7 ms·

From the "about us" page: > Plant Based News is a mission-led impact media platform focused on elevating the plant-based diet and its benefit to human health,

From the "about us" page: > Plant Based News is a mission-led impact media platform focused on elevating the plant-based diet and its benefit to human health, the planet, and animals. And > The world’s leading scientists agree that time is running out in the fight to stop the climate crisis. Shifting away from an animal-based food system is one of the most impactful ways we can slow global warming. It’s also a critical move in preventing future pandemics and bringing equity to our global food system. I'll take it with a grain of vegan salt.

JosephRedfern 3y ago
This summary article may be biased, but note that the cited paper has been peer reviewed and was published in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-05517-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-05517-3.
- consp 3y ago
  Shouldn't that be the article reference then? Since that is both the source and not biased.
- happytiger 3y ago
  It not a study. It’s a bunch of postulation and no data or experiment and based entirely on conjecture.
  - simonh 3y ago
    As is the idea that fire enabled us to boost our nutrition enabling brain growth. I have no problem with the paper in Nature, and no problem with PBN promoting it. I think they’re overreaching saying it was fermentation not fire. It may well have been both. Fire 2m years ago and fermentation more recently once we had containers to ferment things in.
    - happytiger 3y ago
      Well I think it’s awesome to have the discussion and I certainly think the idea has merit… I just don’t think postulations should have the same weight as substantive research no matter how prestigious the journey it gets published in. That’s really the core of my point. You could very well be right on fire / ferment and whatnot. We have so very little substantive paleontological information to go off of.
neuronic 3y ago
What are you calling them out for? A bias against torture and violent industrialized murder of sentient life?
- sph 3y ago
  There is more to eating meat than supporting industrial "murder". And to be frank, industrial agriculture ain't much better for animals and the Earth. One can reduce their impact on this planet without becoming a (hypocrite) zealot, unless you can convince me you don't have a car, avoid any form of plastics, avoid pesticides, avoid processed vegan food, do not import avocadoes, natto and tofu from overseas etc. We can both play this game, or we can be just a little more pragmatic and a little less dogmatic.
  - moonmusick 3y ago
    Ah yes, the ideal solution fallacy.
  - hhshhhhjjjd 3y ago
    It seems like you're angrily describing an ideal that you would be ecstatic to achieve, but have no confidence you could ever reach. Just the fact that you _know_ what is hypocrisy (e.g. imported avocados) is a move in the right direction. Without a sense of the ideal, how could you be pragmatic? I think there will always be a vanguard of humanity that is willing to push towards the ideal -- that drags the rest of us pragmatists kicking and screaming into the future.
  - thinkingtoilet 3y ago
    > There is more to eating meat than supporting industrial "murder". 99% of the meat grown in America comes from factory foods. Despite this, every time the horrible treatment of animals is brought up online all of a sudden everyone is getting their meat from farms where the cows get a message twice a day. Statistically, there isn't much more. I still eat meat, very little these days, but lets be honest about it. Your final 'whataboutisms' don't help either. None of that matters. The truth about meat in America, at least, is undeniable.
alentred 3y ago
I am not sure what do you mean to say. This looks very transparent and consistent. A company that has clear values and transparently states them in its "About Us" page, explaining what they believe in and why they exist. What is to take with a grain of salt?
- Pucilowski 3y ago
  Disclosing your (potentially conflicting) interests does not automatically mean you've not been biased/incentivized to discover particular findings, pharmaceutical research is full of examples
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    Of course, but if you have a specific interest, and then a study comes out that backs it up, you can write about it and promote it, can't you? Show everyone, look at this, we liked this idea, and now this study gives it more backing.
    - dog_boxer72 3y ago
      If the study had said eating meat was essential for our pre-historic development they probably just wouldn’t publish it. Impartiality is hard.
      - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        Sure. But there are plenty of "Carnivore", or "Keto" sites that do not publish studies showing the benefits of fiber or vegetables. It goes both ways, the plant people aren't more biased. If a study comes out saying meat is great, "keto" sites promote it. If a study comes out saying plants are great, "plant" sites promote it. I don't think a site called 'plantbasednews' is hiding their bias.
        dog_boxer72 3y ago
        Yes that’s why I would prefer studies done by some history department which at least theoretically is only biased towards finding out the truth

JosephRedfern 3y ago

This summary article may be biased, but note that the cited paper has been peer reviewed and was published in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-05517-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-05517-3.

consp 3y ago
Shouldn't that be the article reference then? Since that is both the source and not biased.
happytiger 3y ago
It not a study. It’s a bunch of postulation and no data or experiment and based entirely on conjecture.
- simonh 3y ago
  As is the idea that fire enabled us to boost our nutrition enabling brain growth. I have no problem with the paper in Nature, and no problem with PBN promoting it. I think they’re overreaching saying it was fermentation not fire. It may well have been both. Fire 2m years ago and fermentation more recently once we had containers to ferment things in.
  - happytiger 3y ago
    Well I think it’s awesome to have the discussion and I certainly think the idea has merit… I just don’t think postulations should have the same weight as substantive research no matter how prestigious the journey it gets published in. That’s really the core of my point. You could very well be right on fire / ferment and whatnot. We have so very little substantive paleontological information to go off of.

neuronic 3y ago

What are you calling them out for? A bias against torture and violent industrialized murder of sentient life?

sph 3y ago
There is more to eating meat than supporting industrial "murder". And to be frank, industrial agriculture ain't much better for animals and the Earth. One can reduce their impact on this planet without becoming a (hypocrite) zealot, unless you can convince me you don't have a car, avoid any form of plastics, avoid pesticides, avoid processed vegan food, do not import avocadoes, natto and tofu from overseas etc. We can both play this game, or we can be just a little more pragmatic and a little less dogmatic.
- moonmusick 3y ago
  Ah yes, the ideal solution fallacy.
- hhshhhhjjjd 3y ago
  It seems like you're angrily describing an ideal that you would be ecstatic to achieve, but have no confidence you could ever reach. Just the fact that you _know_ what is hypocrisy (e.g. imported avocados) is a move in the right direction. Without a sense of the ideal, how could you be pragmatic? I think there will always be a vanguard of humanity that is willing to push towards the ideal -- that drags the rest of us pragmatists kicking and screaming into the future.
- thinkingtoilet 3y ago
  > There is more to eating meat than supporting industrial "murder". 99% of the meat grown in America comes from factory foods. Despite this, every time the horrible treatment of animals is brought up online all of a sudden everyone is getting their meat from farms where the cows get a message twice a day. Statistically, there isn't much more. I still eat meat, very little these days, but lets be honest about it. Your final 'whataboutisms' don't help either. None of that matters. The truth about meat in America, at least, is undeniable.

alentred 3y ago

I am not sure what do you mean to say. This looks very transparent and consistent. A company that has clear values and transparently states them in its "About Us" page, explaining what they believe in and why they exist. What is to take with a grain of salt?

Pucilowski 3y ago
Disclosing your (potentially conflicting) interests does not automatically mean you've not been biased/incentivized to discover particular findings, pharmaceutical research is full of examples
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Of course, but if you have a specific interest, and then a study comes out that backs it up, you can write about it and promote it, can't you? Show everyone, look at this, we liked this idea, and now this study gives it more backing.
  - dog_boxer72 3y ago
    If the study had said eating meat was essential for our pre-historic development they probably just wouldn’t publish it. Impartiality is hard.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      Sure. But there are plenty of "Carnivore", or "Keto" sites that do not publish studies showing the benefits of fiber or vegetables. It goes both ways, the plant people aren't more biased. If a study comes out saying meat is great, "keto" sites promote it. If a study comes out saying plants are great, "plant" sites promote it. I don't think a site called 'plantbasednews' is hiding their bias.
      - dog_boxer72 3y ago
        Yes that’s why I would prefer studies done by some history department which at least theoretically is only biased towards finding out the truth