🚬 Why campaign against one and not the other:
In the 1950s almost HALF of Americans smoked cigarettes.
It became abundantly clear smoking killed, and the government campaigned against it.
It worked.
Cigarette consumption among US adults has fallen to 12.5%.
Why doesn't the government do the same thing against ultra-processed junk food?
I read a book called "The Fiat Standard" which explains why the government and its agencies continue to support novel, cheap, nutrient-devoid, food-like stuff ("Fiat Food") despite the rapidly rising rates of diet-related chronic disease.
Without cheap, mass-produced, food-like products the government wouldn't be able to hide price increases (inflation / monetary debasement) of real foods, like beef.
If food prices were to get out of reach for the average consumer, there could be no peace.
But by promoting cheap industrial "food" substitutes they can keep prices down and people
fed.
The plan is working.
Since leaving the gold standard, Americans' consumption of meat-based foods has ⬇️⬇️:
- Red meat: -28%
- Whole milk: -79%
- Eggs: -13%
- Animal fats: -27%
While plant-based foods
⬆️⬆️:
- Vegetable oils: +87%
- Grains: +28%
- Sugar: +30%
- Fruits and Vegetable are also up
This diet change also feeds big pharma via the diet-induced chronic diseases for which they have an endless supply of drugs.
Of course, they "reimburse" the government to fuel this win-win relationship.
The only people losing is us. The consumer. As we get fatter and sicker.
You can opt out.
Eat meat.