Processed Food Is Bad For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

It’s a global health crisis, you guys

Processed food is a global health crisis

One of the most potentially far-reaching agreements at the UN’s COP23 summit on climate change in Bonn was the decision to link farming methods to climate change, and to explore a framework of solutions.

It was a “notable, yet low-profile outcome”, according to Carbon Brief. The international community agreed to work on the links between agriculture and climate change, and to agree which issues should be included by March 31, 2018. Future technical talks on the two issues will take account of each strand.

The decision is not just a huge step towards tackling greenhouse gas emissions from farming. It also offers hope for future breakthroughs in sustainable diet, because poor diet and environmentally damaging agriculture are linked, as a new paper from New York based policy thinktank Brighter Green shows.

This part of the article is probably the most concerning, as we see that the Cult of Climastrology is coming after control of food production. They aren’t just simply pimping their notions of going vegan or giving up meat a few days a week, they want significant control of overall food production in the hands of government, well beyond simply making sure it is up to quality controls.

“The ‘Western-style diet’ – replete with salt, sugar, cheap vegetable oil, and animal fat – is inextricably linked to the fast-rising increase in non-communicable diseases (NCDs)” in low and middle income countries,” it says.

Dietary changes are taking place at “unprecedented speed,” and people in emerging economies such as South Africa, Brazil, and Mexico are suffering a rise in what used to be “diseases of the rich” – diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and cancers.

There’s no doubt that this is not good, right?

The report details how the agricultural needs of Big Food contribute to global warming, through increased production of meat production and feed for livestock. Vast tracts of land turned over to livestock, corn and soybeans have led to massive soil erosion, deforestation, loss of biodiversity and greenhouse gas emissions, it says.

Agriculture (including transport and packaging) contributes from 20% to 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (GHG); the global livestock industry produces 14.5% of all GHGs. Methane from livestock is less abundant than CO2 overall, but has a stronger greenhouse effect.

Palm oil, found in many products from snacks to toiletries, is a particularly worrying example as the trees thrive on peat-rich soil. Far more CO2 is released in planting them than is sequestered in the canopy, as the Union of Concerned Scientists warned in a 2013 paper ‘Palm Oil and the Environment.’ The nutrition transition is harming both people and the environment, the report says.

They consider Big Food to be the companies like McDonald’s, Burger King, KFC, etc. And then they go down the rabbit hole of ‘climate change’, rather than letting the notion of “these foods aren’t particularly good for us and lead to obesity” stand on its own. Because these wackadoodles always have to bring ‘climate change’ into everything.

They even included palm oil, a pet environmental hatred of mine (and others). What they forgot to mention was the clearcutting of forests and the loss of biodiversity, as the animals, bugs, and reptiles are wiped out.

Interestingly, though, these same people who talk about obesity, and people just being overweight, are usually the same people putting forth the “body positive” yammering, who think it’s great that people who are overweight should celebrate their different body designs. Sigh.

Regardless, go back to the beginning, and be worried that these nutters are quietly attempting a full takeover of the agriculture sector.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

4 Responses to “Processed Food Is Bad For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Of course diet is linked to all sorts of morbidity and mortality, with the two biggest problems being getting too many calories and getting too few. Contrary to TEACHs claim, the article paid scant attention to solutions and did not recommend a One World Order takeover of global food production.

    In June 2016, the Chinese Nutrition Society released new dietary guidelines suggesting meat consumption per capita needs to be halved. This bold suggestion, if followed, could help improve Chinese diets and also reduce the amount of GHGs released from food production and consumption.

    Other countries studied in the report are also taking steps to use the law and public health education. Mexico passed a 2010 law for schools that requires sports and restricts the sale of unhealthy food. Obesity there is strongly linked to sugary drinks, and is commoner closer to the US border. South Africa has limited the salt quantities in some foods by law, and a Green Monday’s campaign encourages eating vegetables. Brazilian campaigns stress home cooking with fresh ingredients.

    Because of the increased burden of chronic disease in the Global South, health care systems must equip themselves to deal with obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. In China, 13% of medical costs are related to diabetes, and it is estimated that by 2030, yearly costs associated with diabetes will reach US$47 billion.

    Is it the place of governments to make recommendations to their populations based on medical science concerning health issues such as diet, exercise, smoking, seatbelts and safe sex.

    For some reason white christian nationalists don’t even want to discuss this. Why? The fear of cooperation?

    • Contrary to TEACHs claim, the article paid scant attention to solutions and did not recommend a One World Order takeover of global food production.

      Check the “notable…” link in the first excerpt.

      Is it the place of governments to make recommendations to their populations based on medical science concerning health issues such as diet, exercise, smoking, seatbelts and safe sex.

      Is it? This comes from the Party that keeps telling the govt to stay out of our bedrooms.

      But, let’s say you’re right: those recommendations should not include forcing citizens to comply, should it, Jeff? What are your hobbies? What do you like to do? Do you have a big home? Drive a nice car? Crave certain foods? What if Govt decided that those things were not OK, and forced you to comply with their beliefs? How would you feel then?

    • david7134 says:

      Stupid as usual. You do realize that the world epidemic in obesity has been brought about by the US emphasis that fat if bad for you? For 50 years that has been preached and the result is evident secondary to excess carbohydrate consumption. Now, the reverse has been proven, yet the government continues with its stupidity on fat and control of it. All this was brought about by Dukakis, when his wife who was an expert in the subject due to taking yoga classes, convinced him to ignore the carbohydrate issue and concentrate on fat(well known fact, look it up).

  2. Rotterdam says:

    Canada and The UK has previously pledged to phase out unabated coal by 2025, while Canada has a 2030 deadline.

    Of interest in all of this is that Germany, Australia, China, The US, and a couple other countries I cant remember opted out of any coal commitments yet China is trying to step in and claim that they are all about the environment and actually care about being the worst polluter on the planet.

    In the USA active work continues on abatement processes to reduce adverse gases escaping into the atmosphere while in other countries they just burn it willy nilly. Germany is forced to use coal as the amount of natural gas available for the EU is pretty limited comming from a few countries including Russia who needs to feed 31 countries all the way to turkey.

    After we spent a day and a half there trying to get anyone who would listen to address the clear cutting of the rain forests and the adverse affect of nitrogen based fertilizers we could see that pissing into the wind was an understatement. These people are obsessing over the potential windfall of monies they might inherit.

    In fact the African delegation demanded the USA not be seated at the negotiating table despite the fact that the USA is one of two nations that give more aid to Africa by 10x’s than any other nation.

    No one is observing the Paris accords. This is already on record. No one can without destroying their own economies. Its a pipe dream for the radical AGW crowd.

Pirate's Cove