Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related

3411 readers

93 users here now

Health: physical and mental, individual and public.

Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.

See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.

Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.

Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.

Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.

Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

131

Don't call me vegan: People more likely to go meatless if food labelled 'sustainable' instead (news.sky.com)

submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Researchers said changing packaging on meat and dairy-free products, which often proudly tout their vegan status, could result in more people selecting them.

People are more likely to pick a meat-free option if it's not labelled vegan, a study suggests.

Foods described as "healthy", "sustainable" or "plant-based" are all more appealing, according to the University of Southern California.

Its research saw more than 7,000 people asked to choose between a vegan food basket and one with meat and dairy.

The former was randomly labelled "vegan", "plant-based", "healthy", "sustainable" or "healthy and sustainable".

The experiment found people were more likely to select it when the focus was on its benefits (such as "sustainable") rather than its content, though "plant-based" was still more popular than "vegan".

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

We can't do both, choose one

A) Have a massive global population of 8 billion plus

B) Have meat is a common food

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

False dichotomy.

There's a number of other alternatives:

reduction in global population has already been mentioned, but there's also technology change (industrialised farming has kept us well ahead of the "we can't feed that many people" curve for a century);

and technology advances in what we eat (lab grown meat etc);

there are also unexploited sources of protein such as insects.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago

Just because we can figure out clever ways to feed huge numbers doesn't mean the planet's other systems can handle it. It doesn't mean we can thrive.

And uh, insects? no It's not our responsibility to live ever more densely and efficiently to maximize human numbers. It's the psychopathic hoarders and their favorite tool capitalism that is the driver for our population explosion, more people means more to produce for them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

what are pros of +8 billion humans?

Edit: let's also say, >three billions humans

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

what are pros of +8 billion humans?

None, at least nothing worth the damage caused and what has to be given up to make it sustainable. It's not our duty to maximize human numbers.

I think we need to shrink down to sustainable numbers, if we don't do it wisely and compassionately via degrowth, it will happen with fascism or nature will take care of it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

oh for a moment I thought there was an upside. completely agree.

meat isn't the issue, it's humans in numbers >3 billions.