> grass fed, free range... Because agribusiness doesn't make money with those.

Agribusiness absolutely makes money off of those. In fact they had a hilariously easy time adapting to the consumer trend because 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. The first two stages, rearing and pasturing, didn’t change because they were already “free range” and “grass fed”. Half of the farmland in the US is pastureland and leaving animals in the field to eat grass was always the cheapest way to rear and grow them. They only really get fed corn and other food at the end to fatten them up for human consumption.

The dirty not-so-secret is that free range/grass fed cows eat almost the exact same diet as regular cows, they just eat a little more grass because they’re in the field more during finishing. They’re still walking up to troughs of feed, because otherwise the beef would be unpalatable and grow quite slower.

True grass fed beef is generally called “grass finished” beef and it’s unregulated so you won’t find it at a supermarket. They taste gamier and usually have a metallic tang that I quite honestly doubt would ever be very popular. The marbling is also noticeably different and less consistent. Grain finished beef became popular in the 1800s and consumers in the West have strongly preferred it since.

I’m not sure you can even find a cow in the entire world that isn’t “grass fed”. Calves need the grass for their gut microbiomes to develop properly.

> Here's some things you won't find in any of the documents, including the PDFs at the bottom: community gardens, local food, farmers markets, grass fed, free range... Because agribusiness doesn't make money with those.

Are those relevant to addressing America's national diet deficiencies? None of them are currently anywhere big enough to make a practical difference to most people.

Also most of the health problems with what people eat are from what foods they eat and how much they eat rather than from not choosing the highest quality of those particular foods. E.g., someone might snack often on candy. If they can be convinced to switch to snacking on fruit it doesn't really matter much if they get that fruit from Safeway or a farmer's market. Maybe the farmer's market fruit is healthier for them than the Safeway fruit but the difference will be tiny compared to the gains from switching from candy to fruit.

No reason to believe their numbers either given the shenanigans they have engaged in.

We need to be smart and not knee jerk into feel good memes though. Local gardens and community gardens have higher resource use per acre than large farm ops. Commercial farm infrastructure is far more resilient and lasts longer while consumer gardening gear is cheap and disposable. Consumer gardening gear manufacturers factories burn tons of resources to crank out tons of low quality kit, consumers burn through piles of it. That's not sustainable either.

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

Americans need to find common ground on the path forward not fragment into tens of millions of little resource intensive potato farmers

It's crazy how people are incapable of seeing something positive in the actions of the tribe they don't belong to.

> "grass fed, free range... Because agribusiness doesn't make money with those."

They actually make a considerable amount on those last two items, taking advantage of those who want to consume meat more ethically.

(Though, in reality, "grass fed" and "free range" are both misleading terms, and none of the meat on offer is likely to be humane.)

> community gardens, local food, farmers markets, grass fed, free range

How are these connected to nutrition? The difference in nutrition between a local banana and a non-local banana is ... zero?

When I saw that protein target, I knew there must be shenanigans… 0.5-0.7g per pound is within the range that BODY BUILDERS target for maximum hypertrophy (1g/lb is a myth that wastes peoples money). Eating 4-5 chicken breasts per day is ridiculous for a normal person.

IDK man, this sounds pretty common sense:

>Eating real food means choosing foods that are whole or minimally processed and recognizable as food. These foods are prepared with few ingredients and without added sugars, industrial oils, artificial flavors, or preservatives.

I was wondering why meat and veg were side by side, rather than vegetables being at the base. The new pyramid is still better than the old one, but not completely intellectually honest...

Might be corrupt, but is at least closer to truth then the last corrupted version. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of progress

I fail to see the significance of your link to a group that opposes animal experimentation asking RFK Jr to reduce animal experimentation. Did you paste the wrong URL For the first link?

The linked PDFs on realfood.gov transparently cite the industry ties of all the doctors and PhDs involved in long descriptions next to each of their names and readers can decide for themselves if such is "corrupt as hell". PR pieces are an inferential distraction.

Isn't every single policy a result of some kind of lobby group? Are you saying that it's corrupt because it's been influenced by a lobby group? Would all policies then be corrupt to some degree? Or is it corrupt because you disagree with the lobby group?

The irony is Tyson's is an absolutely horrendous organization and ruins food left and right. Not to mention the absurd living conditions for the animals they feed us.

You probably can't change politics, but you can use them for a good end.

RFK is a retarded public health menace but him saying high protein low carb/low fat diet is generally good isn't retarded and only fat fricks would get mad about it

The original food pyramid was based on a world crafted by calory deficit and worked for it's time, but in a life of excess it causes mass obesity which is partly why americans are so fricking fat.

Did you mistakenly mean to reference Canada's highly corrupt as hell food guide?

https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/

Ctrl+F'd and didn't see any of those words mentioned a single time either. What a corrupt country Canada is.

Right off the bat, "prioritizing protein" is already smelling.

cmon, this is just stupid

the "industry" obviously makes much more money on "highly processed" and branded foods - more intermediaries, more profits & margins

literally everyone can compete freely in the "whole unprocessed foods" market, and the only real differentiating factors will be quality & taste (as it should be)

Is lobbying the same as corruption?

Would you say the same thing about the covid vaccination campaigns during the Biden administration? Because billions of dollars were poured into those as well, with record profits for big pharma.

>Tyson foods and other meatpacking companies lobbied and funded RFK.

So? They are fighting fire with fire.

Or should sugar,casino and tobacco industries have all the lobbying

Also this doesn't surpass the minimal threshold for being shocked anymore, there's more critical shit going on, I can't be here being outraged at checks notes meat companies pushing that meat is healthy

[dead]

In capitalism you kinda are supposed to make money by providing good value in most of the case.

The fact that people lobby to make more money from good food rather than sugar/fat crap is a good thing not a bad one