This is absolutely not an either/or question. Both are important, obviously.
As for which takes precedence in any particular lifestyle decision: it depends entirely on the specifics and the relative trade-off.
If you’re asking ‘would you sacrifice the environment completely to achieve perfect personal health?’ or ‘would you sacrifice your own personal health completely to achieve a perfect environment?’, I’d choose the latter. But who cares really?
I don’t see how this relates to Huel products at all. They aim to satisfy both demands, on health and the environment. It’s not an either/or question. It’d be much easier if it was.
Tricky one. The environment is important and I want to protect it, but if I died, ideally I’d want all life on Earth to cease soon after. It’s not fair that future generations can enjoy life when I’m not around. And would they truly enjoy it without me?
I think they are trying to get the point out there that if huel were to sacrifice quality etc over the sakes of reducing the carbon footprint of huel…would you be ok with that…probably not, to be honest it’s a msg that is rammed down everyone’s throat far too much, in todays current market with prices and inflation, horrendous gas prices every single bill you have increasing, I’m sorry but my carbon footprint is always going to be the last thing on my mind
Luckily I don’t care whether it is or isn’t, it’s just a fact for me, I don’t, I drive a petrol car to get to work but get hounded about the environment…but big wig fat cats famous ppl can hop in there private jet twice a week & get absolutely nada then hop in there 4x4 from the airport to wherever they going…that is why I don’t care, it’s the ppl that contribute the least that get told to change the most
I suppose if you saw someone littering, or crapping on the floor instead of in the toilet, you’d do the same?
Wealthy people do get hounded for their lifestyles, especially if they’re telling us to do our bit. People don’t like hypocrisy. We want companies to change because individuals may not have the options or resources to change. Here’s a company doing that but a slight change in nutrient mix and you’re all throwing your toys out the pram? Are you all extreme athletes? Do you need to precisely min/max your diet? 3.1 is still a complete food. The little extras may have been nice but not essential. You can buy Black (for now, anyway). I’ll likely have to because beans and I don’t get along. But I’m not throwing a tantrum about it.
This poll genuinely horrifies me. The environment impacts our health. It impacts our food costs. You think food is expensive for no reason? Yes, import costs, war, Brexit play a part, but they’re compounded by flooding, heatwaves and chaotic weather cycles. Huel are doing their bit so you don’t have to think about it.
I completely agree that as a general question, this is not either/or, but…we have to acknowledge that just by replacing some of our meals with Huel, the carbon footprint reduces. If the meals we replaced would consist mostly of meat, the reduction is even greater. In nuclear engineering we have a term ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable), which I think fits quite well in this case.
So, if we have already minimized significantly our carbon footprint by changing our diets, does it make sense to start removing the ingredients that enrich our meal replacement and that potentially (at least when these ingredients were introduced, the move was highly publicized) have a good impact on our digestion/health for additional reductions of the carbon footprint? Or, on the other hand, do these changes come with a cost and the quality of our diet decreases?
People don’t want to change enough. They may do little things like recycling the boxes their brand new smartphones come in (even if their old one was only 18 months old and worked fine), but as soon as they have to make an effort, buy a bit less, fly a bit less, drive a bit less, have fewer offspring etc. they bury their heads. Then they blame others for not doing their bit. The corporations that make their shareholders wealthy only operate with the will of the masses. If we weren’t such avid consumers they would disappear.
Some of the historically poorer nations see what the wealthier nations have and they too want some of that. And they are often heavily populated countries so that’s gonna quickly add to the catastrophic situation.
Anyway back to Facebook.
Still it’s probably too late anyway, so let’s carry on as normal.