Date: 2013-07-07 10:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] joshthevegan.livejournal.com
I've seen that second image many a-time, and it never ceases to irk me because it's so freaking true.

Date: 2013-07-08 12:17 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] iain666.livejournal.com
What's the "per x" on those federally recommended 26 servings?

The white sections compare "Sugar, Oil, Starch, Alcohol" to "Sugar, Oil, Salt" - not really like for like. Does the US government really think we don't need fibre anymore?

I am quite prepared to believe there is a lot of truth behind that second image but there's definitely some disingenuity (disingenuousness?) in the presentation.

Date: 2013-07-08 12:33 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] iain666.livejournal.com
Good point, I got that bit wrong. Everything else stands.

Date: 2013-07-08 12:47 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anfalicious.livejournal.com
I agree with the rest of it. Not to the point of dismissing the information, but whenever one sees something that's trying to say "X is worse than Y" yet they give two different stats or sources, it's prudent to be skeptical.

Date: 2013-07-08 12:47 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cindyanne1.livejournal.com
I just said to my husband, "Hey did you know meat and dairy producers get more subsidies than grain producers? (we produce grain.)" And he said, "Yep." So it wasn't news to him. It's not enough, apparently, to make us start producing meat vs. grain, but that less than 1% on the fruits and veggies is just pathetic.

Date: 2013-07-08 02:20 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] spamwarrior.livejournal.com
While it might be true, the value of the federal nutrition recommendations aren't actually that useful.

Date: 2013-07-08 08:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] joshthevegan.livejournal.com
Yeah, that portion of the image is a bit superfluous. The only purpose I can imagine it serves is to show the disconnect between what the government feels you should be eating, and what they are making it easier to eat.

Date: 2013-07-08 02:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] brother-dour.livejournal.com
True, indeed.

My problem is, quinoa does not taste like a steak. Fix that problem and I'm 100% on board with becoming a vegetarian!

Date: 2013-07-08 02:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] joshthevegan.livejournal.com
Maybe not quinoa, but I've had some "mwaty" tasting seitan before.

Date: 2013-07-09 03:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] brother-dour.livejournal.com
I was about to ask, because neither of those things sound the least bit appetizing O_O

Date: 2013-07-07 10:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hardblue.livejournal.com
I suppose advanced societies favor luxuries over necessities.

Date: 2013-07-08 02:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] brother-dour.livejournal.com
And the beef and dairy lobby is more powerful than the fruit and vegetable growers lobbies...

Date: 2013-07-07 11:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fizzyland.livejournal.com
We don't want infants learning a culture of dependency from birth so encouraging them to be bootstrappy by starving them and their parents is the thing to do.

/Republican logic
Edited Date: 2013-07-08 12:14 am (UTC)

Date: 2013-07-08 02:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] brother-dour.livejournal.com
Those damn bootstraps again. How much you willing to bet 99% of the GOP are about as bootstrappy as Paris Hilton?

Date: 2013-07-08 03:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ice-hesitant.livejournal.com
The nutrition people are in the pocket of the grain industry, while the subsidy people are in the pocket of the livestock industry.

Bah.

Profile

Political Cartoons

March 2023

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
121314151617 18
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 14th, 2025 02:22 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios