‘Science’ declares ‘ideal diet’ too expensive for world’s poorest… unless necessary economic changes are made


At least one in five people could not afford science’s ‘ideal diet’ designed to feed 10 billion people without hurting the planet, according to a study published on Friday.

The EAT-Lancet report made headlines when it was unveiled in January because it proposed the first scientific targets for both a healthy diet and a sustainable food system.

It recommended people double their intake of nuts, fruit, vegetables and legumes, and eat half as much meat and sugar to prevent millions of early deaths, cut greenhouse gas emissions and preserve land, water and biodiversity.

The Global Burden of Disease study by the U.S.-based Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation said poor diets killed 11 million people – one in five – in 2017, more than smoking, which kills about 8 million people a year.

Agriculture, forestry and other land use accounted for 23% of total net man-made greenhouse gas emissions from 2007 to 2016, soaring to 37% when pre- and post-production activity were factored in, according to the United Nations.

The ‘ideal diet’ – projected to be in place by 2050 – would keep people and planet healthy, said the Lancet.

But it would cost an average $2.84 per head per day, said researchers from the International Food Policy Research Institute and Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University.

This amounts to nearly 90% of a household’s daily per capita income in poorer countries, pushing the regime beyond reach for nearly 1.6 billion people, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, they said in a paper in The Lancet Global Health.

“The actual number must be higher, since people need to spend at least some money on other things such as housing and clothing, as well as education, healthcare and transportation,” senior author Will Masters told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

“For the poorest people, solutions to malnutrition will require economic change,” said Masters, citing higher incomes and lower food costs.

Beans, lentils, cowpeas, some vegetables and cereals are easier to find and cheaper in most countries than foods recommended in the EAT-Lancet diet such as eggs, fish, meat and fruits, but they are “not as delicious or desirable,” he said.

Comment: What an odd PR campaign. It’s not even clear what their main message is, but it no doubt involves globalists standing at the ready to enforce ‘the necessary changes’.

IF all they’re trying to say is that the poorest people on the planet are malnourished because they can’t afford to eat, then sure, we get it. That’s tragic.

BUT the solutions that actually work don’t come from Bill Gates, the UN, the Clinton Foundation, Medecins Sans Frontieres and the British Lancet. They come from nationalist leaders finally lifting their populations out of poverty, more or less en masse, overnight, by NOT listening to the IMF, World Bank and assorted banksters, and instead rapidly rolling out basic infrastructure. Those ‘poor poor people’ then sort out the rest themselves.