2 ms·
I think the argument is that our entire food supply is corrupted / adulterated so switching your diet from one type of organism to another doesn't improve the i
by hunter23 9y ago
I think the argument is that our entire food supply is corrupted / adulterated so switching your diet from one type of organism to another doesn't improve the issue since both organisms are being treated with "corruptions" (genetic modification, pesticides, chemicals that aid growth). Unless you are saying that the adulteration in vegetables and grains is less harmful to humans than that in animals the solution proposed doesn't improve "adulteration".
(I don't really agree with either viewpoint I'm just trying to explain the argument)
- loverofthings 9y agoAnimal tissue unlike plant tissue accumulates stuff magnitudes more. Bioaccumulation of harmful substances as we rise through the food chain is a known issue. Using our best antibiotics to produce 60 billion chickens per year is a state financed suicide and not at all a free market mechanism.
- kurthr 9y agoA grain sprayed with herbicide or a fruit sprayed with an insecticide is going to accumulate in your meat just as well as it will in a chicken, but I agree it will concentrate in predators (like salmon) and omnivores (like humans). What I don't understand is how the unregulated shipment of of a antibiotic from one country (where it is controlled) for a chicken industry in another country (one of whom was actually bought by pharma company in India) to increase profits of both private companies is "state financed suicide and not at all a free market mechanism". It sounds exactly like laissez faire capitalism exploitation due to bypass of state regulation.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]