> all they had to do to label a cow “free range” or “grass fed” was change the finishing stage to a lower density configuration instead of those abominable feed lots you see along highways.

And this is exactly what people have wanted, and are willing to pay a premium for.

> Grain finished beef became popular in the 1800s and consumers in the West have strongly preferred it since.

Don't conflate the US and the "west".

I appreciate the depth of your responses in this thread. I feel frustrated to see so many nitpicky comments on your responses, but I appreciate that you address them anyway.

Most Beef in New Zealand is fully grass fed and it tastes...real. Some people would say "Gamey" others say "Actually has some flavour"

Cows and sheep in the UK (and I guess much of Europe) wander round outside all year round and I guess are eating almost entirely grass. You can't go for a walk in the countryside without coming across them constantly. Most of the beef you buy in the shops (not talking about processed foods) is produced in the UK.

So what you're saying is that it's at least a small improvement over the previous situation. Seems like a win regardless of who is making money.

>Agribusiness absolutely makes money off of those.

I took the heart of their point to be about local food infrastructure and co-ops and farmers markets, and the grass fed bring cited insofar as it was complementary to those.

You rightly note that "grass fed" beef is effectively the same as "made with* real cheese", technically true even if it's in the parts per millions, and not at all a signal of authenticity it might seem to be at first glance. But I feel like this is all a detour from their point about local food infrastructure.

> all they had to do to label a cow “free range” or “grass fed” was change the finishing stage to a lower density configuration instead of those abominable feed lots you see along highways.

This is a material win for humane treatment of animals as well as the health of the consumers who aren't eating the stress hormones of a tortured large mammal. The price difference isn't even that big. Of all the things to complain about in the meat industry, this is not top of mind in my opinion.

I don't believe that's true with 100% grass fed beef

Thanks for the interesting perspective! I'm curious, is the metallic tang because of iron content or somethig else?

> because otherwise the beef would be unpalatable

[citation needed]

The point is with many hundreds of pages maybe there could have been something like

"local farmers markets have shown to address concerns about food deserts especially in lower income communities" or some obvious non-controversial observation. Maybe "community gardens have been demonstrated to increase lifespan in multiple studies"

The point is these things are decided on by a committee. To find out where their priorities are one of the bigger tells is when you find really obvious things that are not there.

If this was a sincere effort, where is all the obvious stuff?

I think it's less about that farmer's market produce being healthier, and more about it being tastier. I've encountered plenty of people saying things like "I don't like tomatoes" when it turns out all they've eaten are pale, out-of-season tomatoes from the supermarket.

A big part of getting people to eat better is educating them about seasonality and what good produce should taste like, so that they end up actually liking it.

> Local gardens and community gardens have higher resource use per acre than large farm ops.

It amazes me how few people are cognisant of this very obvious and important fact.

> Plus you really want the average American dumping chemicals in community ground water to grow the biggest pumpkin in the zip code?

Just because it’s out of sight doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Industrial farming and specially animal farming is one of the most polluting industries, subsidized to produce environmental damage, population diseases and animal abuse.

The value of smaller gardens are not measured in the produce harvested but the knowledge sowed. Many are federally funded at schools, community centers, or local libraries to serve as outdoor classrooms.

That's how Japan works...how horrendous ?

If you think I'm a Democrat or part of any party, you don't know me.

I'm virulently anti-tribalistic and it's hurt me professionally, socially and romantically my whole life. Trust me, I've got nobody. It's a big problem.

So yeah, the tribal claim, that's just you. You're just talking about yourself

This could certainly be fantastic, and very good advice. Or it could be a lot of bunk, I don't know. Given the source (i.e., RFK), I refuse to trust it.

The point of guidance like this is to be trustworthy and authoritative. If I have the ability to independently evaluate it myself, then I didn't really need it in the first place.

Of course, I might be mistaken to have ever trusted the government's nutrition guidance. It's not like undue influence from industry lobbying is unique to this administration.

This is really just bothsidesism. In reality there are fundamental differences between groups in the way that people evaluate events, evidence, even their own party's questionable actions. Papering it over with by claiming criticism is all just mindless tribalism just serves to excuse those with the worst behavior. In this specific case, government food policy has been drastically changed to suit the peculiar ideology of one man, with no public hearings, no debate, and no scientific consensus. Is it not appropriate to be skeptical, regardless of one's "tribe"??

There are a number of lies and omissions here, as there have been from just about every administration due to agribusiness lobbying.

You're playing the tribalism game by setting up this strawman, you too are being played.

I'd personally be just as critical towards anyone who claimed they were fighting a "war on protein" that plainly doesn't exist. Americans consume more meat per capita than nearly any other country.

This 1000%.

A lot of people in this post need to do some self reflection.

If the actions and beliefs of a group are fundamentally morally repugnant to me, I think that it is reasonable to not expect me to be able to find "something positive" in it. We are not amoral automata with grocery-list style utility functions.

I have people in my personal sphere that make this sort of argument and it honestly feels like gaslighting. The undercurrent is: "Look, you don't like this guy, I get it. But if you can't see that he does some good, then you are the one who is irrational and not really in a sound state of mind." Meanwhile completely preventable, life-threatening, life-destroying diseases such as measles are back because of the obscurantist beliefs that come with this "new refreshing outlook". This is a bit like saying: "look, you can say what you want about the Spanish inquisition but they kept rates of extra-marital affairs down."

Corporations love this sort of feel-good campaign (the same way they love performative LGBTQ / feminism / diversity when the culture wars swing the other way) for two main reasons: (1) they distract from fundamental issues that threaten their real interests; (2) they shift the blame on big societal issues completely to the public. They do this with climate change, they do it with increase of wealth inequality and they most certainly do it with public health.

All developed nations have a problem with processed food. Granted, it is particularly severe in the USA, but the ONE THING that separates the USA from almost every other developed nation in our planet is the absence of socialized healthcare. This is the obvious salient thing to look at before all others, so also obviously, a lot of money will be spent to misdirect and distract from this very topic.

Bingo. It’s pretty annoying. My tribe can do no wrong (in fact my tribe will freely point out its faults because again, it can do no wrong). Anything from the other tribe isn’t just wrong, it’s evil and all that is wrong with everything. Those guys are Neanderthals, not even worthy of telling the time to. My tribe is incredibly smart and gifted. We can do no wrong!

Unfortunately the only way to opt out is to basically stop participating at all. No more consumption of tribal news media and since most news media is incredibly tribal (even saying it’s not tribal is in fact tribal)… it basically means no more news media consumption. Which makes you uninformed instead of merely misinformed.

I dunno the solution to this. It’s a complex web of everybody playing to their incentives including the algorithms that aggregate things for consumption.

Again though, I’ll firmly emphasize that it is the other tribe that is wrong. My tribe isn’t biased or hateful or outrage driven. We say we aren’t so clearly it’s not possible.

That trite comment is intellectual dishonesty set to 11.

Or the current man in control of Health and Human Services is at best saying nothing of value. (At worst, he's sidelining vaccines for multiple infectious diseases, but that's off topic)

A broken clock is right twice a day. Doesn't mean it's not broken.

I was surprised how impressed I was by the website. The layout, design, focus on simple foods.

I think the person above may just feel skeptical of the scientific and medical opinion of most of the people running the US government. I know I do. When I read "gold-standard science and common sense," I rolled my eyes. Because the previous news cycle said they don't think meningitis vaccines are important for kids, yet say they follow gold-standard science. It's hard for me to reconcile the two.

EDIT: "rooted in...personal responsibility."

"America is sick. The data is clear. 50% of Americans have prediabetes or diabetes 75% of adults report having at least one chronic condition 90% of U.S. healthcare spending goes to treating chronic disease—much of which is linked to diet and lifestyle."

It also has this moralizing tone, and seems to make some pretty bold claims about why Americans have prediabetes or diabetes. For example, with the introduction of GLP-1 drugs, like Ozempic, people (including some I know well) have significantly reduced their diabetic risk. And they're still eating the same processed foods.

Also, "linked to diet and lifestyle" is a pretty broad claim. Maybe the undersleeping and overcaffeinating actually matters more for increased appetite and desire to eat less healthy foods.

In short, I just don't trust many people when they say health is so inextricably and exclusively tied to food source, especially when they tend to think most vaccines are net negatives for individuals and society.

this is clearly a net loss for public health in general, politics aside. Having alcohol in dietary guidelines (without even stating a drink limit) is positively idiotic.

Personally I don't care either way about RFK Jr's new food pyramid.

I think the bigger danger of giving this credit is lending any legitimacy to RFK Jr who is actively undermining actual medical advice and wrecking havoc on our childhood vaccine programs.

Just because a broken clock is right twice a day, doesn't mean you need to give the broken clock credit for being right.

By doing this "oh it's just tribalism" lends legitimacy to RFK Jr and furthers his ability to kill kids with preventable disease and further damage the credibility of modern medical science.

"Oh he has some good ideas" Yeah? Which ones? Does the average american have the time/curiosity/capability to sort through which of his ideas are good and which ones will kill their kids?

They also received financial aid depending on the land surface they have (at least in Europe)

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

1g/lb is in fact a popular target among bodybuilders.

Much research indicates 0.5 to 0.7 g/lb provides most of the benefits, with continuing but diminishing gains above 0.7 g/lb. And the benefit is not just for "body building", but also for minimizing muscle loss during weight loss and improving insulin sensitivity. Other research indicates we may benefit from higher levels as we age.

quite off!

You need at least 0.8g / kilo (referring to 0.4g / pound) if you are doing nothing heavy, like walking to the office.

If you do moderate sports, you are hitting 1.0g / kilo immediately.

If you do some more extensive sports, like 3 - 4 days / week in gym, you jumü to 1.2 - 1.4g / kilo.

Bodybuilders are quite above :-))

Regarding the number of chicken breasts - scary for me, Im enough with a half one every second or third day.

There was a great movie about vegan & bodybuilding with known sports people: The Gamechangers - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_Changers

Wait, what? I lift weights and chicken breast is a fundamental part of my diet but I'm eating 1/3 to 1/2 a single chicken breast a day, and an egg for breakfast. That CAN'T be right.

I get that I include some rice, peanuts etc. in there, but even if I quit EVERYTHING else there's no way 4 to 5 chicken breasts a day is accurate.

Meh, I would note that the Tyson-supported definition of "real chicken" is not one without antibiotics and growth hormones, let alone a free-range heritage breed. This would have been the standard for a "real chicken" a few human generations ago.

I thought this way is pretty good since the problem with the old one was that it makes vegetables look like a side-dish.

The new pyramid reflects a healthy plate of food: mostly meat and veggies, and a little piece of bread on the side. It's almost genius.

Better than the old one in what way?

The incentives are wrong. Any good policy for bad incentives is temporary and incidental

This policy selectively emphasizes the most difficult to import foods so it also plays into isolationist nativist policies.

If you think meat lobbying groups just wanted a new triangle and this isn't going to extend to water, land, energy, and environmental policies along with farm subsidies and even merger&acquisition and liability policies, sorry ...

This thing is for them, their profitability and their investors. They didn't lobby on behalf of your personal health...

Open a position on the MOO ETF. I just did. Might as well make some money from it

Is it? The change in recommendation is to have less veggies in favor of more meat. From all the recent research and meta studies I've seen it doesn't track.

It's still decent a guidance, but the previous one was as well.

The last corrupted version had the same person at its head.

>but is at least closer to truth then [than?] the last corrupted version

I'm pretty sure you did the rhetorical equivalent of looking at a roomful of pregnant high school girls..

.. and declaring one of them to be closest to virginity.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Canada can be just as corrupt.

Not all lobby groups are asking for harmful things. But nearly always they act in their own short sighted self interest. Which usually comes at the expense of citizens or the would be customers or competitors.

Which is why sane countries make paying for access and influence illegal.

I'm a realist. All these comments were saying "oh this is good they're doing this for my personal health" and I thought "oh, no no no. That's not how this works..."

There's some real science there for a couple of reasons. Protein is a macronutrient you can be malnourished if you don't get enough of even if you eat enough calories and the right micronutrients, and if most of your calories are from protein then you're actually probably not getting as many "burnable" calories as you think you are because (1) the amount of protein you need to meet your daily protein needs never enters the citric acid cycle to oxidized for ATP regeneration, (2) protein is the macronutrient that feels the most filling, and (3) excess protein that goes to the liver to be converted into carbs loses around 30% of its net usable calories due to the energy required for that conversion.

The way we count calories is based on how many calories are in a meal vs the resulting scat, and that just isn't an accurate representation of how the body processes protein such that a protein-heavy diet doesn't have as many calories as you probably think it does, which makes it a healthy choice in an environment where most food-related health problems stem from overeating.

However I agree with your skepticism insofar as when they say "prioritizing protein" they probably mean "prioritizing meat," which is more suspect from a health standpoint and looks somewhat suspicious considering the lobbyists involved.