Humans are omnivores. Eating along an animal/plant gradient, with animal foods at 20-90% of the energy intake of hunter gatherer communities. The #PlanetaryHealthDiet (dietary part of #TheGreatReset), brings it down to levels unknown in ancestral models. With red meat at 1% 🧐
100% plants also allowed. Populations that are situated in the proposed range do exist, however. But they're also characterized by high levels of stunting in infants & children. Correlation >< causation, sure. But still looks like a dangerous experiment. Don't let them fool you.
Which was essentially based on spiritual beliefs, but ends up in the same recommendations
Nonetheless, just as the @PlanetaryHealthDiet, the ideas have been portrayed as evidence-based, referring to scientific articles.
But in scientific literature, we *also* find articles that describe stunting, severe malnutrition, & nutrient deficiencies, especially in young populations.
Moreover, the main scientist promoting the macrobiotic approach turned out to be a dangerous guru.
In conclusion: diets with the proposed level of animal source foods of the #PlanetaryHealthDiet (low-income countries or macrobiotic Westerners) are a mismatch with our evolutionary past *and* associated with nutritional havoc in young populations.
#TheGreatReset's "stakeholder capitalism is a betrayal of democracy [] to support an agenda influenced by a cabal of activists, NGOs, representatives of the “international community,” & politicians too arrogant to go through the usual legislative process" nationalreview.com/2020/11/the-gr…
"expect a future of controls & constraints [] It is a picture of a suffocating, joyless society where enterprise is harnessed, the talk is all of “solidarity” & — this will sound familiar — the individual does not get much of a look in"
"The Great Reset is being orchestrated in plain sight, and not by a shadowy group of plotters. But to accept that is not to deny that it may be consequential."
Grumpy me again, but I'm very suspicious about "Goodlife Goals-The Manual" Looks a lot like outsourcing parental education to a centralized planning committee, deciding what's best for us. Particularly so when there is a "World Business Council" (@wbcsd) involved
Not only does it kill critical thinking & conceptual diversity, before you know it, this will be used by crusaders to shame & blame people that deviate from the norms.
Excellent read, in defense of contextual, community-centered approaches to food instead of top-down, reductionist 'efficiency' planning. #Antifragile
"To assert that the localized cultural context of food is inconsequential to health & sustainability is to follow in the footsteps of a colonial mindset" 💯!!
'Efficiency' planners pooh-pooh this as romanticism. So do vegans. From my debate with Barnard👇 academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/1…
Should have stated *many* vegans and *most* efficiency planners, but I ran out of characters 😄
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development @wbcsd is a very #creepy organization. Business people in expensive suits on the one hand, "stewards of God's planet" New Age nutters on the other?
But it gets more freaky still: for 2030, the WBCSD also expects widespread use of "millions of eyes" to monitor compliance with the sustainable development goals.
#BigBrother watching over your Planetary Health...
Forget national sovereignty & governments - NGOs will be designing our public decisions. 10-50 million of them. 🤔
From the same document, a case study: Kellogg's fake meat burger. Claiming that plant-based is "better for people and planet" and that the main barrier is prejudice because people think it "will not taste as good" ???
Nah, reason why most don't want this stuff is probably because the ingredients look like this. I don't see a lot of "plants" here that could be "good for people & planet"? Any plants at all? Only extracts & additives.
And I doubt that this is a good basis for tasting like beef.
- diminishing farmer competitiveness in domestic & export markets
- driving up worldwide food prices & reducing societal welfare
- increasing # of food-insecure people in most vulnerable regions
"declines in production & trade, coupled with the projected increases in food commodity prices, would significantly reduce the EU’s GDP, especially if adoption was limited to the EU. In that case, the EU’s decline in GDP would represent 76% of the decline in the worldwide GDP"
"By 2030, the number of food-insecure people in the case of EU-only adoption would increase by an additional 22 million more than projected without the EC’s proposed Strategies. The number would climb to 103 million under the middle scenario & 185 million under global adoption"