SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    White House ‘Nutrition Advisor’ Claims Honey Nut Cheerios Are Healthier Than Chicken
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
White House ‘Nutrition Advisor’ Claims Honey Nut Cheerios Are Healthier Than Chicken Login/Join 
Wait, what?
Picture of gearhounds
posted Hide Post




“Remember to get vaccinated or a vaccinated person might get sick from a virus they got vaccinated against because you’re not vaccinated.” - author unknown
 
Posts: 15640 | Location: Martinsburg WV | Registered: April 02, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
ammoholic
Picture of drtenb330
posted Hide Post
I want to print it out and hang it up at work but I'm afraid it would be taken out of context. The first two "foods" would be racist, and there'd be an investigation.....

Then again, it's so messed up how can I not
 
Posts: 1634 | Location: Miami Beach, Florida | Registered: December 26, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Drill Here, Drill Now
Picture of tatortodd
posted Hide Post
Politicians and their advisors should have to wear donor logos like NASCAR drivers. If they did, that clown would be wearing General Mills (i.e. producer of Cheerios and Lucky Charms) logo.



Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity

DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer.
 
Posts: 23347 | Location: Northern Suburbs of Houston | Registered: November 14, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of grumpy1
posted Hide Post
Yea what a bunch of BS. Notice how protein foods are near the bottom and lack of fat (not all fat is bad). They want to "save the planet" and turn us all into fat weaklings getting us off red meats. WTF is up with almond candies on the list? Almonds are great but I like mine just roasted with just a little salt.
 
Posts: 9758 | Location: Northern Illinois | Registered: March 20, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of abnmacv
posted Hide Post
Did White House mention what Hunter eats?


U.S. Army 11F4P Vietnam 69-70 NRA Life Member
 
Posts: 1572 | Registered: June 11, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Coin Sniper
Picture of Rightwire
posted Hide Post
Can anyone guess which lobbyists are pumping money into the Nutrition Advisor.




Pronoun: His Royal Highness and benevolent Majesty of all he surveys

343 - Never Forget

Its better to be Pavlov's dog than Schrodinger's cat

There are three types of mistakes; Those you learn from, those you suffer from, and those you don't survive.
 
Posts: 38019 | Location: Above the snow line in Michigan | Registered: May 21, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
His diet consists of black
coffee, and sarcasm.
Picture of egregore
posted Hide Post
 
Posts: 28023 | Location: Johnson City, TN | Registered: April 28, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Uppity Helot
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by grumpy1: and turn us all into fat weaklings getting us off red meats. WTF WEF is up with almond candies on the list?

FIFY
 
Posts: 3163 | Location: Manheim, PA | Registered: September 04, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
No ribeyes, gumbo or lasagna on that list. Makes me smile.
 
Posts: 3602 | Location: Texas Hill Country | Registered: July 24, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by nhracecraft:
quote:
Originally posted by Scooter123:
quote:
Originally posted by Anush:
Skinless chicken breast = Skinless, boneless & tasteless

You forgot that it's also high in Sodium, because 'every' piece sold is brined (typically in a salt/sugar solution).

That is utter Bullshit! Perhaps you've not heard of the Certified Organic, Certified Humane and Non-GMO' Project Verified certifications. There's plenty of 100% Natural Chicken Breast available on the market!

You should start counting again... Roll Eyes


Certified Organic, Certified Humane and Non-GMO. You do realize that there is not any Federal agency that actually is involved in enforcing Organic or Humane standards, so commercial producers can get certified by paying money to an organization that was formed specifically to provide these certifications for a fee. As for non GMO, there you are digging into 3 Federal agencies and all they do is regulate what GMO products are considered Safe for public consumption and safe for the environment. There are no Federal agencies that monitor if a product is truly non GMO. If you want to believe a label you are certainly welcome to do that, however I am a lot more skeptical. Following is a statement from one of these Certification Providers explaining the complete lack of any Federal Oversight and the need for this Certification Provider. I won't argue the need for a Certification process, I just question the ability of a private organization to actually do enough field inspections to insure than one of their clients isn't Cheating. I'll also note that testing for GMO requires a DNA analysis and I suspect that none of these Certification providers has the money to set up a DNA lab.

https://certifiedhumane.org/looking-beyond-the-label/

Note, I don't eat chicken breast because to me it tastes like sand. However my sister loves this sand so I get served this when I go visit her and I can taste salt in that chicken breast. BTW her husband is also on a low salt diet and she does not add salt to food she prepares.

As for the Sodium level, I did some looking and you are correct on that note. Tyson Chicken breasts are brined but it's called "chicken broth and sea salt" on the package. Per their nutrition data on the web site it's 180mg of sodium per serving. Note serving size is 112 grams about 4 ounces. A bit more sodium than a 1 ounce bag of Potato Chips. Miller chicken which carries all of the Woke certifications lists just 55mg of Sodium in their nutrition claims so it appears to not be brined or very lightly brined.

Personally I prefer Chicken Thighs and have always got Millers because their skinless thighs are trimmed of Fat as much as possible. In comparison Tyson chicken thighs are loaded with fat.


I've stopped counting.
 
Posts: 5672 | Location: Michigan | Registered: November 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Eye on the
Silver Lining
posted Hide Post
This can’t be real.


__________________________

"Trust, but verify."
 
Posts: 5363 | Registered: October 24, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Shall Not Be Infringed
Picture of nhracecraft
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scooter123:
quote:
Originally posted by nhracecraft:
quote:
Originally posted by Scooter123:
You forgot that it's also high in Sodium, because 'every' piece sold is brined (typically in a salt/sugar solution).

That is utter Bullshit! Perhaps you've not heard of the Certified Organic, Certified Humane and Non-GMO' Project Verified certifications. There's plenty of 100% Natural Chicken Breast available on the market!

Certified Organic, Certified Humane and Non-GMO. You do realize that there is not any Federal agency that actually is involved in enforcing Organic or Humane standards, so commercial producers can get certified by paying money to an organization that was formed specifically to provide these certifications for a fee. As for non GMO, there you are digging into 3 Federal agencies and all they do is regulate what GMO products are considered Safe for public consumption and safe for the environment. There are no Federal agencies that monitor if a product is truly non GMO. If you want to believe a label you are certainly welcome to do that, however I am a lot more skeptical. Following is a statement from one of these Certification Providers explaining the complete lack of any Federal Oversight and the need for this Certification Provider. I won't argue the need for a Certification process, I just question the ability of a private organization to actually do enough field inspections to insure than one of their clients isn't Cheating. I'll also note that testing for GMO requires a DNA analysis and I suspect that none of these Certification providers has the money to set up a DNA lab.

https://certifiedhumane.org/looking-beyond-the-label/

Note, I don't eat chicken breast because to me it tastes like sand. However my sister loves this sand so I get served this when I go visit her and I can taste salt in that chicken breast. BTW her husband is also on a low salt diet and she does not add salt to food she prepares.

As for the Sodium level, I did some looking and you are correct on that note. Tyson Chicken breasts are brined but it's called "chicken broth and sea salt" on the package. Per their nutrition data on the web site it's 180mg of sodium per serving. Note serving size is 112 grams about 4 ounces. A bit more sodium than a 1 ounce bag of Potato Chips. Miller chicken which carries all of the Woke certifications lists just 55mg of Sodium in their nutrition claims so it appears to not be brined or very lightly brined.

Personally I prefer Chicken Thighs and have always got Millers because their skinless thighs are trimmed of Fat as much as possible. In comparison Tyson chicken thighs are loaded with fat.

There's plenty of 100% Natural Chicken Breast available on the market! I'm not sure why you'd think any 'Federal Agency' being involved would be beneficial anyway. My point (though not specifically stated) is that by knowing what those certifications actually mean you'd be educating yourself and finding sources for higher quality foods. And certainly, within the group of suppliers that have those 'certifications' (only one is a USDA Certification by the way) you WILL absolutely find high-quality unbrined chicken. Further, if you use spices and other natural recipe ingredients, you will be able to prepare chicken that will most definitely NOT taste like sand. I stand by my statement that your claim 'it's also high in Sodium, because 'every' piece sold is brined' is utter BULLSHIT!


____________________________________________________________

If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !!
Trump 2024....Save America!
"May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20
Live Free or Die!
 
Posts: 8977 | Location: New Hampshire | Registered: October 29, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Frangas non Flectes
Picture of P220 Smudge
posted Hide Post
My feet went numb just reading that list.

quote:
Originally posted by grumpy1:
WTF is up with almond candies on the list? Almonds are great but I like mine just roasted with just a little salt.


Chat GPT says

quote:
The California almond industry controls a significant amount of agricultural land. As of recent estimates, almond orchards cover approximately 1.6 million acres of land in California. This makes almonds one of the most prominent crops in the state, reflecting both the high demand for almonds and the suitable growing conditions in California's Central Valley. The industry's extensive land use has implications for water resources, land management, and the broader agricultural economy in the state. As of recent figures, the industry is estimated to bring in about $6 billion annually. This revenue comes from both domestic sales and exports, with almonds being one of California's top agricultural exports. The industry relies heavily on immigrant labor, influencing debates on immigration policy, labor laws, and workers' rights. The industry's economic importance leads to significant lobbying for agricultural subsidies and support programs. Almond farming is highly water-intensive, which sparks debates over water rights and allocation, especially during droughts.


I asked it to explain further about their lobbying power and activities and provide citations and this is what it gave:

quote:
The California almond industry's lobbying power is substantial, reflecting its significant economic influence and the importance of agricultural policies to its operations. Here’s a detailed look at their lobbying efforts and strategies, along with citations where applicable:

Lobbying Efforts and Strategies
1. Financial Contributions:

Campaign Contributions: The almond industry, along with broader agricultural interests, contributes considerable amounts to political campaigns. These contributions are aimed at candidates and political action committees (PACs) that support agricultural-friendly policies.
Political Action Committees: Organizations like the California Almond PAC engage in political advocacy by funding campaigns and lobbying efforts that benefit the almond industry.
2. Advocacy Groups:

Industry Associations: Groups such as the Almond Board of California play a crucial role in lobbying efforts. They engage in extensive lobbying activities to influence agricultural policies, water management regulations, and trade policies.
Collaborations: The almond industry collaborates with other agricultural sectors to strengthen their lobbying efforts, forming coalitions that advocate for common interests in water rights, environmental regulations, and subsidies.
3. Policy Influence:

Water Policy: The almond industry actively lobbies for favorable water policies, given the crop's high water demand. This includes advocating for infrastructure projects that ensure reliable water supply and opposing regulations that would restrict water usage.
Environmental Regulations: The industry works to influence environmental regulations, seeking to balance compliance with sustainability goals without imposing excessive costs on growers. This includes lobbying against stringent pesticide regulations and supporting measures that provide flexibility in meeting environmental standards.
4. Research and Public Relations:

Funding Research: The Almond Board of California funds research to support the industry’s positions on various issues, such as water efficiency and environmental impact. This research is used to advocate for policies based on scientific findings.
Public Relations Campaigns: The industry invests in public relations campaigns to shape public perception and garner support for their policy positions. These campaigns highlight the economic benefits of almond farming and efforts towards sustainability.
Evidence and Citations
Financial Influence: The Almond Board of California and other agricultural interests have been known to make significant contributions to political campaigns and PACs. According to OpenSecrets, agricultural PACs and individual contributors from the agriculture sector consistently rank among the top donors to political campaigns .

Lobbying Expenditures: The Almond Board of California and related entities regularly report lobbying expenditures. For instance, records from the California Secretary of State’s lobbying activity reports detail the amounts spent on lobbying efforts each quarter .

Water Policy Advocacy: During periods of drought, the industry has been particularly active in lobbying for water policies that ensure a stable water supply for almond growers. Articles from sources like Bloomberg and The New York Times have documented these lobbying efforts, emphasizing the industry's push for favorable water allocation policies and infrastructure projects .

Environmental Regulation Influence: The almond industry’s lobbying against certain environmental regulations, particularly those related to pesticide use and water quality, has been covered in environmental policy reviews and agricultural journals. These sources highlight the industry's efforts to balance regulatory compliance with maintaining profitability .

These activities demonstrate the significant lobbying power of the California almond industry, which leverages financial contributions, advocacy groups, and strategic public relations to influence policy decisions at the local, state, and federal levels.

References
OpenSecrets: Agricultural PACs
California Secretary of State: Lobbying Activity Reports
Bloomberg: Almond Industry’s Water Lobby
The New York Times: Water Wars in California
Environmental Policy Review: Pesticide Regulation and Agriculture
Agricultural Journal: Balancing Regulation and Profitability


They have their own PAC:
https://almondalliance.org/about-us/

So, essentially, they're a well-funded and growing farm segment accounting for almost 100% of US almond production and 80% of global production, and they're very politically active. They need tons of labor, and we see an administration doing everything they can to let illegal laborers into the country, and a "nutrition advisor" telling us that almonds are healthier than chicken breast or whole milk, both of which are foods derived from animals they've been trying to push against the farming of. I will go out on a limb and say there could be a political connection, and that the almond industry is in bed with the Democrats. I'll bet with a little more digging, one could find all the necessary campaign contributions and connections between the almond industry and certain administrations.


______________________________________________
Carthago delenda est
 
Posts: 17236 | Location: Sonoran Desert | Registered: February 10, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Savor the limelight
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by irreverent:
This can’t be real.

Of course it isn’t. It’s an article purposely taking information out of context and presenting in a manner to get people riled up in an effort to generate more people looking at the article: aka Click Bait.

If one were to look at the data in the 208 pages of the link, one would find that chicken breast has a Nutri-Score of B while Lucky Charms is rated a D. The food compass score is much more complex and take 54 different attributes into account. It shouldn’t be a shock that chicken breast by itself is not as nutritious as Lucky Charms. Lucky Charms has all sorts of vitamins and minerals added that chicken breast does not. For example, ground beef is way down there at 26, but pair it with beans and it jumps to 74 healthily beating Lucky Charms.
 
Posts: 11034 | Location: SWFL | Registered: October 10, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
His diet consists of black
coffee, and sarcasm.
Picture of egregore
posted Hide Post
 
Posts: 28023 | Location: Johnson City, TN | Registered: April 28, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by trapper189:

If one were to look at the data in the 208 pages of the link, one would find that chicken breast has a Nutri-Score of B while Lucky Charms is rated a D. The food compass score is much more complex and take 54 different attributes into account. It shouldn’t be a shock that chicken breast by itself is not as nutritious as Lucky Charms. Lucky Charms has all sorts of vitamins and minerals added that chicken breast does not. For example, ground beef is way down there at 26, but pair it with beans and it jumps to 74 healthily beating Lucky Charms.


By this logic if I make a make a milkshake and add a multivitamin and a scoop of protein powder it will be healthy.


 
Posts: 5428 | Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA | Registered: February 27, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of vthoky
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by drtenb330:
I want to print it out and hang it up at work but I'm afraid it would be taken out of context. The first two "foods" would be racist, and there'd be an investigation...


Crop the top two lines off the image, and carry on! Smile




God bless America.
 
Posts: 13530 | Location: The mountainous part of Hokie Nation! | Registered: July 15, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    White House ‘Nutrition Advisor’ Claims Honey Nut Cheerios Are Healthier Than Chicken

© SIGforum 2024