Harvard is at it again. Decades ago, elite professors lined up to endorse Ancel Keys’ fabricated notions involving the diet-heart hypothesis and lipid hypothesis. One claimed cholesterol consumption caused higher blood cholesterol in humans, and the other said that saturated fats led to more cardiovascular disease and made us fat. The 1977 ill-fated “McGovern Report” later rubber-stamped those myths. Now that these notions have been debunked, Harvard professor Walter Willett has retargeted the subject by co-chairing the EAT-Lancet Commission to once again prophesize for plant-based diets.
“Transformation to healthy diets by 2050 will require substantial dietary shifts,” wrote Willett. “Global consumption of fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes will have to double, and consumption of foods such as red meat and sugar will have to be reduced by 50 percent. A diet rich in plant-based foods and with fewer animal source foods confers both improved health and environmental benefits.”
At least Willett is up-front about his biased thoughts and agenda by giving this quote a full page in his report.
To give his ideas credence, Willett and his co-chair, Professor Johan Rockstrom of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research & Stockholm Resilience Centre, convened a panel of 37 scientists from 16 countries to promote their “save the world” agenda. Wrapped in the cloak of climate change, the EAT-Lancet commission wrote, “. . . scientific targets that define a safe operating space for food systems allow the evaluation of which diets and food production practices together enable achievements of the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) and the Paris Agreement.”
Our interpretation: They cannot move their agenda forward on nutrition, so let’s talk carbon footprint and greenhouse gases.
The animal attack must not have been by unanimous consent as the authors later wrote, “ . . . the role of animal source foods in people’s diets must be carefully considered in each context and within local and regional realities.”
What exactly does that mean? It’s fine for some people to eat red meat and animal-based foods, but not everyone?
While the EAT-Lancet proponents repeatedly promote fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and whole grains while bashing animal-sourced foods, they cleverly inject some “undeniable truths” to give their plan some credence. That includes their fifth and final strategy, to halve or cut in half the world’s food losses and waste. We would suggest that they move that strategy to the first position and scrap the first four strategies that are simply a political agenda.