5 ms·

If done accurately it means that the food is produced using the most unsustainable and inefficient ways possible so that only the most privileged can partake.

by splawn 11y ago

If done accurately it means that the food is produced using the most unsustainable and inefficient ways possible so that only the most privileged can partake. Other than that its just marketing that is targeting people that either want to think of themselves as upper class or have been falsely led to believe that this type of food production is actually eco-friendly and more healthy. (Also see "Organic" food)

alva 11y ago
I think it is a noble cause. You are correct in that it means the price of some of the food groups increases dramatically, so many people are left out of regularly consuming it. I believe that 50/60 years ago, people did not expect to eat meat/fish every night due to the price. I would like to know why you think farm-to-table is inherently unsustainable? Many farmers in the Highlands of Scotland make a good living selling superior beef to restaurants and butchers in the UK. They do this without regular factory farming methods. Is it less efficient compared to clearing thousands of acres in order to grow a single product which is fed government subsidised corn? Pound for pound, absolutely. Which is why some people decide to eat meat less regularly, but eat the best when they do.
- splawn 11y ago
  I see it as unsustainable because it doesn't scale and the results don't produce any actual benefit. I see it in the same light as a golf course... a huge waste of resources so that someone has something silly to throw away their money on. Not saying that it shouldn't exist, per se... but it is at odds with the greenwashed way it is marketed.
jjbiotech 11y ago
Inefficient? Yes. Unsustainable? No way. We've been farming the old-fashioned way for thousands of years with exponential increases in population. If that's not the definition of sustainability I don't know what is. Also, modern cultivation techniques can strip the produce and soil of essential vitamins and nutrients. So yes, in some cases, the "inefficient" and "unsustainable" farms yield more nutritious and eco-friendly foods. The notion that these facts are purely a fabrication of marketing companies is total bullshit. There's tons of research out there supporting this (nb4 WHO SPONSORED THE RESEARCH??), you just have to look for it.
- splawn 11y ago
  <"Inefficient? Yes. Unsustainable? No way." What about scaling issues? <"We've been farming the old-fashioned way for thousands of years with exponential increases in population" Almost, but not exactly true. Farm tech like all tech is more and more efficient as it improves. The more efficient it is the more it can scale, boosting populations by staving off famine. <"There's tons of research out there supporting this" No.. there really isn't.
- kevinnk 11y ago
  > We've been farming the old-fashioned way for thousands of years with exponential increases in population. If that's not the definition of sustainability I don't know what is. Just because a technique is sustainable at prior population levels doesn't mean it will be sustainable in the future. Slash-and-burn was used for thousands of years and is now one of the main causes of deforestation. Bottom trawling has been used for almost a thousand years and is now considered directly responsible for fishery collapse. Humans have been responsible for the extinction of thousands of animals through unsustainable hunting practices that occurred thousands or even tens of thousands of years ago. > Also, modern cultivation techniques can strip the produce and soil of essential vitamins and nutrients. So yes, in some cases, the "inefficient" and "unsustainable" farms yield more nutritious and eco-friendly foods. Actually modern farmers are very, very careful about keeping high quality soil because it results in higher yields and spending less on fertilizers and pesticides. 60 years ago, farming "the old-fashioned way" we had things like the dust bowl.

by splawn 11y ago

alva 11y ago

I think it is a noble cause. You are correct in that it means the price of some of the food groups increases dramatically, so many people are left out of regularly consuming it. I believe that 50/60 years ago, people did not expect to eat meat/fish every night due to the price. I would like to know why you think farm-to-table is inherently unsustainable? Many farmers in the Highlands of Scotland make a good living selling superior beef to restaurants and butchers in the UK. They do this without regular factory farming methods. Is it less efficient compared to clearing thousands of acres in order to grow a single product which is fed government subsidised corn? Pound for pound, absolutely. Which is why some people decide to eat meat less regularly, but eat the best when they do.

splawn 11y ago
I see it as unsustainable because it doesn't scale and the results don't produce any actual benefit. I see it in the same light as a golf course... a huge waste of resources so that someone has something silly to throw away their money on. Not saying that it shouldn't exist, per se... but it is at odds with the greenwashed way it is marketed.

jjbiotech 11y ago

Inefficient? Yes. Unsustainable? No way. We've been farming the old-fashioned way for thousands of years with exponential increases in population. If that's not the definition of sustainability I don't know what is. Also, modern cultivation techniques can strip the produce and soil of essential vitamins and nutrients. So yes, in some cases, the "inefficient" and "unsustainable" farms yield more nutritious and eco-friendly foods. The notion that these facts are purely a fabrication of marketing companies is total bullshit. There's tons of research out there supporting this (nb4 WHO SPONSORED THE RESEARCH??), you just have to look for it.

splawn 11y ago
<"Inefficient? Yes. Unsustainable? No way." What about scaling issues? <"We've been farming the old-fashioned way for thousands of years with exponential increases in population" Almost, but not exactly true. Farm tech like all tech is more and more efficient as it improves. The more efficient it is the more it can scale, boosting populations by staving off famine. <"There's tons of research out there supporting this" No.. there really isn't.
kevinnk 11y ago
> We've been farming the old-fashioned way for thousands of years with exponential increases in population. If that's not the definition of sustainability I don't know what is. Just because a technique is sustainable at prior population levels doesn't mean it will be sustainable in the future. Slash-and-burn was used for thousands of years and is now one of the main causes of deforestation. Bottom trawling has been used for almost a thousand years and is now considered directly responsible for fishery collapse. Humans have been responsible for the extinction of thousands of animals through unsustainable hunting practices that occurred thousands or even tens of thousands of years ago. > Also, modern cultivation techniques can strip the produce and soil of essential vitamins and nutrients. So yes, in some cases, the "inefficient" and "unsustainable" farms yield more nutritious and eco-friendly foods. Actually modern farmers are very, very careful about keeping high quality soil because it results in higher yields and spending less on fertilizers and pesticides. 60 years ago, farming "the old-fashioned way" we had things like the dust bowl.