7 ms·

I mean come on, a diet of 100% tomatoes does not make any sense, right? The bulk of human calories on a whole food plant based diet comes typically from beans,

by vfc1 7y ago

I mean come on, a diet of 100% tomatoes does not make any sense, right? The bulk of human calories on a whole food plant based diet comes typically from beans, legumes chickpeas, soy, root vegetables like potatoes and sweet potatoes, starches in general, grains like whole rice, quinoa, etc. Then another good portion of the calories typically comes from fruit, and another good portion comes from vegetables and salads. A diet of 100% tomatoes does not make any sense from a nutritional perspective, they are mostly water, but they are a good addition to a balanced whole food plant-based diet.

jakewins 7y ago
You're right, it's a poor example. I guess I was thinking of tomato pastas and tomato soups, for instance. A better one, like you mention, is rice - again a crop with substantially worse carbon impact than chicken. Fruits are even more complex - if you get them in season, locally and actually eat them, they are fantastic. If you buy them out of season, due to their short shelf-life you'll find they are often air shipped and have outsize waste at the retail level. Avocado is a good example here, water issues aside. In season they have a small impact, out of season they are air-shipped from South America to the rest of the world. My point being: There are large and non-obvious differences, and they do not clearly align with traditional diets.
- vfc1 7y ago
  Meat is also shipped across the world a lot, like every other food. So the impact of transportation adds up to the impact of production, which is huge. It's precisely because feeding humans is so resource-intensive that we should not waste so many resources feeding animals.
- tfehring 7y ago
  > A better one, like you mention, is rice - again a crop with substantially worse carbon impact than chicken. Do you have a source for that? The data at [0] indicates that chicken is about 50% worse than rice in terms of CO2e per Calorie. In fact, chicken is worse than every vegan food listed there except for broccoli, which has very few Calories to begin with. [0] https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5883/why-does-cheese-have-such-a-high-carbon-footprint/5937#5937 https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5883/why-...
  - passiveincomelg 7y ago
    AFAIK, the problem with rice is methane not CO2.
    - tfehring 7y ago
      That’s accurate. But the data cited in the page I linked is based on CO2 equivalent, which accounts for the higher global warming potential of other gases, including methane. I suspect that the high global warming potential of methane is the main reason that rice is more impactful than the other non-animal-based foods.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  Prepared tomato products are not made from greenhouse tomatoes. They are made from varieties that taste good and they are picked ripe instead of for shipping. For cooking, canned tomatoes are usually better than fresh store tomatoes. The fresh ones are for salads or whatever.

by vfc1 7y ago

jakewins 7y ago

You're right, it's a poor example. I guess I was thinking of tomato pastas and tomato soups, for instance. A better one, like you mention, is rice - again a crop with substantially worse carbon impact than chicken. Fruits are even more complex - if you get them in season, locally and actually eat them, they are fantastic. If you buy them out of season, due to their short shelf-life you'll find they are often air shipped and have outsize waste at the retail level. Avocado is a good example here, water issues aside. In season they have a small impact, out of season they are air-shipped from South America to the rest of the world. My point being: There are large and non-obvious differences, and they do not clearly align with traditional diets.

vfc1 7y ago
Meat is also shipped across the world a lot, like every other food. So the impact of transportation adds up to the impact of production, which is huge. It's precisely because feeding humans is so resource-intensive that we should not waste so many resources feeding animals.
tfehring 7y ago
> A better one, like you mention, is rice - again a crop with substantially worse carbon impact than chicken. Do you have a source for that? The data at [0] indicates that chicken is about 50% worse than rice in terms of CO2e per Calorie. In fact, chicken is worse than every vegan food listed there except for broccoli, which has very few Calories to begin with. [0] https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5883/why-does-cheese-have-such-a-high-carbon-footprint/5937#5937 https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5883/why-...
- passiveincomelg 7y ago
  AFAIK, the problem with rice is methane not CO2.
  - tfehring 7y ago
    That’s accurate. But the data cited in the page I linked is based on CO2 equivalent, which accounts for the higher global warming potential of other gases, including methane. I suspect that the high global warming potential of methane is the main reason that rice is more impactful than the other non-animal-based foods.
maxerickson 7y ago
Prepared tomato products are not made from greenhouse tomatoes. They are made from varieties that taste good and they are picked ripe instead of for shipping. For cooking, canned tomatoes are usually better than fresh store tomatoes. The fresh ones are for salads or whatever.