Processed Food Is Bad For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

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.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Leave a Comment

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend