this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
471 points (88.2% liked)

World News

39375 readers
2093 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

People are used to seeing stark warnings on tobacco products alerting them about the potentially deadly risks to health. Now a study suggests similar labelling on food could help them make wiser choices about not just their health, but the health of the planet.

The research, by academics at Durham University, found that warning labels including a graphic image – similar to those warning of impotence, heart disease or lung cancer on cigarette packets – could reduce selections of meals containing meat by 7-10%.

It is a change that could have a material impact on the future of the planet. According to a recent YouGov poll, 72% of the UK population classify themselves as meat-eaters. But the Climate Change Committee (CCC), which advises the government on its net zero goals, has said the UK needs to slash its meat consumption by 20% by 2030, and 50% by 2050, in order to meet them.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 137 points 1 year ago (7 children)

"how can we shift responsibility to the consumer today?"

[–] Risk@feddit.uk 71 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (46 children)

Eh, in all fairness the meat & dairy industry is one thing that we as consumers really do need to take a bulk of responsibility for. I say that as a devout meat eater.

BUT, governments could go a long way by not subsidising dairy and meat and instead subsidising protein alternatives. It's fucking nuts to me that it costs more for me to buy plant protein.

(Before the die hard vegans come at me saying you don't need to eat pseudo (plant) proteins to eat less meat, please remember you're trying to convert people that are familiar and enjoy one diet to another. You're not going to encourage anyone by advocating a cold-turkey or 0% meat approach. I hate that I have to put this disclaimer here, but I'm fed up with arguing with puritanical vegans that overshadow pragmatism.)

[–] markr@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

United States federal government spends $38 billion every year subsidizing the meat and dairy industries

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Apparently people consume a lot more meat than they need and even than it's healthy to consume (though it heavilly depends on the country and the eating habits of the population) so there is room for huge improvement in greenhouse gas emissions from the industry AND health-outcomes by campaigning to reduce meat consumption (rather than the absolutist and rather moralist idea that people should become vegetarians or even vegans).

Also I'm quite weary about any proposed solution involving moving some of the current meat consumption to processed and ultra-processed protein alternatives: we keep getting study after study associating processed and especially ultra-processed food to all kinds of health problems.

load more comments (44 replies)
[–] motor_spirit@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Business execs are cloaked reapers. It's pretty interesting that these people continue to reproduce though, while still fully railing against any chance at a decent world to live in. I guess I'm not surprised they wouldn't care or have the foresight to worry about even their own blood's future - it's exactly what led us here.

Some upstanding citizen with a terminal illness should use the opportunity to make an example out of these worthless parasites.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] alienanimals@lemmy.world 81 points 1 year ago (19 children)

Please focus on curbing your own satisfaction, so the oil industry can continue to be the biggest polluter AND make money hand over fist.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The Guardian is very much a neoliberal newspaper (some people confuse it with being Leftwing because, like most neolibs, they're also liberal on moral subjects) so it is usually against regulatory solutions and heavilly favours using Nudge Theory to influence the masses.

So yeah, you'll see a lot of articles about how people should become Vegetarian because of the emissions from livestock farming and very few demanding, for example, regulation of aircraft emissions (though there is a single Opinion writter there which does not suffer from profitability-prioritizing-thinking when it comes to ecological subjects).

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 29 points 1 year ago (3 children)

lol but not on gas? Plastic?

Waste of money and time.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (30 children)

Not really. The meat industry makes INSANE amounts of GHG emissions. Whataboutism surely won't solve climate change.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Calling something whataboutism won’t either. That’s just lazy and dismissive.

The CONSUMER is not going to make a difference. The change needs to happen on an industry scale.

load more comments (29 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] T156@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

This seems like rather an optimistic headline, seeing as the article also says that the results from the study were "not statistically signifiant".

Considering how meat is in most things, you'd think that it would just oversaturate people with warnings, and they would just end up ignoring it. Similar to how people more or less ignore California's Proposition 65 in the USA, because it's so broad, and the thresholds are so low that basically everything has a label saying "This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer". Anything significant gets lost in the noise.

[–] Siegfried@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why dont we do this also every time someone buys a car?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BeefPiano@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (6 children)

From a health perspective, absolutely.

From a climate perspective? Just tax carbon and give the proceeds back as UBI.

To the extent that health warnings work, it’s because it affects the consumer directly. A climate warning is saying “this burger is going to make life slightly worse for someone halfway around the world.”

It may change consumption slightly but also risks a blowback of denial. People don’t like feeling guilty and are perfectly capable of sticking their head in the sand so they can enjoy a steak.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] BurnedDonutHole@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Yeah it's going to stop people from eating what ever shit that's available for the cheapest price to continue living. I'm pretty sure this is just another bullshit study to talk about how people should eat healthy while they don't have budget or means to...

Edit: It seems many of you missed the meaning of what I'm talking about! Poor people who eat fast food, chicken or whatever processed meat products available for cheap not going to give a fuck about what their meat is labeled. Meat just doesn't mean the steak people buy from the market! If this is so hard for you imbeciles to understand without getting triggered because someone said something you don't understand than there is no need for further discussion. Processed meat consumption (including all kinds of meat beef, lamb, pork, chicken even fish) is the cheapest protein source for poor people. This study is disregarding how poor people do their food shopping. Until so called I can't believe it's meat type of vegetarian alternatives come to the point of real meat poor people going to continue to eat meat. And all you butt hurt so called activist can't even see the difference because you have your head up so high up your high horses to realize what the fuck is normal people going through. Now kindly please go fuck yourselves and don't comment any more unless you have an actual and feasible solution.

[–] pugsnroses77@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

have you seen the prices of beans and rice?? i save a lotta money by not eating meat. even with the outrageous subsidies poured into meat it can still hardly compare.

[–] ericisshort@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Meat is cheap because of govt subsidies. And lab grown meat will soon be able to undercut slaughtered meat in price without those subsidies, so the whole “let poor people eat what they can afford” argument will switch sides in the coming years without new protectionist governmental policies.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Doll_Tow_Jet-ski@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago

Sure there's people that just buy what's cheaper. But there's also people who consciously make the choice of eating meat having the possibility of not doing so. It makes sense to target that part of the population.

Now, if subsidies to the meat and dairy industry was redericted to plant-based farming, then the only reason left to consume animals would be people's choice of personal pleasure over ethical and environmental factors

[–] BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Desistance@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

No it won't

[–] FoundTheVegan@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (31 children)

Ha! Love it! Do it! Not like there is any lack of studies to show the health dangers of meat.

  1. Conclusion: Red and processed meat intakes were associated with modest increases in total mortality, cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality.
  2. The study found that people who ate two servings per week of red meat or processed meat had a 3% to 7% higher risk (respectively) of cardiovascular disease, including heart attack and stroke, and a 3% higher risk of death from all causes.
  3. observed strong correlations of dietary HCA intake and consumption of fried and processed meat with DNA adduct levels in breast tissue of 44 women

Won't ever happen in the US tho. The meat industry is so protective that a lot of states have food libel laws, as well as gag laws that's limit filming of slaughter houses. If something is so obviously safe, weird how you can't talk about it's risks or show its production.

We can't forget how wasteful meat is as a food supply. Which is sorta obvious when you think about it for 5 seconds. Feeding cows edible food, drinkable water, on farmable land for several years to only get a handful of meals out of them is just silly inefficient.

And that's just the data, not even going in to ethics. Which, come on. Cut a cow, they bleed, yell and flee. If you cut their young, they attack. Just like we do. Does it matter if they can't talk? The question is, can they suffer? (yes)

[–] geogle@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

I'm not going to argue with your sentiment, but your above arguments are either weak or factually wrong. This doesn't help your cause.

A less then 10% increase in health risks is really a deciding factor, particularly against a cultural and dietary staple to many.

As for beef production, time to slaughter is often between 6 to 8 months, and not years.

load more comments (30 replies)
[–] orphiebaby@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is a salty comments section. Can't even tell who's salty or why, but they definitely are.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You should salt, generally season, your board, not the steak. Unless you actually brine/marinate the thing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] clearleaf@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The cigarette warnings don't do anything though. The shock images were scary to me as a child but by the time I was 18 I was so used to it that it was like I couldn't see them anymore.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sheogorath@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Thankfully due to the stagflation I'm doing some austerity efforts regarding my grocery procurement. This has resulted in my diet having consisted of the majority of vegetables with some eggs here and there.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cricket97@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)
[–] threeduck@aussie.zone 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sheogorath@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

I ate fried grasshoppers once and it was seriously good. The buggers tasted like shrimps.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Destraight@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I hate this idea. My appetite can be ruined by stuff like this, and that would suck to throw away food since I can't eat it

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›