9 ms·

Food waste != food waste. Animal-based products have a significantly higher environmental footprint than plant-based ones. Therefore, the majority of this 10% i

by shafyy 6y ago

Food waste != food waste. Animal-based products have a significantly higher environmental footprint than plant-based ones. Therefore, the majority of this 10% is from animal-based products. Reducing livestock agriculture will automatically decimate this number, too. Edit: It's rather misleading that they put a carrot on the cover of their report, too.

cute_boi 6y ago
and the sad thing is government subsidize animal industry heavily :(
- shafyy 6y ago
  Yes, meat and dairy are the new Big Oil. In fact, they spend a bigger relative portion of their income for lobyying than Big Oil: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02042021/meat-dairy-lobby-climate-action/ https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02042021/meat-dairy-lobby...
  - specialist 6y ago
    I just watched The Poison Squad. The tortured history of banning poisons from food, aka the progressive era Pure Food movement. Big Food pioneered lobbying, alongside all the other robber barons.
- Shivetya 6y ago
  government subsidizes everything to one level or another. to say it is subsidized higher than other sectors within agriculture is more meme than fact. some segments may be depending on your country. in the US we subsidize everything to include corn for ethanol to cotton which we ship to China and receive back as finished clothing. the issue has always been subsidies are politicians means to show their constituents they are doing their job, bringing home the bacon. however the rules and regulations are stacked such that only very large farms and organizations see real benefit. US wise, most subsidies are towards guarantees of rates. Dairy and Meat get picked on a lot because they are very noticeable but much of the numbers assigned to them are because corn is a feed product and the biggest crop in the US by far. Throw in that many who don't care for animal farming will then associate any other subsidy they can find, to include WIC payments shows just how much a stretch it becomes Outside of pandemic years the estimates for all of agriculture in the US ranges from the low twenties in billions to highs in fifties. Again, depends on what you count. The real issue isn't what we are subsidizing in this case but that we don't insure that the small farms are compensated as well as large private and commercial farms are because the regulatory burden puts obtaining such funds into the category of not worth the time and money
codebolt 6y ago
One thing I've been asking myself is how much fresh meat gets thrown out from western supermarkets because of expiration. It might be possible to reduce a lot of waste simply by requiring meat to always be sold as frozen.
- loceng 6y ago
  Or aligning capitalism with society, so a grocery store who buys meat cheaper in order to sell it at a higher price than most of the the market is willing to pay get penalized via including externalized costs of them having to throw it out instead of sell it; just one possible option out of many that would improve the system and reduce waste near to zero.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- bluGill 6y ago
  yuck. Frozen meat has a different texture and is not a substitute except in emergencies. Though if you are not for cooking yourself you probably have enough other bad things happening in your food chain that you cannot tell the difference.
  - anjellow 6y ago
    This depends on how the meat is frozen. Frozen meat can be more fresh in texture than chilled meat when flash frozen and dethawed immediately before use. The process of slowly freezing food alters the chemical structure, while flash freezing maintains this structure and subsequently the mouth feel and flavor of fresh meat/produce.
    - djrogers 6y ago
      > The process of slowly freezing food alters the chemical structure It's not the chemical structure, it's the physical structure. Slow freezing causes large (relatively) ice crystals, which are more likely to break cell walls than smaller ice crystals. Those broken cell walls result in more moisture loss when cooking, and a different texture when thawed.
anonymouswacker 6y ago
Rather than conflating waste with animal products, how about tackle the reasons for waste, and perhaps the other 90% of emissions, before trying to take away my steak and eggs? Please and thank you. It would be nice to get rid of factory farming, and have community farms focused on regenerative agriculture and sustainability, but I will violently oppose anyone who tries to make me eat veggie burgers ever again. -Former vegetarian, who tried for years to eat that way for ecological & ethicalreasons, and who switched to a 80% meat-based diet and will never look back to what I view is naive in hindsight.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- eggsmediumrare 6y ago
  Why is it naive?
  - anonymouswacker 6y ago
    It's naive to think that my eating vegetarian made a difference in the grand scheme. Much of what I ate was still requiring needless death and destruction of the environment--it just was invisible to me. Now I accept it, and try to eat from local farms (less fossil fuel waste), and organic (less destruction of the soil). I'm not going to risk affecting my health so that I can call myself a vegetarian. I think the most ecologically sound way of eating is to make your own food (hunting & killing it for carnivores, or growing it for vegetarians) yourself.
- patates 6y ago
  > 80% meat-based diet That can't be right, is that a typo or you mean the percentage of meals that have some animal products?
  - shafyy 6y ago
    Unfortunatly, they mean probably exactly what they said. Look up Carnivore Diet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotrophic_diet#Carnivore_diet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotrophic_diet#Carnivore_die...
madsbuch 6y ago
The good ol' distraction by generalization. ... and then let the consumer concretize themselves and reach wrong conclusions.
goatinaboat 6y ago
Animal-based products have a significantly higher environmental footprint than plant-based ones. Almonds, for vegan milk substitute, are implicated in drought in California. Soy is responsible for massive tropical deforestation. Meanwhile you can easily farm sheep and goats on land that no crops can grow on.
- peterpostman 6y ago
  90% of that soy goes to feed lifestock, most of the soy eaten in the states or europe is grown there, since the soy grown in those country is generally not suitable for human consumption.
  - FredPret 6y ago
    That’s the whole idea of livestock - feed them plants that we can’t eat
    - TomatoDash 6y ago
      We can eat soy - I had a tasty tofu bowl for lunch. The land used for growing soy animal feed can be also used to grow other plants we can eat directly or after preparation. That requires less land and less resources per calorie which lets us reforest and prevent further rainforest destruction. The carbon opportunity cost of meat is huge, https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food
      - kube-system 6y ago
        They are not saying that humans cannot eat soybeans. They are saying that some soybeans are not of high enough quality to be suitable for humans to eat.
        Forbo 6y ago
        90% of the soy that is grown is not fit for human consumption? I'm having a hard time buying that. If they stopped feeding soy to cattle, I find it very unlikely that they would continue producing the same amount in order to get soy that is fit for human consumption. As though what we've been feeding cattle is simply the portion that was already going to be wasted.
11235813213455 6y ago
Pets eat 20% of the world meat/fish production https://nowhereandeverywhere.co/learn/pets-consume-about-20-of-the-worlds-meat-and-fish/ https://nowhereandeverywhere.co/learn/pets-consume-about-20-..., that's yet another way to act on this problem, replace your pets by plants or just nothing
- TollingSteady 6y ago
  You actually make a great point here, though I disagree with your exact conclusions. The good news is that there are plenty of plant-based dog diets that meet all AAFCO nutrition standards. A quick google search will bring these up. As dogs' most common allergens are all meat and they're considered omnivores, this is a great solution for dog owners. Cats are obligate carnivores, and require molecules that only occur naturally in meat (e.g. taurine). Technically, this does not translate to a requirement for meat itself — artificial taurine, etc. does exist. However, while the only research review says it can be done (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/6/9/57/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/6/9/57/htm) I don't see enough longitudinal evidence that it can be done safely, as issues like urinary crystals are a major concern. I think the best hope for cats' diets is something like the lab-grown mouse meat kibble Wild Earth is developing, but sadly this product just doesn't exist yet. So those interested in reducing their carbon footprint should absolutely consult their vet about switching their dog onto a plant-based diet. For cats (and ferrets/foxes/etc), I think the best we can do right now is fund overpopulation control measures (i.e. spay/neuter programs) and continue research into sustainable nonanimal food. It goes without saying that all pets should be adopted (is anyone capable of coming up with some edge case where this is bad advice? if so please let me know) so as to not breed more animals into the world. As long as you adopt, I see no moral negative to having a plant-based dog. And for those unable/unwilling to do so, taking up gardening instead is a great option.
- Wohlf 6y ago
  I understand where you're coming from but if you're going to make people choose between their pets and climate change, you may not like the answer. My initial reaction was a snarky "why stop there, let's get rid of zoos and maybe even wild animals too"

by shafyy 6y ago

cute_boi 6y ago

and the sad thing is government subsidize animal industry heavily :(

shafyy 6y ago
Yes, meat and dairy are the new Big Oil. In fact, they spend a bigger relative portion of their income for lobyying than Big Oil: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02042021/meat-dairy-lobby-climate-action/ https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02042021/meat-dairy-lobby...
- specialist 6y ago
  I just watched The Poison Squad. The tortured history of banning poisons from food, aka the progressive era Pure Food movement. Big Food pioneered lobbying, alongside all the other robber barons.
Shivetya 6y ago
government subsidizes everything to one level or another. to say it is subsidized higher than other sectors within agriculture is more meme than fact. some segments may be depending on your country. in the US we subsidize everything to include corn for ethanol to cotton which we ship to China and receive back as finished clothing. the issue has always been subsidies are politicians means to show their constituents they are doing their job, bringing home the bacon. however the rules and regulations are stacked such that only very large farms and organizations see real benefit. US wise, most subsidies are towards guarantees of rates. Dairy and Meat get picked on a lot because they are very noticeable but much of the numbers assigned to them are because corn is a feed product and the biggest crop in the US by far. Throw in that many who don't care for animal farming will then associate any other subsidy they can find, to include WIC payments shows just how much a stretch it becomes Outside of pandemic years the estimates for all of agriculture in the US ranges from the low twenties in billions to highs in fifties. Again, depends on what you count. The real issue isn't what we are subsidizing in this case but that we don't insure that the small farms are compensated as well as large private and commercial farms are because the regulatory burden puts obtaining such funds into the category of not worth the time and money

codebolt 6y ago

One thing I've been asking myself is how much fresh meat gets thrown out from western supermarkets because of expiration. It might be possible to reduce a lot of waste simply by requiring meat to always be sold as frozen.

loceng 6y ago
Or aligning capitalism with society, so a grocery store who buys meat cheaper in order to sell it at a higher price than most of the the market is willing to pay get penalized via including externalized costs of them having to throw it out instead of sell it; just one possible option out of many that would improve the system and reduce waste near to zero.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
bluGill 6y ago
yuck. Frozen meat has a different texture and is not a substitute except in emergencies. Though if you are not for cooking yourself you probably have enough other bad things happening in your food chain that you cannot tell the difference.
- anjellow 6y ago
  This depends on how the meat is frozen. Frozen meat can be more fresh in texture than chilled meat when flash frozen and dethawed immediately before use. The process of slowly freezing food alters the chemical structure, while flash freezing maintains this structure and subsequently the mouth feel and flavor of fresh meat/produce.
  - djrogers 6y ago
    > The process of slowly freezing food alters the chemical structure It's not the chemical structure, it's the physical structure. Slow freezing causes large (relatively) ice crystals, which are more likely to break cell walls than smaller ice crystals. Those broken cell walls result in more moisture loss when cooking, and a different texture when thawed.

anonymouswacker 6y ago

Rather than conflating waste with animal products, how about tackle the reasons for waste, and perhaps the other 90% of emissions, before trying to take away my steak and eggs? Please and thank you. It would be nice to get rid of factory farming, and have community farms focused on regenerative agriculture and sustainability, but I will violently oppose anyone who tries to make me eat veggie burgers ever again. -Former vegetarian, who tried for years to eat that way for ecological & ethicalreasons, and who switched to a 80% meat-based diet and will never look back to what I view is naive in hindsight.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
eggsmediumrare 6y ago
Why is it naive?
- anonymouswacker 6y ago
  It's naive to think that my eating vegetarian made a difference in the grand scheme. Much of what I ate was still requiring needless death and destruction of the environment--it just was invisible to me. Now I accept it, and try to eat from local farms (less fossil fuel waste), and organic (less destruction of the soil). I'm not going to risk affecting my health so that I can call myself a vegetarian. I think the most ecologically sound way of eating is to make your own food (hunting & killing it for carnivores, or growing it for vegetarians) yourself.
patates 6y ago
> 80% meat-based diet That can't be right, is that a typo or you mean the percentage of meals that have some animal products?
- shafyy 6y ago
  Unfortunatly, they mean probably exactly what they said. Look up Carnivore Diet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotrophic_diet#Carnivore_diet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotrophic_diet#Carnivore_die...

madsbuch 6y ago

The good ol' distraction by generalization. ... and then let the consumer concretize themselves and reach wrong conclusions.

goatinaboat 6y ago

Animal-based products have a significantly higher environmental footprint than plant-based ones. Almonds, for vegan milk substitute, are implicated in drought in California. Soy is responsible for massive tropical deforestation. Meanwhile you can easily farm sheep and goats on land that no crops can grow on.

peterpostman 6y ago
90% of that soy goes to feed lifestock, most of the soy eaten in the states or europe is grown there, since the soy grown in those country is generally not suitable for human consumption.
- FredPret 6y ago
  That’s the whole idea of livestock - feed them plants that we can’t eat
  - TomatoDash 6y ago
    We can eat soy - I had a tasty tofu bowl for lunch. The land used for growing soy animal feed can be also used to grow other plants we can eat directly or after preparation. That requires less land and less resources per calorie which lets us reforest and prevent further rainforest destruction. The carbon opportunity cost of meat is huge, https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food
    - kube-system 6y ago
      They are not saying that humans cannot eat soybeans. They are saying that some soybeans are not of high enough quality to be suitable for humans to eat.
      - Forbo 6y ago
        90% of the soy that is grown is not fit for human consumption? I'm having a hard time buying that. If they stopped feeding soy to cattle, I find it very unlikely that they would continue producing the same amount in order to get soy that is fit for human consumption. As though what we've been feeding cattle is simply the portion that was already going to be wasted.

11235813213455 6y ago

Pets eat 20% of the world meat/fish production https://nowhereandeverywhere.co/learn/pets-consume-about-20-of-the-worlds-meat-and-fish/ https://nowhereandeverywhere.co/learn/pets-consume-about-20-..., that's yet another way to act on this problem, replace your pets by plants or just nothing

TollingSteady 6y ago
You actually make a great point here, though I disagree with your exact conclusions. The good news is that there are plenty of plant-based dog diets that meet all AAFCO nutrition standards. A quick google search will bring these up. As dogs' most common allergens are all meat and they're considered omnivores, this is a great solution for dog owners. Cats are obligate carnivores, and require molecules that only occur naturally in meat (e.g. taurine). Technically, this does not translate to a requirement for meat itself — artificial taurine, etc. does exist. However, while the only research review says it can be done (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/6/9/57/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/6/9/57/htm) I don't see enough longitudinal evidence that it can be done safely, as issues like urinary crystals are a major concern. I think the best hope for cats' diets is something like the lab-grown mouse meat kibble Wild Earth is developing, but sadly this product just doesn't exist yet. So those interested in reducing their carbon footprint should absolutely consult their vet about switching their dog onto a plant-based diet. For cats (and ferrets/foxes/etc), I think the best we can do right now is fund overpopulation control measures (i.e. spay/neuter programs) and continue research into sustainable nonanimal food. It goes without saying that all pets should be adopted (is anyone capable of coming up with some edge case where this is bad advice? if so please let me know) so as to not breed more animals into the world. As long as you adopt, I see no moral negative to having a plant-based dog. And for those unable/unwilling to do so, taking up gardening instead is a great option.
Wohlf 6y ago
I understand where you're coming from but if you're going to make people choose between their pets and climate change, you may not like the answer. My initial reaction was a snarky "why stop there, let's get rid of zoos and maybe even wild animals too"