Inside the Republican effort to force millions of farm animals back into cages
abraxas @ abraxas @lemmy.ml Posts 1Comments 387Joined 2 yr. ago
abraxas @ abraxas @lemmy.ml
Posts
1
Comments
387
Joined
2 yr. ago
That seems like a bit of a red herring even if true. Considering I recognize your handle from elsewhere, I'm going to say "eat what you want" and move on before things get heated.
I understand that your ethics drive your decisions, but my ethics drive mine. As does my nutrition.
Actually, hell. Let me respond to the red herring statement anyway. Yes they supplement cows B12. Not so they have B12 in their meat but because cows need B12 and most of the world's soil is Cobalt-deficient. I'm such a sucker for trolls I suppose; can't let misinformation go unanswered :( I hope an upvoted post in a vegan subreddit works for response?
EDIT: Sorry. I don't really mean that YOU are a troll per se. Misinformation like this is problematic to me because I try to treat people as charitably as I possibly can. But the idea that B12 is in meat due to supplements is one of that family of malicious half-truths that simply could not have been an "honest mistake" from whoever originated it. Whoever started spreading that ABSOLUTELY knows it's a downright falsehood that can be substantiated by half-reads and mis-reads of actual facts. Like picking out a single vaccine study that doesn't rule out autism and starting... well, you lived through what it started as much as I did.
I genuinely don't think YOU knew what you were about to say was fabricated nonsense made to seem defensible from a naive googling. But somebody did.
Yes, bread can be healthy. The right one in moderation. The same as red meat (per your reference), actually :).
But 80/20 extra-fattened with liver for a delicious burger? Definitely not healthy (but like a candy bar, it's ok to have one every months or two)
I’ve seen several threads where chefs confess that all they do to make their dish(s) popular is load it down with butter and sugar.
Not "confessed". That's a part of what they teach in culinary school. Restaurants strive for increased flavor, and the most effective flavor profiles are sweet and umami. Sugar and butter (or meat or MSG etc).
But yeah, we definitely use more sugar (instead of, or as well as umami) in America. However, there's a lot of that going on in Japanese and Chinese (real, as in eating in China) cooking as well. When I was in China, everything that wasn't meat was shockingly carb-loaded. These weird (yummy) sweet cheese breads I swore had simple syrup slathered all over them with what tasted almost like American Cheese.
There's been a lot of back-and-forth. B12, like iron and Protein, are digested differently by the gut (with different efficiency) based on how they are consumed.
If absolutely all you care about is nutrition and nothing else, you should be eating a small amount of non-processed red and white meat (and/or seafood) on a regular basis because it is the best and healthiest source of those three things. Key term "small amount"
Huh? Humans evolved in a hunter/gatherer lifestyle. Before the advent of farming, it was impossible to get sufficient calories for a tribe or village without hunting and bringing down big animals on a regular basis. Meat was quite literally the "meat" of human diet for most of history.
After the advent of farming, you could pack a lot of calories with things like breads, for when you didn't have meat (or in early civilization) when the rich folks got the meat.
As for cheese, it really doesn't take that long to produce unless you're talking about aged cheese... But that's a different topic (and both aged/fresh have different health benefits)
Processed meat is a Group 1 carcinogen. We should be treating it like we treat cigarettes.
That's also true of almost any food. Grains and legumes cause liver cancer. Eating too many plain vegetables can lead to nutritional deficiencies. All carbs, even fibers, need to be eaten in moderation. This site suggests no more than 3-4 servings per day.
They use "can" and "probably" in scientific sources because it's not entirely confirmed. The best citation I could find was "probably" an increased risk if you eat more than 500g of meat per week.
It actually is. Most carcinogenic evidence on meats come from processed meats. Per cited references, eating way too much red meat is "probably" a cause for cancer, but eating processed meats is definitely a cause for cancer.
And by "way too much", that's 1.5lbs/week. I love a good steak, but don't really eat 1.5lbs/week of it.
That's sorta half the story. The official statement is that consistently eating more than 1.5lbs (500g) of red meat per week "probably" (their word) increases your cancer risk. The real story is that eating more than 50g of processed meat per week dramatically increases your cancer risk. To the extent that processed meat is ranked as a "Group 1" carcinogen.
Flip-side, grains and legumes have been tied to cancer as well. I can't find exactly what category, but they seem fairly convinced they are carcinogenic.
It is, sadly, like the California Cancer joke, where almost everything causes cancer if taken to excess.
Real answer (since there's a lot of crap going around).
Grain really isn't that healthy in large quantities, but isn't bad. But if you grind it into flour and bleach out the bran and germ, it's far less healthy. When you bake it into a bread, you create this extremely high-density/high-calorie end product with very little nutritional value.
And beef, similar story. Beef is below-average on healthiness of meat (high cholesterol, though it's complicated the same as high-salt foods would be). But in a burger, you usually use especially fatty beef, like 80/20. Restaurants will sometimes supplement the fat in the beef with pork fat to make for an even tastier (and more unhealthy) burger.
Nobody will ever say that tomato, lettuce, or pickle on a burger are unhealthy.
It seems odd putting meat in the same category as bread.
In terms of pure health, there's not much out there better than most meats. Yes, beef is a bit lower than pork and chicken, but properly portioned (looking at most of us Americans) it has very few downsides.
Bread on the other hand can be one of the worst foods we can eat. Of course, it is still all about moderation.
EDIT: Why the reddit-like downvotes folks? There's really no cohesive argument that puts meat below bread healthwise in most situations. If you want to avoid meat, avoid meat. If you want to be morally opposed to anyone eating meat, so be it. Facts are still facts and misinformation isn't the right way to fight that battle.
I mostly miss my niche subreddits. If the subreddit only has 20-30 active users, that means 1-2 people hopped to Lemmy who might be interested in it.
No, he's right. If people just "fuck off" instead of protesting, shit doesn't get done.
Some people don't just want to "move on" when they're pissed at yet another example of capitalism ruining a platform that got itself a monopoly because of capitalism. If reddit hadn't been there when Digg died, somebody else would have. That somebody else might have done things differently than reddit, and now we wouldn't have this issue where reddit is almost "too big to fail".
So I may be too lazy to actively protest reddit, but saying my decision to "just fuck off" is the braver one because the protestors are "addicted"... I just disagree.
Capitalism says we're not supposed to have expectations of the giants who cannibalize their market. I disagree strongly.
Socialism is when Democrats do things. Especially when they give things to people who aren't me. Doubly especially if they aren't white.
That's socialism. And Naziism.
(/s since Poe struck other people here already)
In the BEST of times it creates a severe delay. In many cases, every minute counts. There are life-saving measures where time is of the essence and they cannot be started in an Ambulence.
The most common that comes to mind is a stroke. 5 minutes' difference can be the difference between 99% recovery and a fate far worse even if the patient survives. They literally treat a stroke with different procedures based upon how long since the onset of symptoms. More obviously relevant with any cardiac arrest event, or certain acute trauma like gunshot wounds.
And your example, where people STILL die from the delay, is the best case.
Look, we both agree the climate is important, but would you sacrifice your mother, or spouse, or child for a protest that isn't directly going to improve the climate on its own? Blocking the highway does not make the protest help the climate more, but IT DOES END LIVES. Instead, why don't you block the entrance of an oil power plant?
Honestly, I know why. Because they'll run you over because they're the monsters, so you protest at places that won't. I GET that. But an oil tanker isn't going to be read their last rites in 5 minutes with the bad news told to their families.
I can see the whole "us or them" mentality coming out. Is this the point where you tell me I'm going up against the wall because my version of far left is different from yours?
As you said, "you don't have to listen to me" if you can manage to steal a lot of heavy weapons and point them at my head. Fuck me if I'm the majority, let democracy die. Fuck me if I'm actually on the right side of the paradox of tolerance. You have guns, so we must submit.
Is that what you want to hear?
Instead of arguing over something well-established and well-documented, I'm just going to leave an NPR explanation of it for you or others to read at your leisure.
It might surprise you, but you can prove a negative in a court of law, and you actually have to in the US for defamation, unlike European libel laws.
That's why I replied. You seemed like you'd be receptive to that side of things.
Protest is complicated. The less you inconvenience people, the less effective it is. The more you inconvenience people, the more harm you can do and the more fence-sitters might find a good reason to challenge you. We shouldn't NEED protests, but we do.
I think most of the time BLM is a great modern example of doing it right. It shows how much to take the "protesting is wrong" attitude with a grain of salt because so many good peaceful BLM rallies get painted as riots anyway. Yet through all the horseshit, progress.
Just progress with as few deaths as possible, if we can :)
They found an issue that profits them that undecideds will get behind, is why.
Free Range laws are a complicated and touchy subject in a lot of Blue areas. Eggs more than doubled in price in my state in the last 6 months or so. I'm willing to pay for them because I think Free Range laws are humane, but I'm a couple towns over from a very depressed urban community that really feels the difference when eggs were one of the cheapest nutritional purchases they could buy.
THERE, there's been a lot of grumbling by traditionally blue voters about the Free Range laws. Unfortunately, for a lot of people, empathy ends when it affects their family.
IMO, we needed subsidy or purchase-subsidy of some sort to counteract the cost of Free Range laws, and this might not have happened because it might not have been popular enough. Nonetheless, hopefully they shoot themsleves in the foot with this. They're leaning on the same commerce clause that could eventually lead to a federal Free Range mandate.