wwkirk
Divine
Locally, the "store brand" of OJ has been discounted quite often.
.
nivek
As Above So Below
nivek
As Above So Below
Plant-based sandwiches, salads and pizza are NOT healthier than meat options, study reveals
Researchers analysed a total of 1,868 meals including sandwiches, salads, noodles and pizza from 50 fast food chains across five countries, including the UK. These chains included Wagamamas, Pret, Pizza Express, Leon and Burger King.The team collected data on the calorie content, presence of allergens, and the quantities of nutrients, fibre and salt in each meal.
Their findings, published in the journal Nutrition, revealed that plant-based meals had less protein and sodium, and higher levels of carbohydrates and sugar, compared to the meat-based meals.
But – in bad news for those trying to shed some pounds – they discovered that overall, plant-based meals were not linked with having less calories.
Lead author Mikołaj Kamiński, from the Poznań University of Medical Sciences in Poland, said: ‘Our findings revealed that plant-based fast-food meals were more likely to contain more carbohydrates and sugar than meat-based equivalents.
‘Surprisingly, our study shows that plant-based meals are not associated with lower calories, which consumers may not realise.
‘This really emphasizes the importance of making informed food choices, especially when it comes to consuming fast food – even more so if you suffer from a metabolic disorder like type 2 diabetes.
‘It exposes the illusion that plant-based alternatives of popular fast-food dishes are automatically a healthier choice.’
The findings also showed that the meals containing meat were more likely to have allergens such as dairy, eggs, fish, shellfish and mustard, while plant-based meals more likely contained allergens such as sesame, seeds and nuts.
(More on the link)
.
Dejan Corovic
As above, so bellow
There is my favorite brand of crisps, in UK, Walker's Crisps, that plays very funny games with its price. Like, you go to a shop on Monday at a packet costs £1.65, then you go on Wednesday and packet cost £2.30 ( or such ).
When I was selling some stuff on eBay I was doing the same game. I would drop my price by 30%, that would attract some buyers and, in turn increase my ranking on the page with eBay search for my product. Higher ranking would attract more sales, and then I would hike price up 30% and sell into buyers with deeper pockets who were not penny pinching. Great technique.
Last edited:
nivek
As Above So Below
Hormone-warping chemicals are in 99 PERCENT of food sold in American stores - which may raise risk of cancer, autism and infertility, startling new report finds
The watchdog Consumer Reports tested 85 everyday items for the presence of phthalates and bisphenols, two types of PFAS chemicals used to make plastic food packaging. The researchers tried to make their sample size as broad as possible - testing water, soda, cereal, bread, meat, fish, condiments, desserts and even baby food. All but one product tested positive for the substances, which have been dubbed 'forever chemicals' because they are virtually impossible to break down in the body where they cause untold health problems.
.
nivek
As Above So Below
nivek
As Above So Below
nivek
As Above So Below
Leading US Meat Producer To Focus on Insects and Bugs Instead After Partnering With WEF
Tyson Foods Inc., the largest producer in the U.S. for all kinds of meats, is opening a major insect processing plant in the United States to fulfill what it says is “enormous future demand” for insects in North America.Tyson Foods Inc is buying a stake in Netherlands-based insect-protein company Protix BV, which describes itself “as leading the world in the technical aspects of insect production.”
The company has also been hailed by Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (WEF) and was awarded the globalist organization’s “Technology Pioneer” award. Protix CEO Kees Aarts is also listed as a member of the WEF.
The two companies will collaborate to establish a manufacturing plant in the U.S. that will produce bug-based meal and oil, typically used in fish feed and dog food.
However, Tyson CFO John Tyson said in an interview that the company will also produce products that are “good for people.”
“It’s a multibillion-dollar industry opportunity that has tremendous growth potential, and we see Protix as being a leader there,” Tyson said. Tyson added that “insect-protein inclusion” can be beneficial to both the “planet and animals.”
(More on the link)
.
Standingstones
Celestial
The alarms should be going off when Klaus Schwab’s name is being spoken!!
nivek
As Above So Below
The Deadly Genetically Engineered Bacteria that Almost Got Away: A Cautionary Tale
In the early 1990s a European genetic engineering company was preparing to field test and then commercialize on a major scale a genetically engineered soil bacteria called Klebsiella planticola. The bacteria had been tested--as it turns out in a careless and very unscientific mannner--by scientists working for the biotech industry and was believed to be safe for the environment. Fortunately a team of independent scientists, headed by Dr. Elaine Ingham of Oregon State University, decided to run their own tests on the gene-altered Klebsiella planticola. What they discovered was not only startling, but terrifying-- the biotech industry had created a biological monster--a genetically engineered microorganism that would kill all terrestrial plants. After Ingham's expose, of course the gene-altered Klebsiella planticola was never commercialized. But as Ingham points out, the lack of pre-market safety testing of other genetically altered organisms virtually guarantees that future biological monsters will be released into the environment. Moreover it's not only genetic engineering that poses a mortal threat to our soil ecology, the soil food web, as Ingham calls it. Chemical-intensive agriculture is slowly but surely poisoning our soil and our drinking water as well..
Now they want to try it again:
Scientists Warn Bill Gates Genetically Modified Soil Will Trigger Global Famine
Gates-funded Bayer and its partner Ginkgo Bioworks are currently swapping out some of the old fossil-fuel-based agrochemicals for genetically engineered microbes. The spread of these GM microbes could contaminate soil on such a vast scale that it could be the end of farming. Ginkgo’s SEC filing makes clear how unleashing Frankenmicrobes into the environment might wreak havoc, but if that doesn’t do it for you, this chilling true story from Dr. Elaine Ingham will.Bayer has made a pledge to “reduce the environmental impact of crop protection by 30 percent without sacrificing yield and the health of the harvest” by 2030. The truth is, Bayer has no plans to reduce its pesticide sales. What it’s looking to do is create additional products to stack on top of the ones it already sells.
Bayer is working with the Bill Gates-backed Pivot Bio on genetically engineered nitrogen-fixing bacteria. The promise is that it could cut synthetic fertilizer use, but there’s no evidence of that. Pivot isn’t letting independent scientists evaluate their claims.
It’s the same story with Poncho/VOTiVO, a hybrid chemical/biological insecticide product originally created by Bayer and now sold by BASF. Instead of marketing the genetically engineered Bt bacteria VOTiVO as an alternative to the neonicotinoid insecticide Poncho (which kills bees), they’re sold together — and only together — as a single product. This way, the companies can up-sell farmers, and if the product doesn’t work as advertised no one knows what’s to blame.
The soil microbe scam is just another in the long line of empty promises about the potential benefits of genetic engineering for food and farming: We’ve been fed so many lies about GMOs.
GMOs were going to “feed the world,” but Monsanto (which merged with Bayer and retired its infamous name in 2018) never came up with any genetically engineered traits that increased yields. They just bought up control of all the high-yielding varieties — that had all been conventionally bred.
GMOs were going to “reduce pesticide use,” but there’s no other reason to genetically engineer crops to be impervious to pesticides other than to sell more pesticides — and that’s exactly what Monsanto did.
GMOs were “safe,” but they were never safety-tested. Monsanto avoided Food & Drug Administration regulation by getting GMOs declared Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS).
GMOs were going to “coexist” with organic, but Monsanto made sure the burden was on non-GMO farmers to protect themselves from genetic pollution and pesticide drift. When farmers’ seeds got contaminated, Monsanto successfully claimed the farmers were stealing its GMO traits.
GMOs were going to make farming more resilient to climate change, but Monsanto’s “drought tolerant” corn was a failure. Bayer claims to care about pollinators, but it invented the pollinator-poisoning neonicotinoid insecticides that are killing the birds and the bees — and it refuses to stop selling them!
Bayer claims to care about farmers, but 11,000 rice farmers had to sue it when Bayer contaminated rice seeds with unapproved GMO traits, causing $1.2 billion in losses. Bayer eventually paid $750 million. Farmers still can’t grow that rice.
According to a Greenpeace investigation, the contamination — which involved three different GMO varieties — impacted rice seeds and 30 percent of rice supplies, including rice exported to 30 countries.
The contamination was discovered in 2006, but the rice hadn’t been grown since 2001. The unapproved GMO rice was still being found in Mexican supermarkets in 2010! It’s hard to believe that any of this is an accident, especially considering Bayer’s history.
Bayer used prisoners in experiments at Buchenwald and Auschwitz. Auschwitz was the industrial production headquarters of Bayer and its parent company I.G. Farben during World War II, built with slave labor purchased from the Nazis. Bayer was the I.G. Farben division that marketed Zyklon B. During the war, almost all sales were to the Nazis for their “gas chamber” genocide.
Monsanto conducted human radiation experiments on unwitting, uninformed U.S. citizens — from its own employees to the residents of whole housing projects — while working as a Pentagon contractor. It ran the chemistry side of the Manhattan Project and then maintained the U.S. nuclear weapons production facility known as Mound Laboratories.
When the war was over, the two companies jumped straight from the Holocaust, and building atomic bombs to kill Japanese civilians, right into a merger they called MoBay. That collaboration resulted in the Agent Orange toxin the U.S. used in the Vietnam War. Bayer is evil. From Zyklon B to Agent Orange to glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup to pollinator-poisoning neonics, the company has done nothing but try to kill us and destroy our capacity to feed ourselves!
Why? They plan to make money off the transition from agriculture as we know it to a world where lab-grown and synthetic “proteins” are the new processed foods. We must stop its latest plot to destroy our food system.
(More on the link)
.
nivek
As Above So Below
Food industry greed at its finest...
...
For example, a Dave's Single quarter pounder currently costs around $5.99 at a Wendy's in Newark, New Jersey. Under the new system that could increase by a dollar at lunchtime and drop by a similar amount during the post-lunch lull. Wendy's new system will begin testing in 2025 and rely on 'digital menu boards', in which it will invest $20 million, according to its CEO Kirk Tanner. That will mean it will be able to update prices in real-time and at little to no expense.
Although consumers are familiar with constantly changing prices for airline tickets and concerts, as well as 'surge pricing' when booking an Uber, the bold move would make Wendy's the first fast food chain to implement dynamic pricing for meals. If it pays off, the chain will boost sales and potentially improve margins. On the other hand, it risks alienating consumers who always expect to pay a fixed price for a meal regardless of when they visit.
'They could shoot themselves in the foot by introducing something customers aren't ready for,' said Steven Suranovic, an associate professor of economics at George Washington University. 'If people feel like they're getting gouged, they're not going to take kindly to this dynamic pricing strategy,' he said.
In fact, 52 percent of more than 900 consumers surveyed by software company Capterra last year said they considered dynamic pricing in restaurants to be price gouging.
'Beginning as early as 2025, we will begin testing more enhanced features like dynamic pricing and day part offerings along with AI-enabled menu changes and suggestive selling,' said Tanner during an earnings call this month.
Dynamic pricing - also known as surge pricing - means prices change based on various market factors, most notably demand.
It is already used by airlines and rideshare apps like Uber and Lyft, which adjust prices to ensure they can charge consumers as much as they are willing to pay at any one moment. It means retailers can gain an edge over the consumer by ensuring it sells products for the highest possible margins, eating up what is known as 'consumer surplus'.
That is the difference between how much consumers are willing to pay and how much they actually pay. A higher consumer surplus benefits the consumer. 'Dynamic pricing enables them to take that surplus away from consumers and put it into the firm's pocket,' said Suranovic. Ultimately, the biggest losers would be lunchtime customers.
(More on the link)
.
...
Wendy's plots new 'Uber surge-style' menu where prices jump up and down in line with demand - so when will be the cheapest (and costliest) time to eat?
Wendy's is planning to charge different prices depending on the time of day - which means a Dave's Single could cost more at lunchtime than mid-afternoon. So-called dynamic pricing would boost traffic when restaurants are quiet and cool demand when they're busy. Such a system might mean that at busy times like breakfast, lunch and dinner, prices it advertises on a digital menu will be higher and at quieter times they will fall.For example, a Dave's Single quarter pounder currently costs around $5.99 at a Wendy's in Newark, New Jersey. Under the new system that could increase by a dollar at lunchtime and drop by a similar amount during the post-lunch lull. Wendy's new system will begin testing in 2025 and rely on 'digital menu boards', in which it will invest $20 million, according to its CEO Kirk Tanner. That will mean it will be able to update prices in real-time and at little to no expense.
Although consumers are familiar with constantly changing prices for airline tickets and concerts, as well as 'surge pricing' when booking an Uber, the bold move would make Wendy's the first fast food chain to implement dynamic pricing for meals. If it pays off, the chain will boost sales and potentially improve margins. On the other hand, it risks alienating consumers who always expect to pay a fixed price for a meal regardless of when they visit.
'They could shoot themselves in the foot by introducing something customers aren't ready for,' said Steven Suranovic, an associate professor of economics at George Washington University. 'If people feel like they're getting gouged, they're not going to take kindly to this dynamic pricing strategy,' he said.
In fact, 52 percent of more than 900 consumers surveyed by software company Capterra last year said they considered dynamic pricing in restaurants to be price gouging.
'Beginning as early as 2025, we will begin testing more enhanced features like dynamic pricing and day part offerings along with AI-enabled menu changes and suggestive selling,' said Tanner during an earnings call this month.
Dynamic pricing - also known as surge pricing - means prices change based on various market factors, most notably demand.
It is already used by airlines and rideshare apps like Uber and Lyft, which adjust prices to ensure they can charge consumers as much as they are willing to pay at any one moment. It means retailers can gain an edge over the consumer by ensuring it sells products for the highest possible margins, eating up what is known as 'consumer surplus'.
That is the difference between how much consumers are willing to pay and how much they actually pay. A higher consumer surplus benefits the consumer. 'Dynamic pricing enables them to take that surplus away from consumers and put it into the firm's pocket,' said Suranovic. Ultimately, the biggest losers would be lunchtime customers.
(More on the link)
.
nivek
As Above So Below
nivek
As Above So Below
nivek
As Above So Below
Now scientists want you to eat lab-grown mold to 'save the environment'
Lab-grown meat has been advertised as a way to save the environment, but now scientists are taking it one step further by asking people to eat mold.Researchers at the University of California (UC) - Berkeley are using genetic engineering to create proteins and meat substitutes from the genes found in koji mold which is already used to ferment sake, soy sauce, and miso.
The researchers have, so far, bioengineered the fungi into a patty they fried to resemble a ‘tempting-looking burger,’ but this is just the jumping-off point for the team.
They hope to morph the mold to control the flavor and texture of the product and create a line of food that will appeal to ‘even the most sophisticated tastes.’
(More on the link)
.
nivek
As Above So Below
nivek
As Above So Below
Vegan Impossible burgers increase risk of diabetes and heart problems - new study finds you're better off with REAL meat
They're said to be low in fat, good for cholesterol and an overall healthier choice than the real deal. But a new trial suggests that plant-based fake meat products are not in fact a nutritious choice - and could increase the risk of heart disease.The study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found that people who ate a diet high in fake meats like Beyond burgers and Impossible burgers for eight weeks had higher blood sugars than those who ate real meat.
This puts them at higher risk for developing heart disease and diabetes down the line, the authors wrote. Previous studies have found eating a plant-based diet can reduce the risk of developing diabetes by 25 percent.
However, the researchers of the new trial have highlighted that these studies involve people who eat whole foods - rather than ultra-processed products.
(More on the link)
.