Paul Saladino· MD
it will result in significantly more nutrient-rich food for humans and far less loss of animal life than plants grown through monocrop Agriculture
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
it will result in significantly more nutrient-rich food for humans and far less loss of animal life than plants grown through monocrop Agriculture
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
The problem with our world is not necessarily calories, it's nutrients. And so we can give a lot of calories to people on this planet that are really, really lowquality foods, really, really lowquality grains, and we're going to get a lot more humans who are very nutrient-deprived. I would much rather make sure that we're trying to solve the problem of nutrients rather than the problem of calories when it comes to feeding humans and creating sustainable systems. And I just don't think you solve the problem of nutrients starting with monocrop plant agriculture.