Said "scientific study" is funded by Wellcome. An arm of WHO, unelected crisis manufacturer supreme. On wellcome's site:
"Reducing meat intake, particularly in the USA where meat consumption is highest, should be a global priority."
Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome.
And cancer research. But you didn't bring that up.
edit: Also not "An arm of WHO", they partner with them cause priorities (public health) are aligned.
I couldn't find anything here about meat consumption:
You may already realize this but if you type
site:wellcome.org "Reducing meat intake, particularly in the USA where meat consumption is highest, should be a global priority."
into Google you'll find it.
A proper -mediocracy- meritocracy (i.e. it's actual skills and qualification that counts) is preferable over any kind of popularity contest. That's not to say the WHO in particular works by this standard, I just find it very irritating if people insist on every position or institution - especially very specialised ones - being subject to elections.
That just doesn't make sense and can have horrifying consequences (see [1] for an example). There are positions (in my example: medical examiners), that simply cannot be adequately filled by laypeople and amateurs. That's not how a complex society works. It's not the middle ages anymore and most professions and many official positions require training, experience, and qualifications.
That's why I don't get the obsession with everyone needing to be "elected" (and by that I assume you mean by the general public, because WHO positions in particular are in fact awarded by elections).
While I think mediocracy is more accurate, I think you meant "meritocracy".