8 ms·

It’s Time to Fix the Broken Food System

32 points by bootload 11y ago

gwbas1c 11y ago
"They require fewer animal proteins and more plant-based foods." It's very hard to get the general public to reduce animal product consumption. I tried as a bachelor, but I just couldn't figure out how to make a tasty meal without a big hunk of meat. When I met my wife, who is vegan, it suddenly became easy to lower my animal product consumption. This was because I had a good example to follow. It's a very strange challenge, because meat is so damn tasty.
- PerfectElement 11y ago
  I've been to quite a few vegan restaurants (exploring vegan restaurants in new cities is one of my hobbies), some were bad, but many were amazing. I've even seen vegan chefs win competitions. The taste problem has been solved; it just needs mass market adoption. So for me the problem is convenience (tasty meat-based food is easier to find), not taste. Unfortunately, the economic infrastructure created around meat consumption is too big to change, it will probably take decades.
- PopeOfNope 11y ago
  > It's very hard to get the general public to reduce animal product consumption. That's because animal proteins and animal fats are vital nutrients the body needs. It's also the most efficient method of transport for these nutrients; industrially grown crops cause far more damage than pastured livestock. http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/reversing-desertification-with-livestock http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/reversing-desertification-with-li... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
- tonyarkles 11y ago
  I'll start by saying that I'm at a healthy weight for my height (5'9, 160lb) and in reasonably good shape (I won't win any marathons, but running 7-8 miles isn't a big deal). My partner isn't vegan or vegetarian, but she does prefer to eat mostly plants. I try to accomodate that preference when I cook for the two of us. The biggest challenge I have is how much plant-based food I have to eat to feel satiated and mentally sharp. Meat with veggies, for me, seems to work quite well. If I eat a pure veggie meal, even high protein veggies with some kind of added fat (oil or butter), I feel ferociously hungry an hour later. I really like cooking large meals so that we have leftovers, but unless there's meat in it, it seems like ridiculously large meals disappear very quickly.
agentultra 11y ago
Can anyone get us to give up meat? Or at least drastically reduce our consumption? I still enjoy a good burger once in a while and a side of bacon with Sunday breakfast is a slice of bliss. But I find myself the exception; most people I know expect to have meat with at least one, if not two, meals a day. Animal based food products are not as easy to scale up as vegetable based proteins. Interesting work has been going into lighting systems whose spectrum is optimized for photosynthesis and is being used to grow lettuce in great quantities indoors[0]. We can make this happen for hybrid plants with the specific nutrient and protein properties we need. We can even grow bugs at scale and harvest the meal... but beef? pork? chicken? Seems to be an intractable problem. [0] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/japanese-plant-experts-produce-10000-lettuces-a-day-in-led-lit-indoor-farm-9601844.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/japanese-plant-exp...
- zaphar 11y ago
  Third world countries with starving children aren't going to turn down mostly vegetarian food. It's actually a good opportunity to create a larger market for vegetarian food options. First World countries are another matter though. Meat is often a staple. I'm not sure how to fix that one.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    In the third world, meat is going to be an aspirational good. It's also more likely to be locally produced from your own or neighbour's animals.
  - adrianN 11y ago
    Passing laws that prohibit factory farming of animals and thus raising the price of meat quite a bit would probably go a long way.
    - latch 11y ago
      From a pure market point of view, I'd prefer they got rid of subsidies (direct and indirect) first.
PerfectElement 11y ago
For those interested in this subject, there's a great documentary that was just released on Netflix, it's called Cowspiracy. It was produced independently and now is being backed by Leonardo DiCaprio. The facts and interesting story behind the movie are covered in this Rich Roll podcast episode: http://www.richroll.com/podcast/cowspiracy-how-animal-agriculture-is-destroying-the-planet-what-you-can-do-about-it/ http://www.richroll.com/podcast/cowspiracy-how-animal-agricu...
jimrandomh 11y ago
The problem with strengthening government and institutional influence over the food supply is that the when it comes to nutrition, the big US institutions are loudly proclaiming that up is down and black is white, particularly with regard to salt and fat. If we succeed in importing our dietary advice to poorer countries, we'll cause them to have obesity epidemics, too, without solving their hunger and malnutrition problems.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  But the evidence shows salt and fat have been demonized. I know, it'll take a generation (current convinced people grow old and die) before we can kill those old ideas.
cwyers 11y ago
> This week, the countries of the United Nations will sign the most important document they have ever produced. Glad to see that we jump straight to the incredible hyperbole right with the first sentence.
- nickff 11y ago
  One might also see it as damning by faint praise...
at-fates-hands 11y ago
It's interesting the author points out the effects on the environment and economies, but completely omits how much violent conflicts are direct drivers of poverty. https://microconflict.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/conflict-traps-how-does-poverty-cause-war-and-how-does-war-cause-poverty/ https://microconflict.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/conflict-trap... This year’s World Development Report, published a couple of weeks ago, emphasises the fact that one of the biggest drivers of poverty in the developing world is violent conflict. One of the biggest risks for developing countries, it argues, is that of being caught in a conflict trap – a vicious circle whereby poverty stokes conflict, and conflict in turn increases poverty. Not sure how eating less meat is going to compete with social and religious conflicts which cause and sustain far more poverty.
ucaetano 11y ago
"Fixing the global food system. The damage this system wreaks is shocking." If we could only invent a teleportation device... Also, shipping massive amounts of free grain around the world wreaks havoc in local markets, driving small farmers out of business in poor countries. We need efficient supply chains, efficient market pricing and efficient crops, such as golden rice. Instead, we get governments interfering in market prices, blocking food supply chain companies in the name of "tradition" and blocking GMO development and usage in the name of religion and bogus science.
- makomk 11y ago
  Golden rice is basically useless except as a PR tool to clear the way for more profitable GMOs. Its only benefit is that it might provide an alternative to vitamin A supplementation if countries were allowed to grow it. Unfortunately, it's covered by a thicket of patents from about 30 companies, and the free patent licence is a PR stunt - almost all the countries it includes can't actually grow rice. The only country that's both permitted to grow it by the patent license and has the right climate to do so is the Philippines, which is why so much of the attention on golden rice is focused there (and even they're reliant on rice imports to feed their population). Sadly for golden rice's proponents, while they were still getting it to work the government there quietly dealt with the vitamin A deficiency problem through a more low-tech and effective technique: vitamen supplements. I'm pretty sure this is by design, by the way. The criteria for being licensed to grow golden rice is that the country grows less calories of food than it takes to support their population. Rice is so calorific that it's hard for a rice-growing country to meet this criteria, which is also why it's a popular staple food in developing countries and why rice was chosen in the first place.
  - primroot 11y ago
    The issue of yields is also relevant. Here is a report from 2014. The original page has been changed. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://irri.org/golden-rice/faqs/what-is-the-status-of-the-golden-rice-project-coordinated-by-irri http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://... "While the target level of beta-carotene in the grain was attained, average yield was unfortunately lower than that from comparable local varieties already preferred by farmers."
DennisP 11y ago
The first problem they mention is that we waste 30% of our food. A recent study found that for seafood in the U.S. it's even worse, we waste almost 50%....but that waste is mostly at the consumer level. I don't see how that's fixable. You're not going to stop people from throwing out leftovers. http://phys.org/news/2015-09-seafood.html http://phys.org/news/2015-09-seafood.html
- hlfcoding 11y ago
  I wonder how restaurants factor into that, especially fast food. Any place that preemptively prepares food is very likely to waste a lot of it. Having worked at an am/pm for my first job, I was blown away by how much food is thrown out after 3 hrs from when it was cooked.
netcan 11y ago
There are some problem inherent to coordinating anything on a multi-billion person scale that are monumental. You could even narrate a history of people on earth using ability to coordinate at greater scale as your x axis. I've heard an interesting theory about homo sapien "victory" over neanderthals and other archaic humans. In some versions it's upper paleolithic culture over lower paleolithic culture of which neanderthals, early sapiens and all the grey arrears around those groups. In any case, the theory/hypothesis/narrative is that the difference between anatomically modern humans and their close cousins and homo sapiens sapiens was their ability to coordinate on larger scales than the biologically determined "band" size. Chimps, Gorillas and presumably earlier hominids live socially in groups that vary in size within a range determined by their biology. There are no chimp kings, tribes or limited liability companies, just troops and bands. Their bonding and cooperation mechanisms are based on biologically determined behavior. Environment and even culture play a role, but 250 chimps controlling a territory that would otherwise be controlled by more smaller troops is not in their repertoire. Imagine a population of archaic humans who, by use of language, religion, symbolism, abstract concepts of some unknown kind, oral history or some other means were able to coordinate 500 individuals, with 200 fighters. In a lot of contexts (the most obvious being war), that group would be at a huge advantage. These are our ancestors. It also suggests a gnarly explanation to the genetic bottleneck question. This process continues through history. Mega bands become clans and tribes and super tribes and nations and all sorts of affiliations. They get bigger and more effectively coordinated. Economic and political dynamics emerge. We get ideologies and organized religions, feudalism, socialism, slavery, capitalism, monarchy, nation states, empires, manchester united and political party nomination betting odds (BTW, Trump is at 3-1). Anyway.. food. Based on current grain prices, the daily caloric requirements of a person costs cents, ¢10-¢50, depending on what you plug into your back-of-the-envelope calculator. I'm not bringing this up as proof that caloric deficit is easily solvable, I mean the opposite. The fact that it persists in the face of this fact means that it is simply very difficult to do anything on a entire species scale. "We" here is a very tricky concept. There is no real "we" yet in the practical sense of an actor with agency.
tdkl 11y ago
"Fixing" things on global scale with expectation people won't exercise their legal rights against the "fix" without any external threat (I'd say influence, but threat brings more results) is a fairy tale, utopia to be precise.
mobiuscog 11y ago
And not a single mention of Glysophate and how it's killing the environment (and us) far more. But Monsanto (and GMO) will save us all, right ?

32 points by bootload 11y ago

"They require fewer animal proteins and more plant-based foods." It's very hard to get the general public to reduce animal product consumption. I tried as a bachelor, but I just couldn't figure out how to make a tasty meal without a big hunk of meat. When I met my wife, who is vegan, it suddenly became easy to lower my animal product consumption. This was because I had a good example to follow. It's a very strange challenge, because meat is so damn tasty.

PerfectElement 11y ago
I've been to quite a few vegan restaurants (exploring vegan restaurants in new cities is one of my hobbies), some were bad, but many were amazing. I've even seen vegan chefs win competitions. The taste problem has been solved; it just needs mass market adoption. So for me the problem is convenience (tasty meat-based food is easier to find), not taste. Unfortunately, the economic infrastructure created around meat consumption is too big to change, it will probably take decades.
PopeOfNope 11y ago
> It's very hard to get the general public to reduce animal product consumption. That's because animal proteins and animal fats are vital nutrients the body needs. It's also the most efficient method of transport for these nutrients; industrially grown crops cause far more damage than pastured livestock. http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/reversing-desertification-with-livestock http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/reversing-desertification-with-li... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
tonyarkles 11y ago
I'll start by saying that I'm at a healthy weight for my height (5'9, 160lb) and in reasonably good shape (I won't win any marathons, but running 7-8 miles isn't a big deal). My partner isn't vegan or vegetarian, but she does prefer to eat mostly plants. I try to accomodate that preference when I cook for the two of us. The biggest challenge I have is how much plant-based food I have to eat to feel satiated and mentally sharp. Meat with veggies, for me, seems to work quite well. If I eat a pure veggie meal, even high protein veggies with some kind of added fat (oil or butter), I feel ferociously hungry an hour later. I really like cooking large meals so that we have leftovers, but unless there's meat in it, it seems like ridiculously large meals disappear very quickly.

agentultra 11y ago

Can anyone get us to give up meat? Or at least drastically reduce our consumption? I still enjoy a good burger once in a while and a side of bacon with Sunday breakfast is a slice of bliss. But I find myself the exception; most people I know expect to have meat with at least one, if not two, meals a day. Animal based food products are not as easy to scale up as vegetable based proteins. Interesting work has been going into lighting systems whose spectrum is optimized for photosynthesis and is being used to grow lettuce in great quantities indoors[0]. We can make this happen for hybrid plants with the specific nutrient and protein properties we need. We can even grow bugs at scale and harvest the meal... but beef? pork? chicken? Seems to be an intractable problem. [0] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/japanese-plant-experts-produce-10000-lettuces-a-day-in-led-lit-indoor-farm-9601844.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/japanese-plant-exp...

zaphar 11y ago
Third world countries with starving children aren't going to turn down mostly vegetarian food. It's actually a good opportunity to create a larger market for vegetarian food options. First World countries are another matter though. Meat is often a staple. I'm not sure how to fix that one.
- pjc50 11y ago
  In the third world, meat is going to be an aspirational good. It's also more likely to be locally produced from your own or neighbour's animals.
- adrianN 11y ago
  Passing laws that prohibit factory farming of animals and thus raising the price of meat quite a bit would probably go a long way.
  - latch 11y ago
    From a pure market point of view, I'd prefer they got rid of subsidies (direct and indirect) first.

PerfectElement 11y ago

For those interested in this subject, there's a great documentary that was just released on Netflix, it's called Cowspiracy. It was produced independently and now is being backed by Leonardo DiCaprio. The facts and interesting story behind the movie are covered in this Rich Roll podcast episode: http://www.richroll.com/podcast/cowspiracy-how-animal-agriculture-is-destroying-the-planet-what-you-can-do-about-it/ http://www.richroll.com/podcast/cowspiracy-how-animal-agricu...

jimrandomh 11y ago

The problem with strengthening government and institutional influence over the food supply is that the when it comes to nutrition, the big US institutions are loudly proclaiming that up is down and black is white, particularly with regard to salt and fat. If we succeed in importing our dietary advice to poorer countries, we'll cause them to have obesity epidemics, too, without solving their hunger and malnutrition problems.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
But the evidence shows salt and fat have been demonized. I know, it'll take a generation (current convinced people grow old and die) before we can kill those old ideas.

cwyers 11y ago

> This week, the countries of the United Nations will sign the most important document they have ever produced. Glad to see that we jump straight to the incredible hyperbole right with the first sentence.

nickff 11y ago
One might also see it as damning by faint praise...

at-fates-hands 11y ago

It's interesting the author points out the effects on the environment and economies, but completely omits how much violent conflicts are direct drivers of poverty. https://microconflict.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/conflict-traps-how-does-poverty-cause-war-and-how-does-war-cause-poverty/ https://microconflict.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/conflict-trap... This year’s World Development Report, published a couple of weeks ago, emphasises the fact that one of the biggest drivers of poverty in the developing world is violent conflict. One of the biggest risks for developing countries, it argues, is that of being caught in a conflict trap – a vicious circle whereby poverty stokes conflict, and conflict in turn increases poverty. Not sure how eating less meat is going to compete with social and religious conflicts which cause and sustain far more poverty.

ucaetano 11y ago

"Fixing the global food system. The damage this system wreaks is shocking." If we could only invent a teleportation device... Also, shipping massive amounts of free grain around the world wreaks havoc in local markets, driving small farmers out of business in poor countries. We need efficient supply chains, efficient market pricing and efficient crops, such as golden rice. Instead, we get governments interfering in market prices, blocking food supply chain companies in the name of "tradition" and blocking GMO development and usage in the name of religion and bogus science.

makomk 11y ago
Golden rice is basically useless except as a PR tool to clear the way for more profitable GMOs. Its only benefit is that it might provide an alternative to vitamin A supplementation if countries were allowed to grow it. Unfortunately, it's covered by a thicket of patents from about 30 companies, and the free patent licence is a PR stunt - almost all the countries it includes can't actually grow rice. The only country that's both permitted to grow it by the patent license and has the right climate to do so is the Philippines, which is why so much of the attention on golden rice is focused there (and even they're reliant on rice imports to feed their population). Sadly for golden rice's proponents, while they were still getting it to work the government there quietly dealt with the vitamin A deficiency problem through a more low-tech and effective technique: vitamen supplements. I'm pretty sure this is by design, by the way. The criteria for being licensed to grow golden rice is that the country grows less calories of food than it takes to support their population. Rice is so calorific that it's hard for a rice-growing country to meet this criteria, which is also why it's a popular staple food in developing countries and why rice was chosen in the first place.
- primroot 11y ago
  The issue of yields is also relevant. Here is a report from 2014. The original page has been changed. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://irri.org/golden-rice/faqs/what-is-the-status-of-the-golden-rice-project-coordinated-by-irri http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://... "While the target level of beta-carotene in the grain was attained, average yield was unfortunately lower than that from comparable local varieties already preferred by farmers."

DennisP 11y ago

The first problem they mention is that we waste 30% of our food. A recent study found that for seafood in the U.S. it's even worse, we waste almost 50%....but that waste is mostly at the consumer level. I don't see how that's fixable. You're not going to stop people from throwing out leftovers. http://phys.org/news/2015-09-seafood.html http://phys.org/news/2015-09-seafood.html

hlfcoding 11y ago
I wonder how restaurants factor into that, especially fast food. Any place that preemptively prepares food is very likely to waste a lot of it. Having worked at an am/pm for my first job, I was blown away by how much food is thrown out after 3 hrs from when it was cooked.

netcan 11y ago

There are some problem inherent to coordinating anything on a multi-billion person scale that are monumental. You could even narrate a history of people on earth using ability to coordinate at greater scale as your x axis. I've heard an interesting theory about homo sapien "victory" over neanderthals and other archaic humans. In some versions it's upper paleolithic culture over lower paleolithic culture of which neanderthals, early sapiens and all the grey arrears around those groups. In any case, the theory/hypothesis/narrative is that the difference between anatomically modern humans and their close cousins and homo sapiens sapiens was their ability to coordinate on larger scales than the biologically determined "band" size. Chimps, Gorillas and presumably earlier hominids live socially in groups that vary in size within a range determined by their biology. There are no chimp kings, tribes or limited liability companies, just troops and bands. Their bonding and cooperation mechanisms are based on biologically determined behavior. Environment and even culture play a role, but 250 chimps controlling a territory that would otherwise be controlled by more smaller troops is not in their repertoire. Imagine a population of archaic humans who, by use of language, religion, symbolism, abstract concepts of some unknown kind, oral history or some other means were able to coordinate 500 individuals, with 200 fighters. In a lot of contexts (the most obvious being war), that group would be at a huge advantage. These are our ancestors. It also suggests a gnarly explanation to the genetic bottleneck question. This process continues through history. Mega bands become clans and tribes and super tribes and nations and all sorts of affiliations. They get bigger and more effectively coordinated. Economic and political dynamics emerge. We get ideologies and organized religions, feudalism, socialism, slavery, capitalism, monarchy, nation states, empires, manchester united and political party nomination betting odds (BTW, Trump is at 3-1). Anyway.. food. Based on current grain prices, the daily caloric requirements of a person costs cents, ¢10-¢50, depending on what you plug into your back-of-the-envelope calculator. I'm not bringing this up as proof that caloric deficit is easily solvable, I mean the opposite. The fact that it persists in the face of this fact means that it is simply very difficult to do anything on a entire species scale. "We" here is a very tricky concept. There is no real "we" yet in the practical sense of an actor with agency.

tdkl 11y ago

"Fixing" things on global scale with expectation people won't exercise their legal rights against the "fix" without any external threat (I'd say influence, but threat brings more results) is a fairy tale, utopia to be precise.

mobiuscog 11y ago

And not a single mention of Glysophate and how it's killing the environment (and us) far more. But Monsanto (and GMO) will save us all, right ?