3 ms·

I was listening to NPR the other day and they had a piece about how the individual can do their part reducing carbon emissions by not eating so much meat. The i

I was listening to NPR the other day and they had a piece about how the individual can do their part reducing carbon emissions by not eating so much meat. The interviewee went into the amount of resources that go into supporting a diet with meat vs a less-meaty diet and the point was pretty clear. The interviewer rounded off the piece by asking about racial disparities and how this will disproportionately affect non whites. In some circles, this sort of thing is called eco-fascism I guess.

commoner 5y ago
The correct answer to the interviewer's question is to point out that the lowest cost-per-calorie foods tend to be non-meat foods such as grains and legumes. Switching from meats to healthy non-meat foods can save money in many cases. If the diet change includes a reduction of red or processed meats, switching to healthy non-meat foods would also improve the person's health and reduce their healthcare expenses in the long term. The financial and health benefits of switching to healthy non-meat foods would reduce racial disparities, if people of color tend to eat a greater amount of meat, as the question implies.
- raegis 5y ago
  Reducing or eliminating fructose is a better answer, I think. Anti-fat messaging (in food) has resulted in food producers reducing fat but increasing fructose content for decades, with an associated rise in obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Check out the lecture "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" by Robert Lustig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&t=179s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&t=179s
  - commoner 5y ago
    You're completely right that excess added sugar (including added fructose) is well-known to be unhealthy, and that switching to non-meat foods wouldn't address this issue. But, low-meat diets aren't necessarily higher in added sugar than higher-meat diets. (I did say "healthy" non-meat foods to exclude, for instance, replacing meat with candy.) I agree that reducing added sugar consumption should be one of the highest priorities for the average individual who is looking to improve their diet. However, this particular question asked about the racial effects of reducing meat consumption, so the benefits of reducing added sugar consumption wouldn't be the most relevant piece of information to answer with.
  - 8note 5y ago
    Remove the profit incentive from selling food is what we really need; that or charging food producers for the bad health impacts they create. After removing fructose, food producers will find a new thing to make people want to eat more, ad infinitum.
- yeetaccount4 5y ago
  I agree with you but they had just spent the entire interview talking about that. It was an awkward shoehorn to say the least.
- tzs 5y ago
  > The correct answer to the interviewer's question is to point out that the lowest cost-per-calorie foods tend to be non-meat foods such as grains and legumes. The correct follow up question after that answer is for the interviewer to ask how one who lives in a neighborhood where the only food sources are convenience stores and fast food restaurants is to find a good source of grains and legumes.

commoner 5y ago

The correct answer to the interviewer's question is to point out that the lowest cost-per-calorie foods tend to be non-meat foods such as grains and legumes. Switching from meats to healthy non-meat foods can save money in many cases. If the diet change includes a reduction of red or processed meats, switching to healthy non-meat foods would also improve the person's health and reduce their healthcare expenses in the long term. The financial and health benefits of switching to healthy non-meat foods would reduce racial disparities, if people of color tend to eat a greater amount of meat, as the question implies.

raegis 5y ago
Reducing or eliminating fructose is a better answer, I think. Anti-fat messaging (in food) has resulted in food producers reducing fat but increasing fructose content for decades, with an associated rise in obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Check out the lecture "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" by Robert Lustig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&t=179s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&t=179s
- commoner 5y ago
  You're completely right that excess added sugar (including added fructose) is well-known to be unhealthy, and that switching to non-meat foods wouldn't address this issue. But, low-meat diets aren't necessarily higher in added sugar than higher-meat diets. (I did say "healthy" non-meat foods to exclude, for instance, replacing meat with candy.) I agree that reducing added sugar consumption should be one of the highest priorities for the average individual who is looking to improve their diet. However, this particular question asked about the racial effects of reducing meat consumption, so the benefits of reducing added sugar consumption wouldn't be the most relevant piece of information to answer with.
- 8note 5y ago
  Remove the profit incentive from selling food is what we really need; that or charging food producers for the bad health impacts they create. After removing fructose, food producers will find a new thing to make people want to eat more, ad infinitum.
yeetaccount4 5y ago
I agree with you but they had just spent the entire interview talking about that. It was an awkward shoehorn to say the least.
tzs 5y ago
> The correct answer to the interviewer's question is to point out that the lowest cost-per-calorie foods tend to be non-meat foods such as grains and legumes. The correct follow up question after that answer is for the interviewer to ask how one who lives in a neighborhood where the only food sources are convenience stores and fast food restaurants is to find a good source of grains and legumes.