Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to The Lancet, a radical restructuring of global commerce and food distribution is necessary to solve world hunger, prevent obesity and stop agriculture related carbon emissions.
The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition, and Climate Change: The Lancet Commission report
Published: January 27, 2019
Obesity is still increasing in prevalence in almost all countries and is an important risk factor for poor health and mortality. The current approach to obesity prevention is failing despite many piecemeal efforts, recommendations, and calls to action. This Commission following on from two Lancet Series on obesity looks at obesity in a much wider context of common underlying societal and political drivers for malnutrition in all its forms and climate change. The Commission urges a radical rethink of business models, food systems, civil society involvement, and national and international governance to address The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition, and Climate Change. A holistic effort to reorient human systems to achieve better human and planetary health is our most important and urgent challenge.
…
Read more: https://www.thelancet.com/commissions/global-syndemic
From the full report;
…
The Commission developed a conceptual model forThe Global Syndemic that represents an inside out version of the socioecological model.
The natural systems upon which everything on the planet depends are at the centre, and the layers of human systems overlay that with the most fundamental systems (eg, governance) on the inside and moving outwards from macro to micro systems. The Foresight Obesity Systems Map,12 which was the first conceptual model to show obesity as a consequence of complex adaptive systems, has a structure centred on the individual, similar to the socioecological model. This structure is helpful in explaining differences between individuals but less helpful in explaining epidemics sweeping across entire populations.
…
This report describes additional sources of actions to strengthen governance and accountability systems, address vested industry interests, leverage international human rights treaties, and activate community actions and social change. Vested interests constitute a major source of policy inertia that prevents change to the existing systems. For example, national food producers and transnational ultra processed food and beverage manufacturers often exert a disproportionate influence on legislators and the policy making process. Governments face the challenge of regaining control to protect policy making and prioritise the public good over commercial interests, and restructuring business models to minimise negative externalities that contribute to poor human health and damage environments. We assert that there is a right to wellbeing based on state obligations to ensure that all people, especially vulnerable populations, have access to healthy foods and healthy environments. Many initiatives to address The Global Syndemic can begin at the community level, where the systems under local control can be collectively reoriented to achieve better health and environmental outcomes. Nonetheless, community initiatives will need to be reinforced by a regulatory and policy framework, as well as economic incentives and disincentives, to provide healthy and affordable food and beverage choices and promote social and economic environments that encourage physical activity and healthy behaviours.
The Commission believes that the recognition of The Global Syndemic will foster a convergence of many interests, encourage the emergence of an effective social movement, and realign policy measures and governance to reduce obesity, undernutrition, and climate change. Comprehensive and systemic actions are urgently needed.
…
Read more (Requires free email registration): Full report
What could possibly go wrong with the government seizing control of food production and distribution for the public good?
The world is infested with busy bodies, always convinced of their virtuous intentions. I have always maintained that Lefties must have a cause, whatever cause, in order to “justify” their existence. The consequences of these idealistic notions usually ends with tragedy. Witness then, the untold millions that had their lives ended in the cause of a utopian communist society. Individual rights must remain supreme or we will all come to a grievous end if the collectivist narrative comes to pass.
It’s nothing to do with causes but all about the struggle for these pathological types and in global climate they have found their ultimate to struggle against and anyone who gets in their way.
“For example, meat production generates a lot of greenhouse gasses, and greenhouse gasses increase climate change and catastrophic weather events in the developing world which impairs agricultural production and contributes to undernutrition.”
But no empirical evidence to make the required connection from meat production to atmospheric composition
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/16/beef-and-climate-change/
As always incredible statistical work! Does Willie Soon know of your work or Ross Mckitrick?
What happened to the Hippocratic Oath – first do no harm?
Actually the first rule of the Hippocratic Oath is “To hold my teacher in this art equal to my own parents.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
The “First do no harm” bit is believed to come from the 17th century.
I’d rather live where there are lines of bread waiting for me, rather than lines of people waiting for bread.
All you need to know about this is that the FDA’s posture on the food pyramid was driven by one scientist who ruthlessly suppressed any evidence that fat wasn’t the problem. High carb diets with bad habits can and do kill lots of people. Not everyone though, since your bio-chemical individuality (BCI) controls how you react to your nutritional environment. Your BCI is in turn driven by your genes and some of the other molecules in your cell nucleus.
The idea that any group of people anywhere know a priori what is good for everyone is total nonsense!
J S Mill described government as necessary but also highly dangerous and he defined liberty as the limit ‘patriots’ placed on the power of the State.
Alexis de Tocqueville coined the term soft despotism (British nanny state) where ‘the state is analogous to a parent and is run by “benevolent schoolmasters” … creating an “orderly, gentle, peaceful slavery” … [where] … the exercise of the free agency of man is no longer useful or used less frequently, with his will circumscribed within a narrower range, finally reducing him to a perpetual childhood …” (Wiki).
I am becoming convinced we need a tax on do-gooders,for the salvation of civil society.
Or perhaps an attack first,then a tax if they persist,150% of their gross income might do the job.
Every civic collapse in history occurs after the do-gooders rise to social dominance..
John Ioannidis Aims His Bazooka at Nutrition Science
John Ioannidis is like the Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse. When he comes riding in, scientists tremble in fear.
This is for good reason. He first burst onto the national scene in 2005 with a groundbreaking paper titled simply “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” His statistical analysis and logic are impeccable, and his paper has never been seriously refuted. Furthermore, he has had a tremendous impact: The paper has been viewed more than 2.5 million times, which is the scientific equivalent of a viral Katy Perry video.
Since then, Dr. Ioannidis has gone on to show that the best scientists don’t always get funded, why neuroscience is unreliable, why most clinical research is useless, and that most economics studies are exaggerated. In other words, the process by which we acquire new knowledge is fundamentally flawed and much of what we think we know is wrong. Dr. Ioannidis is not just a bull in a china shop; he’s a bazooka in a china shop.
And now the bazooka is aimed at nutrition research.
Nutrition Research Needs ‘Radical Reform’
Here at ACSH, we have been saying for a long time that nutrition research is shoddy and mostly wrong. The reason is inherent to the way research is conducted in the field: Too much of it relies on food frequency questionnaires (FFQs), which ask people what and how much they ate. Humans are notoriously bad at remembering things like this, which is why research has linked pretty much everything to cancer. We also lie about stuff, like how much alcohol we drink.
In a new op-ed in JAMA, Dr. Ioannidis bluntly states that nutrition epidemiology is in need of “radical reform.” In a paragraph that perfectly captures the absurdity of the field, he writes:
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/08/24/john-ioannidis-aims-his-bazooka-nutrition-science-13357
Johns Hopkins study suggests medical errors are third-leading cause of death in U.S.
Physicians advocate for changes in how deaths are reported
By Vanessa McMains / Published March 20, 2017
Analyzing medical death rate data over an eight-year period, Johns Hopkins patient safety experts have calculated that more than 250,000 deaths per year are due to medical error in the U.S. Their figure, published May 3 in The BMJ, surpasses the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s third leading cause of death—respiratory disease, which kills close to 150,000 people per year.
The Johns Hopkins team says the CDC’s way of collecting national health statistics fails to classify medical errors separately on the death certificate. The researchers are advocating for updated criteria for classifying deaths on death certificates.
“Incidence rates for deaths directly attributable to medical care gone awry haven’t been recognized in any standardized method for collecting national statistics,” says Martin Makary, professor of surgery at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and an authority on health reform. “The medical coding system was designed to maximize billing for physician services, not to collect national health statistics, as it is currently being used.”
https://hub.jhu.edu/2016/05/03/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death/
Surely Physicians have better things to focus on !! than Climate Change and related junk science.
because if they had to admit it in writing theyd be sued and or deregistered?
ever tried to get any doc to admit the other one you saw was wrong?
“Governments face the challenge of regaining control to protect policy making”
When did the governments ever lose control? * The maxim is Freeze, bend over and spread em! We know what is good for you and you will obey or we will make more new laws to make you obey. We have already ruled that what you breathe out is a pollutant. Therefore since you pollute we will tax you to death. *
And who is going to run this global, totalitarian state that is being demanded by the nameless, faceless “Commissars” of the Lancet?
Al Gore?
Doctors make their living by handling health issues.
Have they suddenly turned stupid to the point of undermining their source of easy income ?
“What could possibly go wrong with the government seizing control of food production and distribution for the public good?”
Apart from the Communist experiments in Russia, China, Cambodia and Venezuela? Forgive me if I left out your own personal little hell hole. I have a short memory.
I think there is a missing /sarc/ tag.
Mmmmm, the same dufs who brought us margerine because butter was bad, only to discover the reverse; the same dufs who brought us a low Sodium diet and labeling requirements when it is actually the Chlorine in table salt that causes hypertension; the same dufs who preached the low fat hi carb diet before realizing they created a generation of carbo couch potatoes?
These dufs want control of the food supply?
I think not.
“they created a generation of carbo couch potatoes?”
The couch potatoes created themselves.
The Lancet hasn’t got this message!
27 Jan: Politico Mag: The New Language of Climate Change
Scientists and meteorologists on the front lines of the climate wars are testing a new strategy to get through to the skeptics and outright deniers.
By BRYAN BENDER
That means avoiding the phrase “climate change,” so loaded with partisan connotations as it is. Stop talking about who or what is most responsible. And focus instead on what is happening and how unusual it is—and what it is costing communities.
That was a main takeaway at the American Meteorological Society’s annual meeting this month, where top meteorologists and environmental scientists from around the country gathered to hear the latest research on record rainfall and drought, debate new weather prediction models and digest all manner of analysis on climatic mutations…
The new language taking root is meant to instill this sense of urgency about what is happening in ways to which everyday citizens can relate—without directly blaming it on human activity…
“Is it humans or is it not? We really need to get beyond that,” Bernadette Woods Placky, an Emmy award-winning meteorologist who directs the Climate Matters program at Climate Central, told me…
Nowhere is the challenge of convincing the doubters without being labeled a partisan or environmental zealot greater than in the ranks of broadcast meteorologists. Local TV weather experts were among the last holdouts in the scientific community to accept the consensus that humans are responsible for climate change—so much so that in 2014 then-President Barack Obama met with some of them as part of his effort to sell his environmental policy agenda…READ ALL
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/27/climate-change-politics-224295
“where top meteorologists and environmental scientists from around the country gathered to hear the latest research on record rainfall and drought,”
That must have been pretty boring. Nothing to see there. All the statistics say there is less extreme weather today than in the past.
““Is it humans or is it not? We really need to get beyond that,” Bernadette Woods Placky, an Emmy award-winning meteorologist who directs the Climate Matters program at Climate Central, told me”
Well, no doubt, a True Believer, as you show yourself to be by your statement, would want to get beyond having to prove a connection between CO2 and the Earth’s weather and climate, but first there has to be some evidence of thsi connection and as of today’s date, there is no such evidence.
If Ms Placky has any such evidence, skeptics would be eager to see it, and she should provide it and *then* we can get “beyond that”.
It ought to be pretty simple, Ms Placky. Just provide us with the evidence you used to convince yourself that CAGW is real.
If leftists want to use obesity as an excuse to implement socialism, then why are they so triggered when somebody is fat-shamed? They don’t mind shaming people for other behaviors they deem unacceptable, such as rejecting climate alarmisim, supporting stronger border control, or supporting anything Trump does for that matter. Why shouldn’t we then fat-shame?
It must be hard to be a leftist, their twisted value system is impossible to reconcile.
Most of you have already said everything that needs to be said, and are far more articulate and knowledgeable than I am.
All I have to say is this: That article is absolutely terrifying. And I’m not engaging in hyperbole.
Chris I’m as terrified as you.
A new low and extremely dangerous . . .
“The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition, and Climate Change”.
Who is behind this push?
Sad that a Kiwi is involved.
I hate to think where this is going!!
It may be worth reminding everyone, there are two magic words that ensure you can claim your version of better is beyond argument.
“Health and Safety”.
The medical profession have been busily telling us, we must do this or that, to improve our health for as long as there have been medical practitioners.
It is a catch all. No one individual can possibly counter the nonsense pushed into the public mind by these over valued opinionated experts.
The acid test of the efficacy of medical advise, can be gleaned by conducting a random BMI survey of those working in the NHS.
There, the staff have the full on access to the sound medical advice the Lancet advances.
When they manage to get the NHS staff to maintain healthy body weight, then they can extend their good advise to those of us outside their bubble.
I will file this latest stupidity under the (bulging) file of, do as we say, not as we do.
“The long march through the institutions”, continues.
Statistics published by The Lancet show that man dies 17 times more in cold than in hot weather.
So, what type of climate change should we worry about ? Global warming or cooling ?
Ref. : https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext
Abstract :
We analysed 74 225 200 deaths in various periods between 1985 and 2012. In total, 7·71% (95% empirical CI 7·43–7·91) of mortality was attributable to non-optimum temperature in the selected countries within the study period, with substantial differences between countries, ranging from 3·37% (3·06 to 3·63) in Thailand to 11·00% (9·29 to 12·47) in China. The temperature percentile of minimum mortality varied from roughly the 60th percentile in tropical areas to about the 80–90th percentile in temperate regions. More temperature-attributable deaths were caused by cold (7·29%, 7·02–7·49) than by heat (0·42%, 0·39–0·44). Extreme cold and hot temperatures were responsible for 0·86% (0·84–0·87) of total mortality.
How can they be so ideologically biased about “Climate Change” to contradict their own studies ?
Good point Petit, but don’t forget global warming also causes more severe snowstorms these days, in fact any extreme bad weather is probably climate…
Petit, the article that you quote is from 2015. Since then, in late 2017, a certain Chrisitana Figueres has joined the Lancet staff as a Chair of a policy coordinating body :
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)31667-7/fulltext
The mission , her mission:
-“The Lancet Countdown: Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change is meeting these needs.3
By providing annual data across a range of indicators, the Lancet Countdown will lead and communicate on health and climate change; demonstrate the health co-benefits of mitigation and adaptation; and monitor global progress in meeting the Paris Agreement.
The Lancet Countdown has the potential not only to improve the response to climate change, but to transform it. The collaboration is therefore delighted to announce that Christiana Figueres will join as Chair of its High-Level Advisory Board. Much as she did with the Paris Agreement, Christiana Figueres will help guide the Lancet Countdown to maximise its impact and deliver on the promise of the Paris Agreement.”-
in the future I suspect you will not see many objective papers from the Lancet stable if they have any connection with climate change , the Paris agreement or “sustainability”.
The Lancet has gone down hill over the years, now it is a socialist rag.
All doctors should be brutally nationalised and forced to get on with curing people- or else.
Since when did being a political activist become part of the hippocratic oath? Who reviewed this and threw it back to remind the authors of their position? There is a concerted effort to corrupt and politicise all aspects of once impartial ( importantly so) science.
Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on planetary health
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16784 On the definition and identifiability of the alleged “hiatus” in global warming https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2006004 Climate communication for biologists: When a picture can tell a thousand words https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/22/collapse-civilisation-near-certain-decades-population-bomb-paul-ehrlich https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/22/collapse-civilisation-near-certain-decades-population-bomb-paul-ehrlich.
Christiana Figueres, Rockefeller Foundation, Lancet, Lewandowsky Oreskes and Whitmarsh psychologists rewriting history to eliminate the pause “we just imagined it” Rockefeller “cities” tagged on articles about population. If there is not a conspiratorial aspect to this pursuit of a utopian centralised green nirvana then what exactly is going on?
After government controlled healthacre, government controlled food care. What could go wrong?
“Doctors Demand Total Control of Global Food Distribution to Solve Obesity, Hunger and Climate Change”
No.
It was following doctors’ lousy advice to avoid eating fat that aggravated the obesity epidemic in the first place.
Avoid sugar, especially soft drinks, pig out on eggs and bacon or sausage, and nuts, and you’ll lose excess weight. I did.
https://www.bodybuilding.com/content/how-eating-more-fat-helps-you-lose-more-weight.html
https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/its-full-fat-and-helps-you-lose-weight#1
like diabetics being told to use artificial sweeteners
and still having weight n blood level issues
pretty simple reason
the body tastes sweet and produces insulin
if theres no sugar the insulin is there and has to be handled or stored
the fattest people i know use fake sugars eat “diet foods and low fat muck