BYND Beyond Meat out of main

[mspohr]

Do we know what constitutes waste food that make up the 50%? That is. If I eat an orange or banana, the peels go to the composts heap. Is that waste? Cook spinach or other greens and the ends of the stems also go to the compost heap. Is that waste?

Obviously, if I only have a 30 g of flour left after making dough and throw it into the compost because it's not enough to save and will be stale by the time I bake next, that's waste. And once in a while the fruit I get from the store turns out to be not so good, so that's waste. In particular, apples have a tendency to be nice and red on the outside but brown and rotten on the inside (sans or avec worms).

Here's more on food waste, including FAO report

“Food waste” and “food loss” are commonly used terms but don't quite mean the same thing.

“Food loss” typically refers to food lost in earlier stages of production such as harvest, storage and transportation.
“Food waste” refers to items that are fit for human consumption but thrown away, often at supermarkets or by consumers.

Global Food Waste and its Environmental Impact | Green Living

Key facts on food loss and waste you should know!

 

[mspohr]

No, Really, Why is Food Waste a Problem?

food waste is an environmental, economic, and ethical issue that progressively results not only in a growing loss of caloric intake but also in a rising volume of unnecessary depletion of finite resources and pollution.

When we waste food, it’s not just the food product that’s wasted. It’s also the water, agricultural inputs, energy and packaging and greenhouse gas emissions that go into creating and transporting the food. There’s about $2.18 billion dollars of economic impact that results from trashing our food each year

 

[ohmman]

No, Really, Why is Food Waste a Problem?

food waste is an environmental, economic, and ethical issue that progressively results not only in a growing loss of caloric intake but also in a rising volume of unnecessary depletion of finite resources and pollution.

When we waste food, it’s not just the food product that’s wasted. It’s also the water, agricultural inputs, energy and packaging and greenhouse gas emissions that go into creating and transporting the food. There’s about $2.18 billion dollars of economic impact that results from trashing our food each year

The UN FAO has said that if food waste were a country, it'd be the third highest emitter of GHGs.

 

[cpa]

Do we know what constitutes waste food that make up the 50%? That is. If I eat an orange or banana, the peels go to the composts heap. Is that waste? Cook spinach or other greens and the ends of the stems also go to the compost heap. Is that waste?

Obviously, if I only have a 30 g of flour left after making dough and throw it into the compost because it's not enough to save and will be stale by the time I bake next, that's waste. And once in a while the fruit I get from the store turns out to be not so good, so that's waste. In particular, apples have a tendency to be nice and red on the outside but brown and rotten on the inside (sans or avec worms).

In addition, many crops are picked but once. I am not sure of the percentage of crop that gets picked, but if you ever glean a melon field after picking, there is an incredible number of melons that are just lying there waiting for the grower to disc them up. It is similar with tree fruit. Not all the peaches, nectarines, plums, etc. ripen at the same time. So the grower figures out the best days to pick, and he goes through with the crews and picks the fruit that he can sell. The remaining pieces fall to the ground unless prices are high enough to justify a second picking.

To contrast, I have a few fruit trees. But I can go out every morning and grab what I think is ripe, leaving the rest on the tree until tomorrow. Harvest usually lasts 10-12 days upon the temperatures. A rough guess from my apricot tree this year was that I picked about 60% of the crop around day 6. The remaining 40% was spread early and late. Similarly, with my watermelons, I keep three plants whose seed I sow about 12 days apart. (Day 1, day 13, day 25) I usually get two melons per plant. Depending upon pollination and sunshine/shading, they can easily ripen a week apart.

Some fruit gets sunburned too and must be discarded.

Lastly, produce prices to the grower are fickle. One year, you might be the only grower with a particular product that is ready for harvest and you will receive top dollar for your product. Next year, everybody and his brother has the same product and the price is in the cellar, so a lot of it goes unharvested due to labor costs.

Wasting food at the farm is inherent in the modern large-ag business model.

 

[ohmman]

Fake meat is 'no laughing matter': Plant-based protein will be worth $85-billion by 2030

Just an article about an analyst's estimate, but interesting and on-topic.

"UBS predicts the plant-protein market will swell to US$85 billion by 2030 from US$4.6 billion now, with the broad market for agriculture technology set to reach US$700 billion from US$135 billion."

 

[Swampgator]

Don't let vegetarian environmentalists shame you for eating meat. Science is on your side.

 

[JRP3]

First, Mr. Lomborg rarely has science on his side, not surprising you would link to something from him. Haven't heard from him in a while but in the past he was irrationally anti-EV:
Bjorn Lomborg's Dirty Little Math | CleanTechnica

A Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by Bjorn Lomborg, “Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret,” argues that even though driving on electricity emits half as much pollution as driving on gasoline, it never makes up for the additional energy it takes to build electric cars. How does Lomborg do the math? First, he picks an estimate for electric car manufacturing emissions that’s three times higher than conventional estimates. Second, he imagines electric cars will be prematurely sent to the junkyard, well before they’re even out of warranty. Everyone likes exposing a fake, but if there’s a hoax here, it’s not the electric car.

Some websites dedicated to pointing out Lomborg's "errors" (lies):
Lomborg Errors
Idiot Tracker: Lomborg's lies, part one
Climate Science Rapid Response Team debunks Bjorn Lomborg’s Washington Post op-ed

A book does the same:
Lomborg Deception | Yale University Press

Now, looking at that opinion piece you linked, it's typical Lomborg garbage, but let's extract this little bit right here:

Second, the more optimistic figures about how much of your emissions you can cut are based not just on a vegetarian diet, but on an entirely vegan one where we avoid every single animal product altogether.

So Mr. Lomborg admits that vegetarianism is a step in the right direction but going fully vegan is the most impactful dietary change.

 

[Swampgator]

First, Mr. Lomborg rarely has science on his side, not surprising you would link to something from him. Haven't heard from him in a while but in the past he was irrationally anti-EV:
Bjorn Lomborg's Dirty Little Math | CleanTechnica


Some websites dedicated to pointing out Lomborg's "errors" (lies):
Lomborg Errors
Idiot Tracker: Lomborg's lies, part one
Climate Science Rapid Response Team debunks Bjorn Lomborg’s Washington Post op-ed

A book does the same:
Lomborg Deception | Yale University Press

Now, looking at that opinion piece you linked, it's typical Lomborg garbage, but let's extract this little bit right here:

So Mr. Lomborg admits that vegetarianism is a step in the right direction but going fully vegan is the most impactful dietary change.

You do realize you are attacking the messenger, and not debunking the actual message. I'm not surprised you would take this approach.
All of those Lomborg debunking sites you posted are not credible. They are activists posing as arbiters of truth. He is a gay vegetarian that believes in your religion, man made global warming. You should at least dig in an consider his actual points here, and if they have any merit.

I do agree with some of the criticisms on the EV article he wrote. Often one cherry picks facts to suit their preformed conclusions. Same happens every day within the CAGW community.
Maybe I should start an Idiot tracker: Micheal Mann's lies website?

 

[JRP3]

You do realize you are attacking the messenger, and not debunking the actual message.

I did exactly that at the end of my post. Read it again please.

All of those Lomborg debunking sites you posted are not credible. They are activists posing as arbiters of truth.

Hmm, that sounds just like attacking the messengers and not debunking the actual messages. Your hypocrisy is not surprising.

 

[Swampgator]

I did exactly that at the end of my post. Read it again please.


Hmm, that sounds just like attacking the messengers and not debunking the actual messages. Your hypocrisy is not surprising.

Neither is yours.

 

[Swampgator]

Here is the actual peer reviewed article he used as reference: The rebound effects of switching to vegetarianism. A microeconomic analysis of Swedish consumption behavior - ScienceDirect

 

[ohmman]

Here is the actual peer reviewed article he used as reference: The rebound effects of switching to vegetarianism. A microeconomic analysis of Swedish consumption behavior - ScienceDirect

I'm guessing you didn't real the full study, based on the fact that it undercuts your point.

I don't disagree with the methodology on her study. She does a very good job of stating the limitations and ethics considerations, including the fact that conclusions can't even be generalized to the Swedish population successfully. Her recommendations are as follows:

The most sustainable recommendation to give consumers from this microeconomic perspective is to decrease their purchases of environmentally intensive goods – such as meat – and simultaneously to reallocate their expenditure to higher quality goods with a larger per-item price tag. Organic products are an example in the food category, but so are items produced according to other social and environmental standards such as Fair Trade or FSC.

The point of her study (as she states) was to show that for policymakers to evaluate broad policy changes, they should incorporate the full economic picture. It was not at all to state that these conclusions are reliable indicators of what the rebound effect might be; she states that relatively emphatically. So for Lomborg (and you) to use those numbers is uninformed at best and disingenuous at worst.

 

[mspohr]

Here's a new report.
Seeds, kale and red meat once a month – how to eat the diet that will save the world

The world faces many challenges over the coming decades, but one of the most significant will be how to feed its expanding global population. By 2050, there will be about 10 billion of us, and how to feed us all, healthily and from sustainable food sources, is something that is already being looked at. The Norway-based thinktank Eat and the British journal the Lancet have teamed up to commission an in-depth, worldwide study, which launches at 35 different locations around the world today, into what it would take to solve this problem – and the ambition is huge.

The EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health - EAT

 

[JRP3]

Neither is yours.

I'm not the one being hypocritical.

 

[SageBrush]

All of those Lomborg debunking sites you posted are not credible. They are activists

Follow your own preaching and consider the arguments rather ignoring them because you dislike a gay vegetarian on principle.

As for Lomborg, he is discredited by years of posting BS. Rather like you, only for a longer time.

 

[Swampgator]

I'm guessing you didn't real the full study, based on the fact that it undercuts your point.

I don't disagree with the methodology on her study. She does a very good job of stating the limitations and ethics considerations, including the fact that conclusions can't even be generalized to the Swedish population successfully. Her recommendations are as follows:


The point of her study (as she states) was to show that for policymakers to evaluate broad policy changes, they should incorporate the full economic picture. It was not at all to state that these conclusions are reliable indicators of what the rebound effect might be; she states that relatively emphatically. So for Lomborg (and you) to use those numbers is uninformed at best and disingenuous at worst.

Listen Linda, meat is a superior food product for humans based on it's nutritional value. Meat. Not plants. That study showed that at MOST you could reduce your carbon footprint by 4% if you stopped eating meat. It did not take into account the nutritional consequences of that conversion.
If a Beyond meat "burger" has 20 grams of protein and a real burger has 20 grams of protein, the two are not of equal value. You will only be able to absorb about 14 grams of protein from the beyond meat burger. SO you will need to eat more of the monocrop roundup sprayed fake burger to get the same nutritional content.
You CAGW believers seem to have moved right past "organic" and "natural" and straight to highly processed, full of pesticides and herbicides, and even artificial blood (heme for impossible) in your quest to save the planet. It must really suck to be that desperate every day of your life.

Here is a fun question: In the US, which ruminant produces the most greenhouse gas emissions each year?

 

[Swampgator]

Answer: White-tailed deer. Historic, pre-European settlement, and present-day contribution of wild ruminants to enteric methane emissions in the United States. - PubMed - NCBI

Also, the idea that ruminants such as cows increase greenhouse gas emissions compared to crop production is inaccurate. The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture's carbon footprint in North America

 

[ohmman]

Listen Linda, meat is a superior food product for humans based on it's nutritional value. Meat. Not plants. That study showed that at MOST you could reduce your carbon footprint by 4% if you stopped eating meat. It did not take into account the nutritional consequences of that conversion.
If a Beyond meat "burger" has 20 grams of protein and a real burger has 20 grams of protein, the two are not of equal value. You will only be able to absorb about 14 grams of protein from the beyond meat burger. SO you will need to eat more of the monocrop roundup sprayed fake burger to get the same nutritional content.
You CAGW believers seem to have moved right past "organic" and "natural" and straight to highly processed, full of pesticides and herbicides, and even artificial blood (heme for impossible) in your quest to save the planet. It must really suck to be that desperate every day of your life.

Here is a fun question: In the US, which ruminant produces the most greenhouse gas emissions each year?

Wait a second.

First, who's Linda?

Second, no, the study does not show that and is clear that people shouldn't draw that conclusion.

Third, you posted an opinion piece, assumedly to support your position, and you've been shown that it's disingenuous. Let's focus on that. Do you agree that it's wrong? Do you agree that it misrepresents the study? Will you stop misrepresenting the study? Try to focus on one claim at at time before you drop into your Gish gallop.

You should lay off the CAGW talk as well, since you bailed on meeting me live to test the actual theory. Your credibility is reaching zero.

 

[JRP3]

Reaching? He's at the same level as the anti Tesla FUDsters. Facts don't matter to him.

 

[cpa]

Your credibility is reaching zero.

That would imply that there is an asymptotic relationship here. I think the curve already intersected zero on the x-axis.