3 ms·

because they're a source of local, sustainable, seasonal, and healthy food that isn't peddled by agribusiness lobbies — grassfed beef specifically is leaner, lo

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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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/
    - micromacrofoot 10mo ago
      you've got to find better sources than a health coach selling a subscription program that benefits from this take, that post is indistinguishable from spam red meat and colorectal cancer https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4698595/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4698595/ > As a summary, it seems that red and processed meats significantly but moderately increase CRC risk by 20-30% according to these meta-analyses. red meat cardiovascular disease, and diabetes: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37264855/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37264855/ > Unprocessed and processed red meat consumption are both associated with higher risk of CVD, CVD subtypes, and diabetes, with a stronger association in western settings but no sex difference.
      - nradov 10mo ago
        So more low-quality, poorly controlled junk science. If you want anyone to take you seriously then you'll have to do better than that.
        micromacrofoot 10mo ago
        You literally provided nothing but spam behind a subscription gate. I provided peer reviewed meta-analyses.
        jf22 10mo ago
        Do you agree or disagree you provided a link to a fitness influencer's website as "evidence?"
davidmurdoch 10mo ago
And costs significantly more money.
- micromacrofoot 10mo ago
  ah but why... * larger companies are producing it at a scale that includes efficiencies that can't be replicated on smaller scales * the federal government is subsidizing larger farms, which have industry lobbying arms * larger farms are more likely to be exploiting labor and working conditions * all of the above?
  - davidmurdoch 10mo ago
    And none of that, if true, matters in the slightest to most of America because they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford these foods.
    - micromacrofoot 10mo ago
      but it does matter, why not subsidize local produce instead of factory-farmed meat? if we just wave away "it's too expensive" as some natural state (which it's not, it's shaped by the government) then nothing ever improves we need to ask why people can't afford what's arguably better for the environment and the workers producing it

andrewclunn 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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/
  - micromacrofoot 10mo ago
    you've got to find better sources than a health coach selling a subscription program that benefits from this take, that post is indistinguishable from spam red meat and colorectal cancer https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4698595/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4698595/ > As a summary, it seems that red and processed meats significantly but moderately increase CRC risk by 20-30% according to these meta-analyses. red meat cardiovascular disease, and diabetes: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37264855/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37264855/ > Unprocessed and processed red meat consumption are both associated with higher risk of CVD, CVD subtypes, and diabetes, with a stronger association in western settings but no sex difference.
    - nradov 10mo ago
      So more low-quality, poorly controlled junk science. If you want anyone to take you seriously then you'll have to do better than that.
      - micromacrofoot 10mo ago
        You literally provided nothing but spam behind a subscription gate. I provided peer reviewed meta-analyses.
      - jf22 10mo ago
        Do you agree or disagree you provided a link to a fitness influencer's website as "evidence?"

davidmurdoch 10mo ago

And costs significantly more money.

micromacrofoot 10mo ago
ah but why... * larger companies are producing it at a scale that includes efficiencies that can't be replicated on smaller scales * the federal government is subsidizing larger farms, which have industry lobbying arms * larger farms are more likely to be exploiting labor and working conditions * all of the above?
- davidmurdoch 10mo ago
  And none of that, if true, matters in the slightest to most of America because they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford these foods.
  - micromacrofoot 10mo ago
    but it does matter, why not subsidize local produce instead of factory-farmed meat? if we just wave away "it's too expensive" as some natural state (which it's not, it's shaped by the government) then nothing ever improves we need to ask why people can't afford what's arguably better for the environment and the workers producing it