Climate Cultists Get Roasted After Suggesting Climate Warning Labels Should be Slapped on Meat
Meanwhile, Beyond Meat plans lays off 65 workers as US sales slump.
Climate cultists are super excited about a new report that purports to show meat consumption drops significantly when warning labels are slapped on packages.
The research was conducted by academics at UK’s Durham University and reads like virtue-signalling dressed up as pseudoscience.
Led by Jack Hughes, a postgraduate researcher at Durham University’s psychology department, the study surveyed 1,001 adults in the U.K. Four groups of participants were asked to imagine they were in a university cafeteria and had to choose among four dinner options: meat, fish, vegetarian, and vegan.
In one group, the meat option came with a warning label that read “Eating meat contributes to poor health,” paired with an image of someone having a heart attack. This saw an 8.8% drop in meat meal choices, compared to the control group.
Another group was shown the climate warning label with a picture of deforestation—leading to a 7.4% decrease, while the third got a pandemic warning label with an image of exotic meat. This cut meat choices by 10%.
Climate Cultists want to slap warning labels on meat. pic.twitter.com/p70aRrTHcD
— Leslie Eastman ☥ (@Mutnodjmet) November 14, 2023
The “data” aligns with a globalist agenda (e.g., World Economic Forum, the United Nations) to slash meat consumption using a variety of arguments, including health. The Durham study is geared to get the message out to the British People.
According to a recent YouGov poll, 72% of the UK population classify themselves as meat-eaters. But the Climate Change Committee (CCC), which advises the government on its net zero goals, has said the UK needs to slash its meat consumption by 20% by 2030, and 50% by 2050, in order to meet them.
However, the study assumes facts that are not in evidence. For example, several studies show red meat is not harmful to health. And, in fact, new studies show that many food “science” narratives are wrong and possibly dangerous.
[A] paper published by the National Library of Medicine in April debunked the conventional narrative that red meat consumption is responsible for the proliferation of non-communicable diseases. Researchers assessed mean meat intake in different regions of the world and found that while some academics claim red meat is hazardous to human health, only slight increases in disease risk were reported in areas where meat consumption was well above the global average.
Even then, “there is little to no effect on absolute risk,” they wrote, “and the certainty of evidence remains low to very low based on the best available summary evidence.”
“Regrettably, the scientific discussion on the potential associations between meat and noncommunicable diseases is often no longer a transparent assessment of the evidence, but is affected by agendas, including vested interests and ideologies,” they concluded.
Insufficient protein has numerous adverse health consequences: Weakness, fatigue, mood swings, getting sick often, and many others. Fats are essential for the ability to allow your body to utilize fat-soluble vitamins, as well as provide an important source are energy. For humans, animal protein is better absorbed and utilized than plant protein. There is no rationale to support excising meat from human diets unless the agenda is not to support humanity.
However, this is hope that the anti-meat messaging is backfiring.
Beyond Meat’s revenue fell nearly 9% in the third quarter as higher sales of its plant-based meat in Europe failed to make up for plummeting demand in the U.S.
Beyond Meat on Wednesday reported revenue of $75.3 million for the July-September period. That was far short of the $86.5 million Wall Street had anticipated, according to analysts polled by FactSet.
Beyond Meat cut its third-quarter and full-year revenue forecast last week, saying an anticipated rebound in plant-based meat sales during the quarter didn’t occur. The company said it would cut 65 non-production jobs — about 19% of its workforce — and conduct a broader review of its operations.
The report was roasted on social media. The best comment suggested warning labels be placed on scientists.
What Imbeciles: Maybe there should be a warning label on "Scientists" -"Caution – Full of SH##"
Scientists Want Meat Slapped With ‘Cigarette-Style’ Warning Labels About Climate Change. Here’s Why It’s Completely Asinine https://t.co/sQ1uIkulgW— Ron (@Ronnornor) November 12, 2023
The delegitimization and devaluation of science continue.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Smoked meat is even worse.
The only risk that properly smoked meat poses is that it’s too delicious and I might eat too much.
Than what?
Grilling is an American right….. hard smoked salmon is worth fighting for. Yum.
Well, that stands to reason. If meat is bad and smoking is bad, then smoked meat…
Perfectly okay to beat your meat, even out in public.
Just don’t you dare eat it!
Jeffery Toobin—is that you?
I can’t tell, the camera is moving.
Insufficient protein can lead to leftism and other mental disorders. As the Texas rancher said to the waiter when asked how he liked his steak cooked, the old rancher said ‘just knock his horns off and wipe his butt.’
My theory is that leftism is a prion disease spread by patchouli.
Without industrial cattle feedlots producing mountains of manuer, there would be no large scale ORGANIC food production in the United States.
The only label I want is one warning that the livestock was injected with some mRNA monstrosity..
Don’t look now but Australia is about to introduce mandatory vaccines for all cattle that go to a feedlot for commercial use. You will get whatever vaccine the government demands whether you like it or not
If you are vegetarian why would you want to eat fake meat?
Not taking away from beliefs but going through the cafeteria at Loma Linda is an example of making vegetables and such look like bacon and sausage. To a dedicated carnivore, those were tough days.
But even from the vegetarian point of view, wouldn’t eating fake meat be repulsive to a vegetarian? I don’t understand the market demand for it. Not appealing to either side of the table.
I tried one of those impossible burgers and it was…edible. Once. Very strange and if your vegan eating those just get a hamburger which is what you really want.
Morningstar Farms makes a very tasty black bean “burger”. Nice spices and tasty plus they don’t try and hide it’s not meat. Great meal with falafel for something different.
Almost worse is that most of this pretend meat is made from GMO soybeans, so not only does your gut get gutted by the glycosides but then your body, esp in children, doesn’t know what to do with all the extra phyto-estrogens, wreaking havok with the hormone structure. Win/win for the lefties.
Um, because you like it? People are vegetarian for all kinds of reasons; I guess there are some who just dislike meat, in which case they’d also dislike fake meat that tastes authentic, but all the ones I know are vegetarian for different reasons, so they appreciate fake meat.
I plan to try the impossible burger, because I keep kosher and thus have never had a cheeseburger, and am curious what the fuss is all about. But so far the only kosher places I’ve found that carry it are meat places, so not only can’t they do cheese, they have real burgers too, so what’s the point.
This denunciation is meet.
As I have stated at many times and many places, ruminants like cattle and sheep utilize low quality pasture and forage on land that is unusable for row crop agriculture, and turn them into high quality protein. No plant-based diet can equal this amazing transformation.
Additionally, those who advocate a plant-based diet always and conveniently forget to include the costs of the water, chemical and power inputs required not just to grow those plants but the factories that turn them into something edible, which often is an imitation of meat and cheese.
Cattle and sheep, on the other hand, require only minimal inputs and processing to produce their high quality protein Oh, the planet groans…
There is no rational or scientific basis for a plant-based diet; cultures that traditionally have such a diet do so because of poverty rather than conviction. And when you take children of those cultures and raise them in America where animal protein is accessible to all, they will grow taller and sturdier than their relatives back in the old country (with the caveat that those children are raised on a healthy diet with a minimum of processed foods).
A University of California-Davis video reinforces your points. 85% of what cattle eat is indigestible by humans. Cattle particularly as ruminants can graze land not suited for growing crops. This provides added benefit especially in protein as humans need 10 amino acids that require food and not all are abundant in plants. I am fully on board with PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals). Alaskans love all animals… just some that longer to cook than others.
To mention that pigs can turn you’re poison ivy into bacon
Don’t forget the large number of small furry animals that die horrible deaths when one plows a field.
Slap a warning label on their mouths that says “Hot Air also contributes to climate change”
My doctor wanted me to change my diet because beef contains cholesterol. I changed doctors instead.
That doctor is definitely ignorant. If you don’t get sufficient cholesterol from your diet, practically every cell in your body can synthesize it
Cholesterol is part of bile and a precursor for some of the body’s hormones. Good move on your part.
Climatistas should have a C tattooed on their forehead so we may assist them in following their own rules.
Darn. And here I had 2 ribeye out for supper. Smoke on low heat over hickory until they reach 120 or so then sear in cast iron with butter, garlic and fresh rosemary from our herb garden.
Now I guess we have to eat raw cabbage or something.
We should definitely slap scientists, and then slap a warning label mon them for good measure
In one group, the meat option came with a warning label that read “Eating meat contributes to poor health,” paired with an image of someone having a heart attack. This saw an 8.8% drop in meat meal choices, compared to the control group.
Gee, some people are susceptible to propaganda. Who knew?
The diet of mountain men:
https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/25155578