Wednesday, April 28, 2021

They Really Are Going After Meat


“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” 
-H.L. Mencken
The secular-puritan nut jobs, who can't leave any joys of the world alone, are now escalating their attacks on meat and with it, virtue signaling has entered a bizarre new phase.

Epicurious is, according to The New York Times, "the popular online recipe bank where home cooks have gone to hone their skills for a quarter of a century."

The editors there revealed to readers this week that not only were they done with new recipes containing beef, but they had been phasing them out for over a year, reports the Times.

“We know that some people might assume that this decision signals some sort of vendetta against cows — or the people who eat them,” Maggie Hoffman, a senior editor, and David Tamarkin, a former digital director, wrote in an article published on Monday. “But this decision was not made because we hate hamburgers (we don’t!).”

The shift was “solely about sustainability, about not giving airtime to one of the world’s worst climate offenders,” they said. “We think of this decision as not anti-beef but rather pro-planet.”

Hoffman and Tanarkin write as if they actually understand the first thing about the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient and its application in the study of climate change.

These posers are so contradictory and out of touch with reality that they have become a vegan herd.

I call for a steer's fart on all of them.

But the big question is: Will the masses be as meek against this mad movement as they have been against the lockdowns and cancel culture? 

Meat producers are already wimping out.

On Sunday, JBS and Pilgrim’s Pride, one of the country’s largest chicken producers, took out a full-page ad in the New York Times headlined, “Agriculture can be a part of the climate solution,” committing to net-zero emissions by 2040, The Washington Post reports.

The Post then added this:

[T]here is a lot of research when it comes to the contribution of industrial agriculture to the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet...beef consumption, in particular, has been singled out as uniquely harmful to the planet. In 2019, the EAT-Lancet Commission report and the special report on climate change and land by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made strong suggestions about the need to move away from cattle ranching. Livestock are responsible for about 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, on a par with all of global transportation.

Ezra Klein, in a New York Times column this past Saturday, called for a “moonshot” that would turn the United States away from industrial agriculture and toward “meatless meat.”

The anti-cow fart crowd needs to be stopped now. 

 -RW

21 comments:

  1. Isn't it the UN agenda 2030 that says something like "the masses will have to give up their penchant for eating meat"? Something tells me Bill Gates is eating grade A grass fed beef with some organic vegetables while he expects us to eat processed fake meat. Again, you have to understand the great reset, agenda 2030, etc. to see through all the BS going on right now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The poseurs will have to relent. They need bull shit to fertilize their organic gardens, their golf courses, their Elysian Fields.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is there a larger emitter of "greenhouse gas" than US DOD?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It offsets this with killing humans who would otherwise contribute to greenhouse-gas emissions.

      Delete
  4. I recently contacted my beef supplier about getting another half of a cow. She said that there are some absurd regulations stemming from covid that only let them butcher 2 cows at a time. I can't get a side of beef from her until December or January as a result. This is sustainable, pasture raised beef. Idk if this is just a coincidence with all the anti-beef stuff going on.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A local meat processing plant has a staff of lawyers responding to constant FDA attempts to close them down. They are rural and few workers want the C-19 shots - less than 5% uptake. The FDA told the owner that it looked like he didn't want to stay open...
    Probably the best researcher and commentator on the food "pandemic" is the Ice Age Farmer. Look him up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I listened to a couple of Ice Age Farmer podcasts yesterday. Very disturbing stuff...
      Thanks for the great recommendation.

      Delete
  6. "The shift was “solely about sustainability, about not giving airtime to one of the world’s worst climate offenders,” they said. “We think of this decision as not anti-beef but rather pro-planet.”

    Bullshit. If these people were really concerned about sustainability and saving the environment they would push to end aid to the third world, especially Africa. All economic aid does to these people is increase their breeding and create more poverty and filth.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Previously posted here: https://www.targetliberty.com/2019/04/this-is-how-mad-climate-alarmists-are.html

    The assertion livestock are the world’s largest source of greenhouse gases (GHG) is patently false. In 2006 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization published a study titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” which received widespread international attention. It stated that livestock produced 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. This claim was wrong, and has since been corrected but the correction has not received the same publicity as the initial claim.

    According to the EPA its estimates for GHG emissions in 2016 are that animal agriculture represents 3.9% of total US GHG emissions.

    The energy in plants that livestock consume is most often contained in cellulose, which is indigestible for humans and many other mammals. But cows, sheep and other ruminant animals can break cellulose down and release the solar energy contained in this vast resource. According to the FAO, as much as 70 percent of all agricultural land globally is range land that can only be utilized as grazing land for ruminant livestock.

    Source: https://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-environment-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968

    According to: https://www.pnas.org/content/114/48/E10301 removing animals from US agriculture would reduce agricultural GHG emissions by only 2.6%, but would also create a food supply incapable of supporting the US population’s nutritional requirements.

    Not mentioned in the above is that the meat from ruminants feeding on grasses is of much higher nutritional value than plants humans are capable of digesting. This is mostly due to the high quality fatty acids and protein in these meats.

    There have been some recent studies that indicate that grass fed cattle produce more methane than our typical grain, corn and soy fed cattle. This is due to the larger amount of meat derived from the “fattening” of these animals in feedlots that diminish the health of the animals and the nutritional value of the meat produced for human consumption. A true environmentalist would advocate for the more humane treatment and healthier pasture raised animals that produce the most nutritious food available for humans. Maybe just advocate for reduced consumption by us fat Americans to reduce the number of cattle emitting greenhouse gasses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fat Americans should reduce their consumption of soy and corn.

      Delete
  8. Farming of crops is detrimental to the health of soils and causes greenhouse gas emissions.

    Farming consumes huge resources and is less sustainable than raising livestock on grasslands.

    More:
    https://www.facebook.com/alex.zoumaras/posts/3310214209016947

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are sustainable ways of farming where pastures are rotated with crop lands, but I'm sure it's not as profitable as high density feed lots and current farming practices.

      Delete
  9. ANIMAL EXTREMISTS COMING FOR OREGON NEXT TO CRIMINALIZE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY

    https://protecttheharvest.com/news/animal-extremists-coming-for-oregon-next-to-criminalize-animal-husbandry/

    ReplyDelete
  10. Beef is a health food. People should be eating more beef, not less. If we had a healthier population we wouldn't need such a giant health care sector which would cut down on carbon emissions. Also, regenerative agriculture is good for the planet. Eat meat, save the planet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. Check out the MeatRX podcast and website or Paul Saladino

      Delete
  11. I wouldn't be surprised if crypto mining was causing more carbon emissions than beef worldwide.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The problem with all of this is that, even if the climate alarmists were 100% correct about "the science," it still wouldn't justify coercively requiring every person to agree to the alarmists' preference rankings. "The earth" does not have rights, only individuals do, so the whole idea of "saving the planet" does not make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have never seen a study attempting to estimate the increase in greenhouse gas emissions that would result from turning the entire planet's entire human population into vegetarians. Although humans are not ruminants, I suspect that the increase due to greater human consumption of plant matter would offset significantly the drop from ending animal husbandry.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Will the masses be as meek against this mad movement as they have been against the lockdowns and cancel culture?"
    I am sure if the masses are given enough different flavors of "Soylent green" they will fall right in line.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What about all the. "Wild" ruminants, elephant ,wilderbeast , bison , are they having to go too ? What about doing beetles that rely on poop to breed , wiping out entire species .

    ReplyDelete