How do you interpret this to mean not caring for humans?
Very simple: the fact that a paper which is supposed to analyse the comparative criteria of grass-fed and grain-fed or grain-finished beef DOES NOT mention the nutritional quality of meat for the consumer.
I can also if you find it less offensive, tell this a fantastic bias against human health.
The green movement wants to convince the uneducated young urban people that ruminant cattle are deleterious to the climate but that wild ruminants do nothing to the climate neither now nor did in our past history...
"Returning cattle and other ruminants to the land for their entire lives can result in multiple benefits, according to organizations like the Savory Institute, including restoring soil microbial diversity, and making the land more resilient to flooding and drought. It can boost the nutrient content and flavour of livestock and plants."I can also if you find it less offensive, tell this a fantastic bias against human health.
The green movement wants to convince the uneducated young urban people that ruminant cattle are deleterious to the climate but that wild ruminants do nothing to the climate neither now nor did in our past history...
The author in her words refuses the fact that grass-fed meat and grain-fed meat are different. Sorry but the two types of meat differ in nutrient content contrary to the sentence "can be boosted in nutrient content". Take the fatty acids, the lipoic acid, the collagen...
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire