Chocolate Industry

eat what you are told

We are just a week away from the ‘climate-friendly’ proposal which would see supermarkets add ‘eco-labels’ to more than 57,000 products so shoppers can ‘consider the environmental impact’ of their food choices.

This “useful” information has already been twisted into an opportunity to enact paternalistic control over what the poor eat and siphon off countless millions in taxes.

Notice how quickly the message changed from “we’re trying to help you make good food choices” to “we’re going to tax you if you don’t eat what we say”.

Like the painful scream Guardian writing :

Raising cattle and growing crops to feed them have destroyed more tropical forest and killed more wild animals than any other industry. Animal agriculture also produces large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions and pollution.

The environmental consequences are so profound that the world cannot meet climate targets and keep ecosystems intact without rich countries reducing their consumption of beef, pork and chicken.

To reduce emissions, slow biodiversity loss and ensure food for a growing world population, there must be a change in the way meat and dairy products are produced and consumed.

Pay no heed to the destruction caused by the covering of farmland with solar panels, the felling of forests for wind turbines or the cutting of the ground for renewable energy mines where children are sent into darkness and mud. Ignore the suffocation of ancient forests by vegan-favorite canola and soybeans, or that vastly more farmland is needed to feed people on a vegetarian diet. It’s your “intention” that counts.

Their conclusion is that “prices for meat and other animal products will eventually have to reflect all of this damage.”

Having lost the “meat is murder” argument against civilization’s most powerful carnivores, the movement entrenched itself in our political structure and instead took the “meat kills the planet” line. It doesn’t matter that the claim is false, it definitely looks like a Twitter hashtag.

Just in case you think the meat tax is a bit of a sell-out, here’s the current plan for taxing your Sunday barbecue.

“Our calculations suggest that the average retail price of meat in high-income countries would need to increase by 35% – 56% for beef, 25% for poultry and 19% for lamb and pork to reflect costs. environmental. of their manufacture. In the UK, where the average price of a 200g beef steak is around £2.80, consumers would pay between £3.80 and £4.30 at the checkout.

And no – from Classes – it will have no impact on the poor!

Their solution is to “redistribute the revenue from a tax on the sale of meat and animal products evenly across the population in the form of lump sum payments at the end of the year”.

Who’s ringing terribly like the government giving the poor a “meat allowance” to access currently cheap and unrestricted food.

It is far more backward, cruel, condescending and repressive than any policy launched since the Enlightenment. It is a disgrace, an affront to basic decency and an attack on our civil liberty to choose what we want to eat without checking with the government’s morality police.

Attaching a political agenda to food is not a novel idea, but rather an extension of the commercial industry we saw promoted at COP26 where “plant-forward” menus (which contained lots of duck, chicken, beef, trout and haggis), also had a carbon footprint.

Samplingthe company that curated the menu and made its life rating the moral value – sorry – the climate value of food, had this to say:

We take a plant-based approach, using local and British seasonal produce. Plant-based food products are one of the most effective ways for us to reduce emissions, so we have increased the proportion of plant-based dishes, without compromising variety, quality or taste.

“Today an average meal has a carbon footprint of 1.7kg CO2e in the UK. Paris By including climate labels on our menus, we aim to make it easier to achieve this goal – together.

“The climate emergency is the biggest challenge of our lifetime and food has a key role to play in global emissions. Our aim is to reach Net Zero in our Levy UK business by 2027 in the right way. COP26 will be a catalyst for learning and change across our business.

At the time, I warned that this was a dangerous concept. By equating carbon with a form of calorie counting system, we invite government authorities and international bureaucracies to punish food producers, limit the sale of these products, restrict their advertising and add taxes to their purchase.

Seemingly unhappy that one in nine people on Earth are starving, the war on carbon – which has quickly spread to fertilizers needed to produce food – ensures that artificial food shortages spread to the West well. fed.

Not only our food is likely to be rated, but also the people who buy it. This happens in China under the social credit system (strangely similar to a carbon credit system) in which buyers have their government “reliability” rating blocked if they do things like indulge in a few too much March bars.

Aside from my suggestion to add a BullS**t note next to politicians and a note on child slave labor against renewable technologies – what does this carbon ladder mean in practical terms for Australian buyers?

It will come as no surprise that the foods punished by this carbon scale are the foods humans need to be healthy – meat, dairy, nuts, seafood, tea, chocolate and salads. are all on the “bad” list. A list that, it should be noted, ranks beef, lamb and cream cheese much higher on the “evil” scale than soft drinks and energy drinks.

While the calorie count helps people control their expanding waistlines, the carbon rating is likely to propel well-meaning climate idiots into a nutrient-deficient diet mostly grown in labs by chemical companies.

The punished food is also the food grown by Australian farmers, who will mistakenly find their commercial market beleaguered by the almighty publicity nightmare of political climate change. There is no doubt that when all the small farmers are forced out of the market, these farms will be sold cheaply to international corporations. It is unwise for any government to allow its national agricultural products industry to be vandalized by such a self-destructive ideology.

Academics seem oblivious to the obvious “unintended consequences” of their activism, with Professor Scarborough of the University of Oxford telling BBC News:

“It fills a huge void. Manufacturers, caterers and retailers have goals to achieve Net Zero and they don’t have the tools they need to get there. Now they have that data and some of them are telling us about what they can do to help people move towards sustainable food shopping.

There is nothing sustainable about punishing fresh food producers for creating the best quality products in human history. It’s as if humanity has reached the peak of its agricultural capacity only to be cut at the knees, knocked face down in the dirt and ground down by a new era of food made by chemical companies and international billionaires experimenting with genetic modification and animals. manipulated by vaccines to “reduce their emissions”.

These are all the worst bits of dystopian horror the writers have tried to warn us about.

This comes from a climate industry that points to the enormous destruction, toxic waste and environmental damage caused by renewable energy production. It’s an activist cause that ignores the fact that chemical and pharmaceutical companies are the biggest carbon emitters in the world. And he’s backed by a coalition of billionaires at the World Economic Forum whose combined business ventures have a bigger ‘carbon footprint’ than the rest of the world’s peasants who are now being ordered to stop farming and eat insects and chemical sludge.

We are constantly told that agriculture is unsustainable, yet agriculture has been going on for over 10,000 years. Less than 10 years after the cult Net Zero climate policy began, severe food shortages are emerging around the world, governments are being toppled and economies are collapsing.

Net Zero is not sustainable.

Net Zero is a lie told to us by used car salesmen on the International Political Lecture Tour in an effort to sell us junk food.

Alexandra Marshall is a freelance writer. If you want to support his work, shout him a coffee at the donor box.

Do you have something to add ? Join the discussion and comment below.