An advertisement campaign by Greenpeace in Belgium has a 9 year old girl smoking a cigarette. Then it transitions to processed meat like salami or bologna and makes the point that eating such food is akin to smoking a cigarette. Shocking.
This is the new militancy of the radical anti-meat crowd. The problem is there is good processing and bad processing. Obviously the processing our digestive system does is good. Turning cabbage into sauerkraut is good processing. Turning corn into corn syrup is bad processing. Grinding whole wheat kernels into flour is good processing. But extracting all the bran and fiber, then adding in synthetic vitamins A and D and calling it "fortified" flour is bad processing.
We all know or have been in marriages that make us think the whole institution is bad. And we've seen the opposite. Lots of things in life have a bad side and a good side.
With the EAT-Lancet report out now, climate change on the front pages, and industrial factory farmed animals staring blankly out of their cages via the ubiquitous internet, the anti-meat crowd feels empowered like never before. Prohibition did not require a majority to win; all it needed was a tipping point. That's usually somewhere between 10 and 15 percent.
Even the American Revolution did not enjoy majority favor when it started. Most people still wanted to be British citizens and certainly did not want to take up arms against Britain. The reason I'm bringing up these other movements is because I'm sure many people could not have imagined that it would happen here.
In 1900 I'm sure no one thought the nascent Temperance movement would ever get enough traction to outlaw wine. And yet righteous fervor whipped up enough votes to get it passed. Who would have thought level heads could not prevail in 1860? But no, Lincoln could not abide the Abolitionists, whose righteous indignation against slavery prohibited him from a bloodless buyout. Better to slaughter and maim a million people instead.
And so as we stand here in interesting times, it seems preposterous that meat eaters would be banished to a special room at a restaurant. Or that a restaurant that serves pork barbecue would be required by law to offer synthetic plant-based pork as well. It seems preposterous that meat would be taxed at 130 percent and that livestock farmers would be ostracized from public spaces likes blacks in the Jim Crow era. But history is an interesting teacher, and if it teaches one thing, it teaches that the machinations of perceived moral fervor, whether it's white supremacists or militant vegans, can never be underestimated.
Lots of crazy things have been done throughout history in the name of righteous indignation. In the name of civil purging. In the name of curing social ills. The level of collusion between agenda-driven scientists, academics, and government agencies is palpable when coupled with the fairly universal notion today that orthodox credentialed experts know best, especially if they draw a paycheck by coercion (taxes) rather than voluntaryism (consenting markets).
Canada has issued dietary guidelines for the Innuit, those hardy Eskimos who have lived for centuries on animal fats but who now are in a health crisis due to westernized foods. The guidelines tell them to return to native diets like bananas, tomatoes, and avocados. These guidelines are written by credentialed government experts. Folks, you can't make up things this asinine.
Are you holding your meat provider accountable to be a good one, and not a bad one?