5 ms·

Harvard Response: "The panel declared “considerations of environmental impact” out of the scope of their recommendations. This is a missed opportunity because c

Harvard Response: "The panel declared “considerations of environmental impact” out of the scope of their recommendations. This is a missed opportunity because climate change and environmental degradation have serious effects on human health, and thus is important to consider when making recommendations on diet, even if this is addressed separately from direct effects on individual health." My response: should we apply this to other topics as well? Pimp the efficiency of renewables compared with carbon-based? Up the effectivity of hydrogen-based energy distribution? Lift the results of a study promoting working from home? Two words come to mind: Occam's razor.

humble_engineer 7y ago
"climate change and environmental degradation have serious effects on human health" This is not how science works.
zygimantasdev 7y ago
"climate change and environmental degradation have serious effects on human health" - can you elaborate? Do you mean mental health?
- edejong 7y ago
  These are not my words. All I am arguing is that we should expect the simplest possible connection between nutrition and health. Although I do agree we should also understand the systematic effects of certain choices, we cannot make decisions if all these effects are aggregated haphazardly. It would make sense if another study would combine the nutritional long-term effects, the societal costs, the availability of alternative sources of amino acids and other factors. Nevertheless, the conclusion: "Red meat consumption is unhealthy for individuals" should (imho) not consider the environmental effects. Principle of least astonishment.
parliament32 7y ago
Yeah that's a terrible response. Of course it's out-of-scope, just like someone's pro-vegetarian paper should have "considerations of the impact to American cattle farmers" out-of-scope. It's just not what the paper's about, and trying to use that as a rebuttal speaks to the weakness of Harvard's response.

humble_engineer 7y ago

"climate change and environmental degradation have serious effects on human health" This is not how science works.

zygimantasdev 7y ago

"climate change and environmental degradation have serious effects on human health" - can you elaborate? Do you mean mental health?

edejong 7y ago
These are not my words. All I am arguing is that we should expect the simplest possible connection between nutrition and health. Although I do agree we should also understand the systematic effects of certain choices, we cannot make decisions if all these effects are aggregated haphazardly. It would make sense if another study would combine the nutritional long-term effects, the societal costs, the availability of alternative sources of amino acids and other factors. Nevertheless, the conclusion: "Red meat consumption is unhealthy for individuals" should (imho) not consider the environmental effects. Principle of least astonishment.

parliament32 7y ago

Yeah that's a terrible response. Of course it's out-of-scope, just like someone's pro-vegetarian paper should have "considerations of the impact to American cattle farmers" out-of-scope. It's just not what the paper's about, and trying to use that as a rebuttal speaks to the weakness of Harvard's response.