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 fishEtc., etc.,Cows eat greens (not gmo corn in factory farms)- we consume cowsReality 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 dayLIE: Could a tax on meat help us save the planet?- NO! NO, no, no, no.NaddaMore LiesCan we please stop believing lies presented to us as 'simple messages' appealing to our emotions?