UN Sham Science Reaches New Dimension of Absurdity: Bug Guts/Meat Are Good For Us, But Livestock Meat Is Toxic!

The UN World Health Organization has begun paving the way for steering the global population away from one of nature’s most nutritious foods for the human species: meat from livestock.

Guido Romeo's photo.

Those of us who follow climate science know exactly how the sham works: Select only the studies that support the theory, dismiss all others, and claim the evidence is overwhelming. The latest in the UN sights is meat, a vital human food staple over the last 4 million years.

Photo Matthias Heitmann

The importance of meat in the roughly 4-million year history of the human diet can neither be overstated nor denied. Human brain development is directly traced back to its consumption. Yet global bureaucrats at UN’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) want to have us believe otherwise and have rolled out their latest sham science. Their latest claims:

1) Processed meat such as bacon and sausages are shown to directly cause cancer.
2) Unprocessed fresh meat is also likely linked to higher rates of cancer.

We’ve seen it all before in climate science: Activist bureaucrats single out something they don’t like (CO2), funnel billions of dollars to whores in white lab coats who in turn produce phony scientific studies to scare the public. This is also how they did it with saturated fats in the 2oth century, and carbon dioxide since the 1980s.

CNN here writes of a reaction to the latest UN findings:

‘They tortured the data to ensure a specific outcome,’ said Betsy Booren, vice president of scientific affairs at the North American Meat Institute.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association said the scientists who issued the report were split on their decision to make an explicit link between red meat with cancer.”

The problem with the UN’s findings is that it blames the wrong things for disease. Why does the UN ignore the obvious culprits in our food supply: i.e. plant-based cooking oils and sugar. Recall how in the 20th century animal-based saturated fats used to be used for cooking, but the edible oils industry corrupted both the science and the FDA. Soon followed a tsunami of fraudulent science papers, all blaming saturated fats for heart disease, cancer and metabolic syndrome, and more. Consumers were tricked into switching to a diet rich in carbohydrates and plant based oils. Instead of butter, eggs, cheese and lard, people were told to consume vegetable oils made of rapeseed, cottonseed, sunflower seeds etc. – the very oils that many of us call biodiesel and burn in our cars. Today we have an unprecedented global epidemic of diabetes, cancer and heart disease as a result of the fraud-based nutritional guidelines.

World’s oldest person, 116, has been eating bacon over 100 years

Ironically the world’s oldest person, Susannah Mushatt Jones, 116 years old, swears by bacon owing her longevity to the fatty meat which the UN now labels as a carcinogen. It just cannot get more absurd. Yet it does. There are other studies showing that it is vegetarian diets are in fact more dangerous than meat-eating diets. For example read here and here.

UN bureaucrats lying through their vegan teeth

It’s no secret that the vegetarian and vegan movements are not driven by nutritional science, rather they are in large part driven by environmental and animal rights moralists. It has little to do with what is the most nutritional for us. As was the case with carbohydrates and plant-based oils, global bureaucrats are now laying the foundation for the next future mega health crisis, which will be inevitably brought on by the severe nutritional deficiencies of a meatless diet.

The very bureaucrats who for decades falsely told us to stay away from saturated fats, such as whole butter and cheese, are now telling us to stay away from one of the most fundamental food staples of humans: meat. The bureaucrats are lying through their teeth again.

But bug guts and bug meat are healthy!

So according to the UN what should us humans be eating? The answer: bugs! That’s right, bug guts and bug meat are healthy; but animal meat is carcinogenic.


UN says meat on the left is safe to eat, but bacon on the right causes cancer! Photo left: Toby Hudson, CC BY-SA 3.0

 This is the new dimension of absurdity we are seeing from today’s pathological global bureaucrats.


23 responses to “UN Sham Science Reaches New Dimension of Absurdity: Bug Guts/Meat Are Good For Us, But Livestock Meat Is Toxic!”

  1. Robin Pittwood

    And one could ask where is the study on eating bugs.

  2. R2Dtoo

    The UN was set up to foster world peace and help prevent conflict. It has now grown into a massive unaccountable global bureaucracy. Who needs WMO (and its offshoots like IPCC), WHO, UNICEF etc. No one is elected and can be held accountable to anyone. The Bureaucracy consumes vast sums of money sustaining itself. Western nations should cut all funding except that necessary for the General Assembly and Security Council. Most nations have their own agencies to monitor the social/economic/legal aspects of society. National foreign aid programmes do most of the real work anyway.

    One thing I haven’t seen is a number that reflects what the average per capita world net worth (however measured) if wealth is “redistributed” equally among all people.

    1. Arsten

      That’s fairly simple. The world’s GDP was $521 Trillion in 2014 (in 2015 USD). The 2014 world population estimate was 7.244 billion.

      Redistributing this to all of the people would be $72,023.33 (2015 USD) per person. All you’d have to do is collapse the capitalist system to redistribute that to all the world’s people and make the money worthless in the process!

  3. JJM Gommers

    The impact of the green lobby becomes scary, how to stop them?
    This morning commentators on RTLZ discussed the SHELL results, outphasing Arctic drilling, tar sands Canada and fracking Ukraine. The final comment was SHELL should look the coming time for other opportunities than oil and gas. The indoctrination is now so widspread that more irrational decisions can be expected.

  4. Joe Chang

    If bacon were to become illegal, then I will be an outlaw.

  5. Steve Crook

    When I first heard the UN report mentioned in the media, my reaction was much the same as in this post. But having had chance to read some of the surrounding material and a few articles from people I’m inclined to trust, I think the problem has been with the way in which the UN report has been presented, rather than the report itself.

    The elevated risk for eating processed meat is small but definitely present. One way or another it’s been known for a while, all this report does is try to characterise it.

    Take a look at http://examine.com/blog/scientists-just-found-that-red-meat-causes-cancer–or-did-they/ which I think presents a fairly balanced look at the report and the evidence it’s based on.

  6. David Appell

    What a brilliant and detailed scientific takedown!


    1. Bernd Felsche

      Download the PDF of the new article from The Lancet. Read it all and don’t miss the bit where it states:

      There is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of consumption of red meat and of processed meat.

      The only “proof” available to support the hypotheses is weak epidemiology.

      A “components” analysis is invalidated by food not being made up entirely of single components. Thus one find epidemiology that indicates that coffee with bacon apparently negates the carcinogenic effects of processed-meat. Of course; there could be confounding factors also indicated by the combined consumption of coffee and bacon. Epidemiology, like all statistics, doesn’t reveal causes.

      1. Sceptical Sam


        The other relevant comment from the Lancet is this one from Richard Horton, Editor:

        ‘The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.’

        Eating bugs seems like a fashionable trend I’ll leave to the eco-socialists at the UN and elsewhere.

  7. GP Alexander

    The local Vancouver radio stations have been all over this and scaring the Bejjessus out of everyone. 18% increase in coleo-rectal cancer. Everyone, including so-called nutritionists are freaking out.

    Once again, epic fail in maths. Existing coleo-rectal cancer rates for men over total lifetimes is about 4%, an 18% increase takes the rate up to 5%. That however, does not sound frightening. But the fear generated by the original portrayal does sound like something that should be taxed. 😉

    This is classic UN tactics. Scare people. Try to get them to stop eating meat as livestock produces methane gas and we can prevent cancer and global warming by banning/taxing livestock-based foods.

    It would make more sense to ban termites as they produce much more methane gas. Ban swamp lands while they are at. The intertidal zone of Dave Suzuki oceanfront property produces more methane than your average cow.

  8. GP Alexander

    Correction: Everyone, including so-called nutritionists (are) is freaking out.

  9. DirkH

    Let’s not forget that warmunists believe that 51% of Global Warming is caused by livestock. As repeatedly documented in their bible, the Guardian, over many many years.

    So the warmunist journalists will fight any meat consumption to their deaths, and support any and all regulations, taxes and laws that works to reduce meat consumption.

    Journalists: they are not your friend. They are crazy people. Don’t support them. Don’t buy their products.

  10. Loodt Pretorius

    To my mind the fact that Susannah Mushatt Jones, 116 years old, swears by bacon is the highlight of the story.

    In a similar vein I read on an Irish website that 7 out of 10 of the oldest living persons in recent years are smokers:-


    So, do you believe in sound evidence or some fool with an Excel spreadsheet?

    1. DirkH

      That’s survivorship bias.
      For instance if you only look at currently active hedge fund managers you would have to conclude that to become a billionaire, the safe way is to become one. You are discounting the number of people who have already failed in their attempts.

    2. Steve Crook

      Have you heard the one about the person who tried to smuggle a bomb on board the flight they were taking? They’d heard that the chances of there being two bombs on the same flight were infinitesimal….

  11. Loodt Pretorius

    DirkH, survivorship bias for sure. If 7 out of 10 of the oldest persons were smokers, can we therefore assume that not everybody is trying to live as long possible? Granted we should adjust the number of survivors with the number of people who checked in to the Dignitas clinics in Sweden.

    1. DirkH

      There is this recent finding that variations of one specific gene affect the rate of damage in individual smokers’ lungs. Those old people surely have the variant that relatively protects their lungs.

      So as long as you don’t know that such a variation exists you would draw wrong conclusions. Omitted variable bias.

  12. Loodt Pretorius

    DirkH, the same principle applies to most things we consume. Purported Peanut allergy is a particular case that comes to mind.

  13. Lars P.

    ‘They tortured the data to ensure a specific outcome’
    Welcome to the post modern “activist science”.

  14. UN Sham Science Reaches New Dimension of Absurdity: Bug Guts/Meat Are Good For Us, But Livestock Meat Is Toxic! | wchildblog

    […] From NoTricksZone, by P Gosselin […]

  15. Mervyn

    People have failed to recognise the real agenda behind this meat thing. It’s really all about trying to rid the world of pork, which is eaten widely around the world… bacon and eggs at breakfast; ham; sausages; roast pork; etc … delicious!

    But ever since the global islamisation process commenced, pressure from the powerful UN’s Council of Islamic Organisations has become prominent to rid the western world of pork for so as not to offend the growing muslim populations in Europe and elsewhere. So the UN’s WHO came up with this nonsense.

    It is false pseudo science from the WHO in the same way dangerous man made global warming alarmism is false pseudo science from the IPCC. There is absolutely not evidence that pork is harmful to human beings.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy