The Climate Agenda Behind the Bacon Scare
Options
Replies
-
Didn't read the article, but fried up bacon yesterday to have with my dinner burger, it was delicious.0
-
I haven't read the article, but I've been assuming for some time that meat and animal source foods are going to become increasingly expensive commodities, as population increases, and the need to get the most value from agricultural land becomes more critical.0
-
Good article. Interesting twist.
The gist was that the bacon and colorectal cancer scare (same risk for cancer as smokers!!) was an alarmist attempt to get people to cut back on meats with a longer term goal to help prevent global warming. It was a small jab at the "vegan agenda" to save the environment by changing how we eat. It meantions how the release was well timed just before an environmetal conference.
It closes by saying "In other words, meat is a double threat that governments should contain. Hang on to your T-bones and sausages, folks." Looks like more backlash against Atkins could be expected.0 -
There are always meal worms if meat gets too expensive, easy to raise, good return on the investment in feed...
0 -
lithezebra wrote: »There are always meal worms if meat gets too expensive, easy to raise, good return on the investment in feed...
I could just sit down to dinner with my geckos. Yummy!0 -
I heard about all that through different sources not this article and this occurred to me as well. I think a lot of what is presented to us is an attempt to influence and not simply reported news.Good article. Interesting twist.
The gist was that the bacon and colorectal cancer scare ...was an alarmist attempt to get people to cut back on meats.
0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »There are always meal worms if meat gets too expensive, easy to raise, good return on the investment in feed...
I could just sit down to dinner with my geckos. Yummy!
I
geckos!
0 -
Here's the actual article. My husband sent it to me and I forgot he gets WSJ for free at work (lucky guy!) So typical of the news (and scientists) of today...it's all based on their agenda and will bend the truth so they are right.
The Climate Agenda Behind the Bacon Scare
The widely publicized warning about meat isn’t about health. It’s about fighting global warming.
By
Julie Kelly And
Jeff Stier
Nov. 9, 2015 7:32 p.m. ET
Headlines blaring that processed and red meat causes cancer have made this steak-and-bacon-loving nation collectively reach for the Rolaids. Vegans are in full party mode, and the media is in a feeding frenzy. But there is more to this story than meets the (rib)eye.
With United Nations climate talks beginning in a few weeks in Paris, the cancer warning seems particularly well timed. Environmental activists have long sought to tie food to the fight against global warming. Now the doomsayers who want to take on modern agriculture, a considerable source of greenhouse-gas emissions, can employ an additional scare tactic: Meat production sickens the planet; meat consumption sickens people.
Late last month, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)—part of the World Health Organization, an arm of the U.N.—concluded that red meat, like beef and pork, is “probably carcinogenic” to humans, and that processed meat is an even greater cancer threat. The IARC placed foods like bacon, sausage and hot dogs in the same carcinogen category as cigarettes and plutonium.
The working group assessed “more than 800 epidemiological studies that investigated the association of cancer with consumption of red meat or processed meat in many countries.” But support for the IARC’s sweeping conclusion is flimsy at best.
First, the report largely addresses only one cancer—colorectal—while making passing mention of other cancers, like stomach and prostate. Yet the evidence linking red meat and colorectal cancer is unconvincing. The authors write that “positive associations were seen with high versus low consumption of red meat in half of those studies”—hardly enough conclusive evidence to justify a stern cancer warning.
The working group even admits in the same paper that “there is limited evidence for the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat” and “no clear association was seen in several of the high quality studies.” Despite this, the agency placed red meat in its second-highest carcinogen category, alongside DDT and the human papillomavirus, HPV.
The case against processed meat is dubious, too. According to the IARC report, each 50-gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. That might sound scary, but the absolute risk is what really matters. As an example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 2% of 40-year-olds will develop colorectal cancer over the next 30 years of their lives. What the IARC study suggests is a slightly higher rate—say, 2.4% over 30 years—for those 40-year-olds who tear through a 16-ounce package of bacon every week without fail.
A doctor with the IARC acknowledged in a news release announcing the findings that “for an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small.” But that statement—widely overlooked in most media coverage—didn’t stop the agency from putting processed meat in its highest category of carcinogens, alongside mustard gas and formaldehyde.
Sensationalist reporting makes processed meat sound more dangerous than even the IARC report claims. A headline at NBC News reads: “Ham, Sausages Cause Cancer; Red Meat Probably Does, Too, WHO Group Says.” Another by the national desk at Cox Media Group runs: “Bacon poses same cancer risk as cigarettes, world health group claims.” This is a case where many journalists and policy makers fail to give proper scrutiny to claims that advance the prevailing political narrative. When a report advises eating less meat, few bother to check the facts, because the conclusion is already popular among them and assumed true.
Now we get to the connection between climate alarmism and the meat-is-bad movement. In advance of the Paris climate talks, the World Health Organization released a lengthy report about climate pollutants and global health risks. The section on agriculture discusses the need to direct consumers away from foods whose production emits high levels of greenhouse gases: “A key action with large potential climate and health benefits is to facilitate a shift away from high-GHG foods—many of which are of animal origin—and towards healthy, low-GHG (often plant-based) alternatives.”
The report specifically mentions red and processed meat: “In affluent populations, shifting towards diets based on careful adherence to public health recommendations—including reduced consumption of red and processed meat and/or other animal-sourced foods in favor of healthier plant-based alternatives—has the potential to both reduce GHG emissions and improve population health.”
How would this shift in consumers’ tastes be produced? “Experimental and modeling studies demonstrate that food pricing interventions have the ability to influence food choice,” the report states, before favorably citing a study in the United Kingdom of “taxing all food and drinks with above-average GHG emissions.”
Much of this is aimed at the U.S., which is the world’s top producer of beef and its third-largest producer of pork. Americans, along with Australians and Argentines, are among the world’s biggest per capita meat-eaters. Now climate busybodies can shout that meat causes cancer and is as bad for the person eating it as it is for the planet.
In other words, meat is a double threat that governments should contain. Hang on to your T-bones and sausages, folks.
Ms. Kelly, a cooking instructor and food writer, lives in Orland Park, Ill. Mr. Stier leads the risk analysis division at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C.
0 -
lithezebra wrote: »There are always meal worms if meat gets too expensive, easy to raise, good return on the investment in feed...
Hornworms are really where it's at. Nice and fatty.
June Bugs are apparently edible, too. I don't think I'd starve in early summer if I could work up the nerve to eat them. I've have to compete with my beagle for them, though. They're dumber than a box of rocks, so easy as all get out to catch.0 -
Why eat bugs, when there are tasty poultry and rabbits to be considered first.0
-
Dragonwolf wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »There are always meal worms if meat gets too expensive, easy to raise, good return on the investment in feed...
Hornworms are really where it's at. Nice and fatty.
June Bugs are apparently edible, too. I don't think I'd starve in early summer if I could work up the nerve to eat them. I've have to compete with my beagle for them, though. They're dumber than a box of rocks, so easy as all get out to catch.
Good to know!
@Lillith32 The main thing is that it takes less energy, in terms of amount of feed, to raise insects for food than it does bunnies or chickens. I would definitely want chickens, if possible, for the eggs. Roosters, and non-laying chickens, might still be tasty stewed.
Now my survivalist fantasies/nightmares are being triggered. I think my neighbors would be more likely to shoot me for my chickens than for my mealworm and hornworm farm.0 -
Why eat bugs, when there are tasty poultry and rabbits to be considered first.
Not enough fat. There's a reason protein toxicity is commonly known as "rabbit starvation." Bugs actually have a superior fat to protein ratio, especially for keto. I even know a guy that makes bread out of insect flours.
Also, if you go by the recommendations of the chickens and lizards, hornworms are like friggin' candy.0 -
Google "rewilding"0
-
I have nothing against bugs, but I would probably attempt to cultivate poultry, fish and rabbits. I am aware of the fat profile, but that can be supplemented with vegetable sources of fat, coconut butter, nuts, avocados, etc. @lithezebra , I have survivalist tendencies as well, which is why I actually thought this out. There are hydroponic setups that allow you to grow tilapia and veggies. Chickens would be a good investment as a fertilizer as well as a source of eggs and meat. Rabbits are apparently insanely easy to breed, grow fast, and you can use their skin to make stuff.
Also I am not worried about greedy neighbors after many years in the military. I got a fix for that too.
Thanks, I was trying to actually appear sane, not as a crazy prepper, but I guess that cover is blown, lol.0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »Why eat bugs, when there are tasty poultry and rabbits to be considered first.
Not enough fat. There's a reason protein toxicity is commonly known as "rabbit starvation." Bugs actually have a superior fat to protein ratio, especially for keto. I even know a guy that makes bread out of insect flours.
Also, if you go by the recommendations of the chickens and lizards, hornworms are like friggin' candy.
Is Andrew still making bread from the insect flours? I thought he blamed his kidney stones on the amount of insects he was eating and cut them out. I don't follow his posts that diligently, so I could be mistaken.
Edit: Apparently, a week after he blamed the stones on the insect flours, he changed the blame to not drinking enough water. Like I said, I don't read everything he posts, so I missed the update.0 -
Insect flours? Really? Huh. That would take a lot of bugs... I would where you you buy bug flour...0
-
I have nothing against bugs, but I would probably attempt to cultivate poultry, fish and rabbits. I am aware of the fat profile, but that can be supplemented with vegetable sources of fat, coconut butter, nuts, avocados, etc. @lithezebra , I have survivalist tendencies as well, which is why I actually thought this out. There are hydroponic setups that allow you to grow tilapia and veggies. Chickens would be a good investment as a fertilizer as well as a source of eggs and meat. Rabbits are apparently insanely easy to breed, grow fast, and you can use their skin to make stuff.
Also I am not worried about greedy neighbors after many years in the military. I got a fix for that too.
Thanks, I was trying to actually appear sane, not as a crazy prepper, but I guess that cover is blown, lol.
But the price of all food will likely go up, as demand increases for plant foods! /survivalist-mode
Where I live, even rabbits (beyond the one or two for pets) and chickens are sketchy from a legal standpoint, so I'll have to buy land elsewhere, and we already decided that if we're going to start a farm, we're going to do it right and raise bison (native livestock for the win!). In our case, we're probably going to raise rabbits, too, but more for the dogs than human consumption (because we raw feed our dogs and aren't about to go back).Insect flours? Really? Huh. That would take a lot of bugs... I would where you you buy bug flour...
Amazon, believe it or not. At least for cricket flour -- http://www.amazon.com/100-Cricket-Flour-22-lb/dp/B00OMCTODQ
It seems this company has quite the selection to choose from -- http://www.thailandunique.com/insect-bug-flour-powder0 -
I have nothing against bugs, but I would probably attempt to cultivate poultry, fish and rabbits. I am aware of the fat profile, but that can be supplemented with vegetable sources of fat, coconut butter, nuts, avocados, etc. @lithezebra , I have survivalist tendencies as well, which is why I actually thought this out. There are hydroponic setups that allow you to grow tilapia and veggies. Chickens would be a good investment as a fertilizer as well as a source of eggs and meat. Rabbits are apparently insanely easy to breed, grow fast, and you can use their skin to make stuff.
Also I am not worried about greedy neighbors after many years in the military. I got a fix for that too.
Thanks, I was trying to actually appear sane, not as a crazy prepper, but I guess that cover is blown, lol.
Come be my neighbor. We can pool our ammo, and use solar power to run my sewing machine, to make rabbit fur bikinis.0 -
I have seen cricket flour at a store near me that is known for having almost everything. They have a whole section of insect foods and candy. They have a butter bar too!0
