Veganism

Vegetarians are people who do not eat meat. Their diet consists mainly of plant foods but they will often consume animal products like milk, cheese, yoghurt and eggs. Some of them are pescatarians and they will include fish in their diet. Vegans take things a step further and exclude all animal foods. They only consume plant foods and some will also refuse to use any animal products like wearing leather shoes or belts. There has been a surge of interest in veganism in recent times. Reports in the media suggest that a vegan, or plant-based, diet is more healthy than an omnivore diet; it is kinder to animals and it is better for the environment. Are these claims true?

No, they are not true. An important aspect of this site is to demonstrate the benefits of animal-sourced foods for our physical and mental health and the necessity of correctly managed livestock for environmental health. An entirely plant-based diet leads to nutrient deficiencies, especially in children. The intensive farming of single plant crops involves herbicides and pesticides with devastating effects on biodiversity. Vastly more creatures die in the production of grains and vegetables than die for the meat on your plate. This section of the website concentrates on why the pro-vegan story is a fallacy.

How did veganism begin?

We evolved into the people we are because, for millions of years, our ancestors ate the meat and fat of large animals. Our species is the most dominant species on the planet and we have adapted to life in all the extreme climates that exist on Earth. Indigenous tribes, unaffected by modern life, still exist around the world from rainforests and deserts to the Arctic Circle. Their diets vary but none of them have adopted a meat-free, vegan diet.

The avoidance of animal-based foods began in America in the 1850s within an illogical, religious sect called the Seventh Day Adventist Church. I call them illogical because, although they believe that God created them, they believe that sexual arousal is a sin. (Surely, if God created us, God created arousal so we ‘would go forth and multiply’.) Their leader, Ellen White, also believed that eating rich foods, like meat, stimulated sinful passion and bland foods diminished it. She preached this doctrine with great determination and convinced everyone in the Seventh Day Adventist Church to accept this idea as part of their belief. (John Harvey Kellogg was a member of this church and you can read about him here.)

In Britain, veganism began with a man called Donald Watson who founded the Vegan Society in 1944. He is credited with coining the word ‘vegan’ which he created by joining the beginning and end of the word vegetarian. He was an animal rights campaigner whose interest in veganism began when he witnessed the slaughter of a pig on a farm. He campaigned for a meat free diet because he thought farming was cruel to animals.

A plant-based diet, without the animal foods that our ancestors ate for a million years, was invented in America to reduce sexual arousal and was copied in Britain because one man thought it was cruel to animals. In neither case did it have anything to do with improvements to human health or the environment. Both of those false ideas have been added later in a cynical attempt to persuade unsuspecting people to avoid the most nutritious foods available to us, namely meat, fish, eggs and dairy.

Coercion is immoral

Over the last few days the mainstream media has produced a huge and co-ordinated assault on the ‘unvaccinated’. These are just two of the headlines from 14th of December.

This comes at the same time as the Government is pushing hard to ‘Get your Booster’. The letters pages of many newspapers contain multiple examples of people suggesting that ‘the selfish, unvaccinated should be excluded from all public places and from treatment on the NHS’.

This divisive, coercive, unscientific and unethical attack on an individual’s right to choose what is injected into their body has reached extraordinary proportions. Do people really believe that the vaccines they have had are rendered useless by contact with someone has not had the same injection? Do they believe that every unvaccinated person is a vector of disease? Surely, if the unvaccinated have caught a deadly disease they are not going to be sitting next to you in a restaurant; they will be at home in bed. Why do they think the double or triple dose of vaccines they have had will not protect them from the virus? This argument makes absolutely no sense. Not only that, the latest research on the Omicron variant shows that it is the vaccinated who are spreading the disease.

This is from The Telegraph 14th Dec.
The Centre for Disease Control in America has announced that 80% of Omicron cases are in the vaccinated.

We are being lied to over and over again. There is an agenda at play. I do not know what it is, but this is not how you improve the health of a nation. They are trying to blame a section of society who have not complied with their every whim. They are trying to turn people against each other. Their only response to Covid has always been vaccines but it is the vaccinated who are catching this new variant. They are not being honest; they need to Stop Feeding Us Lies.

Covid Conundrums

Have you ever wondered why some people do not want to be ‘jabbed’? Or do you need to explain to others why you do not want to be ‘jabbed’? We live in strange times when people who have chosen to be ‘protected’ from Covid19, by having two ‘jabs’, are worried about meeting people who have not been ‘vaccinated’. If the vaccines work, what do they have to fear? If the ‘so-called’ vaccines do not work, why should anybody have them? We seem to have reached the extraordinary situation where the ineffectiveness of these vaccines is blamed upon the people who have not had them. I do not claim to cover all the angles but in this post I list many of the points which I believe should be open for discussion. The mainstream media, however, never allows any of these topics to be raised.

[All the references in this post can be found on the Covid-References page]

1.Falsification of numbers. The daily reporting of deaths was used to scare everybody into believing SARS-Cov-2 was an extremely deadly virus. But the totals were for people who had died ‘within 28 days of a positive Covid test’. This has never been done previously for any other disease. It includes all the people who died of cancer, heart disease, road accidents and suicide as long as they had a recent positive test. Nobody knows how many have died specifically of Covid because this is a deliberate falsification.


2. The Government listened to the advice of Prof Ferguson, who predicted a death toll of half a million people. A cursory glance at the history of Ferguson’s previous clairvoyance shows a constant, reliable record of enormous over-exaggeration. He has never come close to being correct. [Ref 1] The Government used a totally unreliable source to guess at the possible severity of the disease and caused panic by giving it credence.

 
3. The media fearmongering was enhanced by the daily reporting of ‘case’ numbers, which were determined by the PCR test. However, the PCR test was not designed as a diagnostic tool. The polymerase chain reaction is a method of replicating a segment of genetic material and when the process is repeated sufficiently often there is enough material for it to be detected. Detecting a fragment of viral DNA via this method cannot possibly tell you if it came from a living, active virus or the remnants of a dead virus, which has been destroyed by the individual’s immune system. To suggest that all PCR positive results are from infectious people is false. [Ref 2]


4. During the first wave, the median age of death was 82, which is slightly older than the national, UK, median age of death at 81 years of age. [Ref 3] Figures issued by the ONS (Office for National Statistics) showed that 95% of the people who died with Covid had pre-existing disease. [Ref 4] It was clear from the beginning that this virus was only dangerous to the elderly and those with compromised immune systems. Not one person in the Government or Sage has recommended steps to improve metabolic health and our immune systems. They have totally ignored all the evidence that deficiencies in vitamin D, zinc and selenium are closely linked to a weakened immune system. [Ref 5] The correct diet, or appropriate supplementation, cannot carry a downside and, for most people, will help. This has never been mentioned by the people employed to advise on our health.


5. Lockdown. The quarantine of infected, ill people has been shown to reduce the spread of infectious diseases. The quarantine (lockdown) of millions of healthy people has never been used before and has no medical history to recommend it. The Government enforced this experiment on the nation without any attempt to perform a risk-to-benefit analysis. If Boris Johnson worked for a private corporation and had introduced such draconian, expensive and experimental measures without any attempt to calculate the unforeseen consequences, he would have been sacked for dereliction of his duty. The idea that lockdowns worked and should have been implemented earlier has gained widespread acceptance, without any evidence for their benefit. Data from each of the States in America shows no significant difference between the states which locked down and those that did not. [Ref 6]


6. A considerable surge in early deaths occurred in care homes. This was caused by the incompetent, and Government led, removal of large numbers of hospitalised, unwell people back to care homes which were not equipped to deal with them. Many of these unfortunate people had Do Not Resuscitate notices applied to them without their consent. [Ref 7] There is some evidence that many of these were ‘finished off’ with the excessive use of Midazolam injections, stocks of which were ordered by Matt Hancock. [Ref 8]


7. The Strategic Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) is a committee whose members change depending upon the nature of the current emergency. The Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, and The Chief Scientific Adviser, Patrick Vallance, chose the people they believed are best suited to help the Government to make appropriate decisions. The group they assembled contained no expert immunologists but it did contain several mathematical modellers and behavioural scientists. As a consequence, the country has been subjected to a grotesque series of psychological stresses and fears. [Ref 9] Professor Sheldon Cohen of the Carnegie Mellon University is an expert in the effect of stress on immunity. He has shown that prolonged isolation and fear are hugely detrimental to our ability to resist respiratory viruses. [Ref 10] It is as if lockdowns were designed to make us all less able to fight off viruses with our natural immunity. If Sage did not know this, they are negligent and if they did know but still proceeded with lockdown, they are corrupt.

8. The Sage group also contains an extraordinary number of conflicts of interest tied to the Pharmaceutical Industry and especially to vaccine manufacturers. They have constantly promoted vaccines and ignored all other possibilities. It is well known that natural immunity after infection provides better and longer lasting protection from reinfection than that provided by vaccines. But Sage and the Government have continually insisted that everyone must be vaccinated regardless of whether they have naturally produced antibodies or not. This makes no medical sense but makes huge financial profits for vaccine producers. [Ref 11]

9. For several months in the spring of 2020 Sage told us there was no reliable evidence to support the wearing of masks to reduce transmission. However, masks were made mandatory in July 2020 precisely when the prevalence of this seasonal virus had reached its lowest level of the year. Boris Johnson tells us he is following the science but clearly nobody is. The logical reason for implementing a mask mandate in summer is to maintain the fear already created by lockdowns. [Ref 12]

10. I referred to ‘so-called’ vaccines earlier because these ’jabs’ are not strictly vaccines. They are a type of medical device, which creates a protein in the body and this protein elicits an immune response. A typical vaccine consists of a dead or harmless virus which directly produces an immune response to the entire virus. A typical vaccine is also expected to prevent an individual from contracting the disease and from transmitting it. The Covid jabs allow you to catch Covid and transmit it. Their only claim to benefit consists of a promise that a Covid infection will be less severe than if you had not had the jab. How can they quantify that? How do they know how one individual would have reacted to Covid with or without the jab? This is not a deadly disease; the chance of survival is exceptionally good. [Ref 13]

11 These ‘vaccines’ are pushed hard on to absolutely everybody but they have not finished their trials yet, and do not do so until 2023. They have received ‘Emergency Authorisation’ which is not full approval. To obtain Emergency Authorisation, a medicine must be the only viable option during a clear and obvious emergency. The only health emergency in the UK is metabolic syndrome, which consists of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure. [Ref 14] Sixty-four per cent of the population are overweight and we know, from 4 above, that metabolic disorders greatly increase an individual’s risk of serious Covid complications. Metabolic diseases are the reason the NHS is constantly under pressure. Throughout their tenure, neither Whitty nor Vallance have done a single thing to improve the nation’s metabolic health.

Emergency Authorisation cannot be granted if there is an alternative therapy. Sage, the Government, and the media have ignored all other treatments and disparaged any that have been mentioned. Ivermectin is a safe and cheap drug which has been taken by millions of people for years. There is considerable evidence from around the world that it is effective against Covid19. [Ref 15]

12. We have already seen that Covid poses no danger to healthy young people, but the age group at which people are ‘invited’ to have a ‘jab’ continues to fall. When it reached schoolchildren, the JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation) decided to recommend against ‘jabbing’ such young people because the benefit did not outweigh the risk. Chris Whitty and the other home nation CMOs decided to ignore expert advice and proceed. (We have already seen that Whitty has serious conflicts of interest when it comes to the promotion of vaccines.) Before having any medical procedure, an individual is supposed to give informed consent. It is also contrary to the Nuremburg Code to use coercion to persuade someone to have a medical procedure. The Government’s entire campaign of persuasion towards young people has involved coercion, with constant reference to ‘getting your freedoms back’ and without any mention of the undeniable risks involved with this ‘vaccine’. The Government’s actions are unethical and immoral.

13. Covid jabs have a terrible safety record. [Ref 16] All previous vaccines have been withdrawn when they displayed harm to recipients of lesser degree than these do. The latest VAERS report shows extraordinary levels of damage, but it receives no publicity in the mainstream media. These results would normally cause a vaccine to be banned from use. Why don’t they? Government data on ‘variants of concern’ from August 2021 shows that you are more likely to die from Covid if are double vaccinated than unvaccinated. See [Ref 17]

14. Since the emergence of Sars-1 and MERS many years ago, the pharmaceutical industry has been trying to produce an effective coronavirus vaccine. All attempts have failed during the animal trials because of a reaction known as ADE (Antibody-dependent enhancement). [Ref 18] The vaccines initially created antibodies but when the animals were challenged by a wild virus, the disease was made worse by the over-reaction of the immune system. (This may be what is happening with Ref 17.) What many sceptical people find truly sinister is the desire to ‘jab’ every single person in the world with a ‘vaccine’ that has not been through any animal trials and was rushed into use via Emergency Authorisation. The unvaccinated are, in fact, performing the vital role of a control group, which is something the authorities do not want. Why would that be?

15. The ‘vaccine passport’. Scotland has already introduced a mandatory vaccine passport, creating a medical apartheid that most of us thought could never happen in the UK. England will no doubt follow soon. This will bar all unvaccinated people from their inalienable rights and all normal gatherings for theatre, sport and social events. If Covid19 was a deadly disease and the vaccine prevented infection and transmission, it might make sense. But it is clear that Covid is not particularly dangerous for the vast majority of healthy people and the vaccine neither protects from infection nor transmission. So vaccinated people can gather and possibly infect each other but unvaccinated people will not be allowed to gather even if they have recently tested negative. Does this sound like they are following the science? Or does it sound like Covid is being used as an excuse to introduce a system of digital control over our lives, where we all have to ‘show our papers’?

Do you think any of the points I have raised are, at least, worthy of a civilise debate on television? If so, why do you think that debate never happens?

Covid References

Reference 1

Six questions that Neil Ferguson should be asked | The Spectator

Reference 2

Landmark legal ruling finds that Covid tests are not fit for purpose.

Reference 3

Reference 4

Reference 5

Vitamin D and Its Potential Benefit for the COVID-19 Pandemic – PubMed (nih.gov)

Potential health benefits of zinc supplementation for the management of COVID-19 pandemic – PubMed (nih.gov)

Selenium and selenoproteins in viral infection with potential relevance to COVID-19 – PubMed (nih.gov)

Reference 6

Reference 7

Age UK response to DNR forms during Covid-19 crisis

Reference 8

CARE homes have been accused of using powerful sedatives to make coronavirus victims die more quickly.

Reference 9

Reference 10

 Psychosocial Vulnerabilities to Upper Respiratory Infectious Illness: Implications for Susceptibility to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) – Sheldon Cohen, 2020 (sagepub.com)

Reference 11

SAGE conflicts of interest

Reference 12

Reference 13

Reference 14

Reference 15

Health Professionals Resources – British Ivermectin Recommendation Development group (bird-group.org)

Reference 16

Reference 17

BOMBSHELL UK data destroys entire premise for vaccine push – by Chris Waldburger – Chris Waldburger (substack.com)

Reference 18

Two Different Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE) Risks for SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies (nih.gov)

A perspective on potential antibody-dependent enhancement of SARS-CoV-2 – PubMed (nih.gov)

Reference 19

The ‘Green’ Expert

After the publication of the IPCC’s ‘Red Alert’ for humanity, the media has been full of ‘experts’ telling us what we can do to mitigate our role in the doomsday scenario. According to some of those who call themselves ‘Green Experts’, the most important thing we can do is to eat plants and stop eating animals. Here is a example from The Times:

First of all, I did not know there is a qualification which endows one with expertise in ‘green’. It would appear, from the first two advised changes, that a ‘green expert’ has no need to supply references for their numerical claims. Apparently, we each produce an average of 12.7 tonnes of CO2 each year and this is equivalent to eating 1,000 steaks. Why would you compare total CO2 emissions to a single food item instead of how many miles we drive in a car, or how much fuel we burn to heat our houses? I think the only reason you would do it is because you have an anti-meat agenda. It is a pointless comparison; nobody eats 1,000 steaks per year. I will explain why this statement is nonsense later.

The ‘Eat Plants’ recommendation suggests that we can reduce our carbon footprint by 73 per cent by switching to a plant-based diet. Is that 73% of our dietary carbon footprint or our entire carbon footprint? It is not clear. How does anybody come to the figure of 73%? How can a cow fed on grass in my local farmer’s field and sold by my local butcher be compared to green vegetables flown from Kenya and driven 200 miles by truck? These are the sort of calculations, full of assumptions, which are used to measure the ‘carbon footprint’ of different foods. Even the author, Lucy Siegle, warns about the poor environmental profiles of some of the most popular vegan foods like avocados and almonds. Despite this she states that ‘a careful switch to plants is the biggest change you can make’. Green experts always make these broad claims without any reference to nutrition. It should be illegal to recommend, in print, a plant-based diet without warning the readers of the dangers of vitamin B12 deficiency.

I regard the entire realm of ‘dietary carbon footprints’ as a complete waste of time. All foods, whether plant or animal, obtain their carbon from the air. Plants grow when the process of photosynthesis uses the energy from sunshine to convert atmospheric CO2 into cellulose and other carbohydrates. Whether we eat the plants directly, or the animals that ate the plants, or the animals that ate the animals that ate the plants, the carbon in the food came out of the air. How can it be regarded as adding to greenhouse gas when it is simply recycled. It is absurd to compare the carbon burped by a cow with the carbon from coal or oil, which has to be dug out of the ground.

The argument against cows is always based on methane. The bacteria in the rumen of cows and sheep digest plants by fermentation and a by-product of this process is methane, which is produced at a rate of 5% of the food eaten. Methane is said to be a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and laboratory tests suggest it is 23 times more effective at capturing heat. This is the main reason cited by most climate-based, anti-meat proponents. The important thing to remember is these are laboratory results; they are not real measurements from the atmosphere. In a lab gases are tested individually but in the atmosphere they are mixed with all the other gases.

Methane can only absorb heat radiation in a narrow band of wavelengths. Methane exists in the atmosphere as a rare trace gas with a concentration of less than two parts per million. Water vapour is by far the most important greenhouse gas. It absorbs heat over a wider range than other gases and exists in the atmosphere as at least 10,000 parts per million. This diagram shows the infra red absorption spectrum of all the greenhouse gases.

The red lines in the diagram denote the wavelengths at which methane, CH4, is able to absorb heat radiation, and is taken from Methane, the Irrelevant Greenhouse Gas. These specific wavelengths are already being absorbed by water vapour, H2O. Because water vapour is almost 10,000 times more concentrated in the atmosphere it absorbs almost all the heat at those specific wavelengths. Consequently, there is almost no heat for methane to absorb and reducing it by avoiding meat (and having fewer cows) will make no difference whatsoever. Green experts need to Stop Feeding Us Lies.

B12, obesity and pregnancy

According to a study published by the Society for Endocrinology a deficiency of vitamin B12 is linked to obesity during pregnancy. Vitamin B12 is only found in animal-sourced foods and is not present in an entirely plant-based diet. These are the conclusions of the study:

“Low levels of vitamin B12 impair fat metabolism, which could increase the risk of obesity during pregnancy. Pregnant women with low levels of vitamin B12 had metabolic markers indicative of increased fat production and reduced breakdown, which suggests that low vitamin B12 levels could predispose pregnant women to obesity.

Vitamin B12 is a micronutrient found in seafood, meat, and dairy products that is essential for many metabolic reactions that keep our bodies functioning normally. Diets high in carbohydrates and highly processed foods provide poor nutrition and can lead to vitamin B12 deficiency. Approximately 25% of pregnant women worldwide are vitamin B12 deficient, as an even higher intake is needed for the growth and development of the baby. Previous studies suggest B12 deficiency increases the risk for metabolic complications such as obesity or diabetes, but the underlying mechanisms affecting fat metabolism remain poorly understood.


In this study, Jinous Samavat from the University of Warwick Medical School investigated how low vitamin B12 levels affect fat cell function in cultured cell samples and in samples taken from pregnant women. Markers of fat metabolism in both lab-grown fat cells, low in vitamin B12, and in samples from vitamin B12 deficient pregnant women, indicated increased fat production and reduced ability to breakdown fat for energy. There was also increased inflammation, which causes further damage.


Jinous Samavat comments, “Taken together, our data indicate that low B12 levels can impair fat cell metabolism, which may lead to increased fat accumulation, impaired fat metabolism, and inflammatory damage, all of which predispose to weight gain.” Although these findings suggest how fat metabolism may be impaired in vitamin B12 deficiency, particularly in pregnant women, larger studies are needed to confirm this and further explore the underlying mechanisms, to identify intervention strategies and help prevent obesity.

Samavat says, “Our findings reinforce the need for vitamin B12 supplementation during pregnancy and make a strong case for funding further studies and introducing public health policies to help tackle obesity.”

It is interesting that vitamin B12 has a role in fat metabolism as well as all of its other functions. It is also interesting that University academics nearly always end their studies with the suggestion they need to do more research, which they hope will bring more funding to their organisation. It is also curious that they recommend “vitamin B12 supplementation during pregnancy” instead of a vitamin B12 rich diet, which would necessarily include the consumption of plentiful meat and seafood.

Cows and Gas

The following is a small excerpt from Chapter 11 of Stop Feeding Us Lies.

“Grass grows by taking CO2 out of the air. With the help of energy from sunshine and water from rainfall, grass converts atmospheric CO2 into molecules of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Some of these carbohydrate molecules, called cellulose, are used to create new blades of grass and some, which are more simple sugars, are passed down the plant and into the roots. To keep the arithmetic simple let’s assume a blade of grass absorbs 100 molecules of CO2 and that 80 of them are used for growth and 20 of those carbon atoms go down to the roots, where they will stay if the ground is left undisturbed.

            Constance the cow comes along and eats all of those 80 carbon atoms in the grass. The bacteria in her rumen get to work and convert plant cellulose into the fatty acids and proteins that Constance needs to grow. A by-product of this process is methane gas which is produced at a rate of approximately 5% of the food Constance eats. Therefore for every 100 molecules of CO2 absorbed by grass, cows return 4 or 5 of them to the air as methane. Simple arithmetic and basic biology show it is impossible for cows, or sheep, to add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. They simply recycle a few of them.”

Toxic seed oils

The NHS directive on healthy eating is known as the Eatwell Guide; never has an official document been so incorrectly named. One of the many fallacies it contains is the recommendation to replace natural fats like butter, lard, dripping and ghee with polyunsaturated 'vegetable' oils This is from the NHS website, Choose unsaturated oils and ... Read more

To read the rest of this post please log in or join the club

The National Food Strategy

An open letter to Henry Dimbleby

Dear Mr. Dimbleby,

In writing a National Food Strategy, you have been tasked with a job which carries a huge workload and equally large responsibility. I commend you on all your hard work. I believe you have produced your plan with a genuine desire to improve the food system in the United Kingdom. There are aspects of your work with which I totally agree: we are an overweight, unhealthy nation because of the poor quality of our diet, and we must change the way we eat to improve health and unburden the NHS. However, there are parts of your strategy with which I totally disagree.

I am a retired Pharmacist. I left my profession feeling frustrated and disillusioned because so many people were taking their medication diligently but never getting better. The drugs were treating the symptoms of their disease but not the root cause. I spent almost 5 years researching and writing a book about why so many people in Britain are ill. It took me so long because I covered a great deal more than just food and because I had to overcome my preconceived biases. I used to be an Olympic Athlete and I believed that everyone would be healthier with more exercise. The more research I did, the more I realised my assumptions were wrong. Whilst exercise is important for good health, the real problem is the food we eat. There is so much misinformation, dogma and downright corruption in the world of food and health I called my book Stop Feeding Us Lies.

I argue that the dietary advice given by the NHS is responsible for the obesity epidemic and all the co-morbidities that go with it. This situation has continued for decades because the hierarchy in the Health Service never steps back and asks itself, ‘Are all of the assumptions we work with factually correct?’ Groupthink has taken over and the experts and the media endlessly repeat the same story, which nobody bothers to examine. I am sorry to say, Mr Dimbleby, I believe you may be guilty of the same thing. You have completely accepted some of the dogma of the day and you appear not to have questioned your assumptions. I believe these assumptions are wrong, which means that parts of your argument are spurious because they are built upon fallacies.

I was somewhat surprised that in a 289-page report on Food Strategy there is no mention of the nutritional benefits of different foods. Surely this is by far the most important factor in any dietary policy? The only nutritional measurement you mention are calories. You seem to think we will reduce obesity by eating fewer calories. This approach has been tried for decades and always fails. Weight is controlled by hormones, mainly insulin, and hormones are affected by the type of food we eat. This was proved in 1956 by Kekwick and Pawan and published in the Lancet. They demonstrated that eating fat does not make us fat; it is carbohydrate that makes us fat. Natural fats do not raise insulin levels and therefore do not increase fat storage. Fats, especially animal fats, have been demonised for decades without any robust evidence against them. However, you quote the oft repeated mantra about reducing food high in ‘sugar, salt and fat’. Indeed, you want to tax sugar and salt.

‘Sugar, salt and fat’ is repeated in the media as if all three are interchangeable in their health-destroying properties. There is no human requirement to eat sugar, nor the carbohydrates from which it is derived. Too much sugar leads to health problems ranging from tooth decay, mood swings and acne all the way to diabetes, blindness, heart disease and amputations. We need to reduce our sugar consumption. Salt, however, is an essential nutrient; our blood is a saline solution and sodium is needed for the transmission of every nerve impulse. People have died of hyponatreamia, or lack of sodium, at running events when they have drunk too much water. Salt is essential for life but you want to put a large tax on it. Fat is also essential for our health; all our cell membranes are made of fat molecules and our brain structure is 65% fat. You are hoping to tax manufacturers into reformulating their food to reduce these three ingredients. What sort of chemicals do you imagine they will substitute them with? Food labels already read like an inventory for a chemistry lab.

Instead of changing the ingredient list in manufactured meals, you should be recommending that people change from eating ultra-processed food and spend more time cooking their own real, natural food. I understand that for many people both time and cost are issues, which make this difficult. The health benefits, however, are so obvious the message should be spoken loud and clear. Fresh food from a farmer or fisherman will always be nutritionally superior to food from a factory. Why not promote home cooking at every opportunity?

You recommend that we all reduce our meat intake by 30%. We became the dominant species on the planet because of our large brains. We evolved excellent brains because our ancestors ate the meat and fat of the big animals they chased and caught. Red meat is the most nutrient-dense, easily absorbed food humans can consume (along with liver and eggs). The fat in our brain structure is largely animal derived. Indeed, 12 % of our brain is made of the omega3 fatty acid DHA (docosahexaenoic acid). DHA is essential for a multitude of processes in the brain and some neurologists suggest that conscious thought is impossible without it. There is no DHA in the fruit and vegetables you recommend. There is also no Vitamin B12 in plants. B12 is essential for the production of red blood cells and the myelin sheath that surrounds all our nerve fibers. Persuading us to eat less meat will inevitably lead some people into nutrient deficiencies which will damage their health and further burden the NHS.

Taking a broader view of your National Food Strategy, it is not really about food: it is about land usage and climate change. Your document mentions vitamins seven times, climate change 112 times and methane 109 times. This is the other area where it seems you have not failed to question your assumptions and made no attempt to challenge the dogma of the day. There is a powerful anti-meat lobby which constantly promotes the idea that eating red meat is bad for our health and for the climate. Both these claims are wrong. You have written page after page of anti-meat propaganda, which does not stand up to scrutiny. You perpetuate some of the most extreme views I have ever read. I quote, The methane produced by ruminants is estimated to have caused a third of total global warming since the industrial revolution.’  Do you believe, Mr Dimbleby, that the digestive system of cows is a major influence on the climate of this planet? GCSE level biology explains why this cannot be true.

Grass grows by taking CO2 out of the air. With the help of energy from sunshine and water from rainfall, grass converts atmospheric CO2 into molecules of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Some of these carbohydrate molecules, called cellulose, are used to create new blades of grass and some, which are more simple sugars, are passed down the plant and into the roots. To keep the arithmetic simple, let us assume a blade of grass absorbs 100 molecules of CO2 and that 80 of them are used for growth and 20 of those carbon atoms go down to the roots, where they will stay if the ground is left undisturbed. A cow comes along and eats all those 80 carbon atoms in the grass. The bacteria in her rumen get to work and convert plant cellulose into the fatty acids and proteins that the animal needs to grow. A by-product of this process is methane gas which is produced at a rate of approximately 5% of the food eaten. Therefore, for every 100 molecules of CO2 absorbed by grass, cows return 4 or 5 of them to the air as methane. Simple arithmetic and basic biology show it is impossible for cows, or sheep, to add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. They simply recycle a few of them.

You correctly state that methane in the atmosphere is oxidised to CO2 after about a decade, but you stress that it is a much more potent greenhouse gas. In laboratories, that appears to be true, but in the real world it is not true. Water vapour is the most effective greenhouse gas by far. It accounts for 90% of all the heat trapped in the atmosphere; the heat which stops us all from freezing to death. Methane only absorbs infra-red radiation at wavelengths of 3.3 and 7.5 microns. Water vapour is very active at those wavelengths and any effect methane might have is completely masked by the action of water. Methane, therefore, has no significant effect on the temperature.

History, as well as physics, proves your statement is wrong. Ruminant animals evolved about 50 million years ago and they have been burping methane throughout all the hot periods and ice ages of that enormous timescale. The figure below shows atmospheric methane levels over the last 1,000 years, measured by ice-core samples. Methane remained remarkably constant until the Industrial Revolution. During the first 800 years of this graph there were an estimated 65 million bison roaming the grasslands of the American Midwest.

I quote you again, Mr Dimbleby, ‘If all the ruminants on earth mysteriously vanished tomorrow, it would take roughly twelve years for the methane they have already produced to leave the atmosphere almost completely. After a couple more decades, the temperature of the planet would have cooled to the same temperature as if those animals had never existed.’

The second figure, below, shows the fluctuations of temperature over the last 2,000 years. Focussing on the last 1,000 years we can compare methane levels, above, with temperature. The methane graph begins with the height of the Medieval Warm Period. Temperature then cools until we are plunged (by the Dalton Solar Minimum) into the Little Ice Age. Temperatures begin to warm again in the early 1700s. Throughout all these temperature fluctuations, methane levels stayed exactly the same. They had no effect on warming or cooling. Whoever you have been listening to, Mr Dimbleby, has led you up the garden path and you have taken them at their word.

You give a passing mention to regenerative agriculture but fail to emphasise its huge benefits to soil health and fertility. Allan Savory has proved that increasing the number of ruminants on the land improves soil fertility and the ground’s ability to absorb and store water. We should have more cattle and sheep on the land and in our diet, rather than less.

NASA satellites have clearly shown that the recent increase in CO2 (plant food) has enabled vegetation to thrive and the world is considerably greener now than when carbon dioxide levels were lower.

There is so much more I could say, but I will make this final comment. You recommend a nationally approved diet and a land use plan overseen by the Government. Do you really believe that Boris Johnson and his cronies could provide better stewardship of the land than experienced farmers, who have been educated in the benefits of regenerative agriculture? Do you think a ‘national diet’ will be free from the influence of global food corporations and their processed fake-food? I, for one, do not.