Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Foods for healthier people and a healthier planet [pdf]

wwf.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 137 posts

Re: Foods for healthier people and a healthier planet [pdf]

#91

Post by mekoka »

rpiguy wrote: post #81

The tone of the comments in this thread terrify me. We have exchanged one set of preachers trying to tell us how to live with a new set of preachers telling us how to live and it is just as bad or worse. Always a group of people trying to suppress your freedom and advertise their virtue.

No reason to be terrified. The difference between now and the past times you're alluding to is that if back then people's freedom was being suppressed, nowadays they're volunteering it away. Want to stay free? Inform yourself from a variety of sources and infer the truth from the consistency of facts being reported. This report is but a supplemental source of input for you to dig in.

Re: Foods for healthier people and a healthier planet [pdf]

#92

Post by mises »

windexh8er wrote: post #87
mises wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I used to spend more time in meat than almost any dish I prepare now. From overnight smokes of pulled pork or half day cooks of meats in sous vide with a finish on grill was, by far much more work. Most people don't do this, and I certainly don't. Most people don't have the time to do it with meat either. I just roast chickens from costco or some turkey. Fish I don't do as often, because it's slow. > I don't cast j…

> Yuck. These are worse than the veggie option. I've tried the impossible burger once; never again. I think it was the smell that was wrong, but am not quite sure. It's the uncanny valley of meat, and I don't like it. While I don't consume the alternatives all the time I don't find them repulsive either. Both Impossible and Beyond Meat have a compelling product in my personal opinion having eaten meat and been somewh…

I mean, I don't see a reason why not. I tend to start with an assumption that it's fine until I find something contrary. I'm not sure I'd eat it, and I still think the burger bun, fries, soda/milkshake/chocolate milk, etc. are much worse for you than any burger, but there's rarely a problem with expanding consumer choice and product availability.

Re: Foods for healthier people and a healthier planet [pdf]

#93

Post by byteman »

otabdeveloper2 wrote: post #71
daveFNbuck wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from fad diets like Atkins, you don't see health professionals recommending meat as the core of a healthy diet. My doctor tells me to eat a plant-based diet at every visit now. If there's a discrepancy here, it's not that you should be eating lots of meat.

> you don't see health professionals recommending meat as the core of a healthy diet Yeah, this is probably why obesity and related complications is the #1 cause of death right now. (Edging out 'old age' and 'smoking'.) These "health professionals" have blood on their hands.

I don't mean to be rude, but I suspect you might have misread the comment you've replied to.

Re: Foods for healthier people and a healthier planet [pdf]

#94

Post by dmix »

firethief wrote: post #65
dmix wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A huge part of it is that they make money on what people want to buy as well. I’m sure if they put seaweed and cacti in most American grocery stores most people would skip them for what they think will be good for dinner. Therefore having zero profit without the companies margins having anything to do with it. What’s available has typically played a role but it’s not the only metric.

Where do you live, Maine? Every grocery store around me has seaweed and cacti and I live in the sticks. Only the most demographically challenged parts of the country lack Asian and Mexican options in the supermarkets.

I just said whether or not it’s available isn’t the only metric but whether people want to eat it or not. Which plays far more into revenue than just margins.

The fact some grocery stores have it is besides the point.

Re: Foods for healthier people and a healthier planet [pdf]

#95

Post by random878 »

Razengan wrote: post #49
hirundo wrote: post #32

Of the five Guiding Principles on page 52 only about 1.5 of them are primarily concerned with the nutrition content of the food. The rest are mostly focused on their environmental impact. Not that there's anything wrong with that. And clearly that's aligned with the mission of the WWF. But I think you'd get a much different list if it was just about maximizing the health of the eater. E.g. meat. When I choose food at…

Is anybody the "bad guy?" Is anybody not? The Earth will fix itself, eventually, no matter what we do to it. It's seen worse. I mean it apparently went from a ball of lava pelted with meteorite-nukes to the only verdant garden we have ever known, and it has already been through at least a few cataclysms. Even if the planet disappears overnight, the universe at large will still go on as if we never existed. You choose…

That's analogous to the commonly held, stupid opinion that you may as well smoke because you have to die of something.

Re: Foods for healthier people and a healthier planet [pdf]

#96

Post by Pfhreak »

rpiguy wrote: post #81

The tone of the comments in this thread terrify me. We have exchanged one set of preachers trying to tell us how to live with a new set of preachers telling us how to live and it is just as bad or worse. Always a group of people trying to suppress your freedom and advertise their virtue.

What does your comment even mean? "Here's 50 foods that reduce impact and feed more people"

"STOP OPPRESSING ME!"

Really? Like, if you don't think these foods are worth your time, maybe just do your own thing? These foods are already widely eaten by a whole range of people, cultures, and socieconomic statuses.

Re: Foods for healthier people and a healthier planet [pdf]

#97

Post by luckylion »

2T1Qka0rEiPr wrote: post #68
luckylion wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Growing a single variety is likely too risky. While you may be able to minimize the risk with artificial watering, pest control etc, if it strikes, you'll end your company. Most companies don't aim for a series of all-or-nothing-bets even if the odds are in their favor on each one, they hedge their bets.

This might be true, but there are plenty of cases where this is exactly the case (e.g. bananas, rubber). Also, as the article points out, there are "heirloom" crops which would surely mitigate this danger somewhat but would presumably still be perfect for economies of scale - e.g. due to the reduced marginal cost for R&D to build machines etc. appropriate for harvesting?

Bananas are an example of a local single-crop bet, and they are hedged by planting different crops elsewhere. There certainly is a desire to reduce variety, but it's likely to come down to a few dozen plants (out of thousands, and for each one, there have been hundreds of variations and sub-types), not to a single one - too risky, and regional conditions are too different to have a one-size-fits-all-crop.

Re: Foods for healthier people and a healthier planet [pdf]

#98

Post by Pfhreak »

otabdeveloper2 wrote: post #70

> FOCUS ON PLANT-BASED FOODS A great idea if you want to save the planet by having people die out from exploding (pun intended) obesity.

What's the pun? And what's the connection between a diet primarily built around plants and obesity?

Re: Foods for healthier people and a healthier planet [pdf]

#99

Post by byteman »

Razengan wrote: post #49
hirundo wrote: post #32

Of the five Guiding Principles on page 52 only about 1.5 of them are primarily concerned with the nutrition content of the food. The rest are mostly focused on their environmental impact. Not that there's anything wrong with that. And clearly that's aligned with the mission of the WWF. But I think you'd get a much different list if it was just about maximizing the health of the eater. E.g. meat. When I choose food at…

Is anybody the "bad guy?" Is anybody not? The Earth will fix itself, eventually, no matter what we do to it. It's seen worse. I mean it apparently went from a ball of lava pelted with meteorite-nukes to the only verdant garden we have ever known, and it has already been through at least a few cataclysms. Even if the planet disappears overnight, the universe at large will still go on as if we never existed. You choose…

Well sure - if nothing matters, it also doesn't matter we consume a lot of animal products and ruin our tiny planet as we used to know it.

If anything does matter, we should reduce our consumption and production of animal based products.

Re: Foods for healthier people and a healthier planet [pdf]

#100

Post by byteman »

hirundo wrote: post #32

Of the five Guiding Principles on page 52 only about 1.5 of them are primarily concerned with the nutrition content of the food. The rest are mostly focused on their environmental impact. Not that there's anything wrong with that. And clearly that's aligned with the mission of the WWF. But I think you'd get a much different list if it was just about maximizing the health of the eater. E.g. meat. When I choose food at…

I don't think we can assume meat based diet is better than plant based diet anymore.

And without this assumption the "own good vs. common good" argument doesn't hold. Because in reality, "own good" and "common good" align at a lower consumption of meat. (Ignoring taste, obviously. Meat is delicious!)

Post reply on HN