Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 2 years agoMaybe this is better for everyonelocklemmy.worldexternal-linkmessage-square443linkfedilinkarrow-up1591arrow-down1100
arrow-up1491arrow-down1external-linkMaybe this is better for everyonelocklemmy.worldRoflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 2 years agomessage-square443linkfedilink
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·2 years agoWhat they claimed was “a whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper.” Which is factually supported by the study, even if you’d prefer to interpret it to mean something else
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comBanned from communitylinkfedilinkarrow-up2·2 years ago What they claimed was “a whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper.” Which is factually supported by the study …for a limited segment of the population.
minus-squarearchomrade [he/him]@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·2 years agoIt’s actually not speaking about the personal costs born by consumers, it’s talking about the cost of purchasing food for the diet. As I said, if the paper was discussing the systemic hurtles and personal choices of consumers it would be a different paper, saying a different thing.
What they claimed was “a whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper.”
Which is factually supported by the study, even if you’d prefer to interpret it to mean something else
…for a limited segment of the population.
It’s actually not speaking about the personal costs born by consumers, it’s talking about the cost of purchasing food for the diet.
As I said, if the paper was discussing the systemic hurtles and personal choices of consumers it would be a different paper, saying a different thing.