this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
187 points (94.3% liked)

News

36063 readers
3198 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] witten@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The omega 6/3 thing about seed oils mentioned in the article is real. It can be a big cause of inflammation. Plus, seed oils often have pretty toxic extraction procedures, especially for the cheap stuff.

But tallow and animal fats aren't the solution. Olive oil is. And I guess avocado oil if you need something more neutral and/or with a higher smoke point.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Olive oil doesn't scale to match anything near current human consumption — a big chunk of what's sold as olive oil is already counterfeit.

[–] witten@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't quite follow. You're saying that because not everyone can feasibly partake in healthier food, nobody should? Also, the current economic realities around certain food items aren't fixed in stone. Taxes, tariffs, regulations, and all sorts of other policy levers can make big changes to the market.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No, I'm saying that it isn't possible significantly shift peoples' diets to olive oil from other fats and oils because olive oil consumption is supply-constrained.

[–] witten@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Okay.. But it's still a healthier solution than vegetable oil or tallow for the portion of the population that can be supplied with it, right?

[–] JeremyHuntQW12@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Olives, canola and soy beans are all the same thing - they are all fruits not seeds.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 6 points 1 year ago

Canola is rapeseed

[–] Makhno@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Please share your proof of any negatives of seed oil, because it's bullshit

[–] witten@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] witten@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't know about avocado oil, but you're not going to be able to solve America's love of deep fried food with olive oil both due to the cost and due to the practicality.

[–] witten@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, olive oil is not for deep frying. But maybe Americans shouldn't be having quite as much fried food? (I say this as someone who just had fried food for dinner.)

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree, but switching people to less unhealthy frying oil is easier than stopping them from eating so much fried food.

[–] witten@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As I mentioned in another comment, today's food economics are not written in stone. There are all sorts of tax and subsidy levers in the public policy toolbox. One reason, say, soybeans and soybean oil are so cheap in the U.S. today is farm subsidies.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But humans being drawn to fatty and sugary foods is written into our DNA. Unless you find some way to ban fried food, people are still going to eat it. A lot. You would need a massive cultural shift away from fatty and sugary foods and that would take more than taxes and subsidies because things like fried chicken and waffles are now considered part of someone's culture.

https://50kitchen.com/culinary-history-chicken-and-waffles/

[–] witten@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's about frequency and quantity. Sure, people will always have a taste for unhealthy food. But until sugar/corn was massively subsidized in the U.S., people didn't eat nearly as much sweet junk. It took a massive cultural shift to get to where we are today. Massive cultural shifts happen.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It sure would take a massive cultural shift for black people to give up a lot of soul food staples since, again, it's a big part of their culture.

And I have no idea why you think less subsidies would make people who make soul food eat less fried food. They were eating fried food when they had to make it with pig fat and had no choice and they're still making it now, often still with pig fat. Subsidies are not involved.

I think you need to do a little exploration into soul food and also how important it is. This is a lot bigger than just "we need to stop eating this stuff, it's unhealthy."

[–] witten@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In regards to subsidies, I was talking specifically about sweets, not fried food. Did you know that ~20% of calories in the American diet are from corn syrup? It's an epidemic, and it's in large part due to subsidies. People aren't going to lose their sweet tooth, but they'd buy soda less often if it wasn't so heavily subsidized.

As for fried food, granted, it's a huge part of many cultures. But the fries at McDonalds aren't. And taxes, for instance, are a real lever that can impact how often and how much certain foods are consumed.

Let me ask you something. Do you consider yourself a progressive? If so, why are you so convinced progress in certain areas is impossible?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, I consider myself a realist.

[–] witten@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago