I think we should be asking is why 2 billion people can only afford or raise grains and legumes as their iron, zinc and protein source and what we can do to change that.
"We found that close to 2bn people are getting at least 70% of their iron and zinc from these grains and legumes. So reductions in those crops are potentially quite worrisome in terms of increasing those deficiencies," said Dr Myers.
Eating more food to make up for these reductions in nutrients would not be a good solution, he said.
"The problem with that is that if you eat 5-10% more calories every day it would be a matter of months before we were morbidly obese and bumping into issues around metabolic diseases."
This smacks of an agenda.. The 2 billion people that are suffering from malnutrition are far from obese and would probably do well from a few extra calories, which they could easily burn by being more productive than their current diet allows. The study authors make broad opinionated conclusions when they should just state facts, and more of them..maybe no agenda, but not good science and definitely looking for attention.
"The impact of carbon on nutrient levels is another blow to global food production. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), crop yields are also set to suffer as a result of rising temperatures."
Same story with the above, rising temperatures may affect crop yield negatively, but not when CO2 levels are increased proportionately. We of all people know this from first hand experience but the scientists do not explore it.. Why? They just look at one future factor on its on and not in conjunction with another that is obvious and then make broad conclusions which change global policy. Dangerous. I wonder how this relates to the 'carbon tax' BS?
"We found that close to 2bn people are getting at least 70% of their iron and zinc from these grains and legumes. So reductions in those crops are potentially quite worrisome in terms of increasing those deficiencies," said Dr Myers.
Eating more food to make up for these reductions in nutrients would not be a good solution, he said.
"The problem with that is that if you eat 5-10% more calories every day it would be a matter of months before we were morbidly obese and bumping into issues around metabolic diseases."
This smacks of an agenda.. The 2 billion people that are suffering from malnutrition are far from obese and would probably do well from a few extra calories, which they could easily burn by being more productive than their current diet allows. The study authors make broad opinionated conclusions when they should just state facts, and more of them..maybe no agenda, but not good science and definitely looking for attention.
"The impact of carbon on nutrient levels is another blow to global food production. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), crop yields are also set to suffer as a result of rising temperatures."
Same story with the above, rising temperatures may affect crop yield negatively, but not when CO2 levels are increased proportionately. We of all people know this from first hand experience but the scientists do not explore it.. Why? They just look at one future factor on its on and not in conjunction with another that is obvious and then make broad conclusions which change global policy. Dangerous. I wonder how this relates to the 'carbon tax' BS?
Last edited:
