meat-human-brain.html

      Either way, the finding implies that meat must have been an integral, and not sporadic, element of the prehuman diet more than 1 million years ago, said the study's lead author, Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo, an archaeologist at Complutense University in Madrid.

      http://www.ketotic.org/2015/03/meat-is-best-for-growing-brains.html

      I may offend some readers, which is not my intent, but I agree that a vegan diet is not appropriate for and infant or child

      Delete
  5. Once we had children, Hubby and I began taking a good hard look at food. We live in Malaysia now and don't always buy organic, but we do buy local vegetables and most meat, full-fat milk/yogurt, eat butter, ghee, palm oil, coconut oil, cook mostly at home and our children have beaten their childhood challenges. Coincidence? I say no, but no doctor will believe me.

    If you haven't already, get "Big Fat Surprise" by Nina Teicholz. The book's science backed up our family's intuition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting comment from hunt ref: children on a vegan diet. Poor things. We also eat around 5-7 eggs/person/week. It's good for you! :)

      Delete
    2. your attempt to eat a good diet sounds much like ours

      we have a garden
      I make our bread
      we forage
      we grow herbs and I gather them- I dry them and store them for teas medicinal and otherwise

      Delete
  6. Well, I think it's a much more complicated subject than saying vegetarianism is bad/unhealthy, or saying we should consume as much meat as we want and support the meat farming industry of today. I don't think either are correct. And I don't think one study from Australia proves anything, to be honest. There are literally thousands of mitigating factors that have to be taken into account.

    But here's what I do know for sure:
    1) Today's factory farming is gross, in terms of the damage it does to the environment (cattle, pigs, chickens), damage it does to local drinking water, and overall cost to society.

    2) We shouldn't eat nearly as much meat as "we" on average consume - that's North American especially, but also includes Europeans, Aussies/Kiwis and Russia. It's unhealthy to eat TOO MUCH, especially red meat.

    3) The WAY food is prepared mitigates EVERYTHING, and must be taken into account when deciding to make a study on health. Which this study doesn't do, and almost no study does. Most studies already want to prove a point, and are funded like that - so they go about doing a study a certain way to get a certain result. That is just a fact of our political life, much like polls for voting.

    4) To connect with that last point, the way food is eaten, cooked, prepared, if it is GMO, if it is highly processed, if it has chemical additives, if it is raw, if it is cooked lightly or charred, etc etc - this all MATTERS when deciding how healthy it is. The Chinese even believe certain foods are hot/cold, and don't combine some together, and they never drink cold drinks because they think the cold temperature is harmful to the digestive system. And how can one argue with one of the all time oldest and healthiest cultures around? So among all those factors, I know for certain that the more raw a food is, the healthier it is. The less processed it is, the healthier it is. So don't give me studies from western styled vegetarian diets where a majority of the people are eating cancer-causing highly processed foods loaded with corn syrup/highly processed sugar, soy (huge in estrogen, btw) and chemical soups.

    5) I know that I should probably eat less meat than I do. I could never be a vegetarian, myself - but I try to stick more with fish and Atlantic seafood, and I rarely have beef. I try to have as much raw vegetables as I can, and stay far away (as much as possible) from highly processed foods. I even was in the habit of getting raw milk for some time (although can't get it anymore).

    6) And finally,
    Of all the TRULY raw vegan diet people I know, not one of them is unhealthy or sickly. All of them are in tip top, amazing health and shape, and that is something I aspire to be, in that kind of health/happiness.

    Food for thought ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Slozo!
      long time no see- and yes it is more complicated-
      I guess my main point is that there is no moral high ground to be had by those that chose to not eat meat- Vegetarianism and veganism has it's own problems

      Factory farming is worse then gross and contributes to the poor quality and toxicity of meats- I've covered some of this previously at the blog.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ractopamine

      Should not be in animal feed, for starters
      Animals should not be kept on factory farms- disease inducing- filthy air/filth water
      etc
      Cows should not be fed corn- I just did a post on that

      I won't put myself in with the NA "we" as I don't consume as much crap as most- most meat consumption is via the fast food industry- which created the need for factory farming.. and I don't go there.

      It's probably been well over a year since I've consumed a 'fast food' burger- from Harvey's

      http://www.foodispower.org/fast-food/

      I prefer burgers at home

      The way food is prepared makes a big difference in it's health effects, but, if the food is trash to begin with... I don't know if food prep is a deciding factor- just not sure

      "The less processed it is, the healthier it is."

      Agree with that wholeheartedly!!

      I recall you getting the raw milk- as you had told us here some time back. It's too bad that has become impossible-

      I resent/disgusted/angered at the idea of Chatham House, an elitist org, pushing an agenda that is detrimental to humans. But it doesn't surprise me either

      Delete
    2. We'll agree to disagree on the first point - I don't think it's a problem to hold a living thing in higher esteem because it has a brain and is a living creature as opposed to a plant. Just like we hold the very intelligent species of animals (at least the ones we tend to identify with more, there definitely is bias here as can be seen with octopus) in even higher esteem, and tend to look down on eating those as meat.

      Burgers are pretty bad and you have no idea of the meat quality whatsoever unless you grind it yourself - most ground beef is poor quality meat or old, it's dipped in blood to get red, then mashed up. You'd also have to define "as much" . . . and be careful about how one categorises onesself. Easy to rationalise these things (just saying, I don't want to attack you, just being honest).

      The big thing with this pushed upon vegan agenda is soy - the elitist agenda wants you to consume soy. And it's just terrible for you (western made soy that is, not the soy produced in say China).

      Delete
    3. Hi Slozo:

      You can make that arguement ,sure, but there are some people that liken the system of roots a plant has to the nervous system of a living creature such as ourselves. Not equal but nonetheless present.


      http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/152208/do-plants-have-brains

      I don't lump myself in with the north american we, not because of rationalization, but because I know with certainty I don't share most of the common traits of the 'we'

      IMO the vegan agenda is worse then just the soy consumption... it also has to do with protein and fat consumption to ensure healthy organs and proper hormone balance- a problem our human family is definitely having- showing up quite clearly in the problematic fertility rates and dropping testosterone levels

      I don't feel attacked Slozo :)
      Everyone has their own opinions

      Delete
  7. Abu Omar al-Shishani is back

    Imam Shamil Battalion

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201704251052991299-imam-shamil-battalion-responsibility-st-petersburg-bomb-attack/

    Khorasan Group
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/09/25/the-strange-story-behind-the-khorasan-groups-name/?utm_term=.811c88a87226


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see where it mentiions al Shishani? Or am I missing it?

      Khorasan? I had predicted they would be back!!
      Though it's just a rebrand of the same old same old
      which is why the US came up with that one

      I figure when they get more overt about destabilizing Iran- Khorosan will loom large

      "Finally, there's the simple fact that Khorasan is a new and evocative name. Frankly, it's something for the U.S. public to latch onto"

      Exactly- Rebrand the old to sell the old/under an entirely new PR scheme

      Delete

TROLLS &SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS