Actually, there are very few things in life that are truly 'bad' for you. Sugar, fat and proteins sure as hell aren't bad for you. Neither is chocolate or alcohol. What is bad for you is when moderation goes out the window. In fact, all these are really great for your body in the right amounts! I mean, if you're stupid enough to gorge on sugar or protein products day in day out, well that's more your problem and far less to do with the industry. And if you're willing to risk surgery so you can eat crap all your life, well that's your right to. The industry didn't twist your arm and force you to.
hmmm....i agree with the sentiment/idea behind this tiger, but there lots of things that, even in moderation really aren't good for you - unfortunately the majority of them tend to lead to 'chronic' rather than acute illnesses/conditions - by which i mean illnesses/conditions that don't come about as a result of a single 'dose' or whatever, rather several, or several hundred/thousand doses/meals/exposures - animal protein is an example of this - it won't kill you quickly, or even kill you full stop, if you're lucky, but it simply is not good for you in the long term - Casein, the main protein in cow's milk actually ticks all the boxes for the textbook definition of a carcinogen....which i would say is pretty bad for you...but it may depend on your perspective....
The industry may not be helping by making 'bad' food cheaper but the onus lies on the individual in the end. There are alternatives out there and the whole 'I can't afford healthier stuff' argument is mostly redundant in the western world. Granted there are some who really can't pitch out a single extra penny but most that complain don't have a lot of ground to do so. You can't really complain about not being able to afford healthy food if you go out to get drunk... not doing that and buying better food is twofold more healthy.
I largely agree with you here man - except that it's not a fair fight - through the 'meat lobby' having such big power in washinton now, and after the massive deregulation that Bush Jnr put in place, basically 'Big Agriculture' has made it so that 'cheap meat' (the true cost is shocking, in real-dollar terms, environmentally and many other ways) costs so much less than even 'normal' non-organic vegetables that a great many people are compelled, economically to consume it - that the government condones this is really appalling and it does (the US government i'm talking about specifically in this case) - the USDA and the FDA both have high-level staff - directorial level, that are former members/directors of the meat industry itself - basically, the lawmakers putting legislation in place that benefits their industries to the detriment of the public in order to maximise profits and profitability - you say the onus lies on the individual - sure, in fair 'fight', economically speaking - but if a kg of beef, for example costs, hypothetically $5 and a kg of tomatoes costs $10 (completely spurious numbers before anyone jumps on it, but the ratios aren't far off), which is an economically-challenged family going to go for?
I hear your argument about costs of organic farming re competing with non-organic, and, for example CAFO style organisations. Again, these costs are helped, or subsidised by government, and the hidden costs are huge.
Have a look at these tables:
Water Required to produce one pound of California foods
(according to Soil and Water Specialists, University of California Agricultural Extension, working with livestock farm advisors)
1 pound of lettuce 23 gallons
1 pound of tomatoes 23 gallons
1 pound of potatoes 24 gallons
1 pound of wheat 25 gallons
1 pound of carrots 33 gallons
1 pound of apples 49 gallons
1 pound of chicken 815 gallons
1 pound of pork 1630 gallons
1 pound of beef 5,214 gallons
The beef number varies, depending on who you believe/whose research you listen to - some numbers say this:
Water required to produce 1 pound of California beef:
per the Water Education Foundation 2,464 gallons
Water required to produce 1 pound of beef:
per David Pimentel, Ph.D., Professor of Ecology and Agricultural Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 12,009 gallons
further:
Putting water use info into perspective
If you shower each day for 7 minutes, using a shower with a flow rate of 2 gallons per minute, you are using 14 gallons of water per day (7 minutes x 2 gallons), or 98 gallons per week. Rounding that up to 100 gallons per week, in 52 weeks you would be using 5,200 gallons of water per year to take a daily shower.
Comparing 5,200 gallons of water used by taking a 7 minute shower every day for a year, to the 5,214 gallons of water it takes to produce a pound of beef (using the estimate noted by water specialists at the University of California, noted above), you realize that
in California today, you can save more water by not eating a pound of beef than you will save by not showering for a year.
Take your choice -- 4 hamburgers or a year's worth of showers?
According to the calculations of the celebrated Dr. Pimentel of Cornell, you could go two years without a shower and still not save as much water as you would by not eating one pound of beef.
Finally, and going back to your statement about onus being on the consumer, which it is, and isn't:
(i'm not trying to be offensive with this next bit - forgive me if I do offend - i'm not talking about well-read people who ask awkward questions, more the too-busy-to-do-this group):
Where a great many Americans get their information about foods:
Advertising
Amount spent annually by Kelloggs to promote Frosted Flakes: $40 million
Amount spent annually by dairy industry on "milk mustache" ads: $190 million
Amount spent annually by McDonald's advertising its products: $800 million
Amount spent annually by the National Cancer Institute promoting fruits and vegetables: approx $1 million
...we becomes so fat that we die earlier, like at 20 y/o? ...are we gonna go extinct?
