Posted on 06/12/2010 9:33:41 AM PDT by DaveyB
The global nanny state wants to take another bite out of your freedom. Its new target – your dinner plate.
The Guardian reported on June 2 that the UN was supporting a switch to a radical anti-meat agenda. “A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change, a UN report said today,” wrote the paper.
Here’s how the group Vegan Action describes this extreme vegetarianism. “While vegetarians choose not to use flesh foods, vegans also avoid dairy and eggs, as well as fur, leather, wool, down, and cosmetics or chemical products tested on animals.
Rush Limbaugh
The UN report is all about the environmental impact of “consumption and production,” or pretty much what humans do – eat and make stuff. It warns: “A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.”
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals goes even further. The group that fills the Internet with public relations stunts and actresses going naked rather than wearing fur, is even more radical than the UN. PETA says “animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose.”
No leather belts. No leather shoes. No cheese. No eggs. No new medical technology because it was tested on Fluffy and her friends. Most of all, no meat, because animal flatulence is supposedly a major greenhouse gas. (Unless we can supply Beano to every cow on the planet.)
The UN is once again marginalizing itself. You hope.
Yes it’s hard to take the UN seriously, especially on climate change, where bogus statistics and claims are commonplace. But this isn’t the standard UN silliness. This is one more bite at the apple (I think that’s approved even by PETA) to get Westerners to change how they live. It’s all part of the global warming strategy to get us to give up living like civilized humans. The left wants us all to move back into caves, eat nuts and berries and live in harmony with Mother Nature.
Naturally, while the UN is having a cow about, well, you having a cow, the media are either silent or supportive.
Time magazine has already served up an article called “Tastes Like Chicken: The Quest for Fake Meat.” The magazine spent more than 1,000 words giving us a taste of the new world order. “Do we really need to kill animals to live? Today, the hunger for meat is also contributing to the climate-change catastrophe.” The article goes on to give its readers something to chew on: “So the idea of fake meat has never been more alluring.”
Author John Cloud focused on people like “the creator of Tofurky and dean of soy-meat inventors,” products like “a meat analogue” that he tried eating in three dishes. “None were very good.” Duh.
The dystopian dinner the author would have us eat isn’t quite cooked up yet. Thank God. But Time’s already marketing it as a complete substitute to our evil meat habit. The piece ends with this feel-good recipe: “Maybe one day you’ll order a chicken fajita at Chili’s that is made with soy. You almost certainly won’t notice the difference, but the planet will.”
Predictably, The New York Times wants to play diet doctor too. On March 21, it profiled “Clueless” actress Alicia Silverstone, who has become a PETA poster child and a strident anti-meat moron (oops, vegan) ever since she had a heart-to-heart with her dog.
“At one point I looked at my dog, who was my best friend, and I thought, If I’m not going to eat you, then how can I eat these other creatures who have the same capacity for love and joy,” said the budding Doctor Doolittle. What the dog thought, we don’t know. But “The karma of turning vegan is amazing,” she told the author.
Another Times story from November underscored the rising popularity of this crazy diet because 1 percent of the population, including “celebrities like Ellen DeGeneres” participate. That story also quoted one vegan making the typical media claim, “veganism has become hipper.”
Carnivores like the remaining 300 million-plus Americans are still in charge, but the left and the media will keep singing the glories of this obscure diet until even shoe leather isn’t on the menu. By then, eco-fascism will have sucked the life out of living and taken away everything not approved by some gray bureaucrat.
UN Wants to Grab That Burger Right Out of Your Hands
Sure they do
Let em try.
... and pass me a ham sandwich after the burger....
This has been the agenda for quite a while. They just haven’t been public about it.
Go Vegan - Halve Your Lifespan!
Yeah, like over my dead rare T-bone they can just try it!
Puts me in mind of my uncle who owned a three legged pig.....
Bin Laden picked the worong building.
Note to the UN: Try it and draw back a nub...
Graybeard says, "PETA can go to hell" and that carries just as much authority as PETA's proclamations.
He was smart not to bomb his allies.
I hate chicken. Ban chicken now! Or better yet, tax it out of existence.
Love your bumper sticker! As a celiac, I eat a fairly large amount of meat as a primary protein source. I’ll be dipped in balloon juice before I’ll let anyone keep me from eating meat, especially wafflebrains of the UN or the left in general. Same goes for my kids.
Details, we need more details dammit!
“the rising popularity of this crazy diet because 1 percent of the population”
And Tea Party members are a lunatic “fringe?”
The pig had saved his life by dragging him out of his double-wide which had caught fire in the trailer park near Kenosha.
When asked how the pig had lost its leg, he replied:
“A pig that special, you don’t eat all at once.”
There isn’t a shred of *objective* scientific evidence that supports the idea that a vegetarian or vegan diet is healthier than a balanced diet.
While many studies purport to show just that, a closer look at the methodologies reveals that they are only looking at a short term effect in parametrics such as triglyceride level changes when study subjects switch from an omnivorous to a vegetarian/vegan diet. But looking at their diets before and after, one quickly realizes that there is no basis on which to compare the before and after diets. For example, in one study, the subjects typically ate danishes for breakfast, cheeseburgers and fries for lunch, and buttery mashed potatoes, chicken fried steaks, and biscuits drenched in gravy for dinner... of course the vegetarian diet was an improvement.
There are also studies that show that children raised on strictly vegetarian diets simply do not do as well as children fed balanced diets. One study in particular showed that children on vegetarian diets otherwise receiving comparable nutrients and calories intellectually lagged behind the control group consuming animal products—and the intellectual lag remained even when they were switched to a balanced diet. In other words, their intellectual deficit was permanent.
The idea that animals raised for food and other products are somehow environmentally damaging is ludicrous. Animals have been a part of the ecosystem forever; by what logic are they suddenly an environmental hazard? There is NO criteria by which a cow is environmentally damaging, but a buffalo is not.
Last, since the animals we raise for food eat many plants that we can’t, and those plants grow in places that are marginal for growing plants that humans can consume directly—is there even enough arable land to grow the huge increase in edible plants that would be required for such a diet change on such a massive scale? How much wildlife habitat would be lost in trying to develop the arable land?
This whole idea only shows the stupidity of trying to base policy on political ideas instead of empirical evidence.
That’s it exactly!
This caught my eye--why on earth do they want to "fuel poverty"? LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.