veganpizza69

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] veganpizza69 2 points 1 day ago

I don't disagree, I'm just pointing out that hydrogenated fat ("margarine") is a problem.

https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-021-01961-2/figures/1

Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios of total and cardiometabolic mortality for 1-tablespoon/day increment in cooking oil/fat consumption. Forest plots show the multivariable HRs of total (a) and cardiometabolic (b) mortality associated with 1-tablespoon/day increment in butter, margarine, corn oil, canola oil, and olive oil consumption. HRs were adjusted for age, sex, BMI, race, education, marital status, household income, smoking, alcohol, vigorous physical activity, usual activity at work, perceived health condition, history of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer at baseline, Healthy Eating Index-2015, total energy intake, and consumption of remaining oils where appropriate (butter, margarine, lard, corn oil, canola oil, olive oil, and other vegetable oils). Horizontal lines represent 95% CIs

[–] veganpizza69 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

are very energy dense food sources.

Doesn't mean that it's a good idea. When you feed food to food, you waste a lot of food. That's the meat, dairy and eggs industry. Conversion ratios vary, but they're terrible and, by the simple laws of physics, can't beat just eating plants.

universal purpose vegetable based butter

That is what did happen, but it turns out that hydrogenation causing trans fats isn't good for health. Fun fact: ruminant milk, especially from "grass fed", can contain up to 10% trans fats because the bacteria inside can do a natural hydrogenation too.

Vegetable oil is the best option for calories, but it's also boring, so the staples for food security have been: grain flour + vegetable oil + sugar.

Here's some relevant history: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/naval-blockade-of-germany/

and a more modern article tied to the same topic: https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/troy-vettese-do-not-let-them-eat-meat/

[–] veganpizza69 6 points 1 day ago

Don't talk about it, not even online.

[–] veganpizza69 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

Neither is meat or butter

[–] veganpizza69 6 points 1 day ago

The Venn diagram:

 
  • Los Angeles County health officials are investigating a case of three cats presumed to have H5N1 bird flu
  • County officials confirmed the disease in two other cats who drank recalled raw milk and died
22
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by veganpizza69 to c/vegan
 
  • Los Angeles County health officials are investigating a case of three cats presumed to have H5N1 bird flu
  • County officials confirmed the disease in two other cats who drank recalled raw milk and died

December 18, 2024

UPDATED: Confirmed H5 Bird Flu Detected in Los Angeles County Cats That Consumed Recalled Raw Milk - Public Health Investigating Additional Possible Cases in Cats http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/phcommon/public/media/mediapubhpdetail.cfm?prid=4908#:

[–] veganpizza69 1 points 2 days ago

Yeah. It's a small dilemma :)

3
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by veganpizza69 to c/capitalocene
[–] veganpizza69 6 points 2 days ago

And it's coming from inside the IMF house.

[–] veganpizza69 13 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Here's a fun one:

Neoliberalism: Oversold? -- Finance & Development, June 2016 https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm

Finance & Development, June 2016, Vol. 53, No. 2

Instead of delivering growth, some neoliberal policies have increased inequality, in turn jeopardizing durable expansion

Milton Friedman in 1982 hailed Chile as an “economic miracle.” Nearly a decade earlier, Chile had turned to policies that have since been widely emulated across the globe. The neoliberal agenda—a label used more by critics than by the architects of the policies—rests on two main planks. The first is increased competition—achieved through deregulation and the opening up of domestic markets, including financial markets, to foreign competition. The second is a smaller role for the state, achieved through privatization and limits on the ability of governments to run fiscal deficits and accumulate debt.­

[...]

•The benefits in terms of increased growth seem fairly difficult to establish when looking at a broad group of countries.­

•The costs in terms of increased inequality are prominent. Such costs epitomize the trade-off between the growth and equity effects of some aspects of the neoliberal agenda.­

•Increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth. Even if growth is the sole or main purpose of the neoliberal agenda, advocates of that agenda still need to pay attention to the distributional effects.­

[...]

Austerity policies not only generate substantial welfare costs due to supply-side channels, they also hurt demand—and thus worsen employment and unemployment. The notion that fiscal consolidations can be expansionary (that is, raise output and employment), in part by raising private sector confidence and investment, has been championed by, among others, Harvard economist Alberto Alesina in the academic world and by former European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet in the policy arena. However, in practice, episodes of fiscal consolidation have been followed, on average, by drops rather than by expansions in output. On average, a consolidation of 1 percent of GDP increases the long-term unemployment rate by 0.6 percentage point and raises by 1.5 percent within five years the Gini measure of income inequality (Ball and others, 2013).­

In sum, the benefits of some policies that are an important part of the neoliberal agenda appear to have been somewhat overplayed. In the case of financial openness, some capital flows, such as foreign direct investment, do appear to confer the benefits claimed for them. But for others, particularly short-term capital flows, the benefits to growth are difficult to reap, whereas the risks, in terms of greater volatility and increased risk of crisis, loom large.­

[...]

Moreover, since both openness and austerity are associated with increasing income inequality, this distributional effect sets up an adverse feedback loop. The increase in inequality engendered by financial openness and austerity might itself undercut growth, the very thing that the neoliberal agenda is intent on boosting. There is now strong evidence that inequality can significantly lower both the level and the durability of growth (Ostry, Berg, and Tsangarides, 2014).­

[–] veganpizza69 2 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Probably default search engine?

[–] veganpizza69 2 points 2 days ago

One of the reasons I've been boycotting imports from Türkiye for years.

[–] veganpizza69 2 points 2 days ago

Social media platforms inherently have a bias towards right-wing / reactionary bullshit. It's going to end in global tragedy.

 
 

This is more about growth and its folly in real time.

LONDON—One lesson from an unprecedented year of elections around the world is that voters in industrialized countries are particularly unhappy, ready to boot unpopular leaders out of office and making it more difficult for politicians in power to enact bold programs of change.

Rarely have the rich world’s political leaders been so widely disliked. No leader of an industrialized country other than tiny Switzerland has a positive rating, according to a survey of some 25 democracies by pollster Morning Consult. Ruling parties that went to the polls this year largely got a drubbing, including in the U.S. and U.K.

 

LONDON—One lesson from an unprecedented year of elections around the world is that voters in industrialized countries are particularly unhappy, ready to boot unpopular leaders out of office and making it more difficult for politicians in power to enact bold programs of change.

Rarely have the rich world’s political leaders been so widely disliked. No leader of an industrialized country other than tiny Switzerland has a positive rating, according to a survey of some 25 democracies by pollster Morning Consult. Ruling parties that went to the polls this year largely got a drubbing, including in the U.S. and U.K.

 

This whale’s death comes at an interesting time: Only a few weeks ago, researchers from Brown University published a new paper tracing the extensive links between offshore wind opponents, who have cast themselves as whale defenders, and the fossil fuel industry. The misinformation that “wind kills whales” hasn’t only been repeated by politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Donald Trump, or by Fox News—though these right-wingers are saying it a lot. Local wind project opponents, some of whom appear to have environmental values and commitments, have also made this argument in recent years.

“Beyond Dark Money,” published in Energy and Social Science in November, clarified the complicated status of these groups, which aren’t simply astroturf fronts for corporate interests; nor are they purely grassroots efforts. The researchers found that groups in southern New England opposing offshore wind were supported extensively by what the researchers called “information subsidies” from the fossil fuel industry. That means that the industry and its think tanks provide the groups with false narratives, misleading facts, and fake experts. These relationships have helped broaden the coalition opposing wind energy to include people concerned about the environment and many other citizens who wouldn’t normally find common ground with the fossil fuel industry.

“Wind power kills whales” is one of the fake stories generated by this network. One of the groups mentioned in the report, Save Right Whales, founded in 2021, warns on its home page, “They survived whaling, but right whales won’t survive wind energy.” On its home page, Save Right Whales doesn’t mention any threat to whales other than wind energy.

Beyond dark money: Information subsidies and complex networks of opposition to offshore wind on the U.S. East Coast

 

This whale’s death comes at an interesting time: Only a few weeks ago, researchers from Brown University published a new paper tracing the extensive links between offshore wind opponents, who have cast themselves as whale defenders, and the fossil fuel industry. The misinformation that “wind kills whales” hasn’t only been repeated by politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Donald Trump, or by Fox News—though these right-wingers are saying it a lot. Local wind project opponents, some of whom appear to have environmental values and commitments, have also made this argument in recent years.

“Beyond Dark Money,” published in Energy and Social Science in November, clarified the complicated status of these groups, which aren’t simply astroturf fronts for corporate interests; nor are they purely grassroots efforts. The researchers found that groups in southern New England opposing offshore wind were supported extensively by what the researchers called “information subsidies” from the fossil fuel industry. That means that the industry and its think tanks provide the groups with false narratives, misleading facts, and fake experts. These relationships have helped broaden the coalition opposing wind energy to include people concerned about the environment and many other citizens who wouldn’t normally find common ground with the fossil fuel industry.

“Wind power kills whales” is one of the fake stories generated by this network. One of the groups mentioned in the report, Save Right Whales, founded in 2021, warns on its home page, “They survived whaling, but right whales won’t survive wind energy.” On its home page, Save Right Whales doesn’t mention any threat to whales other than wind energy.

Beyond dark money: Information subsidies and complex networks of opposition to offshore wind on the U.S. East Coast

view more: next ›