Animal product industry conspiracy?
Is it really true that there is a huge conspiracy by the animal products industry that is very old and has been convincing people since time immemorial that animal products are healthy in order to sell meat and dairy products.
Because there are some vegans who say that, not all vegans, but some.
So, they believe that these animal product producers have been coordinating propaganda and brainwashing for a long time, and that any studies that say meat is healthy, and milk and things like that are propaganda.
Only studies that say veganism is healthy are independent, according to the logic of these vegans.
But is there any evidence that there is an ancient, extremely powerful animal products lobby that has been convincing people for hundreds of years that animal products are healthy?
Maybe the Illuminati, who knows? But seriously, is there any evidence for this?
(3 votes)
Loading...
People have eaten meat and fish and eggs 100 years ago. A thousand years ago. There was no animal production industry, and no advertising. They noticed that it is healthy that it does well to them. It’s also a bit innate what tastes you, and what doesn’t. A cow also knows that she has to eat grass without telling her that.
It may also be advertised for meat. But for other products too. For candy, chocolate, beer, RedBull, etc. The consumer must decide what he buys and what is not.
Veganism often increases in fanaticism and insanity.
Some vegans sit at home all day with civic money and spend their time reading whipping vegan texts and fighting for vegans on the screen. These people then come from such crazy conspiracy theories.
What completely collapses below is the common sense.
Humanity has a 4.5 million years old history of hunters and collectors, which has massively shaped our genetics. Our next species mates (chimpanzes and bonobos) are wild on animal protein. They hunt, plunder all bird nests, eat a lot of insects. It is about the essential amino and fatty acids, about iron II and some other nutrients, which are clearly included in plants.
All this time, there were no Lobbies, no brainwashing, no Illuminati, etc. But there was the original experience that the human being is more powerful and more satisfied when it also consumes animal products.
Appeal to Tradition Fallacy is not a healthier human understanding, but a logical failure. From what has been done earlier, there is no correctness. Otherwise you could justify rape and slavery.
Karnism is fanaticism and spreads misinformation and propaganda. Veganism demands only animal rights and the abolition of carnism. Nothing is extreme, radical or fanatic.
Animal proteins are unhealthy and cause diseases, just like all other ingredients in animal products.
So there are no meat, fish, milk or egg industries with conflicts of interest, sure?
“Karnism is fanaticism and spreads misinformation and propaganda. Veganism demands only animal rights and the abolition of carnism. Nothing is extreme, radical or fanatic.”
Oh, the vegans are demanding the abolition of misinformation?
Here are 2 of your vegan propaganda:
“2017: Most pesticides are used for the food of animals. pesticide use for corn and soybeans is highest, see in ieser Graphic. Exactly these two foods are the main ingredient for Grass Fed Beef, so pasture.”
Exactly these 2 foods are HAUPTBESTANDTEIL von Grass Feed ….
That’s a lie.
These 2 plants are expressly NOT fed to these grass-dressing animals.
And the other misinformation:
“2018: 83% of agricultural land is needed for the production of animal products. If the world was vegan, we only need 1/4 of the fields.”
These lies again.
Tell me how you want to get to the 1/4 if today 17/30stel (i.e. 54%) of the arable land is needed for herbal food.
In addition, if the vegans get older.
And where do you build the plants that replace the nutrients from the meat?
Just swap the words of carnism and veganism, and we could save ourselves a lot of time.
Too bad to start with the repression. 🤢
You haven’t recognized my problem yet.
I don’t reject your numbers, but I can’t decide which DEINER many, contradicting numbers, because now the right one is.
Please tell me.
If it is not 25% of today’s arable land, this indication is a lie, just as I wrote. If it isn’t 81%, this number you supply is a lie. Please let me know!
Since I had well-founded my statements and documented a lot of sources, it is not enough to simply reject them (Hitchens’ Razor to apply to me). You have to justify and prove your statements, otherwise they are worthless and you are to be classified as intellectually irrelevant.
You can still answer, but if there is no criticism in content, I will leave your answer as a bad example.
Appeal to Incredulity Fallacy:Information is rejected from a limited, incomplete or incorrect understanding. “I can’t imagine that X should be true, so X must be wrong.”
Appeal to Stone Fallacy:Person A (ich) claims X. Person B rejects the claim X. Person A asks the rejection. Person B does not give reasons or evidence.
Topic finished.
There are no contradictions. Your misinterpretations are the problem.
Logic-feminded and anti-science to go no longer, that’s why you are the one you are: an omni who glorifies the cutting of heads. I’ll end it here before I have to be insulting about your ignorance and viciousness.
Hitchens’ Razor
is a philosophical principle that says:
Hitchens’ Razor is a useful tool in discussions and arguments to critically question unfounded claims.
The existencefalse evidencecan be likeNon-existence of evidenceto be treated. Thus Hitchens’ Razor allows to discard all the statements made byfalse premisesorMistakesto be justified.
Hitchens’ Razor is an epic and argumentation theory. In an argument, therefore, there is the burden of proof of an allegation with the party to the dispute which raises the claim. If this claim cannot be justified, the counterparty may, in accordance with Hitchens’ Razor, reject the claim without further grounds.
These are all DEINE numbers, from DEINEN “studies”. If you’d read them, then you know.
Do you mind the contradictions in the numbers? They bother me, too. And that is why I point out the contradictions.
Look at the study in full text with Sci-Hub, instead of inventing figures and making claims. Everything’s being explained.
Did you not claim that all SERIÖSEN studies would prove that, after conversion to a worldwide vegan diet, only 25 to 60% of the current arable land is needed?
Then the study you mentioned would be disgusting.
“The transition from the current diet to a diet without animal products…… including a reduction in arable land by 19%, …”
100% minus 19% =/= 25%
100 – 19 = 81, not 25 (Mathe, a natural science based on LOGIK)
Your sources contradict each other again.
Do you now need 25% of the current field, or is this number incorrect?
However, many pastures get food from corn, soy or cereals, but not all farms use it.
“The transition from the current diet to a diet without animal products (Table S13) (35) has a transformative potential by reducing the use of foodstuffs by 3.1 billion hectares (76%), including a reduction in arable land by 19%, the greenhouse gas emissions of food by 6.6 billion tonnes of CO2eq (49%), the acidification by 50%, the eutrophication by 49% and the scarcity-weighted sweetwater withdrawal by 19%.”
If you want to know the reasons for this, you’ll have to read the study. If you’re such an expert, you should understand. I understand only railway station honestly, but if my sources that have a high epistemic level share a study, then it is true.
Since I had well-founded my statements and documented a lot of sources, it is not enough to simply reject them (Hitchens’ Razor to apply to me). You have to justify and prove your statements, otherwise they are worthless and you are to be classified as intellectually irrelevant.
Appeal to Incredulity Fallacy:Information is rejected from a limited, incomplete or incorrect understanding. “I can’t imagine that X should be true, so X must be wrong.”
Appeal to Stone Fallacy:Person A (ich) claims X. Person B rejects the claim X. Person A asks the rejection. Person B does not give reasons or evidence.
Topic finished.
Hitchens’ Razor
is a philosophical principle that says:
Hitchens’ Razor is a useful tool in discussions and arguments to critically question unfounded claims.
The existencefalse evidencecan be likeNon-existence of evidenceto be treated. Thus Hitchens’ Razor allows to discard all the statements made byfalse premisesorMistakesto be justified.
Hitchens’ Razor is an epic and argumentation theory. In an argument, therefore, there is the burden of proof of an allegation with the party to the dispute which raises the claim. If this claim cannot be justified, the counterparty may, in accordance with Hitchens’ Razor, reject the claim without further grounds.
All this thunder is known by the heart of commercial rolls. You can’t imagine how many I’ve crossed the blades and kept them in the mirror. Your spam method, 30 users always literally push the same sophisticated giant agitation text is deeply insane and it also devalues all your campaigns.
That I am now Contents you can forget. Because you are not there for “truth-finding” but to push as many inexperienced as possible into the Vegansackgasse. Types of your kind are debating the opponent dead – they invest if they have to be weeks and months to curse him with text and take him unbearable time. I’ve got these agent methods bouncing off – they’re too bad for me.
One last time:
Can you show errors in my speeches and methodological shortcomings in the studies?
Can you justify and prove why my remarks are to be wild, high-end propaganda?
I’m asking you questions of content. Where’s the problem?
Yes, I often think about the Omnis who say a lot of nonsense at once. This is the brandolini law, the bullshit asymmetry principle that often occurs in scientific debates. To refute Bullshit costs much more energy and a deeper analysis than to produce it.
But you can’t even disprove a single point because it is scientifically correct and your understanding of content is not enough.
It does not follow that my content is wrong. What you do is an appeal to Incredulity Fallacy. “I can’t imagine that X should be true, so X must be wrong!”
You’re a wild comic troll because you post an adventurous highly dubious long propaganda text. And always literally the same to maximize your propaganda range. So you have put the text before about 30 questioners. According to forum order, such behaviour is inadmissible, but in life practice such missionaryism is tolerated because people earn money.
*”Teached”
“Gedulded” implies my statements would be wrong. Can you show errors in my speeches and methodological shortcomings in the studies?
Now please show the reasons and evidence of why it is a wild, high-end propaganda text.
For over 7 years, I’ve known riots of your kind in and a huge weakness of this forum is that such types are tolerated by the support until half a revolution breaks out. We want to earn a lot of people with our own methods and the inexperience of the little user GELD. In particular, the forum itself.
In response, I send the basics in and in the comments, I then go more to the question if necessary.
Now please show the reasons and evidence of why it is a wild, high-end propaganda text.
I am open to any factual, fact-based, scientific debate.
You’ll find a prefabricated wild high-resolution propaganda text under all the questions that somehow have to do with food and go zero to people personally. That’s one Extreme spammer method. It is known that many users through such Research abuse Make money. But it is highly insane – especially since your claims NULL match the state of science.
There are so many who spread misinformation, and I share only the facts. How about a content argument.
Insanely exaggerated copy-paste propaganda, with which you already almost
1 month the whole forum full. If only the moderation sees that you’re not a rat, but a riot pomer.
And that people are very well aware of the animal products industry or I had already explained Karnism to the question.
Animal proteins
increase IGF-1, mTOR and CRP, do not cause cancer, autoimmune diseases, kidney diseases, osteoporosis, gout and inflammation, plant proteins.
A bovine albumin peptide as a possible trigger of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus
1992: The casein from cow’s milk has exactly the same 17 amino acids as the beta cells of our pancreas. All diabetics had increased serum concentrations of IgG anti-BSA antibodies and IgA antibodies. Patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus have an immunity to cow’s milk albumin, with antibodies against an albumin peptide that can react with a betacell-specific surface protein. Such antibodies can be involved in the development of an island dysfunction.
Cell-mediated immune response to beta insulinin in recent-onset-dependent diabetes: implications for disease pathogenesis
1996: A specific proliferation of T-lymphocytes with bovine beta-casein was found in patients with type 1 diabetes. The relationship between type 1 diabetes and an early cow’s milk consumption may be explained by the formation of a specific immune response to beta-casein. Exposure to cow’s milk triggers a cellular and humoral anti-beta-casein immune response that can cross-react with a beta cell antigen. There are sequence homologies between beta-casein and several beta-cell molecules.
Preservation of beta-cell function in type 1 diabetes
1999: Type 1 diabetes is caused by autoimmune destruction of beta cells, which begins years before the complete destruction of beta cells. Early contact with cow’s milk was identified as an environmental trigger for autoimmune destruction of beta cells.
The Associations of Diet with Serum Insulin-like Growth Factor I and Its Main Binding Proteins in 292 Women Meat-Eaters, Vegetarians, and Vegans
2002: Animal products contained prefabricated IGF-1, which increases the IGF-1 level, and by animal proteins the liver produces more IGF-1. IGF-1 is the strongest growth factor in our body and correlates strongly with cancer growth.
Antibody cross-reactivity between myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein and the milk protein butyrophilin in multiple sclerosis
2004: In animal experiments, it was shown that milk protein can trigger an autoimmune reaction. The lymphocytes can produce antibodies that attack both the milk protein and the myelin secretions. As a result of destroyed myelin divorces, the nerves in the brain also die and multiple sclerosis is developed.
The Western-style diet: a major risk factor for impairment function and chronic kidney disease
2011: Meat leads to higher acidity, because of animal proteins. The kidneys need to get rid of more acids, which is why they often leave water. More of the cell poison ammonia is formed, which arises in the degradation of proteins, which leads to a metabolic aziosis (acidification of the blood and body) and damages kidney cells (nephritis). The decrease in the kidney function could only be detected when using animal proteins, not in plant proteins.
Adverse Effects Associated with Protein Intake above the Recommended Dietary Allowance for Adults
2013: 32 studies on the harmfulness of animal proteins: They acidify the body, cause osteoporosis and kidney stones.
Low Protein Intake Is Associated with a Major Reduction in IGF-1, Cancer, and Overall Mortality in the 65 and Younger but Not Older Population
2014: High protein intake increases mortality by 75%, the probability of dying cancer by 300%, the probability of dying diabetes by 400%. The cause is the increase of IGF-1 by animal proteins.
Association of Animal and Plant Protein Intake With All-Cause and CauseSpecific Mortality
2016: Effects on health when replacing animal proteins with vegetable proteins at over 130,000 participants: The overall mortality as well as the likelihood of cardiovascular diseases, cancer and other diseases decreases, no matter which animal product is exchanged for plant proteins.
Patterns of plant and animal protein intake are strongly associated with cardiovascular mortality: the Adventist Health Study-2 cohort
2018: More herbal proteins instead of animal proteins lead to a lower probability of cardiovascular diseases to die.
Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and CauseSpecific Mortality
2020: For every 3% calories from animal proteins that are exchanged against herbal proteins, you live 1 year longer.
The health aspect
A vegan diet is not only the most ethical and ecological, but also the healthiest diet and needs-covering. I had already written a detailed answer with 21 studies and the position papers of large nutrition companies.
Also about the causes of , , and I had already written detailed answers with dozens of studies. These diseases are caused by animal products and fat.
The food of humans is strong carbohydrates. People should feed on low-fat, carbohydrate-rich, fiber-rich potatoes, cereals, noodles, rice, oat flakes, corn, fruit, vegetables, legumes, beans and lentils.
Why are animal products unhealthy?
Animal products are unhealthy, regardless of quality, origin and preparation, because they consist of the same toxic, carcinogenic ingredients:Cholesterol, animal fatty acids, animal proteins, growth factors such as IGF-1, hormones, carcinogens, oxidants, bacteria, viruses, haems. These problems are associated with all diseases in tens of thousands of studies and the most important mechanisms behind them are scientifically known. Non-Vegans focus only on the positive effects of the good ingredients (nutrients), which account for 0.1% of dry weight, and ignore the negative effects of the bad ingredients that represent >99% of dry weight. This isAppeal to Minority Fallacyin a health context, a logical failure. The positive effects of the good ingredients cannot compensate for the negative effects of the bad ingredients, so animal products – despite nutrients – lead to bad health outcomes.
Proteins for muscle building
Plants contain all 9 essential amino acids, otherwise they could not grow. The bioavailability of proteins is marketing because we have an amino acid pool where proteins are stored and transformed 6-24 hours as the body needs it right now. The proteins swim in the blood and supplement each meal. The source of proteins plays no role in muscle building, but rather the amount.
High-Protein Plant-Based Diet Versus a Protein-Matched Omnivorous Diet to Support Resistance Training Adaptations: A Comparison Between Habitual Vegans and Omnivores
2021: A protein-rich (~1.6 g per kg body weight/day), exclusively herbal diet (plant full-value food + soy protein isolate supplementation) does not differ from a protein-adjusted mixed diet (mixed full-value food + Whey protein supplementation) in relation to the promotion of muscle power and muscle mass, suggesting that the protein source does not influence the protein trainings that are sufficient.
A Novel Plant-Based Protein Has Similar Effects Compared to Whey Protein on Body Composition, Strength, Power, and Aerobic Performance in Professional and Semi-Professional Futsal Players
2022: The supplementation of a herbal protein matrix to Whey protein had no adverse effect on one of the variables that were investigated for high-level futsal players over a period of 8 weeks. Whey protein therefore has no unique anabolic properties that go beyond those of vegetable proteins when it is equivalent to an essential amino acid profile in the investigated population.
The Muscle Protein Synthetic Response to the Ingestion of a Plant-Derived Protein Blend Does Not Differ from an Equivalent Amount of Milk Protein in Healthy Young Males
2023: The intake of 30 g of a vegetable protein mixture of wheat, corn and pea protein increases the muscle protein synthesis rates in healthy young men. The reaction of muscle protein synthesis to the intake of 30 g of this vegetable protein mixture does not differ from the intake of a corresponding amount of a high-quality animal protein.
You have to save your energy against full rolls. Because they are able to reinvigorate their entire life into fanaticism. A full-time normal person can’t.
You wouldn’t have a chance. Only you would be refuted.
Animal products have been eaten and appreciated for thousands of years. It does not need conspiracy theory to realize that meat, eggs or dairy products are high-quality foods.
Where does the word come from, and why is there a pig? As long as you could feed a pig, you knew that you were going well through the winter.
Do you find the products under the conditions as they are produced seriously high quality?
This is about a longer period.
Strongly processed foods are unhealthy also vegans. Zb is in fact unhealthy because of the strong processing, depending on even proven carcinogenic. Chicken nuggets are not healthy either. But even heavily processed vegan things are not just healthy.
Meat per se is not unhealthy. Zb also supplies vitamins and good nutrients.
You should not eat too much meat, but it is not generally unhealthy.
If you should try to eat many fresh and not without barely processed food .
Asking this question to non-Vegans makes no sense because they know nothing about carnism and science on nutrition and diseases. Of course, they will claim that there is no malicious animal product industry.
I asked ChatGPT once:
“Does an animal product industry spread fraud studies, marketing and propaganda to market meat, fish, milk and eggs as good and healthy?”
ChatGPT:
“Yes, in the past, there have been numerous cases in which the animal product industry has influenced scientific studies, marketing and controlled information specifically to market meat, fish, milk and eggs as healthy. This applies not only to a specific industry, but also to a variety of interest groups, from food associations to lobby groups that want to promote their products. Here are some tactics and examples:
In summary, the animal product industry has worked intensively in recent decades to anchor the image of its products as healthy and necessary in public perception through various measures.”
For example, in 2016, about 92% of the cholesterol studies were financed by the egg industry and deliberately evaluated incorrectly.
Carnism: The Psychology of Meat
Karnism is the ideology/the belief system of non-Vegans and the reason why people eat certain animals, but not others.
Carnists and speciesists believe it to be natural, normal, natural and necessary that animals are enslaved, punished and murdered for food, clothing, entertainment and science, because these people have been conditioned by carnism since their birth. The fact that people are involved is that karnism has certain defence mechanisms that eliminate the problem consciousness of people, and without consciousness there is no free choice.
Karnism also spreads misinformation and anti-vegan propaganda so that animal products are considered healthy and beneficial.
A neckline fromKarnism Book“Why we love dogs, eat pigs and attract cows: an introduction to carnism”:Pages 42 and 43,Pages 44 and 45,Page 46 and 47
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8sXdgVXXpM
Quotes from the carnism video:
You have great sources.
Your source delivers over 50% false results. So more often wrong than right.
“How wrong can Chatgpt lie?
DAYTON, Ohio (WDTN) — A recent study by Purdue University has shown that ChatGPT, a popular AI app, in 52 % false answers supply. The results follow a study in which researchers asked the program questions from a popular website for computer programmers.10.01.2024
https://www.wdtn.com › Expert-wa…
Experts warn that Chat GPT “hallucinated” false information
“
Since I had well-founded my statements and documented a lot of sources, it is not enough to simply reject them (Hitchens’ Razor to apply to me). You have to justify and prove your statements, otherwise they are worthless and you are to be classified as intellectually irrelevant.
Appeal to Incredulity Fallacy:Information is rejected from a limited, incomplete or incorrect understanding. “I can’t imagine that X should be true, so X must be wrong.”
Appeal to Stone Fallacy:Person A (ich) claims X. Person B rejects the claim X. Person A asks the rejection. Person B does not give reasons or evidence.
Topic finished.
Hitchens’ Razor
is a philosophical principle that says:
Hitchens’ Razor is a useful tool in discussions and arguments to critically question unfounded claims.
The existencefalse evidencecan be likeNon-existence of evidenceto be treated. Thus Hitchens’ Razor allows to discard all the statements made byfalse premisesorMistakesto be justified.
Hitchens’ Razor is an epic and argumentation theory. In an argument, therefore, there is the burden of proof of an allegation with the party to the dispute which raises the claim. If this claim cannot be justified, the counterparty may, in accordance with Hitchens’ Razor, reject the claim without further grounds.
You must be able to justify and prove that it is wrong in terms of content rather than just to make claims.
I didn’t reject your answer, but I checked and found that you didn’t link a single study, even though you claimed it several times.
To admit an error is not a weakness, but it is of greatness.
Too bad. Chance missed.
“Because I had well-founded my statements and documented a lot of sources,”
Even if you repeat, there are no studies linked. (Until now, if you intend to correct the answer.)
Look into the answer if you trust.
How malicious how to be…
1. I had linked studies to the ecological points that are your main argument for slavery, shame and murder of animals. Read the study with Sci-Hub if you want to see the exact reasons and invoices. Not me, but you are ideologically blinded by carnism and speciesism.
You can’t justify intentional violations (e.g. cutting off heads), grazing areas cause more animal suffering than arable lands, your idea is not feasible for the general public, and animal products are anyway unhealthy (and thus meaningless). Your position is weakly justified on all points.
Two. You have to be able to justify and prove that it is wrong in terms of content, what I write, rather than just to make claims.
Open my eyes!
Where did you link studies in this answer?
If your claims don’t vote, you’re lying. This falls back on your ideoligy, veganism, when their advertisers have to lie to spread their ideology.
Why does she need that?
I had linked studies to the ecological points that are your main argument for slavery, shame and murder of animals. Not me, but you’re ideologically blinded by carnism and speciesism, so you don’t see them.
You can’t justify intentional violations (e.g. cutting off heads), grazing areas cause more animal suffering than arable lands, your idea is not feasible for the general public, and animal products are anyway unhealthy (and thus meaningless). Your position is weakly justified on all points.
You have to be able to justify and prove that it is wrong in terms of content, what I write, rather than just to make claims.
You’re on thin ice.
“I had linked studies.”
No one.
You can even count that.
“You are ideologically blinded, …”
Then we’re two.
“…that’s why you don’t see them.”
Where?
I had linked studies. You’re ideologically blinded, so you don’t see them.
You can’t justify intentional violations (e.g. cutting off heads), grazing areas cause more animal suffering than arable lands, your idea is not feasible for the general public, and animal products are anyway unhealthy (and thus meaningless). Your position is weakly justified on all points.
You have to be able to justify and prove that it is wrong in terms of content, what I write, rather than just to make claims.
Error, you must prove that your claims are correct.
You did not provide any source information for your post.
Chatgpt is not a source.
Not me, but you argue with logical failures.
You can’t justify intentional violations (e.g. cutting off heads), grazing areas cause more animal suffering than arable lands, your idea is not feasible for the general public, and animal products are anyway unhealthy (and thus meaningless). Your position is weakly justified on all points.
You have to be able to justify and prove that it is wrong in terms of content, what I write, rather than just to make claims.
You see a mental mistake.
You say, “I asked one who usually lies, why don’t you believe him?”
Link is included.
What you do is: (quote from your contributions)”This is the brandolini law, the bullshit asymmetry principle that often occurs in scientific debates. To refute Bullshit costs much more energy and a deeper analysis than to produce it.”
And you know that.
It may be because there was also a lobby against hemp. The Wood producers in the U.S. because hemp is a much faster renewable raw material for cellulos production. Hemp paper is much more high-quality and can be recycled more often than paper made of wood.
Petrochemistry: All we produce from petroleum could also be made from hemp oil and it would have the advantage that, for example, plastic articles would be completely dismantled and we would not face a supergauge with nanoplastic. Cellophan is compostable, in contrast to plastic packaging.
Cotton producers: Hemp fibres are much more robust and have better wearing properties than cotton clothing. Above all, we need smaller crops, much less pesticides and much less water. Hemp also grows in Nordic latitudes and we would not need expensive imports.
Hemp oil is one of the highest quality vegetable oils. Earlier, hemp butter was the butter of poor people. Today even oil is found in the butter (Foundation Warentest 1 x gut, 17 varieties poor).
In the past, the sedentary people haven’t eaten so much meat. They couldn’t afford themselves, because the animals weren’t “adult” so fast.
When I think of the first 20 years after the war, the big boiler was put on Monday with stew. It might have been fried a bit of bacon, the ham bone and the Schwarte were cooked, but extra meat was not in the bean, lentil and peas stew. The only stew in which goatmeat or hammel meat was cooked was the plug-in beet stew. They lived until Thursday.
On Friday, the “death” of the Freya (name encoder from Freytag) was obligatory. On Saturday there were the remains of the week and only on Sunday there were meat. But even Sunday roasts did not exist every Sunday, because so many slaughter animals did not have the small farms. Above all, there was no possibility at the time to freeze meat. There was air-dried, smoked and pickled.
I used to meet the Ross-Schlachter and the Freibank. I don’t know anyone anymore.
Jagen used to be the nobility. The little buttock or landman may have killed a rabbit and eaten singing birds, but not every day. The fruit farmers in the Old Land (Hamburg) did not hang out star boxes from a fair animal love, but because they robbed and ate the birds the eggs and young birds. As a child, I still remember star warmth in which the sky darkened. If you see a star in the garden this is a little sensation.
Meat was only affordable for the “small man” every day when mass livestock was used.
So I dare to doubt that this “conspiracy of animal producers” is already “hundred years”.
But what was definitely a “conspiracy” is the diet pyramid with carbohydrates as a broad basis. Kellogg ‘s designed to bring his low-quality breakfast to the consumer.
That’s why people weren’t musculosic as they were in Hollywood, but were often undernourished and thirsty.
Yeah, you’re right. The peasants, but above all the servants and maids, didn’t have a round-scale hump.
Carbs are healthy and should be the basis of diet. Animal products and fat are unhealthy and cause all dietary diseases, which applies to insulin resistance and their consequences. You can see the influence of the propaganda of the animal product industry. People think carbohydrates are unhealthy and get fear of fruit, potatoes, noodles, rice, then feed on fat and protein. Oh, such a coincidence, animal products are exactly out of it. And then they develop cardiovascular diseases and cancer.
Keloggs lead to good health outcomes.
Amen!
And as always no argument.
Of course not
I’m still waiting for the chart for the rise in the blood in Germany.
Are there many gay vegans?
There are too many gays in general
It’s all about money.
https://youtu.be/5c1O2utK48k?si=rI5Y_qHuCnES2zS6
Your video is good, but still very scratched on the surface. But yes, we can see that there are industries that have great financial interest in presenting animal products positively.
No!
So studies that are against veganism are automatically fake for them.