Based on the science appendix it seems like the inclusion of a "low carb diet" is more toward disease treatment and not health promotion. This would be antithetical to the DGA in years past and is kind of useless. The appendix itself acknowledges that the long term effects of a "low carb diet" are muted in the long term, which is probably why you would never hear it hawked by a nutrition professional as a healthy eating pattern.
The restrictions on SNAP are insidious because SNAP is supposed to enable one to live a normal life -- and that includes occasionally buying things that are not "healthy" in a bubble. The mantra that many health professionals will use is "there are no unhealthy foods, only unhealthy diets". Combine all that background with traditional stigma associated with SNAP/food stamp benefits and a picture starts to emerge of why policy was to embrace more foods and how this administration is often called the "administration of harm".
The value of smaller gardens are not measured in the produce harvested but the knowledge sowed. Many are federally funded at schools, community centers, or local libraries to serve as outdoor classrooms.
Traditionally, the US Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) is actually a policy guidance document and not a marketing or handout document.
Nine pages is laughable and sad. There are entire missing sections on different life stages and transition foods. (edit: I see it now, I scrolled by it because it's way shorter than it usually is) That kind of sensitive guidance on nutrition is supposed to come from this document - which is usually 150+ pages and includes input from committees of registered dietitians.
I'm glad some people are enthusiastic to find nutritional clarity in their lives but I can't imagine this is going to be helpful for the institutions or people that usually rely on it.
Also, please remember this secretary is actively ignoring a measles outbreak, has an obsession with instagram health fads, and is a disgrace to the global scientific community.
This is for children and adolescents, which have different needs than the average adult. It's also just a meta analysis of literature with zero RCTs and a suggestive correlation. Unfortunately, these new guidelines don't seem even nearly detailed enough to cover these kinds of differences. The usual guidelines are well over 150 pages.
I am confused by this line from this article (which seems ABC-specific):
>The reality is, it's the Democrats who are voting no to reopening the government as they try to reverse cuts to health care made by Republicans.
1) Republicans control both house and Senate, so why is this an issue with Democrats voting with their views?
2) Healthcare funding is the least controversial thing to shut down the government for. This very article cites sick call-outs as a large contributing factor for the lack of tower personnel to begin with.
Putting aside that MDs trained in medical ethics should be the ones to decide the end-all debate of HRT for those under 18y/o (or maybe 24 by your standard) -- I would imagine "tips" here is mostly about logistics of navigating the US health system and filling in health-effect anecdotes where science has yet to affirm/study (which encompasses more areas of health than you might think). Also, "Invasive" and "non-invasive" are usually reserved for surgical contexts so I'm not sure I would apply that here.
But don't forget the emergency narrative: "We're being invaded!" and "Governors (bureaucrats, etc.) aren't doing what I want them to do it's now an emergency!". This is not only how our dictatorial executive overreaches, but also how its supporters justify the means in their minds.
Venue shopping should be illegal. Musk, and many other SLAAP plantiffs, routinely choose this judge because they know it's one of the few districts these cases won't be dismissed outright because of judge O’Connor.
The courts should not be able to make and apply any standards to government operations that it conveniently sees and defines as ambiguous, especially since a lot of their standards are frequently seen as more than ambiguous. We've seen this with their emergency "posthumous" clarifications of the Roe ruling by conflicting EMTALA, fertility clinics, and decades of health science.
In the EPA review they go over some of the chemistry involved through the research that has been done. For example with serum albumin binding, the predominant mechanism is van der waals forces and hydrogen bonding.
Here's a link to the general region you describe ordered by most recent sightings. You can zoom in on your specific location and look deeper or draw a new boundary. Hope this helps!
>There is no percentage for proteins and yet nobody would argue that it's a trick from big food so clearly there must be a reason why some rows have no percentage?
Yeah it begs the question for sure. According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans [1, pg128], the research shows that Americans have no problem consuming lots of meats that contain protein, and so it's probably not listed for that reason. I've even been taught simply that we eat too much protein as a country. Generally, the only major group that struggles with protein would be those aged 71 and over, because their requirements are higher than a middle-aged average adult.
IIRC the FDA picks and chooses to list daily %ages for things that most(?) Americans will struggle with, but there's also some voluntary options for manufacturers that might want to flaunt added vitamins - a good example is Vitamin C because no one struggles with this but when it's added to a children's gummy nutrition facts voluntarily it then gives them a slight marketing advantage.
I believe you have linked the older nutrition facts label here's a link to the newer one which includes a category called "added sugars" with its own daily intake %.
The reason it's only for added sugar is because "sugar" can be ambiguous, and sugars can be both metabolized differently (eg: fruit sugar/fructose) and is the primary source of energy for the brain (with few exceptions).
Since the "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010" schools really do serve a lot more variety and the nutritional standards are much better. Any issues that made it to the media have had to do with the "last mile"(as they say in telco) as school districts have to have functional operations to implement them, and that includes class A drivers and dietitian(s) on staff.
What seems like missed opportunity is mainly just south central valley agricultural propaganda. Apologies if I unload too much information here.
"Additional surface water storage, while having some economic benefit, is not as valuable as expanding key conveyance and recharge facilities. Aqueducts, canals, and interties that allow users to buy and sell water, especially between the agricultural and urban sectors, are the most valuable. " [1]
and
"As Delta exports are restricted, scarcity increases for agricultural users south of the Delta. Some of these costs would be offset by revenues from sales of water by senior water-rights holders to urban areas and higher-valued agriculture." [1]
ie: Water limitations at the delta effect how many almonds or pistachios we can produce and sell (or rather, the agricultural monopolies).
As I've highlighted in another comment, locations for another surface-level reservoir are scarce, and offer diminishing returns at best. "No reservoir can reliably deliver more than the reservoir’s average annual inflow (minus evaporation)[...]"
Most easy, cheap, and effective reservoir locations in California already have reservoirs." [2]
Our best tools are to: conserve water, protect our ground water aquifers (that actually make up the majority of our water supply), and hope we can hold/reverse climate change enough to keep temperatures low enough to generate snow pack every year in the mountains.
So pretty clear the environmental damage caused by a new one is not worth it. Rather, conservation of our groundwater and reducing wasteful agricultural practices in the south central valley would be our best bet at ensuring drought-time water security.
Yeah kinda weird to leave out the iNat discussion. It's a really fun photo but the consensus of "it's a piece of dirt with the mushroom on it" seems improtant if you want to publish it...