5 ms·

Frankly, a LOT of nutritional science is heavily politicized, included the research the contra side of this article. The corn and grain industries have a long s

Frankly, a LOT of nutritional science is heavily politicized, included the research the contra side of this article. The corn and grain industries have a long storied history of funding studies that support their targets and denigrate the meat industry as well as lobbying for regulations which benefit their industries.

marricks 4y ago
Aren’t cattle the biggest grain consumers, so wouldn’t that be counter productive? I’ve heard of the ag lobby and the meat and dairy lobbies but never big grain. Of course they exist and do something but going against the meat lobby just seems weird.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > According to the Cato Institute, farmers of corn, soybeans, and wheat receive more than 70% of farm subsidies. https://www.thoughtco.com/us-farm-subsidies-3325162 https://www.thoughtco.com/us-farm-subsidies-3325162
  - mahogany 4y ago
    To contextualize this given the parent commenter's question: -- About 50% of US corn production goes toward animal feed (and another 30% goes to ethanol). Slightly out of date source, but recent figures show this has only moved a few percentage points. [1] -- Over 70% of US soybean production goes toward animal feed. [2] -- I wasn't able to find something similar about wheat, but I would guess nearly all of it is human consumption. Given this, it's safe to say that a large portion of these grain subsidies are linked to meat, although to get a better idea of the distribution, we would need to see a further breakdown by category (corn, soybeans, wheat). [1] https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-corn-factsheet.pdf https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten... [2] https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-soybeans-factsheet.pdf https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten...
  - marricks 4y ago
    I think mahogany’s comment is more important but I just want to add: how many subsidies they get doesn’t relate at all to what research they might fund. They’re deeply tied to the meat industry so would benefit more from increased consumption.
GenerocUsername 4y ago
Came to say this. So much health news is equally polarized just in the other direction. When it skews towards your preconceived notions you hardly notice it. It's important to be aware of the voice behind the article

marricks 4y ago

Aren’t cattle the biggest grain consumers, so wouldn’t that be counter productive? I’ve heard of the ag lobby and the meat and dairy lobbies but never big grain. Of course they exist and do something but going against the meat lobby just seems weird.

pessimizer 4y ago
> According to the Cato Institute, farmers of corn, soybeans, and wheat receive more than 70% of farm subsidies. https://www.thoughtco.com/us-farm-subsidies-3325162 https://www.thoughtco.com/us-farm-subsidies-3325162
- mahogany 4y ago
  To contextualize this given the parent commenter's question: -- About 50% of US corn production goes toward animal feed (and another 30% goes to ethanol). Slightly out of date source, but recent figures show this has only moved a few percentage points. [1] -- Over 70% of US soybean production goes toward animal feed. [2] -- I wasn't able to find something similar about wheat, but I would guess nearly all of it is human consumption. Given this, it's safe to say that a large portion of these grain subsidies are linked to meat, although to get a better idea of the distribution, we would need to see a further breakdown by category (corn, soybeans, wheat). [1] https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-corn-factsheet.pdf https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten... [2] https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-soybeans-factsheet.pdf https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten...
- marricks 4y ago
  I think mahogany’s comment is more important but I just want to add: how many subsidies they get doesn’t relate at all to what research they might fund. They’re deeply tied to the meat industry so would benefit more from increased consumption.

GenerocUsername 4y ago

Came to say this. So much health news is equally polarized just in the other direction. When it skews towards your preconceived notions you hardly notice it. It's important to be aware of the voice behind the article