Propaganda chain @CNN praising the "wealthiest & smartest people in the world" - just for being the superelites they are, and for trying to put the rest of us on a diet of lab-grown imitation foods.
But why would CNN care about healthy diets in the first place, with a founder like this?
But there's more: having in mind that CNN is taking marching orders from its CFR overlords, let's take a look at another key organization overseen by the CFR: the World Resources Institute. swprs.org/the-american-e…
Recommendations on red & processed #meat: "When only low certainty evidence is available [.] guideline panels should refrain from making strong recommendations & [encourage] individual decision making based on absolute estimates of effect"
"The ease with which one can distinguish justified belief from opinion varies across scientific disciplines [...] Epidemiology and clinical epidemiology lie closer to the latter than the former" sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
"the most vocal nutritional epidemiologists argue that GRADE is applicable only to contexts in which randomized trials are feasible. [A proposed] alternative is the NutriGrade method, for which the lead author now endorses GRADE over his own alternative approach" 💣
"An 'IPCC for Food' is likely to be proposed as an outcome of the UN #FoodSystems Summit [.] This proposal stems from a small group of proponents but has been amplified by the networks & business interests which it would serve"
"The Summit is being used to promote a narrow #technocratic vision of #foodsystems in a manner which is opaque, exclusionary, & ignores a diversity of knowledge systems & contributors to sustainable food systems"
"calls for an 'IPCC for Food' originated from a small group [&] have been amplified by a powerful network of organizations [that] are using the UN #FoodSystems Summit to promote their 'game-changing' proposal [.] The [Summit's] Scientific Group serves as an 'early experiment'"
“When primary data on red meat consumption are analyzed with validated methods & in a transparent way according to the highest scientific standards, the result's always the same: intake of unprocessed red meat poses no risk to general health &provides valuable nutrition benefits”
Red meat intake levels for the bulk of the world population are <75g/p/d. At such levels, there is no good reason to assume harm. On the contrary: meat offers key nutrients that are still limiting at population level. If anything, it's the lower intake levels that are concerning.
Tweaking the formulation by adding 20% "hydrolyzed rice" (nutri-washed as "cereals") seems to further upgrade the scores. It's still fortified sugar though. And it's aiming at 3-year old children. world.openfoodfacts.org/product/761303…
Brought to you by the usual suspects: EAT founder + a mixture of UN representatives, finance hotshots, animal rights/vegan militants, companies with vested interests in imitation foods, & their academic stormtroopers