#India isn't the #vegetarian model some claim it to be. Watch this excellent summary by @sakie339 to understand why:
Staggering statistics of malnourishment in children & women, reinforced by an aggressive criminalization of valuable foods by ideologists.
"Nutritional indicators/social security schemes were a cause for concern even before the pandemic, which the pandemic has aggravated. With the large number of Covid cases in India, we need to ask if a better nourished population would have handled the pandemic better"
Diets are often very restricted in food groups and key nutrients. The % of acceptable diets increase with higher levels of maternal schooling and household wealth, but only slightly so.
Food is often equated with cereals in ideologically biased food security policies & not much else (at most, pulses or oil). Erasure of milk, dairy products, meat, chicken, fish & eggs that are traditionally eaten, while fortification is pushed as a panacea.
Eggs & other animal source foods are portrayed as "impure" by religious groups that are installing taboos in school mid-day meals, despite the fact that their consumption is encouraged by nutritionists.
The situation can become particularly violent if opposed, as demonstrated by the aggression towards meat eaters from minorities (including mob lynching).
It is shocking, therefore, that influential forces in the nutrition space (including members of the #EATLancet Commission) are projecting India as a "plant-based" model for the world.
This surely can't be the target for EAT's Planetary Health Diet and Great Food Transformation?
So what needs to be done? Oppose the intertwined problem of ideological discourse & corporate interests (riding on the back of climate change). Look at nutrition first & then see how the most nutritious foods could be produced in a way that is least damaging to the climate"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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…