no comments

You Wont Believe Which Liberal Conspiracy This Fox Host Says Is Behind Meat Study


The World Health Organization (WHO) recently published a study linking red meats and processed meats to cancer, which has a lot of people up in arms. Predictably, the meat industry threw a livid fit, because theyre worried that findings like this will hurt their sales. Others think its bad science, or some type of conspiracy. When Fox News discussed this on The Five, host Dana Perino decided this wasnt just a liberal conspiracy, it was a liberal conspiracy tied to climate change.

Yes, you read that right. Mediaite has the segment, and Perino said, in no uncertain terms:

I think that there is a bigger conspiracy here anyway by the World Health Organization, and it all has to do with climate change. Global warming. Theres a big push against any sort of animal consumption.

Because science is all about pushing liberal conspiracies all the time. Right. Co-host Greg Gutfeld had to chime in with his own stupidity, saying, Reduce our carbon hoofprint. Not footprint, hoofprint. He takes the whole thing less seriously than Perino, who clearly doesnt take food and health science, or climate science, seriously.


This is, however, Fox News, so of course theyll attack anything scientific that doesnt say what they want it to say. The vegetarian reaction to this news notwithstanding, not everything that says something is bad for us is a vast, liberal conspiracy at all, let alone one tied to another so-called liberal agenda like climate change.

The report found that eating just 50 grams of processed meat each day can increase the risk of colorectal cancer by 18 percent. According to the BBC, processed meats include hot dogs, ham, bacon, sausage, salami, and more, and is basically meat that has been modified to increase its shelf life, or change its taste. Thats why ham and bacon are on this list; theyve often got a lot of sodium added, and theyve been smoked or cured in some way to alter their taste and increase their shelf life.


The carcinogenic chemicals form during processing. However, the reason that red meats may also be carcinogenic, even if theyre unprocessed, is because these chemicals can also form during cooking. This is especially true when cooking meat at high temperatures, such as on a grill.

The WHOs data is based on hundreds of studies, according to a story on CNN Money. Its not like this is a single study, or just a couple of studies that are outliers among scads of studies. Of course, if its something that people have done all their lives, then its expected for conservatives to cry foul when studies come out that say its bad.

Thats what Fox News is doing. Theyre crying foul because they see studies like this as agenda-based, because they hurt industry and because they tell people that it might be a good idea to alter their lifestyles and habits. That, in the world of the right, is evil.

Featured image by stux. Licensed under Public Domain via Pixabay


‘s rights and workers’ rights, and she’s an avid animal rights and welfare activist as well. Rika has a serious problem with tea party politics, as she believes that the best solutions to the world’s problems come from groups of people who don’t all think the same way. The tea party is so conservative that not only are they racist, misogynist, classist, selfish, and such fear-mongerers that they vote against their own interests, but they do not believe in working with the “enemy” either. Rika’s hatred of tea party politics and the idea that cooperating means colluding with some “enemy” is what really prompted her to start writing on liberal politics.

  • Twitter

  • Facebook

  • Google+

Rika Christensen

Latest Posts By
Rika Christensen

  • Fox News Poisons Viewer Into Threatening Man At Gunpoint Cause He Looked Like ISIS
  • Numbers Dont Lie, Or Do They? Marco Rubio Makes Ridiculous Claim About Terror Watch List
  • Responsible Gun Owner 2nd Amendments His Friend At Most Ironic Place


  • Internet Astronaut

    Knee, meet jerk.


  • Rowena

    I am a progressive and detest Faux News, but this association isnt as crazy as it seems. One of the things the WHO is worried about is feeding the planet as the population grows exponentially and the climate changes. Plant foods are more efficient to produce and a smaller acreage will feed more people. So it is reasonable to assume that the WHO may have an agenda other than pure science when it makes these pronouncements. Its not a bad agenda, just an agenda.
    Furthermore, most of the studies they meta-analyzed are epidemiological studies, which are notoriously poor at showing things like what a good or best diet is, because they are not controlled. Even the commentary on the meta-analysis said that meat-eaters in general are less likely to consume a variety of vegetables, and that might be part of the reason meat eaters get more colon cancer. So why not say not eating enough vegetables makes it more likely you will get colon cancer? If it is the method of cooking or preserving the meat, then why not say that? And there are a host of other behaviors that are likely to cause a correlation between those behavior and colon cancer, but well never know what they are, because the studies werent controlled. Finally, as we all know from high school science, correlation is not causationthe WHO has told us there is a correlation. The media should stop reporting on it as if it is causation. We may indeed need to eat less meat, or no meat, or how about meat that has been raised on its natural diet? Meat produced in factory farms from animals that have been force-fed foods that make them sick and fat might well affect the body differently than organic grass-fed meat. The traditional Masai eat a lot of blood, milk, and red meatdo they have a high rate of colon cancer? It would be interesting to know. Right now, mostly we dont know.