Review Of: The Great Plant-Based CON!

hi I'm your friendly internet con man and I didn't know I was a comment until I read this book this could be a popular book because it follows the successful formula of the Big Fat Surprise written by a journalist so it's not boring by an attractive articulate mom assuring you meet his nutritious and sustainable and can save you from a scary vegan diet gone horribly wrong it's a huge book in four parts Health the planet who's behind the con and what we should eat part one starts out with a bang why do we think meat is bad for us it jumps straight into Ansel Keys publishing a chart in 1953 and two statisticians publishing one with more data in 1957. I thought whoa I have a solid science background and it took me a year to really know those studies and I had to interview several of the scientists involved to get my questions answered how can consumers be expected to understand after reading just a few pages in this book I can imagine most people who read this chapter would think wow this book is well researched she's read so many studies the thing is I'm very familiar with most of these studies and I know how long it takes to really understand them for example Henry Blackburn is sharp as attack at 97 and ran Ansel Keyes seven country study for 50 years and was there at the University of Minnesota for the Minnesota coronary experiment Jane mentions Jane's takeaway from those two studies is completely different than mine but I think there is a simple question we can ask without years of study and debates about fat how long do meat eaters live and what are their long-term Health outcomes isn't that what matters but if you ask someone like Nina teichols about me who had a decade to prepare an answer to that question backed by a Texas billionaire to the tune of five hundred thousand dollars a year to do PR and lobbying to promote beef this is the best answer she could give any evidence that you could cite that that meat diets are are healthier than plant-based diets there's two systematic reviews of clinical trials on meat that I know of that show that cardiovascular outcomes are are imp approved one of them looked at 0.5 ounces or servings of meat per day and showed increased benefits cardiovascular benefits for eating the meat versus not eating the meat and there is one other review on cardiovascular outcomes that also showed that meat was beneficial looked better for cardiovascular outcomes in contrast there are thousands of definitive studies showing the risk of eating red meat this study is one of the most respected in all of nutrition by other scientists for how well it's designed and it's partly because Gary Fraser the scientist who runs it is so respected Jane does cite some good studies like the Cochrane Library study of saturated fat in 2020 but it's over 260 pages and it takes a very qualified scientist to eke out an uncertain result because the studies were short-term relative to the time it takes to develop heart disease it's also about saturated fat which isn't perfectly linked to meat consumption saturated fat is complicated because there is a threshold of effect where risk doesn't change much until you get above a certain level of consumption and then it stops changing above a higher level even so Cochran reported the included long-term trials suggested that reducing dietary saturated fat reduced the risk of combined cardiovascular events by 21 relative to Ansel Keys's 50-year study those trials were not very long term rather than dependent on crude United Nations food consumption data like the 1957 paper I showed earlier keys and teams of scientists went to 16 areas around the world and rigorously assayed the food men were eating there to get the saturated fat content of their meals more than a dozen scientists have followed the men for over 50 years including Henry these are abbreviations of the areas with Finland having almost 10x the heart attack rate of Japan data that wasn't contested can you guess who was eating meat and cheese pushing their saturated fat consumption to over 20 percent of calories and who was eating fish and veggies that wasn't contested either if you like whodunit Mysteries you might like Marion Nestle's books about food politics she's the best in the world at uncovering the shenanigans of the food companies and how successful their strategies are in my 50 years in Science and Tech I've been lucky to work in fields where scientists are considered Geniuses and in fields like global warming and nutrition where the public thinks we're idiots the difference isn't the quality of scientists it's whether big companies mobilize to discredit them one of the most notorious industry front groups funded by a constellation of companies like Monsanto is ilsi they have a very long history of discrediting the science indicating smoking and sugar are unhealthy one of ilsi's constellation of Bad actors is Bradley Johnston he co-authored a paper in the anals of medicine that ilsi funded which was a scathing attack on advice to eat less sugar the paper claimed previous advice about sugar was based on weak evidence and can't be trusted that's their playbook what makes the journal anals good for this is if you declare no conflicts of interest their policy is to publish your paper and not check perfect for Bradley Johnston who can let invest to get a journalists expose him long after the paper generates headlines which is exactly what he did as lead author in his 2019 paper in animals running the same playbook for red meat as they had for smoking and sugar for nutrition scientists who understands study design and how front groups work it doesn't pass the laugh test but it's a great victory for food companies because their product is doubt and after seeing the headlines most consumers had no idea what to think except nutrition science is garbage which in this paper's case it was what's fascinating is how this book covered the two papers Bradley Johnson was involved with sugar and red meat written just a few years apart in the case of sugar the book has a whole chapter on it as the biggest of the bad guys but did not reference his sugar paper in the case of his red meat paper the book cites it as exonerating red meat and that passage has become one of the most highlighted passages in the book according to my Kindle the two papers used the same method which is to say we do declare there organizations that produce guidelines around the world are not rigorous don't you know they usually include long-term observational studies the kind that helped them figure out that smoking and trans fats are no bueno and we love to still be selling those products very profitable those studies paint a grim picture about red meat so let's categorize them as weak and tell consumers they can ignore them the genius of this Playbook is you can sound scientific while denying science yes we know we have mountains of data carefully collected over a century from millions of people around the globe and we know how damning it looks but you can ignore it because I declare it doesn't pass scientific rigor and I got the annals of medicine to publish it and the thousands of scientists who collected it all they're so weak don't you know beef industry one science zero so why do high meat diets keep being reinvented becoming so popular and then abandoned there are six chapters in the health section of this book and we've only touched on the first about the health of meat the gist of the other chapters is plants have scary nutritional deficiencies those chapters contain a fire hose of concerns I'll focus on the big two B12 and iron because they're terrible misperceptions about them that do harm only two percent of Americans are vegans but over six percent of youngish Americans are thought to be B12 deficient and over 20 percent of adults pass 60 are thought to be deficient this is in a country that has extraordinarily High meat consumption there's a lot of talk in the book about iron deficiency and how rich meat is in it especially in liver and it is there's also a quote with all caps about how oat milk is no substitute for cow's milk in children here's what children's hospitals say despite the public perception of nutritional benefits over consumption of cow's milk is the leading cause of anemia in toddlers over one year of age a hematologist explained why in his book and its common knowledge among pediatricians and hematologists but it's not well known to the public if children are fed cow's milk before one year of age they can develop iron deficiency secondary to irritation in the the gastrointestinal tract and subsequent bleeding likewise older children who drink excessive amounts of cow's milk can also develop iron deficiency due to similar gastrointestinal irritation and the low iron content of a cow milk diet the proteins in cow's milk formula are dramatically altered to mimic human breast milk and make them much safer and you know you mentioned the milk thing and for children this is particularly important I was asked to comment on the fact yesterday that Nestle is developing a new plant milk a vegan milk for toddlers especially for Todd I can see you shaking your head Brian and what did I think of this and so I looked at the press release for this milk and first of all the thing that strikes you is that the press release says that this milk is providing the added nutrients that all children need so they're admitting there are no nutrients in their plant milk itself but they're adding a bunch of B12 vitamin C calcium vitamin A iodine zinc iron so okay really we need to admit we need to be very clear that what is being given to this child in this milk is like a multivitamin pill that is scary Until you realize their cow's milk for toddlers is fortified with 13 vitamins and minerals some not found in cow's milk like vitamin E and some low in cow's milk like iron and folic acid and they have to contend with the lactose intolerance problem there is a horrifying chapter in this book about malnourished vegan babies and the parents who get sent to jail a Florida mother who says she fed her child of vegan diet has been found guilty of first-degree murder after her child died from starvation Jane and I agree those stories are tragic those are mainly stories of starvation and the numbers paint a grim picture in America among parents of every dietary persuasion what this book didn't mention is the rate of horrifying foodborne illnesses coming from animal agriculture that can no longer be treated with antibiotics salmonella sickens and kills more of us than any other foodborne pathogen about one in four pieces of raw chicken carries salmonella the strains of salmonella that are showing up on these chickens are tougher stronger and many of them are antibiotic resistant those infections strike families of every dietary persuasion because pathogens from animals get onto our plants from irrigation water tainted by animal agriculture I was an earth scientist in water testing and this is something that still gives me nightmares so what is my takeaway from the first part of this book the part about health I think Jane has a point that plant-only diets can be unhealthy at least if they're not done right if you do want to go for a plants only diet like I've done for almost two decades I recommend the books from the con women because they're respected doctors who've been in this for decades and I could tell as I read their books that they both thoroughly understand the studies with all due respect to Jane she's a journalist with no medical or scientific background who's only been at this for three years and I don't like saying this about someone who seems to have good intentions but she doesn't seem to have the thorough grasp of the study she cites that the con women do part two of the book is about food in the planet and it has 369 references wow being an obsessive reference Checker I had my work cut out for me the good news is I recognize most of the people she referenced but what struck me is how different our trust levels were for most of them part 1 CO2 and methane Jane quotes Oxford Professor miles Allen he's an esteemed scientist here at the University of Oxford and he has said that eliminating me from livestock would have would have a temperatures miles is an esteemed scientist but he's easy to misunderstand and take out a context for example Frederick Law assigned as high on Jane's trust list and lower on mine tweeted quoting miles Allen eliminating methane emissions from Global livestock farming entirely would save a few hundredths of a degree off Global temperature in 20 years time meanwhile CO2 from fossil fuels is driving up global temperatures by two tenths of a degree per decade he got that from an interview miles did with farming independent magazine which is the one quote you could read without paying for a subscription maybe we should hear from Miles himself instead of hanging our hats on a reporter from farming independent well it's very important to start off by saying that actually cattle do have a huge impact on our climate um the growth of ruminant agriculture over the past Century and continued growth growth of room and agriculture around the world has actually had a huge warming impact on our climates so our methane emissions in total that's not all from agriculture a lot of it from energy as well have contributed you know almost a third to a half of the warming caused by CO2 so far what miles is saying is methane only stays in the atmosphere for 10 years but CO2 is forever so even though it's 28 times more potent than CO2 at first it fades away so if your herd was the same size 10 years ago as it is today it's not contributing new methane to the atmosphere it's just keeping the level the same miles introduced a new way to account for methane's fade Factor called gwp star short for global warming potential with a confusing asterisk on the end that's nice I've never been the masters of naming that marketers are the world has used gwp 100 for decades here's the difference if you have Rising emissions of CO2 the Earth warms exponentially scary Rising emissions of methane causes linear warming because old methane is constantly fading away in this case gwp 100 and gwp star predict nearly the same thing close enough but what if emissions occur at a constant rate the same amount each year then CO2 still warms the atmosphere because it still builds up but methane doesn't gwp-100 did not predict that but gwp star does and if emissions fall then warming from CO2 continues as CO2 emissions fall and then it finally flattens once CO2 emissions get to zero but methane comes out of the atmosphere and it has a cooling effect on the planet gwp-100 did not predict that but gwp Star Nails it this is from a paper miles wrote with colleagues when you you hear him say cows in the US and UK are not contributing to increased warming from methane it's because he knows herd sizes in those countries are not increasing if only that were true worldwide you can imagine how the American Cattlemen's Association is all over gwp star and lobbying for its adoption because it lets them say cows are not contributing to warming a constant number of cattle producing a constant amount of methane leads to a constant amount of warming no increased warming from constant cattle hurts remember that remember what the Paris climate Accord is all about it's not about Net Zero carbon or reduce or carbon by zone so much it is about not increasing warming there are a lot of asterisks to that conversation because it's only talking about methane and fixed herd sizes not other greenhouse gases and other factors like deforestation we'll get to those Jane mentioned that Miles has said but if we fail to address the problem of fossil fuel emission effect on temperatures everything else is irrelevant here's what she took that statement to mean now that to me is the most Crystal Clear statement of where we need to be focusing our energy environment wise it says playing around with what we eat in terms of getting rid of livestock not getting rid of it reducing it is just deck chair rearranging stuff Michelle Kane is a scientist who publishes papers on gwp star with Miles and here's how she explains the context of that statement from Miles ultimately if we don't fix the CO2 problem of getting CO2 emissions to Net Zero then we're going to still have a problem but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be helpful in terms of limiting warming to also reduce methane emissions in the short term so the ultimate goal really we need to stop the CO2 emissions which is essentially permanent because it accumulates in the atmosphere the quickest impact if we want to reduce temperatures in the near term in the next decade or two methane is one of the only things that we can really do we know that we can't get to net zero in 20 years there's no no evidence really that that's about to happen in the world that we're in that we're not making the progress in terms of decarbonizing I think we emitted more CO2 last year than any other year in human history so thing is we're clearly not doing that I can see why the action on methane could be a smaller task to achieve successfully what about the other climate scientists at Oxford James spends so many pages trying to debunk they are very threatening to the beef industry because they say things like this meat aquaculture eggs and dairy use a huge 83 of the world's Farmland create 60 of foods different emissions despite providing just 37 of our protein 18 of our calories so you've got this massive massive difference in environmental impact and nutrition their papers have appeared in prestigious journals like the Lancet in nature and as she began to debunk them I thought hmm she's got her work cut out for her these are very respected sinus and I know their work well but I followed her references with an open mind thinking she must have something very strong the first one I followed was by an agronomist and farmer who goes by the name bondavet that's a blog post on medium where he has 11 followers and very few reads in the first paragraph he claims methane emissions cause no warming at all misinterpreting miles Allen's science to prove how much lower beef's impact would be if we didn't factor in methane he referenced this chart from our world in data also out of Oxford note the methane emissions are grayed out the thing is if you believe methane doesn't matter beef still emits 25 times the greenhouse gases of rice and beans and 100 times more than most nuts or potatoes eating less meat would make a big difference in the short term when we most desperately need it until we can figure out how to reduce fossil fuel use and remove CO2 from the atmosphere that is not the way the book represents what the climate sign is actually say and that brings me to Part Two Greedy thirsty cows the good news is the law large agricultural lobbies no longer denied climate change and they have new marketing to claim that they're part of this solution sustainability is a buzzword today but truth be known farmers and Ranchers have been working on sustainability from the beginning General Mills commissioned the consulting firm Qantas to show how Farms like White Oaks pastures could raise cows on grass providing a much better life for the cows while sequestering carbon in the soil it's an awesome story General milley Uses the Qantas report to Market their jerky brand the report makes the astonishing claim that cows can produce carbon sinks here's how to do the magic trick claim that carbon sequestration in the soil exceeds what the cows generate the way they do that is by buying Farms whose soils are depleted from tilling and spraying then White Oaks raises pigs and chicken among the cows in the pasture merrily spreading their poop but the thing is they're buying the feed for the pigs and chickens at the feed store off the farm thereby replenishing the Farm's carbon the magic trick only works for a few years is because once the depleted soil has absorbed as much carbon as it can it stops absorbing it there is a less glossy version of the Qantas report published as a peer-reviewed paper by Jason Roundtree a professor of animal agriculture who contributed to the Qantas report the paper makes it clear that raising cows like white Oak's pasture does takes two and a half times the land of concentrated cattle Farms the world doesn't have two and a half times the current land used to raise cattle we have already deforested half the globe to raise livestock and now we're doing it to the Amazon they also point out that cows fed grass emit 43 percent more greenhouse gases than cows in concentrated Farms that's because they grow slower on grass so they live longer before Slaughter and they belch more when feeding on grass than when eating grain so once the depleted soil stops absorbing carbon after a few years grass-fed beef is a greenhouse gas disaster Tara Garnett and her team of sinus at Oxford produced a wonderful report called grazed and Confused it goes into much more more detail than I just did but it's a great green washing story for General Mills to tell which the Qantas report encourages one argument that Jane makes is it takes cows to regenerate soil I interviewed farmer Bob Quinn who has a PHD in plant biology and a wonderful book who never tells his land has cover crops but no cows yet he has a very productive and profitable farm with carbon-rich soils Jane and I both admire University of Washington geologist David Montgomery who with his biologist's wife wrote three wonderful books about regenerative agriculture they call the dirt Trilogy the villain in these books is the plow and the heroes are plants especially cover crops and a diversity of plants livestock and rebuilding the soil is purely optional but tragically as the New York Times points out this wonderful story of regenerative agriculture is only practiced by a small percentage of farms here's a quick reminder of what farming actually looks like those practices are only used on about two or three percent of American cropland I mean this is just pure propaganda it's a it's a Marvel movie for agriculture even the Qantas report says that White Oaks is so small at 3 000 Acres that it represents 0.1 percent of General Mills carbon footprint the trend is Mega farms and huge companies the farm boasts a size that is more than double the modern dairy farm and is more than 22 million acres of land in total the farm also has over one hundred thousand yes you read that right over 100 000 cows are located on this Farm they don't Farm the White Oaks passureway partly because land is money and the Earth doesn't have enough land to meet the current demand for beef if the cows are eating grass credit to Jane she does acknowledge the land and water problem from the very first sentence of the greedy cow chapter this is how the land and water story usually goes livestock occupy a lot of land while delivering a small number of calories and it takes thousands of kilos of water to produce a single kilo of beef much land and water is also used to grow crops that are then fed to the animals she's right and I thought okay I can't argue with that but she came back with an argument about why this is fine this is fine livestock might indeed take up 77 of agricultural land but if it provides almost 40 percent of our protein and if that protein is vastly more complete and bioavailable then the protein derived from plant sources the land devoted to livestock begins to look like an investment not a waste that's a unique investment because part of the return on the investment is a degraded Planet this argument Dodges the greenhouse gas issue and takes us back to the question of episode one is meat healthy and sadly from the last 65 years of the best studies in nutrition you can make that argument for fish but not for beef at the amount that we're eating now part three of the book has three separate chapters for different categories of con artists big religion big business this and Global Elite okay on to part one big religion the focus is on the Seventh Day Adventist and it dives into the religious drama of the 1800s in 1863 the Adventists encouraged their members to eat whole plants in Dairy not a revolutionary concept when you consider a great number of Hindus and Buddhists have been lacto-vegetarians for more than 2 000 years what made the Adventist unique is in the 50s over the objection of a Dean who feared this would embarrass them they began to study the nutritional status of vegetarians versus non-vegetarians at one of their universities and that led to this it's a Health and Science Institute affiliated with Seventh-Day Adventists that's been studying members of the faith since 1958. and that led to huge long-term nutritional studies funded by the National Institutes of Health that produced hundreds of Publications and won the respect of nutritional scientists around the world and that led to Joanne sabate an Adventist nutrition Professor being selected for the U.S dietary guide headlines committee Nina Thai scholz's lobbying group tried hard to get Dr sabate removed from the guidelines committee on the basis of his religion the problem is by law the USDA cannot discriminate on the basis of religion and anyway that would cast a very large net because Muslims Jews Mormons Buddhists Hindus and Sikhs also have their own dietary preferences so they have to select respect and nutrition scientists and Dr sabate is that Jane makes clear in her book that the Adventists have a huge network of hospitals and schools to promote their plant-dominant message which is very threatening to the beef industry for their part the Adventists believe it would be irresponsible not to promote the most compelling science because it is so very clear from the science that whole plant-dominant diets are best for human health and they run a lot of hospitals filled with people who are there from eating poor diets my conclusion is this chapter is not about debunking religion it's another attack on advice to limit meat consumption part two big business and the prize is Big indeed the rapidly growing plan plant-based Meat Market alone is expected to be worth more than 30 billion dollars by 2026. I chase that reference and I couldn't find any estimates that optimistic but I think the important thing is to put whatever estimates into context the Boston Consulting Group posted this chart showing the base case is alternate proteins will only be 11 of the market by 2035 and the most optimistic case is 22 and those estimates include lab-grown meat Jane knows this I listened to a podcast Jane was on where her host put dairy in perspective so we just have to get the message out across a wide range of media the dairy industry is worth 760 billion dollars a year the plant-based industry is 15 billion here's why she believes big Pharma is in on the con for the pharmaceutical industry the opportunity arises from the continued scaremongering around LDL cholesterol and integral tenet of plant-based advocacy and the consequence acceptance of the idea that LDL must be lowered via pharmacological Solutions isn't it the exact opposite whole plan Advocates claim that plants decrease LDL and all the credible science I've ever seen backs that up several doctors reached out to me after the previous episodes and said cholesterol denying books like this go through the health care industry like a wrecking ball when they try to inform patients of the risk of high LDL one of the most well-established risk factors in medicine they refuse diet changes and medications but when they're in the hospital after their first heart attack they're not looking for Jane or Nina teichels to save their lives Jane is very critical of philanthropists like Branson and Gates investing in lab-grown meat I'm not sure why since the central theme of the book is we need meat for health but I understand why Branson and Gates do it just look at Boston consulting's chart investing in plant-based meat has by far the biggest impact on co2 saved of any investment they can make the hope is that lab-grown meat will be at least that dramatic the conclusion from the this chapter unfortunately is that the numbers are on the side of animal Foods by a factor of something like 50 to 1. part 3 Global Elites the villain of this chapter is the eat Lancet commission eat Lancet is a group of globally acclaimed scientists like Johann rockstrom who you may have seen in the Netflix special about global boundaries with David Attenborough also Walter will at the most reference scientist in the world by other scientists in nutrition and medicine and importantly shakunta lethalstead who won the world food prize in 2021 for saving millions in poor countries from malnourishment by developing ways for them to harvest small fish that are so nourishing and yet have a light environmental footprint they are among my greatest heroes but facing the environmental facts and putting out a call to eat less meat is one of the most emotional things you can do I have an advanced copy of Marion Nestle's upcoming book slow cooked so I can interview her about her decades in food science and food politics she said when she worked on the surgeon general's report saying eat less meat called the industry to arms so they had to say eat less saturated fat I'm not aware of any climate scientists who disagrees with eat Lancet so Jane quotes John iannidis who is neither climate nor nutritional scientist Stanford professor John ionitis stated that the health claims in the eat Lancet diet are science fiction I can't call it anything else it must be very confusing to be a consumer and not know who people like John are he rose to Fame in 2005 with a paper with a powerful headline most publicized research findings are false I took it to reinforce one of my core beliefs about science that I mentioned in my previous episode focus on the landmark studies that have stood the test of time whose findings have been replicated but science deniers had a field day with this paper when the covet pandemic arrived John did what made him famous he made emphatic statements about how wrong the experts were but this time he designed this study to prove his case and I thought okay and I participated in this study the thing is is it's one thing to criticize science but it's quite another to actually do science he famously rushed out his results and went on Fox News many times to make statements like this most of the population has minimal risk it's in in the range of dying while you're driving from home to work and back and he was predicting ten thousand deaths if we didn't take the precautions experts around the world were suggesting now he's known as the man who helped delay our response spread misinformation and missed his estimates by a factor of 100 but that hasn't stopped him from making emphatic statements about areas where he has no expertise like about the eat Lancet commission Mark Hyman interviewed Jane recently and they Rift about the eat Lancet diet and then if you read the fine print in the study it says accept if and it lists a whole bunch of people who just should not be doing this including the elderly the young people who are sick women chronic illness and so forth pregnant women and so that you're talking about probably 75 of the population who it's not good for Mark has a way of sounding evidence based while making statements that don't check out so a team of global experts spent three years devising a diet that's not fit for children pregnant women in the elderly and they hit it in the fine print here's the line they're referring to from the report and it's not in the fine print practical considerations make defining a global healthy diet challenging these difficulties include different nutritional needs of people because of age sex disease status and physical activity levels and needs a vulnerable populations such as young children and pregnant women isn't that the responsible thing to say for any diet I did an episode on how young children and pre-menopausal women may need supplemental iron no matter what they eat Joanna bleisman asserted that the diet was a processed food diet reinvented maybe we should hear from eat Lancet directly on what this terrifying diet really is the first step was to define a healthy reference diet using the best available evidence definitely whole grains not refined grains some fruits and vegetables are not too different than what you've heard in other dietary recommendations probably the most controversial are the quite modest amounts of red meat here by standards of North America and much of Europe that may seem like quite a small amount but this is actually about the amount that people were eating in the Mediterranean countries the traditional Mediterranean diet when those people were the healthiest people in in the world so this is not radical despite what you might hear from our friends in the beef industry what it means is about a big juicy hamburger once a week if you want it or a big a big juicy steak once a month if you want it which is sort of how people treated red meat in the traditional Mediterranean diet it was something that was special headlines did break over a legit concern about this diet can impoverished people afford it the sad answer is no they can't afford any diet they can barely afford rice this is a terrible problem and it's one reason I'm so inspired by one of the eat Lancet Commissioners shakuntala filstead who won the world food prize for helping impoverished nations with malnourishment what do you do if you eat Lancet and like the World Health Organization in UNICEF you can't just ignore impoverished Nations like Diet book authors do the most inspiring story I've ever heard about this problem is what saved the children did in rural Vietnam Harvard did a case study of it Jerry and Monique sternin went there to find out how some poor families had children that thrived who almost didn't in every case where there was a well-nourished kid despite poverty somebody was going out to the rice paddies and collecting tiny shrimps and crabs adding those to the child's diet as well as the top of sweet potato greens at the end of that year one thousand children had been sustainably rehabilitated within three years the program was designated a national nutrition model by 2000 10 years later more than 2.3 million Vietnamese children had been rehabilitated unfortunately not all impoverished Nations have tiny shrimps and sweet potato greens there for the taking like rural Vietnam had so shakuntala had to develop a different approach eat lancet's mission is not to make money like the organizations and book authors that are attacking it and ignoring impoverished Nations eat lancet's mission is humanitarian and promoting small fish in poor countries has a far smaller environmental footprint than beef and is far more nutritious eat Lancet knows many people in impoverished nations are dependent on livestock and so they have livestock scientists on the commission the term Global Elites this book uses feels like it's designed to create resentment and suspicion but really who Among Us is devoting their lives to easing malnourishment and impoverished Nations do they really deserve the term Global Elites my conclusion from this chapter is the Atlantic commission is as close to the dream team as I can imagine because gun Hill's ordahlen has done what no one else has gathered the world's leading climate food and nutrition scientists to focus on one of the world's most important problems some people will continue to lose their minds over it because it asks us to reduce our meat consumption to one Burger per week but I don't know if you could find a legit climate scientist to take issue with that so what are my conclusions about the whole book it is that it has the Fingerprints of the beef industry all over it it's anti-chicken and I pork and I plants anti-lab grown beef and I answer keys is fish and plant dominant Mediterranean diet and it's promoted by a camera ready mom they wrote a beautiful coffee table book celebrating 100 Years of running that exact Playbook [Music]

Channel: PLANT BASED NEWS

Views: 71,406

Keywords: plant-based con, plantbasednews, vegan, diet, plant based con, plant based conference, plant based condensed milk, plant based congee, plant based diet constipation, plant based nutrition healthcare conference, plant based leave in conditioner, plant based diet pros and cons, plant based nutrition healthercare conference, plant based diet pros adn cons, plant-based con book, The plant-based con

Id: TcvUul5sqv0

Length: 35min 3sec (2103 seconds)

Published: Mon May 01 2023