UN Proposes “Food Redistribution” from US and Europe through “Swift and Collective Action”

If you loved wealth redistribution, remember that money is just the tip of the redistribution iceberg. In the USSR, wealth redistribution gave way to food redistribution. And the UNSSR is moving along that same road.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – has issued a new report called Our Nutrient World: The challenge to produce more food and energy with less pollution.

People in the rich world should become “demitarians” – eating half as much meat as usual, while stopping short of giving it up – in order to avoid severe environmental damage, scientists have urged.

Sutton was speaking about the rich west, the US and Europe in particular. He wants the change in diet to be pioneered in Europe, as the US will be a tougher nut to crack.

The UN scientists said people in poor countries should be allowed to increase their consumption of animal protein, which billions of people are lacking. But if that is so as not to cause environmental harm, the move to meat in the developing world must be balanced with a reduction in the amount consumed in developed countries.

Mark Sutton is apparently an environmental physicist which qualifies him to propose a new Marxist diet.

In the foreword to this report, Achim Steiner, the head of UNEP, says that “swift and collective action” is necessary and that “our daily decisions” matter.

A more sophisticated set of aspirations must therefore emphasize how the lives of all can be enhanced by allowing the poorest to increase their food and other nutrient consumption, while the richest realise for themselves that it is not in their own interests to over-consume.

Time to crack down on those fat American Kulaks stuffing themselves at Burger King. Time to make them move and then make them starve. Redistribute their food to the Third World.

It’s for the environment and the red planet.

  • figment newton

    Not long ago the global worming crowd was screaming that modern agriculture was contributing to the hoax. And the biggest contributors were livestock producers (cow farts and all).

    I've also seen where "they" were proposing some crops that could be easily grown in Africa with less irrigation. Never mind that they had no nutritional value.

    I guess this is the next tactic, US farmers are now going to get the Zimbabwe treatment.

    • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

      Actually, until the UN is given the boot, little will improve. Fixated on a body of nations, duly united in world problem solving, the US allows a kleptocracy to soil its shores and this is a crime – against Americans!
      In any case, redistribution is not far off, if those in charge have their way, and I am referring to the ones soiling the People's House.
      To be sure, they will have to push through one of their biggest putsches of all, via the following, but they may just get away with it, if not stopped -http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/01/07/fiddling-with-the-constitution-to-eviscerate-term-limitations-on-the-presidency-why-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/

      Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • tagalog

      As for some food having no nutritional value, and growing such crops somehow being forced on American farmers, consider the fact that there was recently a bit of a subdued flap over how much corn was being used to make methane for gasahol, and how much less was being processed into nutritional food for the hungry to eat.

  • stevefraser

    But wasn't the UN spearheaded by the old Soviert Union (remember their inside guy Alger Hiss?). Why does this surprise anyone? AGW is going to cost white folks trillions of $$$. Now they won't have any food to eat either.

  • Snow White

    If these third world peoples would rather starve than get up off thier lazy behinds and work to grow their own food, it's my opinion they wouldn't make very good world citizens anyway. What it looks like to me is that they want to make slaves out of the productive westerners. First they tried the guilt trip which many fell for. It's time the UN tried teaching them to fish so they can feed themselves, instead of supporting thier whinning, begging, and now demanding that the productive be forced to give them what they are too lazy to earn for themselves. . there is a name for these kind of peoples. They are called
    " eaters." If someone doesnt' give them something else to eat they will revert to eathing each other. like they used to before the western 'imperialists tried to civilize them.

  • Marc

    Why is everyone surprised with the action of the UN?

  • cxt

    Even for the UN this a real reach……I'd like to act surprised but to be frank….thinking it through…….nah…makes sens that they would try this.

    The USA and other rational nations should start gettin out of the UN.

    • jakespoon

      I agree,except The USA is no longer rational. Sad but true. Liberalism has eradicated any rational thought at all,it's all "feelings". They don't realize(or don't care) that the brain, not the heart is where the thought process takes place.

  • FPF

    US proposes redistribution of UN budget back to their sponsor countries and make it quick.

  • pyeatte

    Fortunately the UN is powerless to force anything. They have a bunch of fat diplomats who must make an attempt at justifying themselves in the eyes of the eco-freaks. For the most part, the UN is completely useless. Move it to equatorial Africa where the Ebola virus pops up every few years. It will keep them on their toes.

  • http://www.unep.org nick nuttall

    Dear sir/madam, as the Spokesperson of the UN Environment Programme let me try and clear up a misunderstanding. The report on nutrients is by a whole range of scientists from many countries including the US. It is not about telling people what or what not to eat. It is simply assessing the facts about nutrients (fertilizers etc) and their wider impact on the environment. The fact is that everything humans do has some impacts-good or bad- and we need to be aware so we can make smarter choices. In many parts of the world overuse of fertilizers or bad management of fertilzers is affecting the planet and wasting money–have a look at the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. In some parts of the world like Africa they are short of fertilizers.

    The key is to use them efficiently to maximize food production and reduce their environmental and economic impacts elsehwere when over used…the headlines about meat seem to be inevitable in such debates…and something of a distraction from the main issues. Ie how do we husband scarce resources on a planet of seven billion people rising to over nine billion by 2050. In the end it is about being resource efficient which surely is not a pro of anti UN or right or left wing agenda..simply common sense.

    • Mary Sue

      Communist/Socialist/Collectivist Central Planning will NOT fix this problem. Didn't you hacks at the UN learn ANYTHING about history and the Soviet Union?

    • Spikey1

      "In many parts of the world overuse of fertilizers or bad management of fertilzers is affecting the planet and wasting money"

      • Is this money that is being wasted your money?

      "The key is to use them efficiently to maximize food production"

      • That would be called the free market

      "how do we husband scarce resources on a planet of seven billion people rising to over nine billion by 2050"

      • A: Free market

      "In the end it is about being resource efficient"

      • That is the benefit of a free market.

      A statement that covers all your talking points in general; The UN, a organization that produces nothing, has some sort of advance knowledge (lol) that far succeeds not only the knowledge of the producers of the world but of gaia and the local peoples.

      To wrap things up simply for you; sit back, watch the show and don't stick your chubby little fingers into this section of the economy or people will die.

    • figment newton

      "how do we husband scarce resources".

      WHAT scarce resources? with modern agriculture, we use no-till, rotate crops, and spend billions on fertilizers. If fertilizer gets scarce, it's only because refining oil is decreased.

      If you want to feed a growing population,( which isn't growing very fast by the way, in case you haven't heard we are undergoing a population DROP due to dire economic forecasts and overall depressive forecasts. Even paying people to have offspring doesn't work anymore. )

      —STOP putting food in our fuel tanks

      —Stop the govt from controlling prices and paying ag NOT to farm, Get rid of CREP, get rid of subsidies for ethanol, get rid of price controls.

      Get rid of the USDA, FDA, and the UN while we're at it.

    • tagalog

      Everything that every living creature does on earth has an impact on the environment. So what?

    • Mary Sue

      dear nick nuttall: Stop thinking like a stupid hippie, kthx.

  • slider 96

    "Time to crack down on those fat American Kulaks stuffing themselves at Burger King. Time to make them move and then make them starve. Redistribute their food to the Third World.
    It’s for the environment and the red planet."

    That what it is Daniel ? What would you reply to mr.Nuttal ? I'm no great fan of the UN , but "marxist diet " ??

    • Bill

      I think Daniel's Marxist Diet is one that characterised Communist countries over the last century by the following factors:
      - Government-decreed food crop type and quantity
      - Government-decreed methods of planting, raising, watering, fertilising and harvesting these crops
      - Government-decreed prices, with mandatory purchase or confiscation of part or all of a crop
      - Government-enforced rationing due to the Government being wrong or inefficient in determining the type, quantity or production methods of crops, or through ideological deliberate restrictions
      - Extensive queuing or shortages anyway, with hoarding due to uncertainty of future supply or for barter for other needed items
      - Adulteration of food due to shortages and government-mandated targets of production that ignore the realities of shortage of raw food material
      - No alternative food options available made from the crops that might compete for taste, presentation or nutrition as the source food materials are tightly controlled
      - Government ruling elites having privileged access to food unavailable to everyone, or in quantities unavailable to everyone.
      - Government-selected groups or individuals having privileged access to food unavailable to everyone, or in quantities unavailable to everyone.
      - Food being available for the majority of the population based on what the government has decided on what people are thought to need rather than allowing the individual the choice to buy and eat what they want and can afford to buy.

      All in all, easier just to write, "Marxist diet" that encompasses the above characteristics.

  • Mary Sue

    Redistribute food? Really? Commies at the UN are Commies.

  • Cathy

    Why oh why do we tolerate the UN??? They need to be booted OUT of the US and we need to immediately cutoff the 25% of its budget that we the US taxpayers provide!! Out damn spot, out! Go find some communist loving, human rights hating country that will look up for you…. we do NOT WANT you here any longer!!!

  • Arlie

    It's the non-working "poor" in the US that are fat. I personally knew someone on Section 8, and food stamps and being paid to go to business school and had 1 son that her mother, on disability and Section 8 babysat. Her (employed) gang member, boyfriend lived with her. Just before she was to graduate and look for a job she became pregnant so she would not have to work. During her pregnancy she became very overweight and never lost it after the baby. By the time the baby was 3 moths old it was so fat, it was unbelievable. The mother said "I'm not going to let my baby starve just because I'm poor". WHICH PROVES…YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID!

    • Arlie

      I also ment to add "you cant fix stupid..especially when it's mind, body and soul CORRUPTED.

    • Mary Sue

      Usually what the advocates for the Section 8'ers will tell you is that such people live in "food deserts" (because big cities don't often have grocery stores, apparently–and what with some cities banning permits for stores such as walmart maybe they have a point) where they cannot buy anything except junk food and food out of a can. What they do end up doing then is spending all their money on high calorie junk and soda. The reason I don't buy the "food desert" argument is I've personally witnessed government-dependent Native Indians buying case loads of soda pop, and they have the access and ability to buy anything healthy in the store we were in but apparently chose not to. Instead they got all the "cheap" stuff such as white rice (which is OK in moderation), some ground beef, unhealthy cereal, and some canned goods. There weren't a lick of fresh fruit or vegetables in their cart, and those things are not expensive!

  • Edward Cline

    All right. We ship half our agricultural produce to poor countries. The people there consume it. Then what? They ask for more. We ship it. They consume it. Then what? Leave it to Mark Sutton and Steiner and the highly-paid parasites of the UN to not think past the range of the moment. We've fattened all the poor wherever they are, and they're still poor and don’t have a single tissue to wipe their butts after they've digested and evacuated what was sent them. And lest any one of those poor persons is suddenly healthy and energetic enough to have a bright idea, like opening a business or a sweat shop, the UN will be there to stop him from damaging the environment and robbing his brothers of their "dignity."

    • Bill

      You forgot the bit about them having 4-12 children as they don't risk any of them starving to death. Consequently these children will likewise go on to have more children with the guarantees of adequate food to allow them to do so.

      And so when every last tree and bush is cut down and burnt for fuel to cook the extorted food for the teeming multitudes, and every stream and river fouled and undrinkable, we will be told that it is our fault and that it is our responsibility for donating enough fuel and clean water to allow their cycle of life to continue.

      And yet many of these same people who believe that we should be responsible for supplying free food, water, clothing and shelter for everyone on the planet complain about the overpopulation of their favourite anthropomorphic Gaian Earth.

      • jakespoon

        It's always the children you see starving, with a halo of flies around their heads. The adults eat, screw,reproduce, and repeat.

  • Jody

    I am not a vegetarian, because I like the taste of meat occasionally. However, I do believe the science and logic that supports the idea that humans do not need animal protein. Cows are walking proof of that~they are vegans. Carnivores have short digestive tracts. Humans do not. I know many daily meat consumers who are sick and overweight. Sending meat fed GMO fodder will only make them sick and require more humanitarian aid. Send them PURE seeds and show them how to grow their own pure food. Getting rid of MONSANTO, the UN, FDA, and USDA will improve health globally~

    • Mary Sue

      Humans are omnivores. Their digestive tracts are intermediate like that of other omnivores such as pigs.

      The problem isn't them growing their own food. The problem is the warlords in those areas swooping down in there and TAKING it, not to mention people being forced to live in areas where they can't grow a damn thing.

    • Bill

      "…Humans do not need animal protein": You do not 'need' electricity either. Consider the lengths efforts vegetarians have to make in choosing their foods in order to ensure adequate vitamins and amino acids (e.g. phytanic acid) that are otherwise easily supplied by eating meat. Note also the extensive use of non-local plant sources to provide these missing vitamins and amino acids, e.g. soya beans, seaweed, or olives.

      Cows are vegans, sure, but humans don't have the multiple ruminant stomachs that cows have, nor do we need to spend most of our waking hours grazing or re-chewing our food to extract enough raw material for the symbiotic bacteria to extract nutrients from plants so that we can receive adequate nutrition. Humans are omnivores, not herbivores nor carnivores.

      "I know many daily meat consumers who are sick and overweight.": Logical fallacy – Correlation does not imply causation. The mechanisms of human obesity indicate we have been evolutionarily selected for a feast/famine diet, which wouldn't be such a problem if we were herbivores.

      What 'pure seeds' are you talking about? Every major plant raised my humans has been domesticated and its genes selected for improvements in flavour, nutrition, size, storagability, harvestabilty of reduction of toxicity. In general, where humans have been able to change a plant food to suit us, we have. Genetic engineering of plants (and animals) has been going on for thousands of years – but up until recently done only by laborious selection of appropriate genes through the expression of those genes and promoting the survival of that desired genetic line.

    • Mary Sue

      also, humans absolutely NEED meat, if they don't want to go absolutely liberal batfeces insane. B12 is essential for sanity. Ever wondered why vegans are so nuts? B12 deficiency! You can't get it from plants at all.

      • jakespoon

        "Also,humans absolutely need meat". I agree, if we were meant to be herbivores ,we would have teeth like a cow, instead we have teeth for eating a varied diet. I love ham too much to quit it,anyway.

      • figment newton

        bingo. meat is the best source of protein, and necessary for synaptic activity and efficient muscle function

  • tagalog

    "Let 'em eat McDonald's."

  • Gee

    The President supports disarming Americans. How far can it be before taking their food can it be?