zlacker

>>atestu+(OP)
Tyson foods and other meatpacking companies lobbied and funded RFK...

Here's industry reports

https://www.nationalbeefwire.com/doctors-group-applauds-comm...

https://www.wattagnet.com/business-markets/policy-legislatio...

And straight up lobbying groups

https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/new-dietary-guideline...

https://www.meatinstitute.org/press/recommend-prioritizing-p...

Lobbying groups, putting out press releases, claiming victory...

Here's some things you won't find in any of the documents, including the PDFs at the bottom: community gardens, local food, farmers markets, grass fed, free range... Because agribusiness doesn't make money with those.

Just because you might like the results doesn't mean they aren't corrupt as hell

>>kristo+fO1
> community gardens, local food, farmers markets, grass fed, free range

How are these connected to nutrition? The difference in nutrition between a local banana and a non-local banana is ... zero?

>>xnx+z53
because they're a source of local, sustainable, seasonal, and healthy food that isn't peddled by agribusiness lobbies — grassfed beef specifically is leaner, lower in calories, and richer in beneficial nutrients

>>microm+a63
So the animal rights and environmental groups are upset that health targets are prioritizing health over mudding the waters with these other agendas? If those are worthy goals on their own then fine, but stop trying to suggest that we can't improve health drastically and more effectively by making simple and clear recommendations to move away form processed food.

>>andrew+De3
This is a straw man.

The new guidelines prioritize meat and dairy above all else, which comes with well known health issues, especially at the rate Americans consume them.

There's already plenty of evidence (victory lap press releases from the respective industries) that indicate that this was accomplished due to lobbying... so we haven't moved at all: the old recommendations were imperfect and fueled by specific industry preference, and the new ones do the same.

> we can't improve health drastically and more effectively by making simple and clear recommendations to move away form processed food.

pretty much every nutritionist has been urging a reduction in processed foods for years now, the solution isn't to replace processed foods with meat and dairy... that's just a different problem

>>microm+tg3
What are the "well known health issues"? I have seen some low-quality observational studies (junk science) which show some weak correlation between consumption of animal products and negative health outcomes but so far nothing conclusive one way or the other.

https://peterattiamd.com/high-protein-diets-and-cancer-risk/

>>nradov+zm3
you've got to find better sources than a health coach selling a subscription program that benefits from this take, that post is indistinguishable from spam

red meat and colorectal cancer https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4698595/

> As a summary, it seems that red and processed meats significantly but moderately increase CRC risk by 20-30% according to these meta-analyses.

red meat cardiovascular disease, and diabetes: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37264855/

> Unprocessed and processed red meat consumption are both associated with higher risk of CVD, CVD subtypes, and diabetes, with a stronger association in western settings but no sex difference.

>>microm+8u3
So more low-quality, poorly controlled junk science. If you want anyone to take you seriously then you'll have to do better than that.

>>nradov+bU3
You literally provided nothing but spam behind a subscription gate. I provided peer reviewed meta-analyses.