- McDonald's -

You don't know what it mean...

Posted by: Lars on March 01, 19100 at 21:22:15:

In Reply to: Setting the record straight. posted by MDG on March 01, 19100 at 17:45:08:

: Much as I loathe responding to any more posts from the fanatical meat-eater, Lars, it is important to point out when he lies...

  • Lies? Do you know the meaning of the word? Look up my references and you will learn one or two things about reality instead.

  • Fanatic meat-eater? Does my view (that the most people have) make me more fanatic just because I argue with you? Do you know what the word fanatic mean? In my country (sweden) they call your kind for fanatic not my. Our security police even keep track on some vegans just becouse they are fanatic, we even use the word militant vegans.

    : 1) Many of my citations were to scientific evidence supporting vegetarianism and documenting the destructive effects of meat on the environment, as well as the cruelty to animals inherent in modern factory farming...

    Your references:
    www.factoryfarming.com, www.meatstinks.com, etc. Is that what you call scientific evidence?

    You also had the National Cancer Institute and the Imperial Cancer Research Fond as references supporting you, even though they agreed more with me than with you. How come? Didn't you read your references before linking to them? Are they "mainstream government agencies" now then they don't support your views?

    As shown before the National Cancer Institute even state that: "EXPERTS AGREE that you should INCLUDE MEAT if you want to eat in a way to stay healthy and have a lower cancer risk." You had them as an reference, why not listen to their advice yourself and eat some meat...

    I have shown with references, to articles in scientific journals, that there today doesn't excist any evidence that meat is dangerous. Of course you can find single articles suggesting a connection, but for every article you can find, I can find articles saying the opposite. The conclusions of this is that there is no evidence. As well as the articles, you can find scientist stating that meat is dangerous, but many more states that meat instead can (and should) be part of a healthy diet.

    : 2. The fact that mainstream government agencies include meat in their dietary recommendation means nothing; they are not prepared to go all the way and declare that vegetarianism is healthier than eating meat; however, note how they all downplay meat consumption and stress the consumption of fruits, vegetables, legumes, and grains...

    I have never stated that eating vegetables etc. is bad for you. Instead I truly belive, as the most people (inclucing the scientists), that fruits, vegetables, etc. is very good for you. But does that mean that meat is dangerous? NO, the same scientific community also recommend us to eat meat.

    Whatever you read between the lines are something that you make up in your head. The FDA and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are not bought by the meat industry. Are you completly mad? The FDA's experts are among the best in the world then it comes to nutrition (among other things). You do fight "dirty", your arguments can't really go any lower. Everyone that doesn't think like you is either bought by the meat industry or fooled by the government.

    My only point is (which you don't seem to understand) that today there is no proof that meat is dangerous for you. Even McSpotlight stated the following: "-it is fair to say that the jury is still out on whether eating meat causes cancer." Are they also bought by the meat industry?

    I don't really believe that McDonalds is the best of companies. You can eat healthy there, but the most don't.

    // Lars

    McSpotlight: It *is* fair to say that the jury is still out, Lars; it is, however, also true to say that the evidence is growing ever stronger that excessive consumption of meat can cause illness; both sides can wheel out any number of experts.

    A quote from the Appeal judgement might be germane here;

    "...The Appeal Court also stated that it had 'considerable sympathy' with the defendants' submissions that the leaflet meant 'that there is a respectable (not cranky) body of medical opinion which links a junk food diet with a risk of cancer and heart disease', that 'this link was accepted both in literature published by McDonald's themselves and by one or more of McDonald's own experts and in medical publications of high repute', and that therefore 'that should have been an end of this part of the case' [p169]. However they ruled that their hands were tied by a procedural technicality so the appeal didn't succeed regarding the 'cancer' issue.[p170-2]."

    - in other words, the original leaflet was reasonable enough in what it said to be provable in a court of law.

    "...McDonald's promote their food as 'nutritious', but the reality is that it is junk food - high in fat, sugar and salt, and low in fibre and vitamins. A diet of this type is linked with a greater risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and other diseases."

    - the jury is not still out on this one as far as the case in concerned; it has been proven to the satisfaction of the law.

  • Follow Ups:

    The Debating Room Post a Followup