How Big Climate Change Corporations Train People to Diet
Next Post

Press {{ keys }} + D to make this page bookmarked.


How Big Climate Change Corporations Train People to Diet


WASHINGTON – January 28, 2019

An increasing number of articles are being published in light of how humanity is eating and thereby destroying itself and the planet. Earlier this month, one of the special commissions of the Lancet medical journal stated that civilization is under threat as a result of the impact of the current food system on both human health and the earth's ecosystems.

The commission later issued reports that pandemics of obesity and malnutrition interact with climate change in a feedback loop and pose an existential threat to people and the planet. Now it seems that large companies are equally concerned about the fate of the planet and its fate as giants in the food market or global climate change.

Corporations are realizing that instead of being consumed by death and darkness or thinking that we need to curb consumerism, climate change is an exciting opportunity for business. The 2018 disclosure, reported by Bloomberg last week, provides a fascinating insight into how some of the world's largest corporations are, as Bloomberg puts it in the headline, "Getting ready to Monetize Climate Change."

The meaning is very simple. We live in a complex system of capitalism. This is a system of mutually beneficial settlements of the largest companies "in favor of the poor," when some are aimed at destroying others in order to achieve the main mission. In this case, it can be earning money and maintaining the consumer market.

Let's try to make a consistent chain. Let's start with the pharmaceutical industry, which is particularly well suited to capitalizing on our bleak future. As Merck notes in its CDP disclosure, climate change could lead to "expanding markets for products from tropical and weather-related diseases, including water-borne diseases." AbbVie sees similar opportunities, stating that the “product line for immunology can increase sales” as a result of more extreme conditions. And Eli Lilly, another major pharmaceutical company, cites studies showing that climate change can increase the risk of diabetes, "limiting physical activity, disrupting traditional food supplies and increasing food insecurity." Even though it's sad and all, the positive thing for Eli Lilly is the potential increase in demand for its diabetes products.

It's not just big phara that sees dollar symbols in distress. Its generators purposefully increase the capacity to consume what they produce themselves, without obsessing that the system rather leads to destruction than to a longer service of consumers. Next, the system creates a diet when the disease is inevitable with no way back. And everything is interconnected.

The modern Western diet, according to experts, has become a very destructive thing that needs a complete revision if people want to avoid a potential environmental disaster. They concluded that people needed to halve world meat consumption and more than double the amount of whole grains, legumes, nuts, fruits and vegetables they eat.

That is, the next self-appointed experts say "No, it is not necessary," but " We know better, do so." Instead of solving the problem, they hail another diet allegedly in favor of the land.

However, the evidence that our diets are the main cause of climate change and biodiversity loss is now enormous. The global food system accounts for up to 30% of total greenhouse gas emissions, and the livestock sector accounts for about half of that total or 14.5%.

The modern Western way of eating also makes a very large number of people fat and sick as other parts of the world accept it. Nutrition-related diseases now cause about 11 million deaths per year, as preventable cancers, heart disease and strokes, obesity and diabetes spread with our way of eating. Have you already seen the logical relationship here?

It is estimated that more than 800 million people are chronically undernourished and 2 billion suffer from micronutrient deficiencies, while 2 billion are overweight or obese. In poorer countries, you can even find obesity and restrain growth within the same family as calorie-heavy but nutrient-light processed industrialized foods are consumed.

In other words, humanity is still abandoning the normal habitual way of life, but adjusting to another.

What about examples? The technology industry, as expected, looks at how the Apocalypse can affect profits in a new way. Apple believes that "as people face more severe lifestyles from disease to climate change," they will become more and more attached to their mobile phones. It notes that, in addition to helping you register with your loved ones, your iPhone can "serve as a flashlight." Which takes the idea of seeing the bright side of a bad situation to a whole new level.

Apple also reports that in the event of a disaster, you can charge your mobile device using "hand grips."Few people are doing this at the moment, but don't be surprised if you see iCranks, Armageddon-protected iPhone chargers that will soon appear in a store near you. Overall, Apple says that if it "manages to create products that appeal to people whose buying habits are changing because of concerns about climate change," it could increase annual net sales by $2.3 billion (£1.75 billion).

How Big Climate Change Corporations Train People to Diet

Now about diet. The so-called "reference diet," or "Dukan method," published by Lancet experts, has caused a storm of resentment in some circles. This is a theoretical attempt to answer the question of population theory: If by 2050 the world's population is expected to reach 10 billion people, will there be enough food to meet everyone's basic nutritional needs without cutting down more forests, polluting more waterways, and generally destroying the planet? Most likely, yes, but it will have to go to extreme measures, completely change the food system, reduce the population by at least half and provide the necessary food for animals.

The reference diet simulates every person around the world who has 14 grams of red meat per day, 29 grams of chicken, part of an egg, 250 grams of dairy products, a little fat or oil, very little sugar and a lot of grain and lentils, vegetables and nuts. Let's start with the fact that the diet really will not cause starvation, according to experts--that is, it is a diet of saturation, but not health.

What is the diet at all? This is a certain diet for a person who wants to builds himself up. Then consider further: The human brain is designed so that we need an equal amount of necessary substances at the moment. Our body has a balanced device that needs nutrition at the local level.

Explaining in simple words, if a person needs proteins in a given period of time, it’s made known through the impulses that the brain sends to the body. These impulses turn into desires, that is, a more realistic representation of what a person wants. When the body is in the stage of diet, it slows down the brain and therefore all other impulses.

People don't shop and eat numbers and fractions. And the fact that the epidemiology of nutrition-the study of patterns in nutrition and disease – used to be wrong doesn’t help. Remember, when fears of dietary cholesterol was used to convict eggs? These instructions sound top-down and, even worse, seem to throw the responsibility away on the person.

But it means missing the point of these instructions. These are calculations that give an idea of the scale of the problem and the evidence-based policy framework. Contrary to some claims, the Lancet Commission, which modeled with the support of the EAT charity, did not receive funding from the industry. And the inconvenient truth is that meat, and especially meat of heavily-fed livestock, processed the way it is usually eaten in the Western diet, is a hot spot when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions and poor health. Well-produced meat and dairy may take place, but it will be small and it is expensive.

Our diets are at odds with what is good for both us and the planet, because powerful vested interests and misplaced economic incentives have led them in this direction, and this is the thesis underlying the Commission's conclusions. The equivalent of $500 billion of agricultural subsidies annually goes to the wrong food products--corn, soy, meat and dairy products, as cheap raw materials for intensive livestock and high-processing products. About $5 trillion a year goes to subsidies to fossil fuels, which are so wasteful for industrialized agriculture. Big food has spent hundreds of millions on junk food advertising and lobbying to block measures that can help change consumption.

While individuals can make a difference by changing their diets, and directing clear demands on policy action, we cannot redraw the food system on our own. This will require not only governments but also global agreement.

Author: USA Really