5 ms·
This is irresponsible advice because nutrition is not a solved problem. As long as we fail to solve it, as in, correctly predict the short, medium, and long te
by whiddershins 7y ago
This is irresponsible advice because nutrition is not a solved problem.
As long as we fail to solve it, as in, correctly predict the short, medium, and long term effects on heath and well being for people across all variations of genome and microbiome, not to mention activity level and medical conditions, people need to evaluate their food intake individually.
Guilting people away from “taking care” of themselves based on a subset of the medical and nutritional literature to achieve some global carbon emissions target is not a reasonable strategy, in my opinion.
- mklarmann 7y agoThis sounds rather short sighted to me. Changing our diet towards lower meat consumption (like we had 50 years ago - max. 1 portion of meat per week), has been shown to come with substantial health benefits. It is a no brainer that we should go there. Because the alternative is so much more detrimental for the human race. Being struck by climate change means we would have around 500 million people who need to migrate, besides other catastrophic effects.
- flr03 7y agoI don't buy this. Sounds like an excuse to not change our habits. Diets have rapidly and continuously been changing over the last decades and I don't think mc donald's waited for the nutrition to be a "solved problem" before taking over the world with the big mac. Asking people to reduce their red meat consumption couldn't be worse than that.