A group of experts recently conducted a comprehensive analysis of the scientific claims surrounding meat consumption and its impact on health and the environment. Published in the journal Animal Frontiers, their findings challenge the prevailing narrative advocating for plant-based diets and caution against disregarding the nutritional benefits of meat.

The experts express concerns about the societal push towards plant-based diets, particularly highlighting the negative consequences on poorer communities with limited access to meat. These communities often suffer from stunting, wasting, and anemia due to the deficiency of vital nutrients and protein found in meat.

Supporting the importance of livestock farming, thousands of scientists worldwide have joined The Dublin Declaration, an alliance aimed at combating the rise of fanaticism in dietary choices. They argue that many claims against meat in our diet are unfounded. In their statement, the Dublin Declaration group emphasizes that meat provides essential nutrients such as vitamin B12, retinol, omega-3 fatty acids, iron, and zinc, as well as vital compounds like taurine and creatine, which are absent in vegan alternatives. Maintaining a healthy vegan diet often requires the use of various supplements.

The experts note that the ability to adopt a meat-free diet and rely solely on vegetables and carbohydrates is primarily limited to wealthier individuals. Veganism, therefore, remains a first-world ideology impractical for the majority of the global population. Even in countries like India, often cited by anti-meat activists due to religious beliefs against animal slaughter, approximately 70% of the population consumes meat.

Previous studies, including the 2020 Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factor Study published in The Lancet, warning against the dangers of meat consumption, are being called into question. Dr. Alice Stanton, one of the authors of a review debunking anti-meat claims, highlights the scientific flaws in such reports. She asserts that removing fresh meat and dairy from diets would actually harm human health, particularly affecting women, children, the elderly, and low-income individuals.

Critics argue that the anti-meat movement may have ulterior motives. Pro-vegan research is often funded by globalist institutions like the UN and the World Economic Forum (WEF), which have expressed a desire to reduce meat consumption to a "rare treat." One proposed method includes imposing emissions taxes on farmers and agricultural products, artificially inflating prices. The UN hopes to dissuade the public from consuming meat by making it unaffordable, similar to their approach for discouraging the use of fossil fuels. Alternatively, they suggest turning to more expensive plant-based alternatives or adopting a diet that includes insects, common in certain developing regions.

Furthermore, the UN aims to enforce a complete transition to a meat and dairy-free diet by 2050 to combat climate change. However, skeptics argue that the emphasis on livestock emissions is disproportionate to the overall greenhouse gas contribution. Even if one accepts the existence of a climate crisis, reducing meat consumption alone would have a negligible impact on saving the planet.

It is important to recognize that, in addition to climate concerns, certain groups attempt to dissuade people from consuming meat by spreading unfounded health risks. These claims often go unchallenged, despite evidence refuting them, and are amplified through corporate media channels.

Without regular access to meat, a substantial portion of the global population may become reliant on manufactured supplements to meet their nutritional needs. The dependence on foreign countries for these supplements could potentially lead to supply disruptions and control by hostile nations. Additionally, the overall price increase of food would make sustaining the current population challenging, potentially resulting in widespread hunger or deliberate population reduction.