Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Another take on EAT-Lancet

  1. #1

    Default Another take on EAT-Lancet

    Not sure if this has already been posted, but I thought this was an interesting read.

    https://www.greenbiz.com/article/inc...ry-health-diet

  2. #2

    Default

    Good find!

    I'll bookmark that for later!
    The worst bigots in the world are those who most loudly proclaim their ‘tolerance’

  3. #3
    Super Member Mamie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Village in rural Lancashire
    Posts
    12,136

    Default

    Thanks for that. I've read the first bit but need to get on. I'll try and finish later.

  4. #4
    Super Member roseymary's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    12,193

    Default

    Thank, there doesn't seem to be one report in favour of Eat lancet.
    One is too many a thousand not enough.

  5. #5

    Default

    Thank you R_P, that was an interesting read.

    You are right RM about there being no positive responses, but I suspect that those who agree with it think the EAT Lancet report has said everything which needs to be said. Along with many of my generation, I read "Diet for a Small Planet" when it was published (around 1976) and much of the thinking in the EAT Lancet report seems to follow on from that. It is as if the commissioners who wrote the report have learnt nothing from epidemiology in the last 50 years. The nay-sayers are always going to be more vocal and louder, and it just so happens that I agree with their points of view in this case.
    Gilli - DLTBGYD

  6. #6
    Club Member grumbleweed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    a city in the West Country
    Posts
    11,005

    Default


    Quote Originally Posted by Gilli View Post
    Thank you R_P, that was an interesting read.

    You are right RM about there being no positive responses, but I suspect that those who agree with it think the EAT Lancet report has said everything which needs to be said. Along with many of my generation, I read "Diet for a Small Planet" when it was published (around 1976) and much of the thinking in the EAT Lancet report seems to follow on from that. It is as if the commissioners who wrote the report have learnt nothing from epidemiology in the last 50 years. The nay-sayers are always going to be more vocal and louder, and it just so happens that I agree with their points of view in this case.
    I can remember deliberately not reading Diet for a Small Planet because it emphasised meat free eating...though my hippie-self was sorely tempted.
    Dear Stomach,you are bored,not hungry. So shut up.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO