“We observed that rats fed a cafeteria diet for 2 weeks showed impaired sensory-specific satiety following consumption of a high calorie solution. The deficit in expression of sensory-specific satiety was also present 1 week following the withdrawal of cafeteria foods. Thus, exposure to obesogenic diets may impact upon neurocircuitry involved in motivated control of behavior.”

You may already know that junk food is bad for your health, but you may not realize how bad it can be. A new study from the School of Medical Sciences at Australia’s University of New South Wales points to profound brain changes that junk food causes, making a junk food habit “more deadly than war, famine, and genocide”.

“sensory-specific satiety,” the consumption of junk food overrides this natural ‘kill’ switch that allows us to regulate the calories we consume.

Junk food consumption also causes mitochondrial dysfunction and tissue inflammation, which leads to a host of other diseases. Perhaps most troubling, though, is that these fake foods also mess with our internal motivation and reward system – which causes us to seek more nutrition-less junk. It’s like programming a time bomb and just waiting for it to blow.

Here Is What Happened In The Study

In the UNSW study, rats were fed a standard junk food diet, complete with cookies, cakes, biscuits, and other junk foods for two weeks. Another group of rats were fed a ‘standard lab chow’ diet. They were then observed under Pavlovian conditions, when a sound cue informed the rats it was time for their next serving. You can guess what happened.

The ‘junk-food rats’ ate until they were glutinously full, obese, and ill, and the ‘healthy –diet rats’ stopped eating naturally – when they were full, and not over-stuffed.

What’s most interesting though is what happened to the ‘junk food rats’ once they were returned to a normal diet. They still had the tendency to overeat. Their brains were literally trained to eat too much, and held that habit even after environmental factors were changed.

Dr. Amy Reichelt, lead author of the UNSW study says:

“As the global obesity epidemic intensifies, advertisements may have a greater effect on people who are overweight and make snacks like chocolate bars harder to resist.”


LINK





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2015 12:41PM by coconutcream.

That explains why my cooked partner loves to fight with me

coconutcream Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> A new study from the School of Medical
> Sciences at Australia’s University of New South
> Wales points to profound brain changes that junk
> food causes, making a junk food habit “more
> deadly than war, famine, and genocide”.


But nothing is more deadly than Man-Made Global Warming - even junk food

COmmon sense raw ahhaha

Lois really? People still believe in global warming?





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2015 08:24AM by coconutcream.

THIS TRIPLE BLIND, PEER REVIEWED STUDY WAS RECENTLY COMPLETED. IT IS "THE FINAL WORD ON NUTRITION".




For those of you who watch what you eat, here's the final word on nutrition
and health. It's a relief to know the truth after all those conflicting medical studies:

1. The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the
Americans, Australians, British, or Canadians.

2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat and also suffer fewer heart attacks than
the Americans, Australians, British, or Canadians.

3. The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks
than the Americans, Australians, British, or Canadians.

4. The Italians drink large amounts of red wine and also suffer fewer heart
attacks than the Americans, Australians, British, or Canadians.

5. The Germans drink a lot of beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and
suffer fewer heart attacks than the Americans,Australians, British, or Canadians.

6. Ukrainians drink a lot of vodka, eat a lot of perogies, cabbage rolls and
suffer fewer heart attacks than the Americans, Australians, British, or Canadians.

CONCLUSION: Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is what kills you.

coconutcream Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COmmon sense raw ahhaha
>
> Lois really? People still believe in global
> warming?

To me the media have been told to mainly allow the scientists to express these pro climate change views on man made global warming, and they have done a great job at convincing the public that these things are a threat. Apparently most scientists don't agree with the view that is pushed by the media...was supposed to have 6,000 Ph D's in climate change science disagree, but the media love to tell us that 98% of scientists say global warming is largely manmade. Apparently most scientists don't agree, but they don't get a voice.

Me think it is a one world government communist agenda, and Mr Gore is it's poster boy. They want to knock out all small - medium farms and have the big boys run things, preferrably GM foods, + knock out as much small - medium business as possible why they are at it. Various countries are starting to wake up to the nonsense, but the U.S is well gone on this issue..they have a serious agenda to play in our ensalvement and destruction of business. As l said...knock out the small players and have large business run things so only a few run the show...easier to rule over us that way.

Can't prove any of this, but those are my thoughts on the issue.

btw, world leaders don't care about the planet and the people living on it, so don't be fooled by their nonsense.

www.thesproutarian.com



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2015 10:42AM by The Sproutarian Man.

Are we saying that the destruction of the forests, the pollution of the waters and seas, the dumping of plastic in the lands and seas have NO CONSEQUENCES ??????
You do not need to ask the scientists, the local farmers know that the land does not yield the same crops.
It is like saying if I punch you in the face it will not hurt.
[iipdigital.usembassy.gov]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2015 10:48AM by RawPracticalist.

The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> coconutcream Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > COmmon sense raw ahhaha
> >
> > Lois really? People still believe in global
> > warming?
>
> To me the media have been told to mainly allow the
> scientists to express these pro climate change
> views on man made global warming, and they have
> done a great job at convincing the public that
> these things are a threat. Apparently most
> scientists don't agree with the view that is
> pushed by the media...was supposed to have 6,000
> Ph D's in climate change science disagree, but the
> media love to tell us that 98% of scientists say
> global warming is largely manmade. Apparently most
> scientists don't agree, but they don't get a
> voice.
>
> Me think it is a one world government communist
> agenda, and Mr Gore is it's poster boy. They want
> to knock out all small - medium farms and have the
> big boys run things, preferrably GM foods, + knock
> out as much small - medium business as possible
> why they are at it. Various countries are starting
> to wake up to the nonsense, but the U.S is well
> gone on this issue..they have a serious agenda to
> play in our ensalvement and destruction of
> business. As l said...knock out the small players
> and have large business run things so only a few
> run the show...easier to rule over us that way.
>
> Can't prove any of this, but those are my thoughts
> on the issue.
>
> btw, world leaders don't care about the planet and
> the people living on it, so don't be fooled by
> their nonsense.

I agree. Total new world order scam. Doubter's might want to start their quest for the truth by checking out Al Gore's energy inefficient gigantic humble abode.

"Climate is the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years."

The Alarmists should have stuck with "Global Warming" because if the earth is in a warming trend, they could say it's affected by Man and no-one could prove otherwise. But by changing the language to "Climate Change", they are stating that Man's activities affect not only all aspects of Weather, but the Change itself, and that's not reasonable. In other words, "Man-Made Global Warming" only affects the Temperature, whereas "Man-Made Climate Change" means Man affects everything weather-related - the Temperature, the Wind, the Precipitation, the Sunshine, the Clouds, the Air Pressure and the Humidity - and Man also causes 'Changing' of all these aspects of Climate, which is too preposterous to be taken seriously.

It's like a kid bragging - "My mom is psychic" as opposed to "My mom is God." One is believable, the other is not. Man does not affect everything connected to Climate on Earth.

Therefore, "Man-Made Climate Change" is a Joke and endless fun to debate.

RawPracticalist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Are we saying that the destruction of the forests,
> the pollution of the waters and seas, the dumping
> of plastic in the lands and seas have NO
> CONSEQUENCES ??????


No, we're not. Strawman * Whoever said that? We're saying there's no such thing as " 'Man-Made' Climate Change".


> You do not need to ask the scientists, the local
> farmers know that the land does not yield the same
> crops.


That's because Geoengineering By the Global Warming Alarmists is screwing everything up - it's killing our underbrush in the mountains over the last few years; you can see through the flora in the winter like never before.


> It is like saying if I punch you in the face it
> will not hurt.


No, it's like saying if I punch you in the face, it will not affect the climate.


> [iipdigital.usembassy.gov]
> /2011/05/20110524121919nirak0.5654718.html?distid=
> ucs#axzz3SHUApl8d


That article is interesting and makes a point, but at the point where it says, -

"the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the oceans to warm and oxygen-producing plankton to die."

it's incorrect because it's been proven that Greenhouse Gas Emissions do not affect the Climate.

That article does not prove that "Man-Made Climate Change" Is a Thing (There's no such thing).

* [www.google.com]

**********

Yes, "Man" is totally screwing up the environment and the planet, but is not causing Climate Change.

Lots of concerns about all the trees being cut down and pollution, but it doesn't seem to be causing man made global warming.

One spiritual master says beings created global warming on Mars and Venus which wiped out the surface of both of those planets long ago, but maybe there is more to the story behind those reasons. I do not see any evidence that carbon dioxide is causing warming. Actually, l recall it being hotter when l was young.

Here is a good video which talks about the global warming hoax:

The Great Global Warming Swindle
[www.youtube.com]


And we know from experience that when the media and world leaders jump of the band wagon and try to persuade us slaves of something, a dead rat can nearly always be smelt. That lot (media/world leaders) are definitely up to something...they are trying too hard with fluff talk without any hard evidence. Their claims are not making sense.

I used to be a big supporter of the global warming theories before l started thinking for myself.

www.thesproutarian.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2015 06:44AM by The Sproutarian Man.

The idea that man made destruction of the ecosystem, of land, sea has no effect on the climate is totally irresponsible.

It is like people who in spite all of the scientific proofs keep believing that the earth is flat.

There youtube videos of those who believe that the earth is flat. But it does not make so.

I was born in the jungle of africa, when you go back there, the pristine forests are gone, the land is dry, there is almost no rain, the country has to import rice from China. The destruction of the forest has no consequence?

Just because we cannot see life as we know on Venus does not mean it does not exist. It is on another dimension, like in the Sun and many other planets.

RawPracticalist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The idea that man made destruction of the
> ecosystem, of land, sea has no effect on the
> climate is totally irresponsible.


Those things are not necessarily tied in with manmade global warming. Please watch the video.

Of course destruction of those things is not good.

RawPracticalist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The destruction of
> the forest has no consequence?


Of course it does, HUGE consequences, but no evidence that it is leading to global warming. Half the world's forest is said to be gone, but hardly any change in temperitures.

Please watch the video.

To be fair, I watched the video.

Their main argument is that there were periods in the history of the earth where there earth was warmer than today.

What the fail to explain is what are the consequences of man made actions like deforestation, industrial growth and pollution? Maybe they should be cooling the earth?

For me you do not need a science degree to observe the change of climate from deforestation, you just have to go the areas where this is happening, you will observe dry land,less rain, and a hotter temperature.

RawPracticalist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To be fair, I watched the video.
>
> Their main argument is that there were periods in
> the history of the earth where there earth was
> warmer than today.


Their arguments extent further than that. Did you watch it all or only some of it?

It was a long video, I watched it all.
They have some good points. It may be difficult to prove scientifically given the long history of the earth, the changing climates of the earth.
But within a span of 30 years if we witness so many changes in temperature should not that raise some concerns, should we wait that the proofs become so overwhelming and then too late.



Or should we say the ice is melting in the poles, the seas are rising, coastal cities being submerged by rising tides, the temperature is hotter but that is ok because there is no way to prove it is man made and the earth has gone thru such periods in the past. When the earth was going thru those periods there were no humans interfering.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2015 01:07PM by RawPracticalist.

Good on you RawPracticalist. In my opinion, this boat needs some rocking.

From the Vegetarian Nutrition Dietary Practice Group, here is some "evidence-based research that documents the beneficial role of plant-based diets in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, resource consumption, and environmental degradation..."

[vndpg.org]

Overview

"Climate change refers to variations in the climate attributed to human activity that alters the global atmosphere.(1) Scientific data demonstrates that human activity over the past 100 years has generated increased levels of greenhouse gas emissions effecting our atmosphere and ecosystems.(2) While greenhouse gas emissions climb and the planet continues to warm,(3-5) climate change has created unprecedented challenges such as food insecurity, extreme weather events, drought, the acidification of the ocean, increased wildfire frequency, displacement, and numerous other public health problems such as air quality deterioration, etc.(6-8) Additionally, climate change is an overarching social justice, environmental justice, and human rights issue (9-10) Because of the observed effects of climate change, scientists express a heightened sense of urgency in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to restore and balance the climate systems.(6) With ecosystems in decline and resource consumption outpacing biocapacity,(11) actions to mitigate climate change and restore planetary health are imperative.

Dietary modification remains an important but underutilized entity in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, i.e., reductions in meat and dairy consumption are considered instrumental in achieving reduced greenhouse gas emission goals.(12-13) ...

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The landmark publication Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options drew attention to the global environmental impact of the livestock industry. The livestock industry not only emits large amounts of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide that contribute to climate change, but emits other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide that have greater warming potential than carbon dioxide.(14) Additionally, recent studies have found that methane emissions from livestock in the United States (U.S.) have been underestimated,(15-16) with methane emissions from livestock 70% greater than that of oil and gas emissions.(16) Even using conservative estimates, the livestock sector could exceed our “safe atmospheric operating space” by the year 2050.(17) That is, the projected increased production of meat, milk, and eggs may surpass proposed biophysical boundaries.(17) Substituting legumes to satisfy protein needs in this scenario would create outcomes that substantially minimize risk to the atmosphere.(17)

Environmental Degradation

Globally, livestock are associated with numerous environmental burdens including land degradation and erosion, deforestation, the acidification of ecosystems, the loss of biodiversity, increased water use, and water pollution due to animal waste.(14) Additionally, hormone, antibiotic, chemical, and pesticide applications further add to ecosystem degradation— not to mention “dead zones”.(14) A comprehensive study of industrial farm animal production in the U.S. concluded that, “The present system of producing food
animals in the United States is not sustainable and presents an unacceptable level of risk to public health and damage to the environment...”.(18) Aquaculture, overfishing, and the anthropogenic contamination of fish in our waterways from substances such as methyl mercury also pose environmental concerns.(19-21)

Reduced Emissions and Resource Use with Plant-Based Diets

Numerous studies document the beneficial role of plant-based diets in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, resource consumption, and environmental degradation. While this area of research is evolving, studies generally find that plant-based foods (with some exceptions) require less energy to produce and generate fewer greenhouse gas emissions than animal foods.(22-28)

Agricultural practices within the Mississippi River Basin contribute to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.(28) An important study found that shifting production in the area away from beef and pork to producing a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet or a vegetable protein-based diet could result in impressive reductions in land and chemical use—with the plant-based diet offering the greatest reductions.(28) Such changes could mitigate hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico dead zone. However, it should be noted that decreasing animal product consumption does correspond with decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and other benefits to the natural environment.

A Swedish study of 22 foods and their respective energy use and greenhouse gas emissions found that the higher the protein content of the plant-based food,
the lower the greenhouse gas emissions and the more energy-efficient the food was. The opposite was true for animal foods.(25) In another study of 84 common foods in Sweden, the protein delivery efficiency was highest among plant foods while greenhouse gas emissions were lowest. As an example, eating soybeans as the main protein source for a meal generated far fewer greenhouse gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (0.23 kg) than serving pork (0.94 kg) or beef (3.0 kg), respectively.(24)

A recent study of several dietary patterns consumed by participants of the EPIC-Oxford study in the United Kingdom (UK) found that eating more than 100 grams (~1/2 cup) of meat daily generated 2.5 times the greenhouse gas emissions as the vegan diet when analyzing for a 2,000 calorie per day intake.(29) Using environmental impact indicators such as greenhouse gas emissions, air acidification, and freshwater eutrophication (an excessive amount of
anthropogenic-induced nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphate that contributes to conditions such as hypoxia and algal blooms),(30) a recent analysis of the French diet found that the environmental impact was highest for animal products such as meat, fish, eggs, and dairy products.(31) Eutrophication and greenhouse gas emissions were highest for ruminants while
eutrophication alone was highest for pork, poultry, and eggs. Conversely, starchy foods (grains, beans, potatoes) and fruits and vegetables had the lowest environmental impact.

An analysis of 61 food categories and their related embodied greenhouse gas emissions in the UK found that meat and dairy products generally had the highest carbon intensities, whereas fruits and vegetables that had not been air-freighted or grown with artificial heat had the lowest emissions.(32) Additionally, switching from a typical UK omnivorous diet to a vegetarian or a vegan diet could decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 22% to 26%, respectively. Researchers analyzing data from the Adventist Health Study-2 cohort in North America found that carbon dioxide equivalents were significantly lower for RD Resources for Professionals: Plant-Based Diets in Climate Change Mitigation and Resource Conservation semi-vegetarian and vegetarian diets compared to non-vegetarian diets.(33) With regard to the agricultural inputs of water, pesticide, and energy use in the state of California, non-vegetarian diets used 2.9 times the water, 2.5 times more energy, 13 times more fertilizer, and 1.4 times more pesticides than vegetarian diets.(34)

Lastly, foods of plant origin generally have smaller water footprints than animal products. Milk, eggs, and chicken utilize 1.5 times the water per gram of protein than pulses (dried legumes) while beef uses 6 times the water.(35) Substituting plant-foods such as pulses and nuts for meat would decrease the average U.S. food-related water footprint by 30%.(35)

Written by: Irana W. Hawkins, PhD, MPH, RD

References
1. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Article
1, Definitions. [unfccc.int]
background/items/2536.php. Retrieved October 25, 2014.
2. Melillo JM, Richmond TC, Yohe GW, Eds,: Climate Change Impacts in
the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global
Change Research Program, 2014, 841 pp. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.
3. Le Quéré C, Moriarty R, Andrew RM, et al. Global carbon budget 2014.
Earth Syst Sci Data Discuss. 2014;7:521–610, 2014.
4. Friedlingstein P, Andrew RM, Rogelj, J et al. Persistent growth of CO2
emissions and implications for reaching climate targets. Nat Geosci.
2014; 7:709-715.
5. World Meteorological Association. WMO Statement on the Status of the
Global Climate in 2013. Geneva, Switzerland; 2014.
6. Hansen, J, Kharecha, K, Sato, M, et al. Assessing ‘‘dangerous climate
change’’: required reduction of carbon emissions to protect young
people, future generations and nature. PLoS One. 2013;8(12): e81648-
e81648.
7. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field CB, Barros VR,
Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE et al., (eds.)]. Climate
Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global
and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press: United Kingdom and New York: USA; 2014.
8. Solomon S, Plattner G, Knutti R, Friedlingstein P. Irreversible climate
change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.
2009;106(6):1704-1709.
9. Adger WN, Barnett J, Chapin FS, Ellemor H. This must be the place:
Underrepresentation of identity and meaning in climate change
decision-making. Glob Environ Polit. 2011;11(2):1-25.
10. United Nations. Millenium Development Goals Report 2010. New York,
United States; 2010.
11. World Wildlife Fund. Living Planet Report 2012: Biodiversity, Biocapacity
and Better Choices. Gland, Switzerland 2012.
12. Hedenus F, Wirsenius S, Johansson DJA. The importance of reduced
meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change
targets. Clim Change. 2014;124:79–91.
13. Davidson EA. Representative concentration pathways and mitigation
scenarios for nitrous oxide. Environ Res Lett. 2012;7:doi:10.1088/1748-
9326/7/2/024005.
14. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar R, Castel V, Rosales M, deHaan C.
Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Rome, Italy:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2006.
15. Miller SM, Wofsya SC, Michalak AM, et al. Anthropogenic emissions
of methane in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.
2013;110(50):20018-20022.
16. Wecht KJ, Jacob DJ, Frankenberg C, Jiang Z, and Blake DR.
Mapping of North American methane emissions with high spatial
resolution by inversion of SCIAMACHY satellite data. J Geophys Res
Atmos.2014;119:7741–7756
17. Pelletier N, Tyedmers P. Forecasting potential global environmental
costs of livestock production 2000-2050. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.
2010;107(43):18371-18374.
18. The Pew Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School
of Public Health. Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal
Production in America. A Report of the Pew Commission on Industrial
Farm Animal Production; 2008.
19. Mansfield B. Is fish health food or poison? Farmed fish and the material
production of un/healthy nature. Antipode. 2011;43(2):413-434.
20. Jacquet J, Hocevar J, Lai S, Majluf P, Pelletier N, Pitcher T et al.
(2010). Conserving wild fish in a sea of market-based efforts. Oryx.
2010;44(1):45-56.
21. Mergler D, Anderson HA, & Chan LHM, et al. Methylmercury exposure
and health effects in humans: A worldwide concern. Ambio.
2007;36(1):3-11.
22. Stehfast E, Bouwman L, vanVuuren DP, denElzen MGJ, Eickhout B, Kabat
P. Climate benefits of changing diet. Clim Change. 2009;95:83-102.
23. Baroni L, Cenci L, Tettamanti M, Berati M. Evaluating the environmental
impact of various dietary patterns combined with different food
production systems. Eur J ClinNutr. 2007;61:279-286.
24. González AD, Frostell B, Carlsson-Kanyama A. Protein efficiency
per unit energy and per unit greenhouse gas emissions: Potential
contribution of diet choices to climate change mitigation. Food Policy.
2011;36(5):562-570.
25. Carlsson-Kanyama A, Gonzalez AD. Potential contributions of food
consumption patterns to climate change. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;
89(5):1704S-1709.
26. Weber CL, Matthews HS. (2008). Food-miles and the relative climate
impacts of food choices in the United States. Environ Sci Technol.
2008;42(10):3508-3513.
27. Eshel G, Martin PA. Diet, energy, and global warming. Earth Interactions.
2006; 10:1-17.
28. Donner SD. Surf or turf: A shift from feed to food cultivation could
reduce nutrient flux to the Gulf of Mexico. Glob Environ Change.
2006;17:105–113.
29. Scarborough P, Appleby PN, Mizdrak A, et al. Dietary greenhouse gas
emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK.
Clim Change. 2014;125:179–192.
30. Chislock MF, Doster E, Zitomer RA, Wilson AE. Eutrophication: Causes,
Consequences, and Controls in Aquatic Ecosystems. The Nature
Education Knowledge Project. [www.nature.com]
knowledge/library/eutrophication-causes-consequences-and-controlsin-
aquatic-102364466. Published 2013. Accessed October 25, 2014.
31. Masset G, Soler LG, Vieux F, Darmon N. Identifying sustainable foods:
the relationship between environmental impact, nutritional quality,
and prices of foods representative of the French diet. J Acad Nutr Diet.
2014;114(6):862-869.
32. Berners-Lee M, Hoolohan C, Cammack H, Hewitt CN. The relative
greenhouse gas impacts of realistic dietary choices. Energy Policy.
2012;43:184–190.
33. Soret S, Mejia A, Batech M, Jaceldo-Siegl K, Harwatt H, Sabate´ J.
Climate change mitigation and health effects of varied dietary
patterns in real-life settings throughout North America. Am J Clin Nutr.
2014;100:476S-482S.
34. Marlow HJ, Hayes WK, Soret S, Carter RL, Schwab ER, Sabate´ J. Diet
and the environment: Does what you eat matter? Am J Clin Nutr.
2009;89(5):1699S-1703S.
35. Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra, AY. A global assessment of the water
footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems. 2012;15,401–415



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2015 09:35PM by suncloud.

On the topic, the results of the study don't surprise me
but are interesting to read. Junk food isn't "food" at all
and is created by scientists to be addictive. Otherwise, they
wouldn't have repeat customers to sell product to.

On the note of global warming, this is a very important issue.
It is a shame that health advocate leaders spend such a large
amount of time fussing over who's diet is best instead of promoting
veganism. We should be focusing on getting people off the meat and
the dairy first. That is the priority. Veganism alone will get people
off many of the harmful foods they are eating, save lives of people
and animals and our environment. Raw food can come later. Most people
aren't ready for that and think cooked vegan is crazy as is. Agriculture
needs to be emphasized. Gardening and planting trees. The importance
of soil quality.

Agree with Sproutarian man, your name is really long to type. Lois too!