In this file:
· The Ultimate Rebuttal To Veggies
· EAT-Lancet's Long Shadow
The Ultimate Rebuttal To Veggies
Dan Murphy, FarmJournal's Pork
February 6, 2019
It’s not often that a group of qualified, credible scientists and researchers goes public with a rebuke of the veganism-for-all proselyting. But take heart: That happy event is here!
Are you familiar with the Nutrition Coalition? If not, make the acquaintance of the researchers and scientists who formed that organization to provide a credible response to the relentless drumbeat of vegetarianism-for-all as the preferred dietary pathway for the health of humanity and the survival of the planet.
Not that there’s anything wrong with choosing a vegetarian diet, but its positioning by Vegan Nation’s most ardent disciples as the ONLY worthy diet is often tainted by a lack of solid science to back up its claims of nutritional superiority.
To that end, the Nutrition Coalition recently posted an analysis of the recent EAT-Lancet report, which received global media coverage of its conclusion that vegan/vegetarian diets (read, “anti-meat diets”) are the solution to chronic disease and of course, implying that governments should institute a “meat tax” to discourage consumption of animal foods.
There are a host of problems with the EAT-Lancet report, as the Nutrition Coalition members elegantly and pointedly noted, including:
· The Lancet commission is biased. As detailed by the coalition, EAT-Lancet was launched by corporate food processing corporations with interests in marketing vegetarian products, including Mars, Nestle and Kellogg’s. The report claims that the only way to save the planet is to drastically reduce red meat consumption and replace it with grains, soy protein and rice, along with — and this is a quote from the coalition’s critique — “8 teaspoons of sugar per day and 14% of calories as vegetable oils.”
· The group’s recommended diet is unbalanced. The coalition noted that the EAT diet “is demonstrably deficient in essential nutrients, as well as low in complete proteins.”
· The science they offer is seriously lacking. To quote the coalition, The EAT-Lancet diet is supported by “virtually no human clinical trials showing that it can either sustain healthy human life or protect against nutrition-related diseases.”
Perhaps worst of all, media coverage of the EAT-Lancet commission portrayed the group as some 37 highly qualified scientists from all over the world. Not true.
To quote from the coalition’s analysis, “In reality, the authors represented a very narrow range of opinions: 31 out of the 37 (commissioners) had established, published records as being in favor of vegetarian/vegan or anti-meat diets.”
That’s a pretty solid majority and reveals what’s really going on with this so-called “objective” report.
The media have presented the commission as if the members were randomly selected, based purely on their scientific credentials Instead, as the coalition’s analysis explained, “This group was one-sided from the start. Instead of grappling with the very real scientific controversies that exist on these [nutritional] topics, the group considered virtually none of the science that contradicts their views.”
Not only that, the EAT-Lancet report was not subjected to the most fundamental part of the process of ensuring scientific credibility: peer review. Instead, the authors of the report literally reviewed themselves.
Serious nutritional deficits ...
EAT-Lancet's Long Shadow
Greg Henderson, FarmJournal's Pork
February 6, 2019
The legacy of Livestock’s Long Shadow, the thoroughly debunked, yet often repeated 2006 report from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), remains a thorn of misinformation in the side of livestock producers. Last month, data from Livestock’s Long Shadow was used to argue for the adoption of a new, global plant-based diet.
The proposal was launched by the EAT-Lancet Commission, following a three-year project by 37 “experts” calling for changes to the food system to boost human health and preserve environmental resources. For North Americans the report suggests reducing red meat consumption by 86%.
The report endorses the idea – first claimed in Livestock’s Long Shadow – that global meat production is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, more than all of global transport.
One American scientist called that hogwash, noting the emissions figures were calculated differently to the transport figures. Frank Mitloehner, Professor and Air Quality Extension Specialist, University of California/Davis, said the UN’s calculations were an “apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue.”
He was right, said Pierre Gerber, a policy officer with the FAO and one of the reports’ authors, who accepted Mitloehner's criticism. Unfortunately, the cows had already left the barn. The report’s false narrative – livestock produce 18% of GHGs, more than transport – is repeatedly used as a primary argument cows are killing the planet.
Exactly what EAT-Lancet suggests. Tim Lang, one of the report’s authors, said, “The food we eat and how we produce it determines the health of people and the planet, and we are currently getting this seriously wrong.”
Specifically, EAT-Lancet recommends red meat consumption be cut to one-half ounce per day, with total meat intake of an ounce per day. Just one ounce of fish per day and an egg and a half per week was recommended. In other words, if you like hamburgers, you could eat just one per week.
Not surprisingly, EAT-Lancet provided an opportunity for activists and self-anointed experts. For instance...