This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
For WHO, Red Meat Is A Red Herring
Submitted by Yuri Maltsev via The Mises Institute,
Our booming green-industrial complex built up by administrations of both parties in the US is effectively using the United Nations, its thirty two “sister” institutions — such as the World Bank, UNESCO, and numerous “tribunals” — and hundreds of training and research centers. This huge international bureaucratic buildup is already employing over a million “international civil servants” to administer what our socialist visionaries hope will become the world government of the future.
An increasingly important “sister institution” of the UN system is the highly politicized "World Health Department" also known as the World Health Organization (WHO) which, as part of a new scare campaign, has issued new declarations that sausages, hot dogs, bratwurst, and ham are carcinogenic, and that all red meat is “probably carcinogenic.”
This new anti-meat campaign, however, is not about your health, but about the “health of the planet.” WHO’s attack on meat is happening just before the Paris gathering on global warming and is a part of the slow motion socialist revolution poorly disguised as “climate change awareness.” As usual, socialist policies today are justified as “necessity for future generations.” Famous Nobel Laureate in physics, Dr. Ivar Giaever, once an Obama supporter, now stands against the president on global warming. “I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem.” Giaever ridiculed Obama for stating that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” The physicist called it a “ridiculous statement” and that Obama “gets bad advice” when it comes to global warming. I am sure that Obama and other politicians are peddling the climate change agenda not because of “bad advice,” but because advocates provide them with the argument for central planning and curtailing of individual liberty.
The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, which will be held in Paris from November 30 to December 11, is designed by the Obama administration as the major leap forward toward world government and central planning. It will be the twenty-first yearly session of the Conference of the Parties to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the eleventh session of the Meeting of the Parties to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The conference objective is to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the countries, including the US.
All globalists were mobilized for preparation to this event. Pope Francis, for example, published an encyclical called Laudato Si’ help to secure success for the conference. The encyclical calls for immediate action against human-caused climate change. The International Trade Union Confederation, which traces its origins back to the First International founded and addressed by Karl Marx, has called for the goal to be "zero carbon, zero poverty," and its general secretary Sharan Burrow proclaimed that there are “no jobs on a dead planet.”
The war on meat is part of this public relations blitz. Lord Stern of the UK, a former chief economist of the World Bank, believes that “meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”
Another Stern, this time our own, is a US special envoy for climate change appointed by the Obama administration to secure a strong climate agreement at the Paris climate conference. Ambassador Todd Stern is now traveling to Brazil and Cuba to obtain support from these corrupt socialist governments to stand against “the global threat of climate change.”
In the US, socialist zealots and their “capitalist” cronies have already destroyed the coal industry and the whole energy sector is under attack. Now they are after the meat industry which is, according to them, “unsustainable.” The left-wing Union of Concerned Scientists lists meat-eating as the second-biggest environmental hazard facing the Earth. (Number one is fossil-fuel vehicles.)
In the Soviet Union, when it existed, beef was available only to Communist Party functionaries and everybody else could only find it on the black market. It was “explained” to the masses that meat was bad for their health. In Cuba today you cannot find beef in the food stores. Ground beef (usually mixed with soy), chicken, sausage, and ham are rationed by the government in the amount of a half pound per person every fifteen days. My Cuban friends complain, however, that most of these deliveries are unreliable and can be “canceled” without any explanation.
In the US, the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee worked on concocting a 571-page report of pseudoscientific “evidence” to encourage Americans to avoid red meat. US departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services will use this junk science to guide federal nutrition policy, including the $16 billion school lunch program.
And it’s all being done at our own expense. The United States is bankrolling the UN and its “sister” institutions, including WHO, from one-quarter to one-third of their operating budgets. Let’s hope we don’t get all the world government we’re paying for.
- 279 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Spot on. Climate Change policy is driving this.
I don't know. WHO seems to be a maverick sometimes. For example they recently recommended that women exclusively breast-feed for the first two years of their baby's life. This is directly against many of the big pharma companies in the US who develop baby formula. Same thing with beef. The FDA and beef lobby are hugely against these new WHO findings.
WHO = Knights who say "Ni". They'll make you cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a RED HERRING if you don't get them a nice shrubbery.
And the USDA, the ones who actually matter, are hugely in support of these new findings.
The WHO simply found a correlation between red meat and cancer. Correlation is not evidence. For all we know, red meat might reduce the risk of cancer. It could be the bread and vegetable oil that generally goes with red meat that causes cancer (it probably is).
This can be explained by the stratification of the population into two dominant camps:
The first, and largest one, contains stupid people who don't give a shit and hence eat anything that makes them feel good (carbs have the greatest effect on this). This comprises about 60% of the population. They also eat of red meat because that tends to come included with the carbs.
The second group contains stupid people who decide to be health nuts and hence do what the nearest celebrity magazine tells them is healthy. This usually involves some form of vegetarianism/veganism, regular crappy exercise such as jogging, being a non-smoker, meditating with scented candles and doing yoga.
The third group, about 10% of the population, contains people who actually put effort into ploughing through the mountains of bullshit and deceipt and figuring out how the body actually works.
Taking all this into account, it should absolutely be expected that red meat is correlated with cancer even if it actually reduces the risk.
You forgot the third group: the smart poor class. These people naturally eat less meat because it's too expensive. An infrequent meat diet is the cheapest by far.
Cancer is caused by inflammation. Eating sugar and "good for you" polyunsaturated oils (omega-6) greatly contribute to this. Eating vegetarian is lame. Can anyone name any hunter-gather tribes that were vegetarian? Anyone... The human body evolved to eat a wide variety of REAL food, and that would include a certain amount of meat.
Honestly, its almost like people are not even trying ...
And if you dig into the statistics of this, the increase in cancer risk is tiny. So tiny that doing something like walking five minutes a day reduces your cancer risk about ten times more than eating red meat increases it.
So they're taking a tiny effect and wrapping it up so it looks bigger than it really is. AKA Propaganda.
LOL. Propagandists exploit the masses/poor into buying into their system. Who exaclty wins if the poor/masses take on a more vegetarian diet? Here's who loses:
- usda
- McDonald's
- Big Ag (most cows eat corn - yum!)
- Monsanto (the pesticides that go on the corn)
Not only is the climate change movement a scam, the entire ecological movement is a scam. How do I know? Absolutely NOTHING is said about the number one danger to this planet: nuclear power.
Do these people think that Chernobyl and Fukushima didn't happen or that we don't know about it? If we get a meltdown every 25 years, humans have no more than 50 years left. Japan is finished right now. Can't wait for the 2020 Olympics.
The climate change agenda is about taxation and control.
That's it.
Guys, please stop using their politically correct, focus grouped terminologies. It's not "Climate Change," let's just call it what it is:
Bullshit Global Warming Alarmism.
Look around and let me know how many fat people you see. Fat is unhealthy. Let me say that again. People are fat because they are unhealthy. A person can walk a few "mets" a day extra and that will indeed be very healthful. It will not make up for a poor diet.
I stand by the findings of the The Norwegian Health Study, and the VA study. Its a free country, do what you like.
Everyone who is healthy is healthy in the same way. Anyone who is unhealthy is unhealthy in their own unique way.
Yes. And a poor diet full of GMO's will lead to even more problems; as well as eating beef, pork, and chicken that has been FED GMO's and antibiotics and hormones. Plus, this study was considering ALL meats, making no distinction between processed meats and grass-fed organic beef, for example. This study has an agenda behind it, and that agenda IS climate change.
The WHO will throw us a bone once in a while, just to maintain a semblance of competence so what they present isn't always rejected out of hand, as they recently did by classifying Roundup as a carcinogen. However, they will also keep promoting things that have big money and globalist agendas behind them, and this meat study is one of them.
The figures I saw were a 5% chance of colorectal cancer by avoiding meat, and a 6% chance by eating a lot of meat. The whole thing is bogus.
Modern day beef producers are pretty slick. They feed cattle a mess of corn (that they were NEVER evolved to eat), give them antibiotics to keep them from getting sicker, and give them hormones to make them put on 2 pounds a day of muscle and fat. Cattle raised in the feed lots are actually pretty sickly. I will not deny that they are ever-so-succulent, but they are still metabolically whacked out. That said, I do eat red meat from time to time. Pork and chicken are not treated any better.
You can stack the results of about any diet study by cherry picking your subject pool. One of the reasons that studies of things like "The Mediterranean diet" or "A seafood" diet show such wild swings in effectiveness is that often it simply boils down to "what did your ancestors eat". If your ancestors came from the Med, they have been eating that diet for thousands of years, the ones who can't tolerate it largely died out and/or got out-reproduced a very long time ago... Likewise if your ancestors came from Japan (a island country), you have probably inherited a pretty good adaption to rice and sea food in your diet (same story, the ones who couldn't tolerate rice/seafood largely died out/got out-reproduced...). This also goes a long way towards explaining odd things like "Why the French can eat so much cream/butter, and still have a relatively low heart attack rate".
This is not usually discussed in polite company, as it implies that there actually might be small genetic differences between groups based on where they came from. (Not in terms of color or appearance in this case, but the fact that in a isolated group of people have eaten a steady diet for a long time, the people best adapted to that diet tend to prosper/out reproduce the rest of the group over time). (At one time, the entire world was isolated, travel was actually rare before a few hundred years ago...) Being adapted to one diet, (Mediterranean say), doesn't automatically adapt you to another (beef heavy for instance). A Masi tribesman (african, hunter - gather + heavy usage of cattle) would thrive on about any beef heavy diet, while having problems with a rice/seafood diet, they simply aren't adapted to it...
Look at the obesity rates on a lot of pacific islands, isolated gene pools, traditionally restricted dietary choice, now able to eat a wide range of imported foods, their bodies hoard calories (food was harder to come by in the past), and they are not well adapted to much of the imported foods (their ancestors never ate/adapted to them). Obesity rates have sky-rocketed in the more properous islands (Looking at you Guam). This will self correct in a few thousand years, if the would economy doesn't crash (and food imports stop), the people who are better adapted to the new diet will slowly increase their % of the island's population over time. (Mankind has a much shorter time line than nature, processes which take thousands of years to run out are largely ignored by us...).
Still, the point is, if you have an agenda, you can shape the results of any diet study by carefully picking your subject group, pick the right group, and you will get the results you want, and your methods can/will pass any study inspection.
Your results may not be repeatable with another control group, but your methods are clean, and since "there are no signifigant genetic differences between groups" (in the PC world), your control group selection could not possibly have affected your results, no need to look there...
The biggest environmental hazard facing the world today is lack of birth control. Excessive breeding is condoned and encouraged by varous religions and governmental social programs. Until something is done about that, everything else is just lipstick on a pig.
"You forgot the third group: the smart poor class. "
I didn't forget about them. I chose not to mention them because their number rounds to 0%.
Good thing bacon is white meat, and shunned by Muslims.
Moar for me !
Red meat bad. Everything Monsanto's shtz out good. Makes sense to me. I wonder how closely Michelle/Michael follows her skool guidelines?
It's a full court press against beef and meat in general. We're talking scores of NGOs and multiple UN and other agency organizations publishing research and advocating for a change in societal perspectives, with outright regulations to follow in the years ahead. You're right to be skeptical re. the import of the WHO and its latest announcement. But looking at the bigger picture, this WHO report is most certainly happening within an agenda-driven context of a panopoly of organizations working against the interests of average humans. Most people think climate change policy is about protecting the environment. Quaint idea...
- Eric Dubin, Managing Editor, The News Doctors
Some here might find this interesting. The following google search demonstrates how extensive the discussion about beef and climate change is. I could cite some good examples of what NGOs have been advocating. Maybe later. Check this out:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=beef%20climate%20change
The resource footprint required by beef is staggering. Thus the push for cockroach burgers.
After all, if the bankers need the global population to keep growing to pay their interest, then the rest of us need to give up our steak.
Mark my words, "Bug, It's what's for dinner." TV spots will appear soon.
IT'S NOT THE FUCKING MEAT THAT KILLS YOU.
it's the factory farm GMO Roundup ready feed, the unnatural corn diet, the stressed out feedlot animals, the drugs, growth hormones, and antibiotics pumped into that fucking Frankencow dog vomit they call meat, not including the cosmetic ingredients added in processing.
Our parents lived long lives on bad diets because the food was absent all of the contaminants added by Big Food Inc.
If you spend money on anything in this life, spend it on top quality food at the expense of any other entertainment or recreation you currently enjoy.
Because, garbage in means garbage out - then the doctors and medical system get to kill you slowly and expensively. Why ? Because it is big business to do so.
The "Beef Industry" has pushed my family away from beef with the crazy high prices.
I was looking at smoked briskets; $90 for 5lbs!...$18 a pound!...that's insane...I thought brisket was a "cheap" cut of meat?
Angus flat iron steak...$22 a POUND!
Texas Kobe...$138 A POUND!
http://www.samsclub.com/sams/cert-beef-brisket-40-oz-2-pk/prod18510259.i...
http://www.samsclub.com/sams/bf-fl-iron-stk-7oz-6-pk/prod18000255.ip?ori...
http://www.samsclub.com/sams/kobe-beef-6-oz-usda-prime-filet-6-pk/prod34...
Go kill something, butcher it, grill it and eat it.
Its practically Faaarrreee! ;-)
but banker doesn't taste good
It's a bottom feeder.
And they're always either full of nails and lead, or gravel and roof tiles. Plus plucking the rope fibers out of them is a pain in the ass.
But if it hasn't been tenderized by the daily sensual massage of Japanese virgins it can't be worth eating. ;-)
Texas Kobe is both an oxymoron and a non sequitur.
Then again what does one expect for only $300/kg? (out in the real world... without the benefit of WRC status making luxury affordable for the untermenschen of the FSA).
Before the collapse of the USSR when due to price fixing and corruption shortages of basic goods began to develop the government started running similar campaigns. All of the sudden it was discovered that sugar caused cancer (which it probably does, but that's not the point). Every food group one way or another ended up being bad for you, to mask the fact that food was physically disappearing from the shelves.
Vegans = stupid everyone knows that!
Unless you have some god awful alergy then you have no reason to be stupid ;p
LOL. For most of world history (and presently for that matter), only the wealthiest noble classes of people ate meat daily. An infrequent meat diet is probably the most anthropologically correct. If we didn't have meat packing factories we'd probably eat meat way less. Just some food for thought.
Probably the most reasonable response I've seen in this thread. A little meat is good for you. Large portions of meat at each meal? Probably not great for your health.
That being said, not sure there needs to be govt action here. (But, on a side note, the resource footprint for beef and pork really is quite large).
Plants defend themselves with proteins called lectins. Some of these are really dangerous, others not so much. Ever wonder why nothing seems to eat a castor plant? The lectin in the leaves, ricin, is extremely poisonous. There are certain plants to be avoided and others to be enjoyed. The human body evolved to eat a wide variety of foods, but there are NO vegetarian hunter-gatherers. They all eat meat at least to some extent. The Kalihari bushmen eat a lot of mongongo nuts.
ALL PUBLIC SERVANTS SHOULD BE FORCED TO BECOME VEGANISTS WITH PENALTY OF DEATH!
That should do it...
But in reality, it's just a social security scam where people who have cancer will be asked if they ever ate prepared meats and they'll be denied any medical support from the insurance part.
It's like the smokers part, if you ever smoked, you are put at the end of the line in cancer treatment and you need to pay most yourself.
I wish they'd worry about wars for profit, currency, private central banking and lebensraum before they get to bacon.
There's no real question that eating a lot of fatty red meat is bad for you - but an open question is, 'is it the meat, or the shit they put in the meat that's bad?'
During most of our evolution, we had to work pretty hard to get protein, and to get sugar. Now sugar is easy, yielding diabetes, obesity, and all sorts of ailments. It seems possible that eating a lot of meat might cause some problems along the same line - but even if true, this is far, far down the list of problems, and the hormones etc. used on cattle seems a more pressing issue.
As do the fucking wars.
I come from a family that where cattle dealers.
And when we ate, the table was covered with all kinds of meat and a can of peaches in the middle of the table.
Almost all my older family members are 90 or older and when we visit the graveyard, there's only very old people who died in my family.
I must say that there's a big difference between what you buy in the stores and what you get from the farmers.
You just taste that the flavor is gone and the meat doesn't really taste right.
So they should go after the meat manipulators. Those that pump the crap in the meat.
And believe me, you should see a meat processing plant from the inside... you become a vegetarian for a week for every 10 minutes you're there.
Rotten, green meat get's cleaned with bleach and become white and is then injected with colours and natriums and after 1 hour it's looks as fresh as you can imagine.
And then there's the supplements.... that's a very big business these days. Nobody has a clue what's in it, mostly chemicals but only the first 10 ingredients need to be mentioned. The other 200 don't have to be mentioned.
And all they put on is the healthy stuff.
And do people know the difference between natural and bio on a label?
Natural: that means they can put any chemical in they want. Sulphur is also natural.
Bio: means nothing is added. Needs to be fresh and that's why it's so expensive. Our system can't suport bio food.
And ask yourself!! Is it normal that milk can be stored for a year?
Did you know there are now milks that can be stored for 15 years??!!
I don't doubt you one bit.
A while back we ordered from Omaha Steaks. I probably cook a steak once a week or so, just tend to go for whatever cut, usually sirloin or flank, looks like it will fry up nicely with some onions etc. Generally pretty good.
The steaks from Omaha were from a different planet. And granting - that's shipped across country and so even they can't truly approximate farm eating. There is a place near me that's as good as Omaha - but man, do you pay for it.
On my bucket list is a trip to Patagonia - I love wine and steak and they have plenty of both, good and cheap.
I presume they are fully capable of importing decent Scotch, as well.
DO PEOPLE REALIZE THAT FRESH MEAT ISN'T RED OF PINK???!!!
IT'S GREYISH! PURPLE! BLUE!!
No they don't.... marketeers tell us it should be red or pink and stay red or pink for 2 weeks.
Believe me, that's really not normal. That's the stabelisors and natriums you see. And that's why people get hart attacks if they eat to much.
Cheap meat... meat is cheap, you should see what they pay the farmers and see the difference between what they get and what the stores charge after they put the crap into it.
My meat is greyish/purple.
His name was Stroganoff. He used to bawl at me 'cause I only ever fed him hay. His mom Daisy got a bit of grain.
He is delicious. I am going to eat his brother Wellington next.
Maybe if I corn some of him, or maybe smoke some, then he might cause cancer. Maybe Stroganoff jerky.
What the hell, I will just eat more bacon, that will get me some nitrites!
If your meat is greyish purple and blue then it's probably been more than 4 hours since the viagra started working. See your doctor.
My Uncle ate a huge rib steak, cooked medium rare, and got run over by a car and died three days later. We have not eaten rib steaks since because we are literally terrified that if we do the same fate awaits us.......
Our family actually raises beef on or farm/ranch. We do not feed them the shit the mass producers feed them. We are family run. The problem is they fart methane and it is causing global warning according to the Brits and some other nut cases. Hell human beings fart the same gases. The culling is coming.
Protein was and still is an important part of your diet. The problem is mass produced beef is laden with chemicals and growth hormones. We oftentimes wonder why our daughters grow breasts at an early age. Anything in excess will kill you. Monsanto wants you eat their GMO crops and forget that they too are loaded with round up. Limked many times with autism. The MM want to report junk science and never do any real investigative reporting anymore.
There are many protests in Europe over the TPP because of the new food standards. You see the Europeans have higher standards then most of the world when it come to food. We cannot have that now can we.
This is ludicrous, we have been eating red meat since knuckle dragging times. Granted everyone knows that processed meat causes diabetes and cancer but that has more to do with what is done to our meat before consumption. The giant squid must need more money or acreage.... because sustainability.
Ha! And those meat eating knuckle draggers lived to ripe old age of 30
That argument gets tired, Europeans and early Americans often died of filth and deficiencies. The entire N. American continent survived in the winter off salted and dried buffalo and despite the hell they went through still survived into decent age ranges. Not everyone lived short and miserable lives. Benjamin Franklin was 84 when he signed the declaration of independence-back when wild game was still a staple. I am sure the Indians would have laughed heartily if they were told that red meat was going to put them all in an early grave.
Chief Joseph- 54
Sitting Bull (shot)- 59
Geronimo (inprisoned)- 79
uh... these ARE the knuckle dragging times.
I keep hoping to see positive evolution at work, but all I see is devolution all around.
What is going on with the RED MEAT SCARE? Given the prices of BEEF one would think it was in high demand.
Radical vegan's are globalist statists...shocking I know ;-)
[1] Pink Meat = Good
[2] Red Meat = Bad
Be a good little boy. Eat more pink.
Soylent Green, it's what's for dinner..........
Take my Steak if you want to to bite the barrel of my M 1911 Socialist Vegan scum.
How much longer can we keep this charade going on for? We have a centrally planned economy through the FED, centrally planned education, centrally planned healthcare, a progressive income tax, and now centrally planned eating regulation. Yet Socialists and Bernie Sanders supporters want more of this socialist democracy bullcrap?
You can't say that we do not have Socialism, we already have Socialism and it has led to what large government always leads to: a Socialist Oligarchy where the elites rule and everyone else suffers. Look at the article itself, "Only the top officials had access to Beef."
Marxists think that the people have the power and aren't oppressed in a "Socialist Democracy?" It is only in a republican small government society where government power is kept to a minimum preventing the Elites from using it to preserve their status. And Socialism always requires big government by virtue of practice. How else do you force people to hand over their private property???
This Thanksgiving at Fort Silencer we're putting a prime rib roast on the rotisserie. Slow cooking that motherfucker then digging in Cro-mag style.
but how will I get my puddin if I don't eat my meat?
The next time I see a flock of deer I will hunt one down!
Your body is designed to eat some red meat. The planet needs ruminant animals as well. The high-intensity mob grazing builds topsoil and imprints bare dirt facilitating germination of plants. The US used to be covered by buffalo herds. Since their demise and the end of natural mob grazing people have really screwed things up. It's not the cows fault however, it's the farmer's fault for setting animals on a pasture then leaving them there until damage is done.
Modern agriculture and modern food is to blame for the health and any planetary impacts. So really, it's Monsatan's fault in addition to the big ag colleges and institutions around the world.
Permaculture can save the world and give you delicious and healthy food. The WHO can go piss up a rope.
I like the cut of your jib Shaftoe.
I would like you more if it was Cameltoe, but I get the Jack Shaftoe thing.
Second only to Cameltoes, oh ya, and modern food and all that. But we know all that,...
The most appropriate stance is to expend energy and attention on the Controllers' disregard for Rule of Law and original mission...
There is the "meat" -- you are being distracted, sometimes intentionally and sometimes a byproduct of Entitlement and ignorance of the mission...
This climate change argument is the most retarded debate I've ever heard. Is there some kind of risk in cutting CO2 or any other pollutant? I mean OTHER than risking the profitability of the status quo? The entire argument of the climate change denier is - I believe climate change is a liberal hoax so the entire world should keep doing what it's currently doing and change none of its behavior.
So if we do what the deniers want us to do, and the deniers are wrong - the problem is WE are seriously screwed. On the other hand if we do what the "liberal" climate change scientists want us to do, and the scientists are wrong - what's the freaking PROBLEM????
So which are you willing to bet on, getting screwed or breaking even? Place your bets retards.
You had best use a logical train of thought and see where it ends up Nanur. What is going to happen if we do nothing as opposed to banning anyone from doing anything? That is the flaw in your statement. Who is "we" and why do "we" know better than anyone else? Prove it.
I will eat as much meat as I damned well please. End of story.
I say we grind these UN faggots into burgers and feed them to our gdm dogs.
Heard of Soylent green?
and apparently most cults do not want you eating meat because it is easier to brainwash people who don't get enough brain food
It will be a cold day in fucking hell before us guys here Kansas don't have cows. Fuck the UN.
Bottom line is if people are not discriminatory about their obedience to what the authorities tell them they should eat they risk ending up on Darwins list. Remember when they told us that grains should be the largest portion of their BS food triagle? Look around, it didn't work out so well did it? Then we were told that loading our food with chemicals, adding GMOs, chemical sugar substitutes and hydrogenated oils (as opposed to animal fats) were a good idea. Yep, that was a super idea too.
Before long they will be having us eating porrage and dying of malnutrition and scurvy while living in filth like the good old days but this time the excuse will be global warming or some such other BS... oh wait. Bring out cher dead!
Same Agenda 21 and AGW assholes at the UN, friends of Soros.
It was not the WHO that hyped the conclusions of the report but the MSM. The WHO actually never said that eating red meat gives you cancer but that it raises the risk of getting cancer and that you should eat certain amounts of red and processed meat. One food inspector told me once that in 5 kilo of processed there is actually only 1 kilo of meat and these are meat left overs such as connective tissues. The rest, she said, are fillers and adjectives to 'enhance' flavors and to preserve the product. In the US then they 'gas' the meat with some chlorine gas to disinfect it. Want some more? If you analyse the whole meat food chain from birth to plate then you'd either go vegetarian or eat organic meat (I love a good organic piece of meat, much more tastier).
The WHO said a few months ago that Glyphosate is probably carcinogenic, barely not making it to the known carcinogenic list due to industry pressure. Research shows that Gyphosate is actually toxic at very low doses and is also an endocrine disruptor aka 'gender bender'. Is that a 'red herring' too?
Human, the other, other, other white meat. Buy some today -- or just take it. Human, a plentiful and fully renewable source of protein and vitamins. Eat your neighbour and save the planet.
Oh, and here's one for free: Everything causes cancer.
Mises Institute should concentrate on ecconomics.