Rhetorical questions, Liuzhou. I have no quarrel with you or you posting the article. Sorry .. didn't mean for you to take it that way, believe me. I was merely giving my opinion of the way the article was written. I also question the idea that a 'suggestion' that people eat 50% less meat (and the supposed reasons why) will work and I worry that if that is the case, will they decide to 'enforce that' and how? The article first says 'plan' to get people to eat less meat and then implies that all this will be is a change to what may be like our western 'food pyramid' 'suggestions about what is good for you. Perhaps I jumped to conclusions there - you would know better - but 'freedom' is not always a word one associates with Chinese government, etc. Even here, if a 'suggestion' doesn't work to achieve whatever aims government might have, they often pursue other avenues (like laws and regulations and taxes, etc.) to get better results.
I guess my point is - I don't think it is a well written article - it seems mostly slanted editorial to me more than 'reporting' much. I just can't see either how reducing people's meat consumption by 50% will fix obesity and diabetes or rid the world of pollution - air, water, etc. .. there is much more to it all than that.
