A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
I cant wait for some conservative idiot to spin this in the worst possible way. Mixed in with some lies, whataubout-isms and straw-mans for a delicious disinformation-coktail!
Florida has already started the "they're coming for our meat" with the lab grown meat ban if you haven't seen.
In Europe soy milk can't legally be called milk anymore. It's Soy Drink on the packaging. The farmers won that one. Now they're coming after vegi burgers allowed to be called burgers.
My arguments to "if it's not from an animal or isn't milk" are:
It's just that simple!
/s
Magnesia Julius. Just add nutmeg.
That's coconut water. Coconut milk is made of processed meat!
They won't win burger or sausage or anything like that. You can already put what you want in those, breadcrumbs, vegetable protein, fruits and vegetables, various flavours and spices, and it's still a burger/sausage.
The milk I get. Milk was highly controlled in terms of what adultrants were allowed, so when they say "we can't even add extra aspartame, but they can make the whole thing out of oats?" They get a lot of traction. Now why they wanted to add aspartame I don't have a fucking clue.
milk-like plant juices or saps have been called milk since 1200. such as milk of magnesia, milk of almond
That's very true.
I'm just saying that Milk is a regulated term that's already been used to stop the milk industry from misbehaving so it's easy for the milk industry to use it to keep out competitors. Burgers, sausages, and other highly mixed foods aren't regulated the same way and I don't expect the meat industry to have any success on those fronts outside of rogue states like Florida.
Stuff like this is so silly. I understand having rules around how things are named, nobody wants to be misled about what they're buying. But were cow juice enthusiasts really getting tricked into buying soy juice? Do we have to specify the animal? Can I sell rat milk as 'milk' and they'd be ok? What's the difference between that and oat milk? So long as the origin of the milk is clear I really don't see the issue.
Obviously I know it's just dairy industry deep pockets doing what they can to remain #1 but it's just so silly.
Well it was originally designed to stop the dairy industry from putting weird stuff in milk, so there definitely a need because they kept trying to put weird stuff in it.
That part I understand, no more formaldehyde and brains in the milk. It's more the industry fighting against the term being used for alternative milks which should have their own standards associated with them. Coconut milk and cream have existed for ages and nobody cares. But my (dairy farmer) family all of a sudden have really strong opinions on using the term milk for alternative milks. Or other generic terms being used for vegan products like mince, sausage, burger, steak. All of these things typically have a word in front to describe what they're made of, but for some reason certain people get real worked up when that word is 'vegetable'.
I agree, let's end subsidies for the industries that are fucking up the climate. Fuck all the weak snowflakes who don't want to change their meat consumption. How hard is it to not eat beef? Not hard, people are just weak. So hit them in the wallet then, if that's what it takes.
Even as a rancher (native prairie, low input) I agree beef is way too cheap. Well, it was, now it's starting to be more appropriately priced.
Considering everything from the labour involved in raising it ethically to the nutritional value, the consumer pays very little for beef for what they're getting. Even if it means people eat less beef, the price should go up. It would also favour small farmers like me who would rather raise less cows sustainably on grass than overgraze chasing high volume sales.
Honestly, it makes sense. Something's gotta give or we're all fucked. We should already be eating less red meat and dairy anyway since they're less healthy than white meat and milk alternatives - adding the economic incentive would be a push in the right direction to be healthier and more eco-friendly.
Beans, chickpeas and lentils are my favorite daily superfoods. So cheap, so tasty, so healthy. Meat is so far in the rearview mirror I don't even understand the concept anymore.
Care to share a favorite recipe or two? I've been meaning to step up my legume game for a minute.
Thanks in advance, but also no presh! 🤙
Black bean tacos. Whatever you do with beef, use a can of black beans instead
This is not my native language and I'm too lazy to translate whole recipies, so here are just a few tips:
may be turned into a culture war battle
May be? Bit optimistic, don't you think?
How about a carbon tax?
Everything should have a carbon tax. Someone once told me, "but who would pay for that tax?" Implying that we will be the ones to pay it. Thats the freaking idea.
The rich have problems paying just their regular owed taxes, nothing even exceptional; they draft legislation to lower their own tax rates while keeping taxes on labor the same.
Why is capital gains taxed at a lower rate than income? Is sitting on a pile of money and watching it grow somehow more noble than sweating and hard work?
I think a carbon tax is necessary but I think getting the responsible parties in our industrial world to actually pay it, would be extremely difficult. You'd never see such bipartisan cooperation in various governments until someone threatens the subsidies for the liquid black gold.
As a bonus it's much healthier. Win win. Though a large portion of the population won't see it that way.
Sounds good to me, I love chicken and veggies!
Same! Well, TBH chicken often tastes gross to me (grew up with a parent that thought 'boil it in maybe-salted water' was the way to go). But there's plenty of non-beef options! Tofu, turkey, textured vegetable protein, it's all good. (TVP's great for things like sauces, where you just need the texture of ground beef, but the other flavors would drown it out anyway). Even a peanut butter and jelly sandwich makes for an easy work lunches.
Ground turkey is actually a surprisingly good ground beef substitute in a number of dishes.
We use ground turkey almost all the time over ground beef. It's great in chili, tacos, meat sauce, lasagna, etc. The only time I use ground beef anymore is when I get it free from my folks (they always support a local 4h kid and purchase part of a cow).
Grilled, baked, and fried are all good ways to try chicken but boiled? Damn, no thanks.
TBH chicken often tastes gross to me (grew up with a parent that thought 'boil it in maybe-salted water' was the way to go).
Funny, this is why most people hate veggies
Crazy how enthusiastic everyone here is about some rich guy telling us what we are allowed to eat.
He probably flies private and eats a steak every day.
Meat and dairy should be way more expensive in general
It is it's just paid with tax dollars in many countries
"red meat"
What does this expression even means nowadays?
Beef should be expensive. It should return to what it was thirty or forty back: a luxury item. Nobody needs to eat a steak every day.
But is pork still - or again? - red meat? It had been disqualified as such some time back.
Bring on cheaper vegetables, please. I'm seeing cabbage peak at €2,19. Poultry is on average €2,29, peak on the €2,69. It's borderline as expensive to make a pot of quality soup than to make a roast chicken.
How about heavily carbon taxing the rich cunts, hmm?
You know, instead of another bullshit scheme to offset the responsibility of climate change to the majority of the population with the least control over it?
The problem with that is the rich still get to enjoy it and the rich live in excess. It would make more sense although logistically nonsensical to keep the price the same but only the poorest are allowed access to it
Why would that make any more sense?
Lately it has been reversed.. Chicken prices have been more than pork.. Even on the chicken quarters I normally get. I'm hoping once lab grown is scaled that we'll be able to get steaks cheap.
Or just fight back against private jet overusage and giants like Exxon?
I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand. Eating lower down the trophic levels is energy efficient, and the energy level is proportional to environmental destruction, water use, and pollution. This is especially relevant if you have a large population to maintain (food security), which is the case for humans.
Abstract
Trophic levels are critical for synthesizing species’ diets, depicting energy pathways, understanding food web dynamics and ecosystem functioning, and monitoring ecosystem health. Specifically, trophic levels describe the position of species in a food web, from primary producers to apex predators (range, 1–5). Small differences in trophic level can reflect large differences in diet. Although trophic levels are among the most basic information collected for animals in ecosystems, a human trophic level (HTL) has never been defined. Here, we find a global HTL of 2.21, i.e., the trophic level of anchoveta. This value has increased with time, consistent with the global trend toward diets higher in meat. National HTLs ranging between 2.04 and 2.57 reflect a broad diversity of diet, although cluster analysis of countries with similar dietary trends reveals only five major groups. We find significant links between socio-economic and environmental indicators and global dietary trends. We demonstrate that the HTL is a synthetic index to monitor human diets and provides a baseline to compare diets between countries.
This first estimate of HTL at 2.21, i.e., a trophic level similar to anchoveta and pigs, quantifies the position of humans in the food web and challenges the perception of humans as top predators (2). Humans dominate ecosystems through changes in land use, biogeochemical cycling, biodiversity, and climate (11, 13, 14). It is not sufficient to separate humans from analyses of ecosystem processes, because there are no remaining ecosystems outside of human influence (15). Thus, investigations of ecosystems, without accounting for the presence of humans, are incomplete (13). There is a variety of other ecological indicators based on trophic ecology theory or diets, e.g., the omnivory index, that may also prove useful in assessing the impact of humans in the functioning of ecosystems. However, a first estimate of an HTL gives us a basic tool that places humans as components of the ecosystem and assists in further comprehending energy pathways, the impact of human resource use, and the structure and functioning of ecosystems.
The global increase in HTL is consistent with the nutrition transition that is expected to continue for several decades (16, 17) from plant-based diets toward diets higher in meat and dairy consumption (18–22). This 0.15 increase in HTL from 1961 to 2009 is mainly due to the increased consumption of fat and meat (SI Appendix, Figs. S5–S8), as opposed to a shift toward the consumption of species with higher trophic levels. In fact, we find that the mean trophic level of terrestrial animals that are consumed by humans has only slightly increased (by 0.01 or 0.5%) due to the higher proportion of pork and poultry in the diet (SI Appendix, Fig. S11_A_), whereas that of marine animals has decreased markedly from 2.88 in 1961 to 2.69 in 2009 (SI Appendix, Fig. S11_B_). This decline in the trophic levels of marine food items in human diets is consistent with the global decline in the mean trophic level of marine fisheries catches. This decline has been related to the consequences of fishing pressures on marine predators (23), although changes in the characteristics of fisheries over time may also influence this trend (24).
The global convergence in HTL is consistent with the convergence in diet structure between countries with diverse levels of development (18, 19), and in agreement with previous studies of the FAO (17, 25). Globalization and economic development facilitate the access to diverse foodstuffs and can enhance the rate of this convergence (18, 26). For India, China, and countries in groups 1–3, HTLs are low and rising. With economic growth, these countries are gaining the ability to support the human preference for high meat diets (18, 19, 26). For countries in group 4, the nutrition transition has reached a point where health problems associated with high fat and meat diets (i.e., high HTLs) have led to changes in policy and government-run education programs that encourage these populations to shift to more plant-based diets [i.e., lower their HTL; SI Appendix, Figs. S4–S8 (18, 20, 22)]. Similarly, countries with high initial HTLs (i.e., group 5) show decreasing trends with time (Fig. 3). For Scandinavian countries, this decline is due to government policies promoting healthier diets (18, 22). For example, in 2011, Sweden consumed historically high levels of meat due to low market prices, leading the Swedish government into discussions of a Pigovian tax to reduce this consumption (27). Changes in diet in Mauritania (decreased meat and dairy consumption) and Mongolia (increased proportion of vegetables) are linked to increased urbanization and economic development and decreased nomadism.