Scientists Want Meat Slapped With ‘Cigarette-Style’ Warning Labels About Climate Change. Here’s Why It’s Completely Asinine
A group of scientists is proposing government-mandated cigarette-style caution labels on meat packages that could read, “Warning: Eating meat contributes to climate change.” The anti-meat scientists, who falsely claim meat consumption is detrimental to health and the environment, began pushing for the labels after conducting a study at the UK’s Durham University.
The researchers took a group of 1,000 meat-eating adults and split them into four groups. Depending on what group a participant was in, they were shown photos of hot meals assigned climate, health, or pandemic warning labels or no warning label at all.
“All the labels deterred meat consumption, with 7-10 percent of the participants choosing a non-meat meal.” However, when participants were asked how anxiety-inducing and believable they found each of the labels, they reported the climate change warning as the most credible.
This prompted the scientists to advocate for government-mandated climate change warning labels on meat. “Reaching net zero is a priority for the nation and the planet,” said study author Jack Hughes. “As warning labels have already been shown to reduce smoking as well as drinking of sugary drinks and alcohol, using a warning label on meat-containing products could help us achieve this if introduced as national policy.”
Climate activists are ramping up their war on meat every day. Efforts to stigmatize meat-based diets as socially unacceptable and even unhealthy have become their latest strategy to curb consumption. Former UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres suggested in 2018 that society should ostracize meat carnivore eaters in the same way it did smokers. “How about restaurants in 10-15 years start treating carnivores the same way that smokers are treated,” she said. “If they want to eat meat, they can do it outside the restaurant.”
Some climate activists are embracing far more dystopian means to eliminate the more than two million-year tradition of meat as a staple in the human diet. WEF-linked “bioethicist” Dr. Matthew Liao proposed the idea of scientists genetically modifying humans to be allergic to meat. Liao also discussed shrinking the physical size of humans via eugenics or hormone injections so they consume fewer resources.
Few know that the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, a globalist Michael Bloomberg-run climate organization made up of nearly 100 cities across the globe, including 14 American cities, has a goal of completely eradicating meat and dairy consumption by 2030.
In June, the U.S. Agriculture Department approved the consumption and sale of lab-grown meat in restaurants and, eventually, supermarkets. Ironically, “Analysis finds the carbon footprint of cultivated meat is likely to be higher than beef if current production methods are scaled up because they are still highly energy-intensive,” reports New Scientist.
Meat Is Good For You
By virtually every standard, protein from meat, which has been the basis of the human diet since the inception of the species, is far superior to plant protein. Dr. Benjamin Bikman, author of the 2020 book Why We Get Sick: The Hidden Epidemic at the Root of Most Chronic Disease–and How to Fight It, explained why on “The Ultimate Health Podcast.”
“By every metric, every single animal protein is superior to every single plant protein,” Bikman said. “A person can eat a modest amount of animal protein and know that they are literally getting every single amino acid they could possibly need in a good ratio. If it’s plant protein, well, then you kind of have to guess, and you hope you’re getting it all.”
Plant proteins, Bikman added, “are enriched with things called ‘anti-nutrients,’” which are “molecules that will inhibit the intestines’ ability to digest the protein.”
“So that’s kind of adding insult to injury,” Bikman explained, “because when someone’s trying to get all their protein from plant proteins, not only are they getting an inferior source of amino acids and an inferior profile of amino acids, they’re not even digesting the amino acids in the proteins they think they’re getting.”
While academic researchers on far-left campuses from Durham to Harvard lead the assault on meat, the evidence to suggest meat-based diets are detrimental to human health fails to stand close scrutiny. In her book, The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet, nutrition journalist Nina Teicholz spent almost a decade researching the science behind health authorities’ recommendations for a low-fat, meat-restricted diet. Her findings were breathtaking.
“Almost nothing that we commonly believe today about fats generally and saturated fat in particular appears, upon close examination, to be accurate,” she wrote.
Teicholz outlined how the data to support a low-fat diet was manipulated with selective findings to back pre-determined conclusions. The landmark Seven Countries study, for example, the legacy project of American Physiologist Ancel Keys to support a low-fat diet, omitted data from 15 countries that would have contradicted any correlation between dietary fat and heart disease.
Further, a paper published by the National Library of Medicine in April debunked the conventional narrative that red meat consumption is responsible for the proliferation of non-communicable diseases. Researchers assessed mean meat intake in different regions of the world and found that while some academics claim red meat is hazardous to human health, only slight increases in disease risk were reported in areas where meat consumption was well above the global average. Even then, “there is little to no effect on absolute risk,” they wrote, “and the certainty of evidence remains low to very low based on the best available summary evidence.”
“Regrettably, the scientific discussion on the potential associations between meat and noncommunicable diseases is often no longer a transparent assessment of the evidence, but is affected by agendas, including vested interests and ideologies,” they concluded.
Meat Is Good For The Planet
If there’s any confusion about environmentalists being on the side of big food, a quick glance at this year’s list of “100 Best Corporate Citizens” based on Environmental, Social, and Governance Standards (ESG) will remove any doubt.
The list ranks 1,000 of the largest U.S. public companies every year on their compliance and transparency efforts to “align with the Sustainable Development Goals and rebuild an equitable economy post-pandemic.” The nation’s largest food corporations routinely rank highly on the list despite their use of endocrine-disrupting pesticides that are terrible for the environment.
This year’s list celebrated seven major food processors, including PepsiCo, which was 6th, Hershey at 10, Mondelez at 45, Kellogg at 40, and General Mills at 49. Kraft Heinz was listed at 61, and Coca-Cola at 79.
Sustainably raised livestock, meanwhile, are actually good for the planet. In his book, Food Fix: How to Save Our Health, Our Economy, Our Communities, and Our Planet — One Bite at a Time, Dr. Mark Hyman writes about the important benefits of regenerative farm practices on both our health and planet.
“Regenerative grass-fed meat can restore ecosystems, improving soils while sucking carbon from the atmosphere and increasing water storage in soils,” Hyman wrote, urging readers to “choose regeneratively raised animal products whenever possible.”
“They are better for you and better for the animals and help draw down carbon and reverse climate change,” Hyman added.
Despite the fear-mongering over global livestock emissions, a trio of Spanish researchers published a study in April finding emissions from wildlife comparable to domesticated animals raised in natural grazing systems. In other words, contrary to climate alarmists’ warnings that livestock capital will pollute the planet into an environmental apocalypse, the elimination of animal emissions requires the extinction of natural species.
Warning Labels Belong On Biscuits, Not Brisket
If the government steps in to slap warning labels on anything at grocery stores to manipulate the American diet, it should be ultra-processed foods. Often saturated in seed oils and several different kinds of added sugars while deprived of fiber and healthy fat, these toxic ultra-processed products make up nearly three-fourths of the U.S. food supply. It’s no wonder 6 in 10 Americans suffer from at least one chronic disease while 4 in 10 suffer from at least two.
For years, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allowed food manufacturers to market chemically processed grains drenched in sugary syrups as cereal with a “healthy” label slapped on the box. If you want to know why the most sugary cereals are lined up at waist height in the grocery store, take a look next time at who walks next to parents down the “breakfast” aisle. Hint: it’s exactly who cereal companies want to beg their parents to buy the Fruit Loops.
Researchers from Spain, Brazil, and the United States published a paper in the British Medical Journal last month examining 281 studies across 36 countries and found the prevalence of food addiction “similar to the levels of addiction seen for other legal substances in adults.”
While not officially recognized by the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic guide on mental disorders, commonly known as the DSM-5, researchers analyzed food addiction using the Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS). The YFAS assesses all 11 criteria for substance use disorders outlined in the DSM-5 to examine compulsive food consumption as a legitimate substance disorder. Researchers concluded in their October paper that levels of food addiction rival rates of addiction to alcohol and cigarettes. Ultra-processed products high in refined carbohydrates and added fats were the most likely to be found addictive, stimulating a dopamine response “seen with addictive substances such as nicotine and alcohol.”
But forget cigarettes. Let’s talk about cocaine. A 2013 paper from French researchers found sugar can stimulate a reward response in the brain stronger than that of even cocaine. Believe artificial sugar sweeteners are the antidote? Think again. The 2013 paper identified “sweetness,” not necessarily just “sugar,” as the culprit stimulant. Their findings corroborated similar conclusions in another landmark study on sugar and its addictive value by French researchers in 2007.
Beyond addiction, ultra-processed foods are dangerous. A February study from London’s Imperial School of Public Health linked consumption of ultra-processed products to early mortality. In other words, those Pillsbury Biscuits might not kill you tomorrow, but they may take over 30 years. If an ultra-processed diet doesn’t kill you early, it’s certain to make you sick. Another 2021 paper from Brazil found higher consumption of ultra-processed food and drinks was “positively associated with obesity and associated with the development of all [noncommunicable chronic diseases], mainly hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia.”
Ultimately, the scientists pushing for meat warning labels are anti-science. Meat is healthy and good for the planet. If labels are to be put on anything, it should be ultra-processed foods. Since these scientists are not interested in warning the public about the foods that are causing obesity and chronic disease, that suggests they are not interested in genuine wellness and are instead pushing an agenda and a dangerous, unhealthy one at that.
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.