It would be counterprogramming to the Got Milk? advertisements aired during the school’s morning announcements and plastered across the school’s hallways.
what?
I'm not anti milk, but I am anti indoctrination that legitimizes pork barrel subsidies.
The school’s demand stemmed from a US Department of Agriculture (USDA) policy that states schools “must not directly or indirectly restrict the sale or marketing of fluid milk.” Doing so would violate the rules of its participation in the National School Lunch Program, which all public — and many private — schools heavily rely on to subsidize their meals, and could result in fines and other corrective actions.
America doesn't have a political party that priotizes Americans over corporations....
Like the milk push was for childhood nutrition, but nowadays our main health problems with kids is obesity.
So pushing calorie dense milk on teenagers makes zero fucking sense.
We should be teaching these kids that water is supposed to be the main beverage.
Milk and juice can still be available, but shouldn't be the default, and soda shouldn't really be an option for most school kids.
But there's no "big water" lobby to push kids drinking more water. There's water lobbyists, but that's about taking water reserves from one area, and then shipping it all over the country to sell at ridiculous prices because it's been bottled.
Par for the course with Lemmy. Every other day there's some preachy anti bs whether it's cars, anything not water or meat. The sites worse than reddit for circle jerking.
Even when drinking alone, there are often rituals. It's the same in spirit for everyone, but the specifics are individual. For me it plays a lot like in a certain song: waiting for the water to heat up without boiling, thinking about life, often watching the sunrise or recalling some dream.
Perhaps that's why the Druze would stick with the custom, too. I think that they "get" it - it isn't just "drinking", it's also the introspection that comes with it.
There are also plenty local differences. For example, the grandpa in the pic has a coconut-shaped gourd, fairly common there in Uruguay; here in Paraná (1000~1500km up north), in Santa Catarina and in Rio Grande, gourds typically have a large lip, like mine:
The ones that I saw the most in Argentina are from a third style, kind of a middle ground between my gourd and that grandpa's gourd.Then to the West (Paraguay, Mato Grosso do Sul, and even a chunk of Paraná) you'll often see people using cow horns for tereré.
What you drink might also change depending on the place. Even among hot mate drinkers; for example the further south you go, the more roasted is the yerba. It can be also coarse or almost like a flour in texture.
And a heartfelt hi from another A Clockwork Orange fan. I bloody love the book. (And the movie, too.)
Truth is, I was trying to be simple, so I mentioned the horns/guampas in MS instead. It seems to me that they (you?) consume mate far more as tereré than hot mate/chimarrão. Even some of the folks in Paraná's third plateau would rather use glasses. (I'm from Curitiba, so rather far from them. The first time I saw it - mate on a large glass, with lemon soda - I couldn't help but "...what?" It's comfy in the summer though.)
I just know from a friend from out there that it's common to use both the horns and the gourds. Mate with lemon soda is something new to me. Mate tea with lime served cold is a refreshing drink I like, but then it's made with the toasted leaves and not just dried like chimarrão.
I mean, there's also climate change destroying harvests. Chances are we'll all live to see most luxury foods priced over a days wages. This is just the start, soon it'll be coffee, chocolate, fruits and veggies, cane sugar, meat, then staples like beans and grains. Make no mistake we're cooking ourselves out of a planet to survive on.
anytime I see anything about GMO, and anything about Monsanto, that doesn't explicitly mention the health impacts of glyphosate and or other chemical herb and pesticides, I die a little inside.
and yeah there's a passing mention, but it's linked directly to the GM crops, as if they're hand in hand. I dunno i've spent too long around hippies who have no idea what they're talking about.
Yeah most gmo crops in use are designed to harden the crops against pesticides so that they can use more of them without killing the crop, if you actually look into the numbers its very distressing and more people need to be talking about this.
Gmo isn't automatically bad but it's bad when its implementation is by companies looking to create monopolies and who don't care at all if it causes problems like increased chemical additions running off into water ways and cause immense ecological damage
Do... do they not know that corn was selectively bred from what amounts to a wheat like grass? Modern corn is NOTHING like its wild ancestor (which still grows there) granted thats a different method of altering what genes are or are not there but its still a form of modification by humans. What we used to do is just a very crude and haphazard way of doing it in a way that we have no idea what actually happened whereas with modern GMO, you are making very specific changes.
On the point of transgenic varieties having a negative impact on local strain diversity, I think the concerns are valid. The introduction of high-yielding GMOs can lead to displacement of local varieties and ultimately decrease diversity.
I skimmed through the document to see if they make some good points about the health impact of GMOs. From what I can gather, the arguments are:
Glyphosate herbicides are commonly used when farming GMO corn. There is no global consensus on the potential long-term health effects associated with exposure to glyphosates and formulations that contain it.
Techniques to modify the genome are not perfect. Often, viruses are used, and some viral proteins could be inserted into the genome. Other things could go wrong. Ultimately, you may have an unexpected phenotype that turns out to make the plant toxic.
They argue that the GMO corn has a worse nutritional profile than native varieties. This worse nutritional profile ultimately has a negative health impact.
Personally... Maybe the glyphosate claim I can get somewhat behind but the other two health claims I don't find compelling. The risks over-stated, and their use of citations is not great.
I have an example of their use of citations that made me chuckle... They write:
Mexican corn, mainly native corn, has a better quality in nutritional terms, including compounds
that prevent diseases and promote human health.^75^
And the citation reads:
^75^ In Mexico there are scientific compilations and files that bring together the aforementioned literature.
Yeah. Claims about potential health effects can be very persuasive.
It is a factual claim that something could go wrong, or that we have a gap in our understanding, and the outcome of that may be detrimental to our health. We can't disprove this because it is true, and so what we need to do is to assess risks in a balanced manner. It is also a factual claim that a de-novo mutation could occur and produce a toxic strain, or maybe we do not understand something about a plant that we commonly eat and we later find out that it is carcinogenic. Our understanding evolves over time, and risks are everywhere.
But most politicians are not so concerned with painting a balanced picture. The claim "a risk exists" is always factual and that is good enough to push an agenda.
In my opinion this does not in itself mean that one political position is better than the other. Maybe the health claims are not a good argument, but there are many other valid reasons to want to stop GMO corn.
In a written submission to a panel of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, Mexico, the top buyer of U.S. corn, argued that science proves GM corn and the herbicide glyphosate are harmful to human health and its native varieties, and that its decree to ban GM corn for human consumption is within its right.
TBF, we're not picking on Mexico, we give it to our own people too. I like that they're making them prove it's safe as opposed to proving it's harmful. That's the way to go about it.
There's a reason why Europe has tons of banned foods that the US doesn't, we care about profits and the share holders above the health of our people (especially the poor).
The GM hysteria is stupid though. By this logic you would have to prove this for every single non GM plant too. Whether you use completely random mutations over controlled mutations is somewhat irrelevant, although arguably the random ones could potentially be even more dangerous than the planned ones, since you don't have control over them.
Is it though? We don't know about things we haven't tested for because humans are different than livestock and rats. Time will tell, but most of us will be dead before we know for sure. We're messing with nature with no idea of the repercussions that we may already be experiencing.
By blasting them with chemicals or radiation in order to create a bunch of random mutations, in the hopes that one of those mutations are beneficial. So instead of injecting very specific target genes into a plant, which is a very controlled process, you end up with a bunch of random mutations of which you apparently aren't worried about the side effects. Those breeds are not labeled in any way and simply mixed in with everything else in your local supermarket. This whole "we're messing with nature with no idea of the repercussions" in regards to gene editing is just uneducated esoteric nonsense.
This whole “we’re messing with nature with no idea of the repercussions” in regards to gene editing is just uneducated esoteric nonsense.
How close are we to monkeys, apes, etc.? Can you see the future and how is the climate going? We don't know if taking away one thing will affect another down the road. Will every gene edit cause harm? Probably not, but we don't know which ones or how many. Have a great life selling cigarettes.
I don't think science deniers with a complete lack of understanding of genetics should try to berate anyone on climate change, thank you. Like, you're literally arguing like a covid denier too as to why people shouldn't wear masks. If you're so worried about the repercussions of "taking away one thing", then why does that same logic not apply to "taking away many random things"? And no, cigarettes are harmful, you're the one who'd argue that we don't know this for sure. lol
I'm not a science denier, nice buzzword though. Science isn't a thing btw, it's a process. The process of science hasn't worked out how us fucking with nature will turn out.
Where's this science that genetically modified food causes harm? All I can find looking for anything that says something other than that GM food affects you the same as non-GM food is linking back to this article. And I mean, if you want to get technical, pretty much all plants we consume in the modern age were genetically modified through selective breeding.
Science of Cooking
Hot