Obesity, T2 and my right to eat the diet that will heal me

I read in the papers today that Waitrose is now buying smaller eggs from young hens because the farmers complain they waste these eggs as the supermarkets won't buy them. These are pullet eggs and have always been around. I won't be buying them. I would need two for every one I eat, so twice the cost. I understand farmers are unhappy they have to waste these eggs, but I wonder how many Waitrose will sell, unless they are considerably cheaper. Sorry, this is going off at a tangent.

Bluetit1802 said:

Sorry, this is going off at a tangent.

Click to expand...

they sell "baby" vegetables at a premium but I suspect "baby" eggs probably won't be so appealing (definitely off tangent this)

Mr_Pot said:

I can remember the predictions that we would only need to work a 3 day week and wouldn't know what to do with all our leisure time, that there would be no paper in offices and we would have flying cars, that by now global warming would mean we could grow tropical fruits in England. So I am cynical about predictions.

Click to expand...

Flying cars are closer than you think.

Listlad said:

Flying cars are closer than you think

Click to expand...

Duck!

copilost said:

Duck!

Click to expand...

I think flying ducks are fairly common.

Diakat said:

I think flying ducks are fairly common.

Click to expand...

Sitting ducks taste better...

Goonergal said:

Wow! I live just around the corner. I’ll be writing to them. And the local MP.

Click to expand...

i love they are being so pro active..

Don't forget to tell them that using any sort of transport to and from anywhere is also badly if not doubly so

Of course they will already know the impact it has is detrimental, they are smart cookies
but for us dummies, if you Add in the cost to make the vehicles extract the oils, fuels and electric components from the earth as in pollution transportation and climate wise..
( well all the vehicles AND the machinery to make them use fuels of some sort that produce their own version of Climate change pollutants, ) it's not good.

Perhaps they could go one further and we can also look forward to them banning biros, laptops and no one really needs n iPhone that can aid to raping the resources of the earth they all cherish, as we all do, so no dispute there surely.

Off to investigate how i corner the market in ink wells.
anyone else wanna piece of the action..?

i'm gonna make a killing.

Bluetit1802 said:

From what I read a couple of weeks ago, the future will see beef and sheep farming disappear. The land will be used to grow trees and make forests. Our meat will come from limited amounts of pork and chicken. Vegetables, fruit, and arable crops will be grown in massive greenhouses with tiers in them, so the crops can be grown on the top of each other. This is supposed to feed the world with its ever increasing population.

I mentioned on another thread - the solution could be to euthanise everyone of pension age and eat them. That would solve many problems this country has. (I am being facetious by the way).

Click to expand...

Solyent green

zand said:

.

It reminds me of the plastic bag debacle.
but more about profits and image, they wanted to be 'seen to be doing something'.

I would have thought that they would be supplying strong paper bags so that they no longer needed to supply us with the 5p plastic ones.

After all, if a bag is bad for the planet it is bad whether or not you pay

The reply came back that they had looked into this issue and found that strong paper bags were actually worse than plastic ones for the environment because of the way they were made etc and transport costs (environmental costs to the planet)
being greater because they were bulkier.

I in turn replied and said thank you for pointing that out. I now realised how much I was damaging the planet, and just think if a bag does so much damage, how much more damage does all the merchandise I had been buying over the years do to the environment? I would be much more frugal in future and wouldn't be troubling them for bags or anything else again.

.

Click to expand...

@zand so with you on that one.

I always thought the eco argument was the problem with plastic is not so biodegradable.
that meant that is had a half life cycle of radio active waste if not better

so sea creatures end up eating it, that then get eaten by others, that then get eaten by us..not good

so why can't we use paper bags instead..never seen one of them that could manage a rainstorm without degrading drastically
barely get the food to the car before it breaks, yet plastic bags ..good.
seen plastic bags on every beach I've ever been on, washed up on shore line still intact,
not seen many paper bags at all.on any beach.

So is it just costlier to use paper then plastic ?
my guess is yes

but that this years thinking not next years planning when it comes to cost.
it's always short term.

just like for T2's... its a meter.. it costs, so NO you can't have one.
But here are meds you take every day for the rest of your life and it's all free
(well on prescription to us, yes.) plus the ops you'll probably need because the meds just aren't effective enough according to ALL our data.

but where oh where is the cost saving over 10,20,30 years.

Paper bags, more expensive, but we get to keep the fish and sea creatures
OR go plastic and look forward to reminding ourselves of what we lost in pics of marine life, as we munch on more chemically produced frankenfoods, made in a lab..

All with the possibility of being this generations greatest threat, as most is just declared as safe to eat,
but not tested over many years like most pharmaceuticals..and isn't that what they are.?

thalidomide was safe, wasn't it.
agent orange was safe too,
sure there are many others there that seemed safe.
....until they weren't.

jjraak said:

Solyent green

Click to expand...

Indeed. It must have been at the back of my mind when I posted.

jjraak said:

@zand so with you on that one.

I always thought the eco argument was the problem with plastic is not so biodegradable.
that meant that is had a half life cycle of radio active waste if not better

so sea creatures end up eating it, that then get eaten by others, that then get eaten by us..not good

so why can't we use paper bags instead..never seen one of them that could manage a rainstorm without degrading drastically
barely get the food to the car before it breaks, yet plastic bags ..good.
seen plastic bags on every beach I've ever been on, washed up on shore line still intact,
not seen many paper bags at all.on any beach.

So is it just costlier to use paper then plastic ?
my guess is yes

but that this years thinking not next years planning when it comes to cost.
it's always short term.

just like for T2's... its a meter.. it costs, so NO you can't have one.
But here are meds you take every day for the rest of your life and it's all free
(well on prescription to us, yes.) plus the ops you'll probably need because the meds just aren't effective enough according to ALL our data.

but where oh where is the cost saving over 10,20,30 years.

Paper bags, more expensive, but we get to keep the fish and sea creatures
OR go plastic and look forward to reminding ourselves of what we lost in pics of marine life, as we munch on more chemically produced frankenfoods, made in a lab..

All with the possibility of being this generations greatest threat, as most is just declared as safe to eat,
but not tested over many years like most pharmaceuticals..and isn't that what they are.?

thalidomide was safe, wasn't it.
agent orange was safe too,
sure there are many others there that seemed safe.
....until they weren't.

Click to expand...

The trouble with using paper is that it means felling more trees.

Listlad said:

The trouble with using paper is that it means felling more trees.

Click to expand...

Not to mention the chemicals used to make/bleach it and the horrible waste products. But that has little to do with diet.

so can we not recycle paper..?

or plant more trees from sustainable forests not rainforest.

again it seems that anyattempt to find a solution falls back on the
A) cost NOW
B) standard (aka profitable ) practice

Not disputing that the point made IS relative, @Listlad

But if we don't look beyond what we do NOW, and find alternatives, all with their own issues,
then we just do nothing.
or in this case, simply move the deckchairs around on the titanic in the misguided idea we are doing 'something'

Because all the efforts we do as individuals, are dwarfed by corporations and countries running rough shod over those ideals

So lets have ideas that are sensible, thought out and not just knee jerk reactions

Op reports about meat being demonised and we should all go veggie.

i love animals..and yes i eat the meat.
so does my wife ..and doesn't ...if she can.

But i always say to her, if we didn't use an animal horse, donkey etc.
wouldn't that farmer/owner just have it destroyed. ?

It costs money to look after a dairy herd or sheep.
once the profit margin goes, then will anyone still want to have them
will anyone still want to pay to feed them

and sure we'll still use them for milk..really.?

what if farmers decide that's not profitable?
then we are ALL back to almond milks etc..not entirely bad, but is that really best for us as a species?
and then we are into the Frankenfoods, to replace the stuff we have now in our diets and need..and be sure someone will make it, if they are not already

Do not forget that they TOLD us the way we ate last year and since (1980 i believe) was the best we could hope for,
safe and nutritious and good for us.

Yet here we are
ALL on a forum about food that is killing us, trying desperately to find a way of eating that delays or stops the very foods they told us was good for us, destroying our bodies, bite by bite of the very foods THEY say we SHOULD eat.

and lets NOT forget the humongous obesity problem now and heading our way in the future, now add in the T2 Tsunami many predict, ..and the NFLD crisis, that predate that tsunami, that is currently running at 20% of the worlds population
THAT all tells me, we dabble with nature at our peril

is it entirely unlikely given the aforementioned, that we could, in years to come be taking our kids to a zoo to show them what a horse, cow, sheep looks like
or even worse..opening a web page with pictures..

i'm sure many are right... it is all terribly horribly.
but a measured response to an issue, something eminently practical, usually has the best outcome
and avoids the unintended consequences of drastic, actions not thought through to encompass every eventuality
We may just be clearing away a problem today with an insurmountable one for tomorrow

is there a cost..sure.
but either way we or our kids will pay the price.
better to stand back and make wise decisions NOW, then rush forwards with what seems most cost effective
or popular right now.

jjraak said:

so can we not recycle paper..?

or plant more trees from sustainable forests not rainforest.

again it seems that anyattempt to find a solution falls back on the
A) cost NOW
B) standard (aka profitable ) practice

Not disputing that the point made IS relative, @Listlad

But if we don't look beyond what we do NOW, and find alternatives, all with their own issues,
then we just do nothing.
or in this case, simply move the deckchairs around on the titanic in the misguided idea we are doing 'something'

Because or all the efforts we do as individuals, are dwarfed by corporations and countries running rough shod over those ideals

So lets have ideas that are sensible, thought out and not just knee jerk reactions

Op reports about meat being demonised and we should all go veggie.

i love animals..and yes i eat the meat.
so does my wife ..and doesn't ...if she can.

But i always say to her, if we didn't use an animal horse, donkey etc.
would that farmer/owner just have it destroyed. ?

It costs money to look after a dairy herd or sheep.
once the profit margin goes, then will anyone still want to have them
will anyone still want to pay to feed them

and sure we'll still use them for milk..really.?

what if farmers decide that's not profitable?
then we are ALL back to almond milks etc..not entirely bad, but is that really best for us as a species?
and then we are into the Frankenfoods, to replace the stuff we have now in our diets and need..and be sure someone will make it,

Do not forget that they TOLD us the way we ate last year and since (1980 i believe) was the best we could hope for,
safe and nutritious and good for us.

Yet here we are
ALL on a forum about food that is killing us, trying desperately to find a way of eating that delays or stops the very foods they told us was good for us, destroying our bodies, bite by bite of the very foods THEY say we SHOULD eat.

and lets NOT forget the humongous obesity problem now and heading our way in the future, now add in the Tsunami many predict, ..the NFLD crisis, that predate that tsunami, that is currently running at 20% of the worlds population
THAT all tells me, we dabble with nature at our peril

is it entirely unlikely given the aforementioned, that we could, in years to come be taking our kids to a zoo to show them what a horse, cow, sheep looks like
or even worse..opening a web page with pictures..

i'm sure many are right... it is all terribly horribly.
but a measured response to an issue, something eminently practical, usually has the best outcome
and avoids the unintended consequences of drastic, actions not thought through to encompass every eventuality

is there a cost..sure.
but either way we or our kids will pay the price.
better to stand back and make wise decisions then rush forwards with what seems most cost effective
or popular right now.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

(Just been watching Hard Talk - Extinction Rebellion interview on the subject).

I think it goes back to what the OP @zand says. We over consume in the West and other countries are catching up with us. It has got to the point where what we have at our disposal to eat will be compromised if we don’t act now. The choice is ours to make about how we move on from here.

zand said:

Now we know why the Amazon rainforest is being deforested and planted with GMO Soy crops. It is not for animal feed since only chickens use it anyway, but to supply the new factories producing veggie burger products and tofu and tempeh etc. Funny how beyond meat do not discuss how soy isolate is made from GMO soy crops, or that barilla and Cargill are directly supporting Monsanto in Brazil where this year deforestation increased by 300% this year, but animal pasture did not increase at all.

Click to expand...

I suspect Beyond Meat doesn’t discuss soy isolate because they neither use soy, nor GMO crops.

The Impossible Burger is made from soy.

Diakat said:

But that has little to do with diet.

Click to expand...

In the context of the opening post it does.

Both methane and CO2 are greenhouse gases. Where the reduction in forestation fits in to the content of the opening post is that trees process CO2. That being the case, if we chop even more trees down for paper and cardboard then CO2 levels surrounding the planet go up and along with increased methane levels the onset of climate change becomes more likely. For those looking to reverse climate change, one (of a number) perceived solutions is to reduce livestock numbers impacting dietary choice for meat eaters. It’s all linked up really.

When you look at the composition of Global GHG it becomes clear that the emphasis on methane is misdirected and ignores the elephant in the room.

bulkbiker said:

When you look at the composition of Global GHG it becomes clear that the emphasis on methane is misdirected and ignores the elephant in the room.

View attachment 35032

Click to expand...

Could be, however methane is a lot more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. I wish it wasn’t but it is. (Factor of 84). Now rejig the pie chart.

Methane is 84 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2

bulkbiker said:

Well after human breeding, industry, air travel, road haulage, cars and many other things... but the poor old cows' burps always seem to get the blame.

Click to expand...

Just like diabetics for the nhs.
I don't see how the tabloids can be accurate when I've seen the workers asking where a toilet is after walking past it. Blinkers. Yes blinkered editor's.

Listlad said:

Could be, however methane is a lot more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. I wish it wasn’t but it is. (Factor of 34). Now rejig the pie chart.

Click to expand...

It also disappears after 12 years.. unlike CO2 which lasts for 100's..?