• DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Why do people eat food they know isn’t good for their health? Why do people continue to buy products from companies that have proven to only sell bad products or engage in scumbag practices?

    They all have the same answer.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      It turns out in 1961 the American heart Association took bribery money from procter and gamble, who owned and sold “healthier Crisco” cooking oils that weren’t high in saturated fat, like beef and other cooking oils were.

      The AHA then claimed and pushed that saturated fats caused heart disease.

      Problem is, something like 88% of every study done in the past 60 years has found little to no link between heart disease and saturated fats.

      So beef, according to most studies, isn’t bad for you. The AHA was just crooked and on the take, being paid off to sell Crisco.

      Now it is calorie dense and people tend to eat too much of it, but that seems to be a lot of things. Don’t eat too much or you get fat. But apparently, you don’t have to worry about saturated fats being bad for you.

      • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        WHO report

        someone else online summarized the genetics part as the following:

        Mandelian randomisation studies show that LDL-c is causative in atherogenic plaques 1 and metabolic ward RCTs show that SFA intakes increase LDL-c, while the decrease in SFAs lead to lower total and LDL-c 2.

        But yes, almost all nutrition science is a bit inconclusive because of genetic variation.

        • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Forgive me, because I’m struggling to understand the linked information, but as someone with atherosclerosis this is an issue close to my heart (ha!).

          I just want to make sure I understand you.

          Your link to the european heart journal says that the causal link between LDL and ASCVD is “unequivocal”.

          I think the WHO study says (amongst a lot of other complicated stuff) that replacing SFAs with PUFAs and MUFAs is more favourable than replacing SFAs with complex carbohydrates? The strong implication being (although I couldn’t see this exactly) that higher SFA intake contributes to heart disease.

      • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Because I live in America and there’s pretty much no public transportation.

        Trust me, if I had a train, I’d fucking use that sucker. Travel into town for my weekly errands AND I don’t have to deal with people not using cruise control on a highway? SIGN ME THE FUCK. UP.

      • Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Some of us work multiple part time jobs to barely make it.

        I’d probably stay in the basement if I didn’t need to pay my landed lord their monthly tribute.

        • Num10ck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          buy some cheap sliver of land and park a bus on it. save up and find a better sliver of land and plan from there.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Do you think people in non-capitalist societies only eat the healthiest of foods?

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    Each individual is facing the following choice in life:

    • sacrifice to save the planet, and fail
    • or not

    People want to immediately jump to “if everyone would just …”

    Nobody is looking at an “everyone does X” button. People only have their “I do X” button available.

    So that is literally the answer to your question. Very few people would sacrifice the civilization to eat a cheeseburger. But nobody has that choice or that power in their hands. Their choice is eat the cheeseburger or not, and the survival of civilization stays rigidly the same between those two choices.

    • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Best response. Almost everyone alive has a net negative impact on the environment. Maybe that one Indian guy who planted a whole forest by himself gets a pass. We can try to be less negatively impactful depending on our inclinations, resources, and other interests and priorities. Some people may choose vegetarianism, some might buy an electric car or install some solar panels, some might organize politically for a new policy. Some might spend their altruism improving social conditions rather than focusing on the environment. But being ever so slightly less of a negative impact on the environment than your neighbour who has a slightly different set of priorities is hardly a reason to feel morally superior.

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Same reason we use electricity despite not being 100% green energy and thus being even worse for the earth?

    If you actually wanna guilt this question then the fuck are you doing using your coal and gas powered electricity to do it?

    There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, because the capitalists have seen to it that you will never be permitted to make an ethical choice that would dare compete with what they expect you to choose.

    Being a moralizing prick doesn’t send any message, what gets people to change is making that change easy, that’s why instead of being terminally online fuckwads, british vegangelists spread the good news by hosting free kitchens, volunteering to take people grocery shopping on their own pound, teaching vegan cooking classes, and all other sorts of actually addressing literally any of the actual concerns people have about going vegan instead of being a condescending snob about it.

    • Sizzler@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      So honestly, in your opinion, one of the only ways a vegan can change people’s minds is to take them shopping and PAY for their food for them. Amazing, this is a new level of shitty push the blame away behaviour. Pathetic.

      • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        You’re saying that trying to motivate people positively to move on from meat is “push the blame away” behavior. But I think tut-tutting individuals who eat meat is pushing the blame away.

        While there are some people who believe that eating meat is an absolute moral wrong no matter where or when it takes place in human history, a lot of people who feel eating meat is immoral feel this way because of what the meat industry does, both to the animals and to the planet. Five thousand years ago, people weren’t supporting the meat industry and all its wrongs by eating meat.

        So considering it to be pathetic to try to effect real reduction in people’s meat consumption because the methods shift blame away from the individual meat eater seems really ironic to me, as well as completely counterproductive, if your goal is less meat consumption in the world.

  • then_three_more@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    In my country at least beef consumption peaked around 2012 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/24/uk-meat-consumption-lowest-level-since-record-began-data-reveal)

    I think post WW2 there was a drive towards the idea that we’d never need to go without. This combined with lifestyle changes (more people working longer hours) gave birth to the rise of fast convince foods and the mass growth of places like McDonalds and Burger King.

    Why don’t people just stop? Ideas within society have a lot of momentum, they take a lot of energy to get started and a lot to turn or stop again.

    • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m a native whose culture have hunted and eaten meat for millennia, what propaganda were my ancient ancestors being shown?

      • Leviathan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        What does what your ancestors did have to do with what we now know about modern factory farming? The question was about still eating beef despite what we know today, what does that have to do with your ancestors? Is your comment not the very definition of a strawman?

    • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      No, they don’t. I used to smoke, nicotine is a fucking bitch of a drug, somehow I managed to quit using vaping and nicotine gum over 2 years. Beef is not an addictive chemical. You must never have experienced nicotine drug, what a naive ass comment to make.

  • JesterIzDead@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    The average human has much more of a negative effect on the environment than a cow. So, shouldn’t the question be why we tolerate so many people?

    • nomad@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      How would not tolerating look like? Let’s start with you as an example, maybe your loved ones too. And maybe look at the horrors of a one child policy in China before we start following that idea again.