<p>The Obama administration on Thursday released new dietary guidelines, and critics say there's a winner but it's not public health or food security.</p><p>Marion Nestle, nutrition professor at New York University, <a href="http://www.foodpolitics.com/2016/01/the-2015-dietary-guidelines-at-long-... that we can "count the 2015 Guidelines as a win for the meat, sugary drink, processed, and junk food industries."</p><p>
One would think that the health insurance industry would confront the agriculture industry and shine a light on their many lies. Bypass surgery and chemotherapy treatments made necessary due to meat consumption must cost the health insurance industry a huge sum of money every year and it needn't happen. They have lobbyists in Washington too... what are they doing; spending their time in a local diner eating a burger??
Meat eaters are unapologetic as evidenced by the first comment. They even claim to be progressives and environmentalists! It is unfair that we vegetarians have to subsidize their health care expenses. There should be two health insurance systems: One for meat eaters and one for vegetarians. And maybe a third system for vegans.
Let's see some of that "good evidence". Such advice generally comes from the "experts" speaking for the meat and dairy industries.
For realistic and not industry-produced propaganda about food and health, one of the best sources is the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, - pcrm.org.
You stand far better chance of changing the world with a smile and humour than with puritanical exceptionalist browbeating
I forgot to add the drooling sound to the quote: Mmmm! Burgers... Aarrgghhh.. - H Simpson
There is some misinformation here.
It is a myth that vegetarianism is healthier--I should know. I tried it and got sick. The real problem in the modern diet in my opinion is sugar and processed food.
As for meat causing heart attacks--they were almost unknown until the 20th century--which correlates pretty closely with the increase in sugar consumption.
All hunter gatherers eat animal products to some degree & they tend to be much healthier than people in farming communities.
Vegetables are mostly raised using tractors & transported long distances--both use fossil fuels. Not so good for the environment.
Not all land is arable. That means you can't grow crops on it, but it often can be used as grazing land.
If you really are concerned about the environment & your health, try to eat organic food grown by small farmers & ranchers(grass fed/pastured & humanely raised) locally & cook. Avoid processed food--vegetarian or not.
Why are people still listening to government food guide lines when they have been wrong several times in the past?
Lobbyists for one or the other industries always have something to do with those guidelines.
This also seems to be a win for the alcoholic beverage industry. While it does provide guidelines to limit drinking to 1 drink a day for women and 2 drinks a day for men it does not specifically mention that alcoholic beverages have been linked to an increased risk of cancer.
Well then lets have another system for smokers, a different system for sexual perverts who pass on diseases, a system for over eaters, a system for anorexic people. Not to forget a different system for alcoholics, one for drug addicts, another one for dare devils and so on and so forth.
This is getting to be quite ridiculous.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Big Beef is another powerful agricultural/industry block.
Anyone remember what happened to Oprah Winfrey when she broached this subject on her TV show? A major lawsuit!
And as for this nebulous idea of reducing sugar to 10%... what a crock! Not mentioned is how much sugar is covertly PUMPED into processed food, and worse still, how much of it comes through the form of that diabolical cornstarch or corn syrup that's tainted with Monsanto's Genetic machinations.
These guidelines are a fraud. They're as influenced by industries with something to lose (were the public to know what it's eating) as are reports about an improved U.S. economy ... as well as employment numbers.
VERY little that comes from any orthodox source these days is not tainted by those paying for the study or those beholden to a particular corporate entity for their daily political (campaign costs) bread.
Your logic would work IF the profit motive didn't trump providing for a genuine public welfare!
Just as armies need enemies, and cops, robbers... the entire medical industrial complex would collapse if things that COULD be alleviated through wiser diet choices ceased to provide revenue.
Think about it. Cancer is a HUGELY profitable disease, and when I was a kid, it was relatively rare. Now, due to a combination of detritus from old nuclear tests, phenomenal levels of pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides on our produce with equally toxic chemicals in the water added to hormones and antibiotics in meat and chicken products, it's not surprising that estimates run that 1 in 2 males and 1 in 3 females will have some form of Cancer during their lifetimes.
A lot of the rising Cancer, Diabetes, and Autism rates are directly related to environmental and dietary toxins... but most of these are "presumed innocent," and in the same way that Exxon covered up the link between fossil fuel usage and global warming, the links between toxic chemicals and the deterioration of human tissue is VERY real, and mostly remains hidden.
Prevention may be worth pounds of cure, but it's not cost-effective to those who rely upon the machinery of alleviating symptoms without removing Cause.
It always strikes me as an Industry-sponsored talking point when some well-meaning bystander style poster shows up to assert that there is ONE culpable agent. In your case, it's sugar... meant to replace meat.
Sugar, of course, is a problem. But one problem does not negate another.
Thirty years ago a woman I met who is an amazing Vegetarian chef turned me onto the book, "What's Wrong With Eating Meat," published by Ananda-Marga.
It was quite an eye-opener.... particularly the origin of veal!
In any case, the book specified that in U.K., vegetarians pay lower insurance costs because it's well-understood that they have a greater chance of longevity than meat eaters.
There's the moral argument, the ecology argument (how much land, including irreplaceable forests, is being savaged to raise cattle), and the physiological argument. It states that human beings' 22 feet of lower intestine was never designed to process meat.
I have no argument with persons who eat an OCCASIONAL piece of meat; but the U.S. with its grotesque obesity pushes the "Happy Meal" ethos that insists that EVERY meal involve some kind of animal protein.
THAT is very unhealthy and studies prove it.