51–60 of 120 posts
If someone is used to junk food and switches to more fruit, veggies, lean meat and fish, I'm pretty sure they'll start noticing a difference after a little while. I know it worked for me (n=1).
Non-GMO and organic is mostly BS of course, but it's a fact that refined carbs are cheap and plentiful, so the poor consume proportionally more of them. They simply can't afford fruit and meat. This is in part because of the infinite shelf life of processed carbs, and in part because they're heavily subsidized by the government. Also, government dietary guidelines still push people towards relatively high carb diets,…
I'm not sure about meat but fruit is definitely affordable. Especially bananas and apples. Bananas are far cheaper than any other food. Yet, people snack on chips/crisps and other refined carbs.
"Eating clean is useless" is such a terrible statement to make, especially today. You want to eat crap, good for you, but don't try to avoid feeling bad about it.
The most appealing benefits of organic foods, in my household, are not to do with our own health. Instead, we adopt the practice under the information that organic farming is more sustainable and better for the environment. Top three search results for "organic food better for environment." http://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq6/en/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/is-organic-agr... http://www.thech…
In any case, assuming you eat a diet typical of an organic shopper with far less meat and more vegetables compared to the general population then organic farming is merely as carbon intensive and uses only 40% more land. If you buy organic but have a pretty normal diet then it's even worse. Is it a rich person thing? Switching to organic for everyone would require massive deforestation worldwide and probably still wouldn't get us enough arable land so not only would the price of food go up, we'd likely be hit with large food shortages that would probably disproportionately hit the developing world. Yeah, it's a rich person thing. They're the people who can afford organic and they're fine when food shortages come along.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maria_Nordborg/publicat...
"100-percent organic, locally sourced, non-GMO, and free of antibiotics" Even if it does not have an effect on your health, three of those four (100-percent organic, locally sourced, and free of antibiotics) are at least good for the environment. The fourth (free of antibiotics) is maybe even good for your health, in the long run: Over-use of antibiotics by farmers (not using them to cure sick animals, but to make an…
Organic is definitely not better for the environment than non-organic, by default: >Not only are organic pesticides not safe, they might actually be worse than the ones used by the conventional agriculture industry. Canadian scientists pitted 'reduced-risk' organic and synthetic pesticides against each other in controlling a problematic pest, the soybean aphid. They found that not only were the synthetic pesticides m…
But, AFAIK, at least here in Austria, buying organic will at least improve your chance that you get some sustainably-produced food - and animals that are kept in a somewhat species-adequate environment...
But thanks for making me question my assumptions ;)
"100-percent organic, locally sourced, non-GMO, and free of antibiotics" Even if it does not have an effect on your health, three of those four (100-percent organic, locally sourced, and free of antibiotics) are at least good for the environment. The fourth (free of antibiotics) is maybe even good for your health, in the long run: Over-use of antibiotics by farmers (not using them to cure sick animals, but to make an…
Locally sourced may be good because of avoiding transportation impacts (preference for it may lead to types of agriculture being performed in places less well suited for them which may be bad, and might even increase transportation impacts of necessities to support agriculture, so net it might not always be good; there's a reason certain crops are grown in certain places, and preference for “locally grown” without reversing the preference for cosmopolitan variety may produce perverse impacts), and free of antibiotics is probably generally a positive environmental trait.
Organic is, OTOH, not something that there is much reason to believe is good for the environment, despite its cult virtue signalling status.
Non-GMO and organic is mostly BS of course, but it's a fact that refined carbs are cheap and plentiful, so the poor consume proportionally more of them. They simply can't afford fruit and meat. This is in part because of the infinite shelf life of processed carbs, and in part because they're heavily subsidized by the government. Also, government dietary guidelines still push people towards relatively high carb diets,…
Sources ? I got hundreds of studies proving the exact opposite if you want
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference has more to do with fiber, fats, and vitamin s
Vitamin S? You mean steroids? It's very difficult for a person eating normally to not get enough of their daily vitamin intake, so please specify the type.