19 ms·

Tyson foods and other meatpacking companies lobbied and funded RFK... Here's industry reports https://www.nationalbeefwire.com/doctors-group-applauds-commitme

• gnarlouse 9mo ago
  The irony is Tyson's is an absolutely horrendous organization and ruins food left and right. Not to mention the absurd living conditions for the animals they feed us.
• nhumrich 9mo ago
  Might be corrupt, but is at least closer to truth then the last corrupted version. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of progress
  • kristopolous 9mo ago
    The incentives are wrong. Any good policy for bad incentives is temporary and incidental This policy selectively emphasizes the most difficult to import foods so it also plays into isolationist nativist policies. If you think meat lobbying groups just wanted a new triangle and this isn't going to extend to water, land, energy, and environmental policies along with farm subsidies and even merger&acquisition and liability policies, sorry ... This thing is for them, their profitability and their investors. They didn't lobby on behalf of your personal health... Open a position on the MOO ETF. I just did. Might as well make some money from it
    • frinxor 9mo ago
      wrong incentives, good outcomes? is there a world where the long term outcomes are also good, or at least much better than the current ones? also, hi there! (da from oblong)
      • kristopolous 9mo ago
        Sure. What about the public citizen efforts for crumple zone and seat belts in the 1960s? Or are you saying bad incentives, good long term outcomes? Maybe Napoleon's rework of Paris? That was done to control public dissidents but it also made it a beautiful city. Mass timekeeping? Those were adopted for industrial labor... Seems to be quite useful Joint stock ownership was I think invented for the slave trade but that's proven to be generally useful. I think magnetic audio tape was made practical for a deceitful technique by the Nazis for claiming to be broadcasting live on the radio after they had fled... In each of these instances though the thing long outlived the initial user
  • bilbo0s 9mo ago
    >but is at least closer to truth then [than?] the last corrupted version I'm pretty sure you did the rhetorical equivalent of looking at a roomful of pregnant high school girls.. .. and declaring one of them to be closest to virginity.
  • didibus 9mo ago
    Is it? The change in recommendation is to have less veggies in favor of more meat. From all the recent research and meta studies I've seen it doesn't track. It's still decent a guidance, but the previous one was as well.
    • hallole 9mo ago
      The first food group listed is literally meat and dairy. The ordering here is purposeful, too, as they admit. One promo graphic includes a block of butter and a carton explicitly labelled "whole milk." This is a very definite downgrade.
      • keleftheriou 9mo ago
        Why is that a downgrade?
        • smaudet 9mo ago
          Dairy/Meat are both inflammatory and overconsumption contributes to a whole host of medical disease. Some protein is obviously desirable, but the ratios, like anything else in chemistry/biology, are paramount. I don't think the USA has a problem with under consumption of meat and dairy. If anything, it has a long standing overconsumption problem.
          • toxik 9mo ago
            The relationship between dairy/meat and inflammation is more nuanced than that. While some studies show associations with inflammatory markers, others find neutral or even anti-inflammatory effects depending on the type (e.g., grass-fed vs grain-fed, fermented vs non-fermented dairy) and individual metabolic context. You're right that ratios matter enormously, but optimal ratios vary significantly by individual - genetics, activity level, metabolic health, and existing conditions all play roles. The overconsumption concern is valid for processed meats and in the context of sedentary lifestyles with excess calories, but the picture is less clear for whole-food animal proteins in balanced diets. The real issue might be less about meat/dairy per se and more about displacement of other beneficial foods (fiber, polyphenols, etc) and overall dietary patterns. Many Americans do overconsume calories generally, but some subpopulations (elderly, athletes, those on restricted diets) may actually benefit from more protein.
  • jibal 9mo ago
    The last corrupted version had the same person at its head.
• dottjt 9mo ago
  Isn't every single policy a result of some kind of lobby group? Are you saying that it's corrupt because it's been influenced by a lobby group? Would all policies then be corrupt to some degree? Or is it corrupt because you disagree with the lobby group?
  • Craighead 9mo ago
    [dead]
  • paulryanrogers 9mo ago
    Not all lobby groups are asking for harmful things. But nearly always they act in their own short sighted self interest. Which usually comes at the expense of citizens or the would be customers or competitors. Which is why sane countries make paying for access and influence illegal.
    • pear01 9mo ago
      So, that would be corrupt because you don't agree with it then? Which are these sane countries? How do you think lobbying should work then? Everyone should get equal access? Hunter and gatherer man was egalitarian like that. Afaik it is a universal feature of civilization that this eventually breaks down. Of all the existent modes of dealing with this problem, money is probably one of the better ones compared to some historical or even contemporary alternatives. I actually will be very surprised if you come up with a single country that credibly makes "paying for access and influence illegal" as that is pretty much the history of all of human civilization, but I would welcome being surprised.
  • kristopolous 9mo ago
    I'm a realist. All these comments were saying "oh this is good they're doing this for my personal health" and I thought "oh, no no no. That's not how this works..."
    • dottjt 9mo ago
      Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive though? Why can't something healthy also not also happen to benefit corporations/lobby groups?
• hiQloIQ 9mo ago
  No reason to believe their numbers either given the shenanigans they have engaged in. We need to be smart and not knee jerk into feel good memes though. Local gardens and community gardens have higher resource use per acre than large farm ops. Commercial farm infrastructure is far more resilient and lasts longer while consumer gardening gear is cheap and disposable. Consumer gardening gear manufacturers factories burn tons of resources to crank out tons of low quality kit, consumers burn through piles of it. That's not sustainable either. Plus you really want the average American dumping chemicals in community ground water to grow the biggest pumpkin in the zip code? Americans need to find common ground on the path forward not fragment into tens of millions of little resource intensive potato farmers
  • bamboozled 9mo ago
    That's how Japan works...how horrendous ?
    • brigandish 9mo ago
      Japan is not a model to follow.
      • bamboozled 9mo ago
        Been doing it the same way for centuries so, care to elaborate on what's wrong with how they farm? Also, just because their setup isn't optimal, doesn't mean it's the cause for some ecological crisis like you seem to be implying. I live in Japan, I watch people farm every year, there is very little going on that makes me suspect there is some wide-spread ecological damage being done by people who want to grow massive pumpkins, even though, people do grow massive pumpkins. You telling everyone that gardening is bad for the environment is interesting because I absolutely cannot imagine what is worse for the environment than the industrial scale monocrop style farming that goes on most developed countries. Like, holy shit...
        • deleted 9mo ago
          [deleted]
• hallole 9mo ago
  > "grass fed, free range... Because agribusiness doesn't make money with those." They actually make a considerable amount on those last two items, taking advantage of those who want to consume meat more ethically. (Though, in reality, "grass fed" and "free range" are both misleading terms, and none of the meat on offer is likely to be humane.)
  • begueradj 9mo ago
    They also received financial aid depending on the land surface they have (at least in Europe)
• zdc1 9mo ago
  I was wondering why meat and veg were side by side, rather than vegetables being at the base. The new pyramid is still better than the old one, but not completely intellectually honest...
  • flowerlad 9mo ago
    Better than the old one in what way?
    • gardnr 9mo ago
      I'm not zdc1, but they may be referring to the previous advice that included more grains than fruit and veg combined. From a design perspective, it is an interesting choice to mix food groups on the same level of the pyramid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_pyramid_(nutrition) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_pyramid_(nutrition) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyPlate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyPlate
      • davorak 9mo ago
        > previous advice that included more grains than fruit and veg combined I have not seen the pyramid with bread, cereal, rice and pasta at the base pushed for at least ~20 years. Maybe it was 25-30 years ago when I saw it pushed seriously in school and even then I did not see people taking it seriously outside of those lessons, as in people actively calling it questionable.
        • genewitch 9mo ago
          do you think they market those pyramids to adults, or to children?
          • davorak 9mo ago
            I asked it else where but > Where in the world was this old pyramid still being pushed? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46538456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46538456
• throwup238 9mo ago
  > grass fed, free range... Because agribusiness doesn't make money with those. Agribusiness absolutely makes money off of those. In fact they had a hilariously easy time adapting to the consumer trend because all they had to do to label a cow “free range” or “grass fed” was change the finishing stage to a lower density configuration instead of those abominable feed lots you see along highways. The first two stages, rearing and pasturing, didn’t change because they were already “free range” and “grass fed”. Half of the farmland in the US is pastureland and leaving animals in the field to eat grass was always the cheapest way to rear and grow them. They only really get fed corn and other food at the end to fatten them up for human consumption. The dirty not-so-secret is that free range/grass fed cows eat almost the exact same diet as regular cows, they just eat a little more grass because they’re in the field more during finishing. They’re still walking up to troughs of feed, because otherwise the beef would be unpalatable and grow quite slower. True grass fed beef is generally called “grass finished” beef and it’s unregulated so you won’t find it at a supermarket. They taste gamier and usually have a metallic tang that I quite honestly doubt would ever be very popular. The marbling is also noticeably different and less consistent. Grain finished beef became popular in the 1800s and consumers in the West have strongly preferred it since. I’m not sure you can even find a cow in the entire world that isn’t “grass fed”. Calves need the grass for their gut microbiomes to develop properly.
  • messe 9mo ago
    > Grain finished beef became popular in the 1800s and consumers in the West have strongly preferred it since. Don't conflate the US and the "west".
    • throwup238 9mo ago
      > Don't conflate the US and the "west". I only vaguely said “the West” because I didn’t want to get into the complexities of subsistence farming, regional quirks, and pedantics like “soybeans hulls are often considered roughage”. About a third of beef in the world is truly grass finished and two thirds of that is subsistence farmers who can’t afford the grain. Most of the rest comes from Australia, Brazil, and New Zealand because it’s more competitive to leave them in pasture than import the grain. As much as you may want to hold your nose up at the US, the (vast) majority of beef sold in the world is grain finished and has been for a long time. It’s just more economically competitive and people strongly prefer the taste and texture.
• 125123wqw1212 9mo ago
  Right off the bat, "prioritizing protein" is already smelling.
  • hxtk 9mo ago
    There's some real science there for a couple of reasons. Protein is a macronutrient you can be malnourished if you don't get enough of even if you eat enough calories and the right micronutrients, and if most of your calories are from protein then you're actually probably not getting as many "burnable" calories as you think you are because (1) the amount of protein you need to meet your daily protein needs never enters the citric acid cycle to oxidized for ATP regeneration, (2) protein is the macronutrient that feels the most filling, and (3) excess protein that goes to the liver to be converted into carbs loses around 30% of its net usable calories due to the energy required for that conversion. The way we count calories is based on how many calories are in a meal vs the resulting scat, and that just isn't an accurate representation of how the body processes protein such that a protein-heavy diet doesn't have as many calories as you probably think it does, which makes it a healthy choice in an environment where most food-related health problems stem from overeating. However I agree with your skepticism insofar as when they say "prioritizing protein" they probably mean "prioritizing meat," which is more suspect from a health standpoint and looks somewhat suspicious considering the lobbyists involved.
    • reverius42 9mo ago
      Most Americans get plenty of protein without trying. It's hard to see how eating more meat should help unless you think the amount of protein actually needed is much more than what the May Clinic thinks: https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/are-you-getting-too-much-protein https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speak...
      • DangitBobby 9mo ago
        The "without trying" people probably aren't going to make much use of a food pyramid anyway. The guidelines are more aimed at people who will try.
• NedF 9mo ago
  [dead]
• tzs 9mo ago
  I fail to see the significance of your link to a group that opposes animal experimentation asking RFK Jr to reduce animal experimentation. Did you paste the wrong URL For the first link?
  • deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
• stef25 9mo ago
  It's crazy how people are incapable of seeing something positive in the actions of the tribe they don't belong to.
  • telmo 9mo ago
    If the actions and beliefs of a group are fundamentally morally repugnant to me, I think that it is reasonable to not expect me to be able to find "something positive" in it. We are not amoral automata with grocery-list style utility functions. I have people in my personal sphere that make this sort of argument and it honestly feels like gaslighting. The undercurrent is: "Look, you don't like this guy, I get it. But if you can't see that he does some good, then you are the one who is irrational and not really in a sound state of mind." Meanwhile completely preventable, life-threatening, life-destroying diseases such as measles are back because of the obscurantist beliefs that come with this "new refreshing outlook". This is a bit like saying: "look, you can say what you want about the Spanish inquisition but they kept rates of extra-marital affairs down." Corporations love this sort of feel-good campaign (the same way they love performative LGBTQ / feminism / diversity when the culture wars swing the other way) for two main reasons: (1) they distract from fundamental issues that threaten their real interests; (2) they shift the blame on big societal issues completely to the public. They do this with climate change, they do it with increase of wealth inequality and they most certainly do it with public health. All developed nations have a problem with processed food. Granted, it is particularly severe in the USA, but the ONE THING that separates the USA from almost every other developed nation in our planet is the absence of socialized healthcare. This is the obvious salient thing to look at before all others, so also obviously, a lot of money will be spent to misdirect and distract from this very topic.
    • akoboldfrying 9mo ago
      > If the actions and beliefs of a group are fundamentally morally repugnant to me, I think that it is reasonable to not expect me to be able to find "something positive" in it. I'm not sure you appreciate how symmetrical this statement is. You are on Team A, saying it about Team B, but nothing in the statement actually depends on that permutation of teams -- it could be equally compellingly said by a Team B member about Team A.
• tzs 9mo ago
  > Here's some things you won't find in any of the documents, including the PDFs at the bottom: community gardens, local food, farmers markets, grass fed, free range... Because agribusiness doesn't make money with those. Are those relevant to addressing America's national diet deficiencies? None of them are currently anywhere big enough to make a practical difference to most people. Also most of the health problems with what people eat are from what foods they eat and how much they eat rather than from not choosing the highest quality of those particular foods. E.g., someone might snack often on candy. If they can be convinced to switch to snacking on fruit it doesn't really matter much if they get that fruit from Safeway or a farmer's market. Maybe the farmer's market fruit is healthier for them than the Safeway fruit but the difference will be tiny compared to the gains from switching from candy to fruit.
  • dml2135 9mo ago
    I think it's less about that farmer's market produce being healthier, and more about it being tastier. I've encountered plenty of people saying things like "I don't like tomatoes" when it turns out all they've eaten are pale, out-of-season tomatoes from the supermarket. A big part of getting people to eat better is educating them about seasonality and what good produce should taste like, so that they end up actually liking it.
    • magicalhippo 9mo ago
      A farm by our cottage had a sign out last year, selling vegetables. We bought some cauliflower and had it for dinner. It was supposed to be a side dish but it was so darn good I don't even remember the main dish. Later I got some vegetables from a friend who had grown them at a local allotment garden. Made some vegetable soup with them and I swear it's one of the best meals I've had, and I've had some real nice meals. Flavor in each case was so far beyond what I can get in the grocery stores here it's hardly comparable.
      • tarentel 9mo ago
        A lot of it comes down to what the person you're responding to said, seasonality. I grew up in a very rural farming area and now live in a very large city. While the produce at the grocery store is generally inferior to that of being near a farm, when things are in season, it is at least comparable. That apple you buy in July is never going to be as good as one bought in the fall, it doesn't matter where you buy it from.
• tomp 9mo ago
  cmon, this is just stupid the "industry" obviously makes much more money on "highly processed" and branded foods - more intermediaries, more profits & margins literally everyone can compete freely in the "whole unprocessed foods" market, and the only real differentiating factors will be quality & taste (as it should be)
• davidguetta 9mo ago
  In capitalism you kinda are supposed to make money by providing good value in most of the case. The fact that people lobby to make more money from good food rather than sugar/fat crap is a good thing not a bad one
• allie1 9mo ago
  You probably can't change politics, but you can use them for a good end.
• doctaj 9mo ago
  When I saw that protein target, I knew there must be shenanigans… 0.5-0.7g per pound is within the range that BODY BUILDERS target for maximum hypertrophy (1g/lb is a myth that wastes peoples money). Eating 4-5 chicken breasts per day is ridiculous for a normal person.
  • Applejinx 9mo ago
    Wait, what? I lift weights and chicken breast is a fundamental part of my diet but I'm eating 1/3 to 1/2 a single chicken breast a day, and an egg for breakfast. That CAN'T be right. I get that I include some rice, peanuts etc. in there, but even if I quit EVERYTHING else there's no way 4 to 5 chicken breasts a day is accurate.
    • habosa 9mo ago
      It’s not recommending 4 to 5, but for larger people (I’m 200lbs) to hit their protein target I’d need to eat over 1lb of chicken a day which is a lot.
  • KellyCriterion 9mo ago
    quite off! You need at least 0.8g / kilo (referring to 0.4g / pound) if you are doing nothing heavy, like walking to the office. If you do moderate sports, you are hitting 1.0g / kilo immediately. If you do some more extensive sports, like 3 - 4 days / week in gym, you jumü to 1.2 - 1.4g / kilo. Bodybuilders are quite above :-)) Regarding the number of chicken breasts - scary for me, Im enough with a half one every second or third day. There was a great movie about vegan & bodybuilding with known sports people: The Gamechangers - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_Changers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_Changers
    • tarentel 9mo ago
      I am not sure if you're disagreeing with the original poster here but you're both saying the same thing in different units. 1g/kg != 1g/lb which is A LOT more protein and a complete waste of time. As a mostly vegetarian who lifts regularly, I am targeting a bit more than 1g/kg but being from the US it is a lot less than 1g/lb. :p
• xnx 9mo ago
  > community gardens, local food, farmers markets, grass fed, free range How are these connected to nutrition? The difference in nutrition between a local banana and a non-local banana is ... zero?
  • micromacrofoot 9mo ago
    because they're a source of local, sustainable, seasonal, and healthy food that isn't peddled by agribusiness lobbies — grassfed beef specifically is leaner, lower in calories, and richer in beneficial nutrients
    • andrewclunn 9mo ago
      So the animal rights and environmental groups are upset that health targets are prioritizing health over mudding the waters with these other agendas? If those are worthy goals on their own then fine, but stop trying to suggest that we can't improve health drastically and more effectively by making simple and clear recommendations to move away form processed food.
      • micromacrofoot 9mo ago
        This is a straw man. The new guidelines prioritize meat and dairy above all else, which comes with well known health issues, especially at the rate Americans consume them. There's already plenty of evidence (victory lap press releases from the respective industries) that indicate that this was accomplished due to lobbying... so we haven't moved at all: the old recommendations were imperfect and fueled by specific industry preference, and the new ones do the same. > we can't improve health drastically and more effectively by making simple and clear recommendations to move away form processed food. pretty much every nutritionist has been urging a reduction in processed foods for years now, the solution isn't to replace processed foods with meat and dairy... that's just a different problem
        • nradov 9mo ago
          What are the "well known health issues"? I have seen some low-quality observational studies (junk science) which show some weak correlation between consumption of animal products and negative health outcomes but so far nothing conclusive one way or the other. https://peterattiamd.com/high-protein-diets-and-cancer-risk/ https://peterattiamd.com/high-protein-diets-and-cancer-risk/
• TZubiri 9mo ago
  >Tyson foods and other meatpacking companies lobbied and funded RFK. So? They are fighting fire with fire. Or should sugar,casino and tobacco industries have all the lobbying Also this doesn't surpass the minimal threshold for being shocked anymore, there's more critical shit going on, I can't be here being outraged at checks notes meat companies pushing that meat is healthy
• LawrenceKerr 9mo ago
  Is lobbying the same as corruption? Would you say the same thing about the covid vaccination campaigns during the Biden administration? Because billions of dollars were poured into those as well, with record profits for big pharma.
• nonethewiser 9mo ago
  IDK man, this sounds pretty common sense: >Eating real food means choosing foods that are whole or minimally processed and recognizable as food. These foods are prepared with few ingredients and without added sugars, industrial oils, artificial flavors, or preservatives.
  • jollyllama 9mo ago
    Meh, I would note that the Tyson-supported definition of "real chicken" is not one without antibiotics and growth hormones, let alone a free-range heritage breed. This would have been the standard for a "real chicken" a few human generations ago.
• drstewart 9mo ago
  Did you mistakenly mean to reference Canada's highly corrupt as hell food guide? https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/ https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/ Ctrl+F'd and didn't see any of those words mentioned a single time either. What a corrupt country Canada is.
  • jf22 9mo ago
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Canada can be just as corrupt.
• cyberdick 9mo ago
  RFK is a retarded public health menace but him saying high protein low carb/low fat diet is generally good isn't retarded and only fat fricks would get mad about it The original food pyramid was based on a world crafted by calory deficit and worked for it's time, but in a life of excess it causes mass obesity which is partly why americans are so fricking fat.
• drak0n1c 9mo ago
  The linked PDFs on realfood.gov transparently cite the industry ties of all the doctors and PhDs involved in long descriptions next to each of their names and readers can decide for themselves if such is "corrupt as hell". PR pieces are an inferential distraction.
• bschmidt241 9mo ago
  [dead]