There is so much conflicting and confusing information out there and I completely understand why people are confused. I am too! I have a very simple way of deciphering between the two, and two shows on telly last night were brilliant examples of that. My general rule is, if it moves TOWARDS nature (or back to!) as in the way we would have done things in the wild, prick your ears up and start to pay attention. If it moves AWAY from nature, switch your BS radar on and start looking for all the ways this can go horribly wrong. The high fat diet on Catalyst last night was a perfect example of moving BACK to nature, how we used to eat and live and that made perfect sense to me. We had replaced fat with massive amounts of sugar and grain based foods and the diabetes and obesity epidemics have exploded as a result. The show following on fish preservation by Matthew Evans was about trying to promote sustainability in the fishing industry and he was talking about fish food for the fish farms. In order to save ocean critters (apparently it took a couple of kilos of seafood to get ONE kilo of farmed fish) they are now feeding the farmed fish soy and canola oil (WHAT THE HELL?? And you can guarantee thatd be genetically modified!) and land animal meal. So they are looking at feeding land critters to sea critters so they can feed land critters. Thank God Matthew had the common sense to ask how that would affect us nutritionally (I actually didnt expect him to go there) as the major benefit for us to eat sea critters is the omega 3 content they contain, which they get from feeding on their NATURAL foods lower down the food chain. My head hurts from even writing this. So, in a nutshell, move back to nature = good, move away from nature = bad. As a general rule. ;)
Posted on: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:10:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015