The article talks about more than just working conditions. For instance

While the larger poultry industry in neighboring Arkansas has given rise to worker centers and advocacy groups that push back against unsafe conditions, Oklahoma’s still sizable immigrant workforce has less support

[…]

Immigrant workers are often less inclined than native-born workers to report unsafe working conditions or injuries because they fear losing their jobs or being deported, said Jose Oliva, the campaigns director for the HEAL Food Alliance, a coalition of organizations that represent food industry workers.

[…]

“This industry is really skilled at constantly seeking out who is the most vulnerable or exploitable population, and how do we bring them in,” Stuesse said.

Plus why does cost of transport have inconsistent spacing between lines and inconsistent scale movement? The scale is neither linear nor log. It sometimes doubles, and then sometimes just adds 0.2, 2, or 20. And also still a scale that’s flipped from (at least my) expectation would be with more efficient towards the top and less efficient towards the bottom. Sometimes there’s a minor grid line, sometimes there isn’t. And sometimes the minor grid line isn’t even at the half mark

At least the body weight keeps to a consistent log scale

Is there a data is ugly community?

Can’t speak for this specific blend sourcing they used in this study, but soy protein is usually cheaper in much of the world. It’s why most protein bars use soy protein isolate

That’s a rather excessive amount unless you mean g protein/kg instead of g protein / lbs

People who exercise regularly also have higher needs, about 1.1-1.5 grams per kilogram. People who regularly lift weights or are training for a running or cycling event need 1.2-1.7 grams per kilogram. Excessive protein intake would be more than 2 grams per kilogram of body weight each day.

https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/are-you-getting-too-much-protein

2g / kg = ~0.9g /lbs for reference

Sure, but they intentionally built in large margins to these reference. Of course zero lead is ideal, but it’s not what happens in practice. The metric consumer reports used has a 1000x safety factor vs the FDA’s 10x safety factor

The FDA’s studies of dietary lead exposure show that the average American adult consumes between 1.7 and 5.3 micrograms daily through their normal food intake

[…]

The FDA, as part of its “Closer to Zero” campaign and using a 10X safety factor, has set its reference levels at 2.2 micrograms per day for children and 8.8 for women of childbearing age (to protect against accidental fetal exposure). This means that regularly exceeding these might pose health risks.

[…]

California’s Prop 65, however, used a far higher 1,000X safety factor (1,000 times lower than minimal known unsafe levels) to arrive at 0.5 micrograms of lead per day as its reference level.

From the same article as above

Edited the title to clarify

I assume you are referring to the consumer reports headlines, they have been greatly misleading. They have been using an extremely low level as their bar for concern. Here’s a recent piece talking about that

This is an unachievable safety target, significantly below the lead you get from average daily food consumption

[…]

But compared to the FDA’s more realistic numbers, 6.3 micrograms is 71.6 percent of the reference level for women of childearing age, meaning it’s safe even for at-risk individuals. For adult males, who are more likely to glug protein shakes, the risk is negligible. Children, with some exceptions, shouldn’t be consuming protein powder at all

[…]

And it bears noting that Consumer Reports’s tests showed levels of lead that were higher than tests of Huel carried out by the National Sanitation Foundation, an independent testing body, which showed that a serving of Huel Black came in under 3.6 micrograms

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/465552/protein-powder-lead-poisoning-fda-supplements-consumer-reports

(https://archive.is/y6ZHk for paywall)

We at least wouldn’t be at the same starting point since regardless of what happens, we’d still be with much lower environmental impact, zoonetic disease risk for society at large, number of animals in factory farms, etc.

Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/html

Yep, there is not much way around the fact that meat production and consumption must go down substantially to reduce disease risk. More intensive animal agriculture is worse for reasons like antibiotic overuse. Less intensive animal agriculture substantially raises land use which means more deforestation and more human contact with wildlife and higher disease. See the infectious disease trap of animal agriculture

The research comparing plant-based meats to animal-based meats generally has found plant-based meats to come out ahead health wise, though a whole food plant-based diet is even better

Wait, apparently this varies from region to region after looking this up to check. In the US and Canada, Oatly is gluten free, but Europe and Asia it can have small amounts of it (from I think cross contamination)

Related onion: What If We Just Called It ‘Milk?’: Meet The Marketing Genius Who Single-Handedly Saved The Cow Discharge Industry

What is linked is full of misinformation and disinformation. For instance, Canola oil does not naturally contain any trans fat and only has very small traces after refining. Dairy, for what it’s worth, also contains similar amounts trans fat

The article just also completely glances over environmental factors. Even if we took all this site’s claims as true (which we shouldn’t, they are citing someone who works for an animal ag lobby group), a claimed 1/3 emissions instead of a 75% reduction would makes it a “lie” because it doesn’t fix everything?

This site is also full of LLM generated articles with AI generated images, and this article has some signs of LLM writing: random bold, heavy em dash use, links to articles that have zero relation, etc.

It’s now just a bit more. Just a little bit really

Though it is worth noting that almond milk is still lower than dairy across every environmental metric. Including water use weighted by water scarcity

(True of all plant milks)

Hoisin sauce is typically vegan as is soy sauce and teriyaki among many others

So you say, yet there is more room to increase it

I suggest read the original study instead of a paper’s interpretation of it. They suggest action, and that’s changing the suggested inhalers people use in most cases. It’s not “blame people for thing”, it’s “here’s a problem and how we can dramatically reduce it with some minor systemic changes”

All but 2 therapeutic classes (short-acting muscarinic antagonists and ICS-SABAs) had dry powder and/or soft mist inhalers available. If patients during the study period had received the inhalers with the lowest emissions intensity available at the time in each therapeutic class, total emissions would have decreased by 92%, from 24.9 million mtCO2e to 2.1 million mtCO2e (eTable 6 in Supplement 1).

[…]

This study identifies a high ceiling for potential climate-related gains from switching patients to therapeutically equivalent alternatives. Any such efforts to shift prescribing will likely depend on broadscale formulary changes—and the policies required to incentivize such changes—rather than just individual actions by patients and physicians, who may be limited by payer formularies when choosing particular inhalers

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2839471

That is misunderstanding the graph. That’s only counting direct emissions. Feed production is a major source of emissions for animal agriculture

From the article:

“Livestock” emissions here include direct emissions from livestock only — they do not consider impacts of land use change for pasture or animal feed.

Aldi (German pronunciation: [ˈaldiː] ⓘ), styled as ALDI,[6] is the common company brand name of two German multinational family-owned discount supermarket chains operating over 12,000 stores in 18 countries.[7][8] The chain was founded by brothers Karl and Theo Albrecht in 1946, when they took over their mother’s store in Essen. The business was split into two separate groups in 1960 that later became Aldi Nord (initially Northern West Germany), headquartered in Essen, and Aldi Süd (initially Southern West Germany), headquartered in neighbouring Mülheim.[9][10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldi

So I say “consider how some people actually do have a single source of protein per day, they’re not combining it with other food sources, but they should be aware of this” and your reply is “oh but you see they’re combining it with other food sources so that’s not important” flawless logic.

My point is that it effectively happens anyway without even having to think about it in 99% of cases. It’s not really a large issue in the slightest. It just makes things sound scarier and more complex than it needs to be. People have finite ability to focus on various health things, and this just isn’t something 99% of people need to be worried about

If someone is eating the exact identical source exclusively, every single day with no variation in anything, they are likely going to end up deficient in other things way before this, regardless of which thing they are eating (unless it’s something like Huel or Soylent which is designed to include everything). This is not at the level of “someone has beans a lot”. This is at the level of “virtually all of your calories come from beans” to be some larger issue

Many people use it as a lever to attack plant-based diets in situation that it just doesn’t apply at all by making it sound like it’s something you’re needing some spreadsheet for. It’s really not the case. Plus things like soy, chia, hemp, and more are also already complete too

I never said that. You mentioned it, I said I agreed, and you mentioned it again to reinforce a point I never made. Trying to pad out the comment or something?

I was not saying that you said this. I should have worded that better. I was trying to add some more context for relevant statements from authors talking about both complete proteins and protein combining. I did a poor job of that though

because your body will absolutely not fully digest the 2g of protein in your 100g plate of white rice.

You don’t need to digest all of it, it’s just about a specific amino acid (Methionine in this case which beans already have some of). It’s just a little bit to make it complete. For instance, one of the studies you linked with rice + lentils found the two together rose the DIASS to overall be 100% (122% for infants and kids, 143% for older adults)

I should also note protein quality metrics are also often based on some faulty assumptions for plants in particular. For instance, the DIASS has some flaws that make it undervalue the quality of plant proteins

While multiple strengths characterize the DIAAS, substantial limitations remain, many of which are accentuated in the context of a plant-based dietary pattern. Some of these limitations include a failure to translate differences in nitrogen-to-protein conversion factors between plant- and animal-based foods, limited representation of commonly consumed plant-based foods within the scoring framework, inadequate recognition of the increased digestibility of commonly consumed heat-treated and processed plant-based foods, its formulation centered on fast-growing animal models rather than humans, and a focus on individual isolated foods vs the food matrix. The DIAAS is also increasingly being used out of context where its application could produce erroneous results such as exercise settings. When investigating protein quality, particularly in a plant-based dietary context, the DIAAS should ideally be avoided.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13668-020-00348-8.pdf