Gives up explaining reality, thread on mute.
Says it all really you defend the bbc for some strange reason when they just projected crap biased ‘study’, the bbc are supposed to fact check you know … whoops on mute do missed this
This came across my FB feed…
Not sure you are going to get this since you are muting the thread, but telling the truth doesn’t have to cost anything. If you are going to report someone’s Press Release as news, then at least have the journalistic integrity to say so. How hard is that? And yet it is practically never done.
And Chris in such a disputed area as food science you have to get someone defending meat ? I mean imagine the uproar if the BBC only showed the govt side of any debate ? They always bring in someone to counter it
I don’t think the point was that “journalists should never fact check” (obviously they should), it’s that news networks are not obligated to debate all sides of an issue; there are many circumstances where that would be a bad idea. I’m not saying this is one of them, but I think that’s been Juice’s point.
If I fact checked, I could easily find tons and tons of “facts” that are in line with this document. Tons of them. I mean, everyone knows meat is bad. Finding “facts” not in line with that document is actually harder.
For instance, process meat is cancerous:
Red meat, processed meat = cancer:
Cows cause global warming:
Now, I know better – after reading 30+ books in this area and many, many studies, twitter feeds, blogs, etc., over the span of 5-10 years (forget when I started). The common journalist will not.
Thanks for the clarification. I agree that they should not have to do this.
However, so many people form their opinions based on what is said in the news, I think they should at least report these things in a way that doesn’t make them sound like established fact.
It’s in the Lancet, there’s a Harvard bigwig heading it up - I can understand the BBC taking it as well informed advice. They probably don’t even know what the opposing viewpoints are. They probably don’t think of the paper as contentious because like everyone else their staff have been fed the same advice their whole lives.
Most people think the diabesity crisis is growing because of non-compliance with the prevailing advice. We know that advice has caused it, but we’re fighting against huge vested interests and decades of public ‘education’
“there’s a Harvard bigwig heading it up” – not any bigwig, THE bigwig. Walter Willett is The Man when it comes to epidemiology. He doesn’t have a peer. Over 1,700 papers,
What journalist in their right mind is going to say he’s wrong?
I get that Bob and he is a very powerful voice but put Aseem or Nina or Zoe against him in a one to one and bet they would destroy him …
what he said on R5 as I described before was utter nonsense and he knows it …
If I missed this discussion, apologies and please merge but it was the second story on BBC news today and the recommendation …
well a quarter of an egg a day, a burger a week, 200g of fruit and veg today and of course 250g of whole grains a day. Now if you ask me that would barely fill me up in one meal … never mind over a full day if not used to eating.
Of course this EAT has all the usual corporate sponsors … the usual names like Kelloggs and the report presented with no qualification at all form people in our sphere.
This is the vegan lobby taking control and we HAVE to fight it
Diet Doctor podcast with [Dr. Peter Ballerstedt
An excellent podcast that takes a deeper dive on the conflict between EAT-Lancet’s poorly derived recommendations, our health, and how animal husbandry, correctly understood, may help benefit us all, and not just the wealthy nations.
Plus, he says “ruminants” a lot, which amuses me for some odd reason. Probably for the same reason Gary Larson amuses me, as cows, in general, do.
Maybe you should ruminate upon the reason for a while.
You never know, you cud find the answer.
Worth clicking, but they actually recommend more sugar than meat. Which is nuts.
This is nuts! I think there is a master plan to weaken us all.
Dr. Georgia Ede shreds EAT Lancet’s Plant Based Planet report:
wow, that’s great
I’m starting to wonder if maybe everyone who owns or lets land should be required to have a goat, cow, sheep or buffalo or sublet their land to someone who has a goat, cow, sheep or buffalo (who may not have land themselves).
It’s not a civil-libertarian solution to the problem but it is a solution to the problem that increases the number of people who can be on animal products and uses up an extra 1% of the pie of land that is currently completely unused, but usable for grazing.
Even without the property rights problem, it would have to make economic sense. Fencing in a single buffalo, for example, would be expensive. Who is to tend these animals? And what if I had a sheep, and it went rogue, and laid waste to a sizeable portion of the local population - would I be held accountable?
In the six months since this thread started, the world’s population has increased by ~0.5%. Even if we could snap our fingers and have perhaps an additional 1% meat production, in a year’s time the population wold rise enough to counteract it.
Is it bad to specify that all able-bodied people should be conscripted into tending for the commune’s ruminants?