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%.
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.
The delegitimization and devaluation of science continue.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY