While it sounds contradictory, it’s very simple.

The small players like “family farms” can not compete with the big corporations. The strategy for the small players has shifted to more “added value labels” like organic, local, free range etc. That label allows them to justify, on the market, much higher prices for the product. In reality, it’s mostly bullshit, especially when it comes to animal farming.

Big players can also engage in this humanewashing and ethicswashing, but they don’t put enough effort in it and usually try to redefine the standards/regulations instead, which is easier. They basically give the game away, demonstrating that it’s bullshit.

Remember, welfarism is a dead end. Animal-welfare-labelled meat is not a stepping stone to animal-free diets: empirical evidence from a survey: Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy: Vol 14 , No 1 - Get Access.

Yes, it’s called projection.

https://www.shoesforsociety.de/

https://www.zouri-shoes.com/en/vegan-shoes/

The tofu is good. I’m not a fan of coconut oil (in yogurts and others).

The pollution stops when the production reduces dramatically.

They take the fascist hype about being a superior being very seriously. The biohacking and related activity is part of becoming that. It’s an embodiment of fascism, but, in effect, it’s the deeper commodification of the body’s systems; every cell, every hormone, every amino-acid, every calorie, all must become part of the life and death rat race competition (under capitalism). I think that the somewhat recent show, “INVINCIBLE”, presents the fitness story of that strain of fascism very clearly.

Fitness in of itself is part of the broader problem of mortal existence without meaning. Fascists give it their kind of meaning, the meaning of being super, even super-natural. You can find better meaning to bind to fitness if you try, just keep in mind that we live in a society which lives in an ecology.

No

For some context and counter-example: https://www.vegetology.com/blog/lanolin-and-vitamin-d

That’s like saying tapering off a drug addiction is a compromise compared to going cold turkey.

At least google “food addiction”.

Here’s some watching:

https://www.pcrm.org/news/exam-room-podcast/food-addiction-why-we-cant-stop-eating

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25xWdFYtt6w or the podcast page itself https://theproof.com/beating-food-addictions-dr-jud-brewer/

When you start with compromises like that, the failure is guaranteed, there is no “attempt”.

Considering the role of food as pleasure, this fear of big changes can backfire because people are addicted to food. It’s easier to succeed if you do a revolution in your kitchen instead of half-assed tiny changes that maintain “temptations”. It’s also much more satisfying to engage in something new, an adventure, and start to make progress in it (to accomplish things); the big change is its own reward, which helps to keep it going because you feel more agency, more capability.

This may be a new study, but it’s confirming what was known already.

Of course, CNN is trying to dilute the message and claim some magical middle ground:

“The goal shouldn’t be perfection but rather a healthy and sensible dietary pattern that allows room for enjoyment,” Kuhnle said.

From the abstract:

We conservatively estimated that—relative to zero consumption—consuming processed meat (at 0.6–57 g d−1) was associated with at least an 11% average increase in type 2 diabetes risk and a 7% (at 0.78–55 g d−1) increase in colorectal cancer risk. SSB intake (at 1.5–390 g d−1) was associated with at least an 8% average increase in type 2 diabetes risk and a 2% (at 0–365 g d−1) increase in IHD risk. TFA consumption (at 0.25–2.56% of daily energy intake) was associated with at least a 3% average increase in IHD risk.

emphasis added.

Eradicate the cow farming sector and the fly problem goes away.

quick calories: sweet fruits, dried fruits

slower calories: pretzels and crackers

better calories: a fresh fruit and a whole grain sandwich with some spread, some condiments, some leaves.

classic low effort: the mix of nuts and dried fruits (like raisins)

Nuts and seeds alone are obvious, but they also have a lot of calories and may not provide calories that fast, so you can end up overeating. That’s why I go for more starchy snacks from cereals, if any. Try to eat dense calories with more fiber, especially fat.

It also helps to have a bigger breakfast. Speaking of a nice porridge, there are all sorts of portable “oat bars” and similar things. Those can pack a lot of calories too, often too much. (You can make them at home, it’s not that difficult.) If you can’t find those, try looking for “work-out bars” that are plant-based.

And watch your weight. The need for snacks can be a sign that your breakfast was too small.

The Pale Blue Bean

Only applies to artists who can no longer enjoy the spoils.

Add the else branches to the nested version and log the failed conditions (to make it more obvious).

Not just land use. Arable land (not “marginal”) can be considered as an input to production, a variable in the outcome. It is not the only variable. As we’re talking about industrial agriculture, the other inputs are machinery, seeds, agrochemicals, and fuels (and labor if you want to count it here).

The animal farming sector competes on all these in one way or another, raising demand and pricing out poorer farmers around the world. This isn’t necessarily a rule, but it’s common and it matters; not all inputs are near scarcity. The most important one is probably fertilizers: Savings in fertilizer requirements from plant-based diets - ScienceDirect

Ex. from 2021 Global farmers facing fertiliser sticker shock may cut use, raising food security risks | Reuters

This is made worse by the fact that the rich “developed” countries dedicate a lot of resources to animal farming, including feed crops, and they bring in loads of ag. subsidies for that. Poorer countries can’t afford meaningful subsidies, so they can’t compete to buy the expensive inputs as easily. Effectively, subsidies for eating animals in rich countries translates, through the invisible hand of the global ag. inputs market, into food insecurity in poor countries. I’m not the first to point that out: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/0a8bd248-025d-49fd-99e2-d8ae972fa124/content

And marginal land competes with forests, wetlands, biodiversity. “Marginal land” is a poisoned concept: https://tabledebates.org/blog/marginal-lands-sustainable-food-systems-panacea-or-bunk-concept

Not really a challenge, the “climate friendly” idea is pseudoscience and creative accounting.

“modern pig production”

Chilean-born Marco Evaristti is courting controversy to make a point about the treatment of pigs in Denmark, where about 25,000 piglets die daily as a result of the conditions in which they are bred.

wait until Marco finds out that they are bred to be killed.

Farmers who grow feed can also switch to growing food.

Slaughterhouses… maybe they can switch to growing fungi.