Transcription
It's lunchtime on February 4th, 2022, at a New York City middle school. A 12-year-old named Katie Wilkins has just been given her daily school-provided lunch. But there's something very different about today's lunch.
Usually, she is served a variety of whole, single-ingredient foods. However, today's lunch looks like this. The main observable difference is her daily meat serving has been replaced with grains. This is because, under the new global diet guidelines, Katie is only allowed a maximum of 14g of red meat per day. This is what 14g of beef looks like. It's the size of a casino chip. So, rather than rationing out a chip's worth of mints per child across 1.1 million students, the school has done the easier thing and just provided none at all.
They have decided meat is too dangerous for her. So, instead, have given her this uh burrito, if you can even call it that, with 54 different ingredients. Katie doesn't know it yet, but this type of lunch she is now being served was designed by a committee funded by Bill Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the company that makes Ompic. In recent times, this diet has already been rolled out to school children in over 14 major cities across the world. In Wales, primary school children as young as five are now being fed mints made from crickets and mealworms designed to look like ground beef. The measures taken to implement this have been so drastic that in Denmark, every cow on every farm is about to be taxed $100 a year just for breathing. None of this was voted on. None of it was debated. And if the people behind it get what they want come 2030, this isn't just Katie's lunch. It's all of ours.
Today, we are investigating the new official Lancet 2.0 global diet proposal. The people behind it claim they're doing it for our health. But what is this diet actually doing to your body? Who decided we should eat this way? And most importantly, what do they plan to do to anyone that refuses? To understand why Katie is eating this food, which really can only be described as slop, we have to go back to January 16th, 2019, in Oslo. A woman walks onto stage in front of the international press. This is Dr. Gunhild Stoddel, a Norwegian doctor married to one of Norway's richest men. She's about to launch what she's calling the first scientific targets for what humanity should eat. The document she's holding got published that same day in the Lancet, a 200-year-old British medical journal, considered the most prestigious in the world. It's called the Eat Lancet Commission report. Eat is Stodland's foundation. 37 scientists from 16 different countries put this report together. And it has one stated goal, not to recommend what people eat, but to tell every single country on Earth what their citizens should be allowed to eat. They call it the planetary health diet. It allows for just 14g of red meat per day. They claimed that if everyone follows it, it would save 11 million lives per year and stop the planet from burning.
The press response to this was extremely positive. They loved it. The BBC ran it. The Guardian ran it. Nearly every major newspaper in the Western world had it as one of their leading stories within just 48 hours. But the criticism also started rolling in fast. John Yonidus, a Stanford professor and the most cited living scientist on Earth, called the report more science fiction than science. Frederick Loy, a food science professor from Brussels, called the underlying data methodologically indefensible. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition investigated this diet and ran an independent study on what would happen if people actually followed it. They found it would leave 1.6 billion people without enough iron and vitamin B12 to function properly. And it wasn't just scientists who pushed back. Italy's UN ambassador Yan Dorenzo Corando publicly questioned the diet's scientific basis, leading the World Health Organization to drop its sponsorship of the launch event in Geneva. Very quickly, the commission's first report was on life support. But instead of just throwing out their whole plan and going, "You know what? Maybe we shouldn't be allowed to decide what everyone eats," they decided they instead had a much better approach.
Six years later, on October 23rd, 2025, at the Eat Stockholm Food Forum, Yawan Rockstrom, the co-chair of the commission, walked onto stage. In front of him were 300 journalists eagerly awaiting an announcement. Behind him, a slide read, "Eat Lancet 2.0. Zero." This was the official announcement for their new and more ambitious proposal to replace the original Eat Lancet plan. The new report was backed by 70 scientists instead of 37, who were from 35 countries instead of 16. It was also backed by seven disclosed funders instead of one. And there was one other number that got an upgrade. Instead of saving 11 million lives, the new diet now claims it could save 15 million. How very kind of them. Rostrom called it a "gift to humanity." The press response to this was very interesting. It was not what you'd expect. One journalist described the presentation as "the worst thing I've watched since the Kamala Harris Caller Daddy podcast." Okay, fine. It was me who said that. The actual press response was exactly as you'd expect. Once again, they ate it up. It was described as everything from a blueprint for survival to a landmark scientific update. Aside from my own fake article, the only actual negative press release I could find was from a lady named Emily Angus. She is a senior dietician from the Vegan Society. Now, Emily was actually annoyed because she believes meat, dairy, and fish should be off the plate completely and that allowing people to have 14g per day was just simply too much. So, the only real negative press about this was that it didn't restrict our freedoms enough. However, there was one thing that all of these headlines seem to miss. What none of these headlines mentioned was who paid for it, or that the diet they were now recommending to every single person on Earth had actually already been tested and it failed miserably.
But before we look at this trial, let's break down exactly what you'd be eating in a day if these dietary guidelines were actually enforced. For breakfast, you'd be served eggs. Wait, no. Only one egg every four days is allowed. So, most days, no eggs, unless you wanted a quarter of an egg per day. Instead, it would be some sort of grains. For lunch, you'd likely be having grains again, along with some beans, lentils, chickpeas, with about half a cup of vegetables. For dinner, the commission only allows you to have 14g of red meat per day, plus 29g of poultry, and 28g of fish. The total daily animal protein the commission has allocated to you is roughly the weight of a single AAA battery. The full daily breakdown is on screen now. 210g of whole grains, 300g of vegetables, 200g of fruit, 75g of legumes, 50g of nuts, 250g of dairy, and your tiny rationed allotment of animal protein. That's the diet. That's what they're recommending to 10 billion people. That's what's already on Safia's tray. They claim that this saves 15 million lives per year.
Now, you would expect that this comes from some excellent data. But this data was not calculated from even a single clinical trial. Instead, it came from a computer simulation, which the commission actually ran themselves. And all the assumptions that were used for the simulation were also made up by the commission. So, what happens to the human body when you eat this way for decades? Well, we already know. They didn't run a clinical trial, but there's one country with 1.4 billion people that have essentially been eating these guidelines since the 1950s. India, the country with the world's lowest meat consumption per capita and the highest vegetarian population per capita. Also, by the commission's own metrics, India has been following this diet closely for 70 years. So, if the global diet works, India should be the healthiest country on Earth. However, here's what this diet has actually produced. India has the highest number of diabetics on the planet, 101 million as of 2023. The diabetes rates among urban Indians has tripled in the last 20 years. They have the highest rates of diabetes in the world. They also have the highest rates of heart disease. According to the Indian Health Journal, Indians develop coronary artery disease on average 10 years earlier than Europeans do. The rate of fatal heart attacks in Indians under 40 has also quadrupled in the last 20 years. India also has the highest stunting rate of any major nation. 35% of Indian children under five are stunted, meaning their growth has been permanently impaired by malnutrition. Most of these children eat the diet the commission is recommending.
The people behind the new global diet hypothesized that it's a gift to humanity that's going to save millions of lives. But the trial has already played out. A 1.4 billion person experiment that has been running for 70 years. The results are in, and unfortunately, they are devastating. You may be wondering why this diet has resulted in these devastating health outcomes. We've all been told that going plant-based is the best thing we can possibly do for our health. So, how can a country that's been doing exactly that for 70 years now be the disease capital of the world? Well, the answer is hiding in plain sight, and it has nothing to do with genetics, wealth, or healthcare access. It's simply a matter of basic evolutionary biology. To explain the diabetes rates is very simple. Diabetes, by definition, is constantly elevated blood sugar. All carbohydrates, which many plants are high in, break down into sugar. So, when you eat a diet that's almost exclusively carbohydrates, you have lots of sugar in your body, which then begins to flood your bloodstream faster than your body can deal with it. The math here is pretty self-explanatory.
Heart disease is more interesting. For plaque to build up in your arteries, there must be inflammation to the endothelium, which is the inner protective layer of your artery wall. It is only when this inflammation is present that lipids can breach the wall and form plaque. So then, this poses a question. What is it then that causes inflammation? To answer this question, it's best to turn to the animal kingdom. Wild animals have essentially zero disease. But when humans intervene and feed them a diet they haven't eaten historically in the wild, they get very sick. Often, in fact, they develop humanlike diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. In every single species ever studied, from rodents to cows to salmon, the premise remains the same, and that is that wild animals do not get sick when they eat what their species has always eaten. The reason for this is very simple. When a species eats a specific food for a very long time, it develops adaptation to that specific food to turn it into fuel without it harming their body. All animals have adaptations like these that can clearly be observed. For example, grass in significant quantities is poisonous to humans. But cows have a complex digestive system called a ruminant, which has evolved to break down grass and therefore it causes them no harm. Bamboo is also poisonous to humans. But gorillas have an enlarged hind gut which has evolved to ferment bamboo and therefore causes them no harm. The eucalyptus plant is very, very toxic to humans and every species on the planet, for that matter, except for koalas, who have a highly specialized organ called a cecum which has evolved to digest the eucalyptus plant and therefore it causes them no harm. But when an animal eats something that it's not biologically adapted to, the body doesn't know what to do with it, which results in inflammation and disease.
This begs the question: so then, what did humans eat for most of our existence? Well, it's certainly not what these new guidelines suggest. In fact, it is literally the complete opposite. Human archaeological records are very clear on this. Based on trophic markers such as nitrogen 15 and carbon 13 isotope ratios, which are basically chemical leftovers from food that get permanently stamped into an animal's bones, we can determine exactly what an animal ate whilst it was alive. The fossil record for humans clearly shows that for most of human existence, we were apex predators who ate nearly exclusively meat. This conclusion is not debated. It's clearly what the evidence shows. And not only does it explain the disease rates in India, but also the growth issues they, and many other countries for that matter, currently are experiencing. These growth issues come from nutrient deficiencies. Meat contains many nutrients essential for growth, such as vitamin B12, heme iron, and the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA, that quite literally build our brain. These nutrients can only be found in sufficient quantities, or in many cases, at all, from meat. Now, herbivorous animals also need these nutrients. But due to the evolutionary adaptations from not eating meat for so long, they have actually developed a way to synthesize these nutrients and create them essentially from scratch, all internally. The cow's ruminant digestive system has four chambers instead of a single chamber like ours does. One of these is called the rumen. It is a massive fermentation tank that is packed with bacteria that actually produce vitamin B12 by building it from scratch out of the minerals grass contains. Cows and many other animals have had to evolve these methods because they only ate plants, and their species would have died off had they not evolved them. However, humans never evolved these because we were always eating meat. So, we never needed to. This is exactly why populations like India's, where veganism is very widespread, see such massive health and growth problems. This diet doesn't produce disease mysteriously. It produces disease because it isn't our species-appropriate diet.
All of this raises a very interesting question. I'm sure the people behind this new diet know that India exists. I mean, it's kind of the country with the most people on the planet. So, why did they not consider this? Well, to answer this question, we certainly don't have to look hard. Let's see who's funding the Lancet's dietary guidelines. But first, a quick word from today's sponsor. Often, when I tell people how important it is to eat meat and meat fat in particular, which as we just discussed is what builds our brains and all of our hormones, they tell me they either can't find a good source or can't get past the texture. That's exactly what Grassland Nutrition's freeze-dried sourced organic grass-fed beef suet solves. Suet is the rich kidney fat. It's loaded with a high concentration of all the essential nutrients our bodies need. Because it's freeze-dried at a low temperature rather than cooked, all of these nutrients are locked and preserved rather than lost like they are with many other similar products. All you need to do is throw in a few chunks with your cooking, and you instantly make your meal much more nutritious and flavorsome. They also have other grade nutrient-dense options like sardine salt and freeze-dried beef heart chunks. All of their products are certified organic, which ensures they have no added hormones, antibiotics, or GMOs. Because their products are rigorously tested for nutrient density and purity, you can be confident that Grassland Nutrition's products are genuinely the best quality you can buy. To purchase, head over to grasslandnutrition.net or click the top link in the description of this video. If you use my code maxG10, you can get 10% off your entire order. A huge thanks to Grassland Nutrition for making videos like these possible.
Now, let's see who's funding the Lancet's dietary guidelines. This is from the Lancet themselves, word for word. "The commission's work has been made possible thanks to the support from the IKEA Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Welcome Trust, the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Children's Investment Fund Foundation, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation." Now, the Rockefeller Foundation was a large funder of the original anti-saturated fat and anti-meat campaign in the 1960s. The Novo Nordisk Foundation owns the pharmaceutical company that manufactures Ozempic. Their fat loss drugs work by mimicking a gut hormone that suppresses appetite. They're prescribed primarily for managing diabetes and obesity. And Bill Gates, well, he's a man of many ventures. Notably, he's the founder of Saver, the synthetic butter company that produces butter without any animal products. Instead, they use lab-made chemicals and pressure using a pro-chemical process. I actually covered this in a separate video a few months back, and the overall response to this video is probably pretty similar to what yours is right now. In February 2021, Gates went on record. "I do think all the rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef. You can get used to the taste difference. And the claim is they're going to make it taste even better over time. Eventually, that green premium is modest enough that you can sort of change the behavior of people or use regulation to totally shift the demand."
Actually, you know what? Maybe we're looking at all of this wrong. What if it instead has nothing to do with money? 2,400 years ago, Plato stated that meat made men ungovernable, while grains kept them docile. And in ancient Rome, every emperor used the same trick. When times got tough and they were worried about public unrest, they used a tactic the poet Juvenal called "panem et circenses." Now, I'm sure I've mispronounced that, but what it translates to is "feed the people bread and give them circuses, and you will have no problems." At the end of the day, whatever their true motive is, to be honest, it doesn't really matter. What matters is whether or not this is actually going to be implemented. And what happens if you refuse?
Well, the rollout of this diet is now already 6 years deep, and most people have no idea. In October 2019, 14 of the world's biggest cities, including Los Angeles, London, and Paris, all signed the C40 Good Food Cities Declaration, a binding commitment stating that by 2030, they will align all of their public food programs to the planetary health guidelines. For this, there was no public vote or referendum. The governments just decided. Together, these 14 cities serve 500 million meals every year in schools, hospitals, prisons, and even government cafeterias to a combined total of 64 million people. According to C40's own 2025 progress report, this seems to be working rather well. 69% of signatory cities have already aligned their school feeding programs with the Eat Lancet diet. Across the cities reporting data, meat purchases have dropped by 14%. Eggs are down 7%. Dairy sales are also down 17%. And plant-based foods, well, they're up 44%.
In 2022, Welsh 5-year-olds were fed cricket and mealworm mints designed to look like ground beef. The lead researcher for this went on record, "We want the children to think about alternative proteins as real things." In the EU, between 2022 and 2025, five insect species were approved for human consumption. Options include yellow mealworm, house cricket, and lesser mealworm. Now, that certainly does not sound very tasty, which is why instead of just putting on a shelf where nobody would buy it, they're instead just adding it to foods like pastas, baby foods, and protein bars. Now, disclosure of this is not actually required on the front of the label. So, you know, if you're buying any of these foods and you're in Europe, you might want to flip the thing over and just uh make sure that there's no insects in your food.
Another thing they're doing is punishing farmers. In 2024, Denmark became the first country in history to pass a CO2 tax on livestock. From 2030 onwards, Danish farmers must pay $100 per cow per year. Danish dairy farms are actually projected to lose a third of their herd in the first phase. The Danish foreign minister has called it the biggest transformation of the Danish landscape in modern history. All of this is pretty crazy.
But recently, however, things have gotten very weird. In February 2026, just 3 months ago, the Eat Lancet Foundation announced it was shutting down. They packed up and went home. Now, when I heard this, you know, I was I was a pretty happy man, but then I thought about it. Why? Why would they just shut down? They essentially have unlimited funding. They have a massive incentive to keep pushing this thing. And I mean, it's already working, so why would they just throw everything out? And the conclusion that I came to is that I think the reason they have thrown this out is actually because they've realized that they no longer need it. Their framework is now inside the nutrition guidelines of almost every major organization on the planet. The United Nations, the Agriculture Organization, the European Union's Novel Food Regulation, even the new official cholesterol guidelines, which were released only a month ago, all push for even lower meat consumption. My opinion is that they've simply decided that it's actually in their best interest to roll this out through a much quieter approach.
The reason I came to this conclusion is because in these countries, they are trying to force these guidelines on the people. The people, well, they are fighting back. The Netherlands introduced a nitrogen reduction policy. This would have shut down thousands of farms. The farmers, they fought back. They got on their tractors and blockaded the highways as well as the supermarket distribution centers for weeks. Riot police were deployed. This resulted in the BBB, which is the Dutch farmer citizen movement, going from zero seats to the largest party in Dutch Senate in 2023. This was built entirely on the farmers' backlash, and the buyout program has slowed dramatically since. Also, the same thing happened in my home nation, New Zealand. They tried to impose a similar bill, and our farmers, well, they also got in their tractors and protested. In fact, even in America, entire states are fighting back. In May of 2024, Florida became the first American state to ban the sale of lab-grown meat. Alabama followed 3 weeks later, and many have followed since. In my opinion, this diet will not be implemented in the immediate future, and that is for one reason, which is these people, they know that sometimes you must sacrifice a pawn to save the queen. They know that when they overplay their hand, people actually do something about it. If they just straight up ban meat tomorrow, that certainly would not go down well. So, instead, what I believe they will likely do is take a much slower but steadier approach and roll it out in a much more quiet and long-term focused manner.
Let's go back to Katie from the start. Her lunch was designed by people she'll never meet. Funded by corporations who may or may not have her best interest in mind, and approved through agreements she nor her parents had a single bit of say in. But the thing with this new global diet is they counted on nobody noticing. And here we are. They wrote a 76-page report that they knew almost no one would read. Published it in a journal almost no one outside of medicine reads. It was rolled out through 14 city contracts that received very little press coverage. The entire architecture of this thing is built on the assumption that you would not be watching. Yet, here we are. And that's why this thing isn't working anytime soon.
If you enjoyed this video, you may also enjoy this other video here. I made in it. I exposed a company that is poisoning essentially every single person on Earth every single day. And the internal documents actually show they've known they've been doing this and have hidden it for over 40 years. Anyway, as always, great speaking with you, and I'll see you next.