Now that processed meats have been deemed carcinogenic by the World Health Agency...

[Whoknewitcouldbeso]

Can I ask if you will be allowing your kids to eat sausages, ham, burgers etc? They are also warming about red meat in general so I can no longer feel virtuous when I cook homemade lasagne or shepherds pie.

My son loves sausages, I tend to buy the 98% pork ones but again, now thinking that I'm hurting him by letting him have sausages at all.

What are other people giving their children for dinner? I feel like I'm royally fucking up nowadays although I did make fresh cod goujons in a tempura batter two nights ago and he thought they were great. I must get at least one brownie point for the fish!

'Claig why do you think that the Government are trying to make meat eaters weaker?'

It goes way above the heads of the government. It is an international global thing which is why you have the WHO and UN etc.

Most of the dietary advice we have been given was wrong about eggs, butter, saturated fat, carbohydrates etc. I don't think it is a coincidence, I think it was deliberately wrong.

I think GM food and high fructose corn syrup and all the rest of the stuff that the UN don't warn us about is not good for our health. I think you have to treat diet in the whoile, holistically, not as a study of individual nutrients or foodstuffs to get an understanding of the real effect on health.

I think if you understand the real goals of the green agenda promoted by the UN etc then so much of the wrong dietary advice makes sense.

Don't forget that there are also cancer risks from eating vegetables due to the pesticides and fertilisers etc. But I wouldn't expect the UN to highlight that.

"Eating vegetables could cause cancer. Researchers have linked increased use of nitrate fertilisers to an alarming rise in gullet cancer in Britain.
The disease - which affects three times more men than women - kills more than 3,000 people in the UK every year, a threefold increase over the past 20 years. It is more common than stomach cancer."

www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/feb/17/medicalscience.research

wow, a thirteen-and-a-half year-old newspaper article!

Most of the dietary advice we have been given was wrong about eggs, butter, saturated fat, carbohydrates etc. I don't think it is a coincidence, I think it was deliberately wrong.

All that research was deliberately wrong?

Well, having worked with some of the scientists who came up with that advice I know you are barking mad... continuing your love of conspiracy theories and ignoring some of the most basic truths. They were just at the beginning of our understanding of how macronutrients work within the body, alone and in combination. Food science has moved on over the last few decades, based on the work of those you not only deride but accuse of complicity to defraud!

Does that make them lizards or luvvies?

Pah!

And why would the UN warn us about food? Did you mean the WHO?

'And why would the UN warn us about food? Did you mean the WHO?'

"The World Health Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) that is concerned with international public health"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization

'Does that make them lizards or luvvies?'

Based on my understanding, I would say luvvies.

'Food science has moved on over the last few decades, based on the work of those you not only deride but accuse of complicity to defraud!'

They have been called out and caught out numerous times by the alternative natural health community. They have had to change their story and they will have to change it again when they are caught out in the future.

"London-based cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, science director of campaign group Action On Sugar, wrote in the British Medical Journal that it was time to 'bust the myth of the role of saturated fat in heart disease'.

He added that the food industry had effectively contributed to heart disease by lowering saturated fat levels in food and replacing it with sugar.

Matt Ridley, a Tory peer and science author, yesterday said there should be an inquiry 'into how the medical and scientific profession made such an epic blunder'.

He described the change of advice in the US as a 'mighty U-turn' and said studies linking high cholesterol and saturated fat in food to heart disease were 'tinged with scandal'.

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3096634/Why-butter-eggs-won-t-kill-Flawed-science-triggers-U-turn-cholesterol-fears.html

I know what the WHO is and what it does. But my question still stand, as the UN would not give nutrition or health advice. That not being in its remit. As an umbrella agency that is not its job.

But wait!!! You have not acknowledge the accusation of your continuing lunacy!

Could it be you know you are wrong? Are we, little women and all that, supposed to be taken in and over awed by your postings? Are you really enjoying yourself? Or are you just bored?

"London-based cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, science director of campaign group Action On Sugar, wrote in the British Medical Journal that it was time to 'bust the myth of the role of saturated fat in heart disease'.

He added that the food industry had effectively contributed to heart disease by lowering saturated fat levels in food and replacing it with sugar.

Ignoring all comments on the natural health community, I see you are concatenating 'scientist' with 'food industry' in order to make your point.

Never mind.

'As an umbrella agency that is not its job.'

The reason I highlight the UN, at the near top of the unbrella, is to show that all of the subsidiary bodies and subsidiary governments are not in charge of overall policy, but that it is coordinated from the top of the umbrella.

'You have not acknowledge the accusation of your continuing lunacy!'

I don't understand that insult.

'Are you really enjoying yourself? Or are you just bored?'

I'm just explaining what I think is the truth about the errors and blunders, whether unintentional or intentional, of bodies like UN organisations.

'into how the medical and scientific profession made such an epic blunder'.

' I see you are concatenating 'scientist' with 'food industry' in order to make your point.'

But the food industry was backed up by top level scientists in US governmental bodies and other governmental bodies worldwide who pushed the same advice to the public worldwide.

'Matt Ridley, a Tory peer and science author, yesterday said there should be an inquiry 'into how the medical and scientific profession made such an epic blunder'.

This has been known for years I think it's just that they have enough evidence to now make an official statement.

As for alternatives, I've always made lasagne, bolognaise etc with turkey mine, purely because I don't like the taste of beef mince. My dc don't know any different until they have it the proper way at someone else house.

The food industry. There's a world of difference between farmers and purveyors of 'slimming' products, (sugary) food aimed at children and the likes.

mince!!

Quern is basically a mould found in soil though. You can't get much more processed. Give me a bit of proper meat any day.

There should be an inquiry into the 'government' advice on what to put into children's lunch boxes too. Doesn't change the fact that processed meat probably increases your chances of getting colorectal/pancreatic/stomach cancer.

It's not very surprising though - adding artificial chemicals to food.....

Some of the quorn products have 'flavouring' in them.

i am quite shocked at the amount of people on this thread who do not know the difference between processed and red meat.

whether unintentional or intentional, No. You said deliberately! No quibbling now!

Matt Ridley? The Rational Optimist? The ex Norther Rock man, The author whose books ignore his own culpability behaviours in order to write good blether? No thanks!

But the food industry was backed up by top level scientists in US governmental bodies and other governmental bodies worldwide who pushed the same advice to the public worldwide.

No, that's where you start the smudging. The food industry used perfectly good science to support its own commercial activities. Just as it still does. The science was right, at the time. How it was used was the bastardisation that needs to be kept separate. The advice was the best that was available at the time. Just as current advice will be updated in time. To state, as you did, that it was deliberately wrong, is really not acceptable.

claig "The reason I highlight the UN, at the near top of the unbrella, is to show that all of the subsidiary bodies and subsidiary governments are not in charge of overall policy, but that it is coordinated from the top of the umbrella."

Experience shows that the governments of the world are such a disorganised bunch of incompetent bunglers that they are incapable of performing the simplest evil plot without it all going horribly wrong and becoming public knowledge.

At the top of your conspiracy umbrella lie.... the stonecutters!

'whether unintentional or intentional, No. You said deliberately! No quibbling now!'

Yes, I think it has been deliberate, but I say unintentional for those who don't believe it could have been deliberate.

'The advice was the best that was available at the time. Just as current advice will be updated in time.'

I don't believe that. I believe the alternative non-mainstream nutritionists and authors who called it out as wrong at the time.

"I believe the alternative non-mainstream nutritionists and authors"

What makes you think they aren't part of a secret plot to obfuscate and confuse?

'they are incapable of performing the simplest evil plot without it all going horribly wrong and becoming public knowledge.'

I don't think that stops them from trying, just as 'dodgy dossiers' etc are produced but are eventually shown to be wrong. In the end, most things become public knowledge and it is due to the efforts and consistency of nutritionists etc who maintained their beliefs.

'What makes you think they aren't part of a secret plot to obfuscate and confuse?'

Because they have little to gain by duping the public and because they tend to speak common sense.

Because they have little to gain by duping the public and because they tend to speak common sense.

But the same applies to mainstream scientists and nutritionists.

And give me an example of an alternative scientist who 'called it out as wrong at the time'... they won't have been a lone voice!

I can give you many examples of differing viewpoints, different takes on the same piece of research within the mainstream of science. It doesn't take green credentials to question anything. That is a normal part of the research process. And guidelines are based on the best guess possible. No one ever suggests that they are written in stone, never changing or evolving.

I really don't understand why you are so fixated on making ordinary science some sort of bogeyman, set to make us all ill!

'But the same applies to mainstream scientists and nutritionists.'

Unlike you, I believe that supranational organisations at the near top of the umbrella like the UN and WHO do have something to gain and promote and they choose to promote the advice of mainstream scientists who fit in with their agenda. Yes, there will be mainstream scientists who disagree with them, but they won't be given publicity just like over the green climate catastrophe agenda.

'And guidelines are based on the best guess possible. No one ever suggests that they are written in stone, never changing or evolving.'

It is politicians and bodies above their heads that decide on which of the guidleines, not written in stone, to promote.

'I really don't understand why you are so fixated on making ordinary science some sort of bogeyman, set to make us all ill!'

I'm not talking about scientists, I am talking about politicians, liars and bodies above their heads.