That number they provided from WRI about needing to cut down to 1.5 burgers per person per week is an extreme dietary change for the average American. The DOA predicted that the average person...
That number they provided from WRI about needing to cut down to 1.5 burgers per person per week is an extreme dietary change for the average American. The DOA predicted that the average person would eat 222.2 Lbs of meat in 2018. That's nearly 2/3 of a pound of meat per day. If we're talking about a generous quarter-pound hamburger, that's still nearly quartering meat consumption.
It all depends on how you frame it. If the goal is how to make people stop eating meat you'll never succeed. If the goal is how to make non-meat based dishes mainstream people wouldn't see it as...
It all depends on how you frame it. If the goal is how to make people stop eating meat you'll never succeed. If the goal is how to make non-meat based dishes mainstream people wouldn't see it as an "extreme dietary change" they would just be eating stuff they like that's different from other stuff they liked. Most cultures that eat way less meat aren't doing it because they have some huge hang-up about eating meat, they're doing it because they have lots of non-meat based foods that they grew up enjoying. (That and the meat is more expensive and their meat dishes, consequentially, are more elaborate and require more preparation).
In lots of places where it was uncommon to eat much meat until recently, meat consumption has risen with development. For example, in Spain meat was a luxury dish, and most people ate meat...
In lots of places where it was uncommon to eat much meat until recently, meat consumption has risen with development.
For example, in Spain meat was a luxury dish, and most people ate meat regularly but in very small quantities. With the fast development during the 60s, meat became much cheaper but retained the whole "for high status people" associations. Now lots of people here ask for meat based dishes in a restaurant as a default. In fact, in many restaurants they don't serve first courses or even any dish but dessert without some kind of meat.
Yeah. For some reason people were happy to give up on the trend of entombing all foods in gelatin once the memory of aspics being expensive and difficult to make faded away, but the idea of meat...
Yeah. For some reason people were happy to give up on the trend of entombing all foods in gelatin once the memory of aspics being expensive and difficult to make faded away, but the idea of meat as luxury product never has.
Probably also helps that it was an accessible luxury all that time. Everyone would have meat on special occasions while most people never even saw an aspic. So meat became "I can get a treat any...
Probably also helps that it was an accessible luxury all that time. Everyone would have meat on special occasions while most people never even saw an aspic. So meat became "I can get a treat any time I want" rather than a "Ooh, this is fancy." I guess it's the difference between a very fancy aeron chair for cheap vs. a solid gold toilet seat. One is expensive because it's well designed and comfortable while the other is expensive because it's ostentatious and shows off how fancy you are. It's definitely a harder marketing problem to solve.
in fact, the rise of meat mostly isn't a developed-world issue at this point; while western consumption is huge, it's largely leveled off because we eat so much of it, and the bulk of the growth...
in fact, the rise of meat mostly isn't a developed-world issue at this point; while western consumption is huge, it's largely leveled off because we eat so much of it, and the bulk of the growth in the future is going to come from middle income countries where consumption habits are being exported, like so:
However, middle-income countries, particularly China and others in east Asia, are still seeing a rise. A recent review by the UN gave a projected increase in global meat consumption of 76% by mid-century, including a doubling in the consumption of poultry, a 69% increase in beef and a 42% increase in pork.
I know, it's in the point of development where it usually rises. In Spain rose while it was an underdeveloped country. That's why it seems a bit hypocritical to ask the Chinese, for example, to...
I know, it's in the point of development where it usually rises. In Spain rose while it was an underdeveloped country. That's why it seems a bit hypocritical to ask the Chinese, for example, to not do the same, even if it's necessary.
That number was about beef and lamb specifically, not all meat. Pork and chicken probably make up most of that ~200 pounds, and they aren't nearly as carbon intensive to produce, though they are...
That number was about beef and lamb specifically, not all meat. Pork and chicken probably make up most of that ~200 pounds, and they aren't nearly as carbon intensive to produce, though they are of course still worse than plant based protein.
Also, in case you or anyone else wondered, like I did, what the hell that '1.5 burgers per person per week' thing actually meant, in real units: a reduction in per capita beef/lamb consumption to 50 calories per day would save us from having to bring additional land under cultivation to feed a population of 10 billion.
An oft missed solution as well: https://nationalpost.com/news/world/maggots-are-the-answer-to-feeding-a-human-population-thats-heading-to-nine-billion-people Maggots/grubs. They are a staple in...
Somehow I can come to terms with eating crickets (ground into a flour or other product), but maggots are a step too far for me. The negative imagery is just too strong.
Somehow I can come to terms with eating crickets (ground into a flour or other product), but maggots are a step too far for me. The negative imagery is just too strong.
I know you're joking but just to be fair to McDonalds, The FDA has pretty clear requirements about what can and can't be called a chicken nugget. Substantial amounts of non-chicken protein needs...
I know you're joking but just to be fair to McDonalds, The FDA has pretty clear requirements about what can and can't be called a chicken nugget. Substantial amounts of non-chicken protein needs to be indicated using it's "usual and common name." So unless there is a "usual and common name" for maggot meat that nobody knows about I think we'd have hear about it.
While it is a joke, taco bell was sued because their beef mixture contained only 35% beef. They weren't slapped a fine by the FDA or required to reclassify prior, it took someone suing them to...
While it is a joke, taco bell was sued because their beef mixture contained only 35% beef. They weren't slapped a fine by the FDA or required to reclassify prior, it took someone suing them to surface this. It's very possible that McDonald's chicken nuggets contains substances we are not privy to that might raise some eyebrows.
Substantial amounts
There-in lies the problem. The FDA doesn't really proactively police a whole lot when it comes to food and food product (unless it's related to bacterial contamination), whereas they're a lot more "hands-on" when it comes to drugs. The supplement industry is a good example of how little they actually police anything. They set standards but the standards don't mean much when they don't enforce them.
That extra filler wasn't insect or anything though, it was soy protein which, all things considered, actually made the taco meat healthier and better for the environment than we probably all...
While it is a joke, taco bell was sued because their beef mixture contained only 35% beef.
That extra filler wasn't insect or anything though, it was soy protein which, all things considered, actually made the taco meat healthier and better for the environment than we probably all initially assumed.
It was all documented, it just didn't really hit the major press until some enterprising journalist realized that "silicon dioxide" is actually sand and whatever lignin thing is actually just cardboard so they got a sexy headline out of it. If there was a hidden name for maggot meat, that definitely would have made a much sexier headline.
That's fair, even. Insects, in general, I believe, will be the protein source of the future. Far more dense than any veg can be, cheaper to produce than cultured meat, and already accepted around...
That's fair, even. Insects, in general, I believe, will be the protein source of the future. Far more dense than any veg can be, cheaper to produce than cultured meat, and already accepted around the globe.
If it helps, just remember there are medically prescribed maggots, that come in test tubes and everything :)
Intuitively this just makes sense. The green revolution was focused on dramatically increasing the yields on staple grains. Some of those techniques are transferrable to veggies, but not many of...
Intuitively this just makes sense. The green revolution was focused on dramatically increasing the yields on staple grains. Some of those techniques are transferrable to veggies, but not many of the most dramatic ones. You also can't harvest them nearly as efficiently since lots of them need people to do the labor instead of big machines.
Presumably if we actually cared about boosting supply of a more diverse diet, though, we'd focus some research on improving the process beyond what the study concluded here. Part of this is that contemporary policy frameworks don't believe in concerted public effort around doing things and mostly stick to market-based incentives for innovation. I'm suspicious as to how well that would work out for something like this.
study link here; see also this long report which is linked in this article on improving the sustainability of food around the world (tildes thread here)
study link here; see also this long report which is linked in this article on improving the sustainability of food around the world (tildes thread here)
That number they provided from WRI about needing to cut down to 1.5 burgers per person per week is an extreme dietary change for the average American. The DOA predicted that the average person would eat 222.2 Lbs of meat in 2018. That's nearly 2/3 of a pound of meat per day. If we're talking about a generous quarter-pound hamburger, that's still nearly quartering meat consumption.
It all depends on how you frame it. If the goal is how to make people stop eating meat you'll never succeed. If the goal is how to make non-meat based dishes mainstream people wouldn't see it as an "extreme dietary change" they would just be eating stuff they like that's different from other stuff they liked. Most cultures that eat way less meat aren't doing it because they have some huge hang-up about eating meat, they're doing it because they have lots of non-meat based foods that they grew up enjoying. (That and the meat is more expensive and their meat dishes, consequentially, are more elaborate and require more preparation).
In lots of places where it was uncommon to eat much meat until recently, meat consumption has risen with development.
For example, in Spain meat was a luxury dish, and most people ate meat regularly but in very small quantities. With the fast development during the 60s, meat became much cheaper but retained the whole "for high status people" associations. Now lots of people here ask for meat based dishes in a restaurant as a default. In fact, in many restaurants they don't serve first courses or even any dish but dessert without some kind of meat.
Yeah. For some reason people were happy to give up on the trend of entombing all foods in gelatin once the memory of aspics being expensive and difficult to make faded away, but the idea of meat as luxury product never has.
Maybe it's more firmly embedded in our culture. After all, meat has been a luxury food in Europe for at least a couple thousand years.
Probably also helps that it was an accessible luxury all that time. Everyone would have meat on special occasions while most people never even saw an aspic. So meat became "I can get a treat any time I want" rather than a "Ooh, this is fancy." I guess it's the difference between a very fancy aeron chair for cheap vs. a solid gold toilet seat. One is expensive because it's well designed and comfortable while the other is expensive because it's ostentatious and shows off how fancy you are. It's definitely a harder marketing problem to solve.
in fact, the rise of meat mostly isn't a developed-world issue at this point; while western consumption is huge, it's largely leveled off because we eat so much of it, and the bulk of the growth in the future is going to come from middle income countries where consumption habits are being exported, like so:
I know, it's in the point of development where it usually rises. In Spain rose while it was an underdeveloped country. That's why it seems a bit hypocritical to ask the Chinese, for example, to not do the same, even if it's necessary.
That number was about beef and lamb specifically, not all meat. Pork and chicken probably make up most of that ~200 pounds, and they aren't nearly as carbon intensive to produce, though they are of course still worse than plant based protein.
Also, in case you or anyone else wondered, like I did, what the hell that '1.5 burgers per person per week' thing actually meant, in real units: a reduction in per capita beef/lamb consumption to 50 calories per day would save us from having to bring additional land under cultivation to feed a population of 10 billion.
An oft missed solution as well: https://nationalpost.com/news/world/maggots-are-the-answer-to-feeding-a-human-population-thats-heading-to-nine-billion-people
Maggots/grubs. They are a staple in many cultures. Insects in general are nearly 90% protein, and most process our wastes into protein.
Somehow I can come to terms with eating crickets (ground into a flour or other product), but maggots are a step too far for me. The negative imagery is just too strong.
Grind em up, turn em into a protein powder, and insert protein powder into food. Now you don't have to see anything!
You operate under the assumption that the chicken nuggets do not currently contain maggot protein powder
I know you're joking but just to be fair to McDonalds, The FDA has pretty clear requirements about what can and can't be called a chicken nugget. Substantial amounts of non-chicken protein needs to be indicated using it's "usual and common name." So unless there is a "usual and common name" for maggot meat that nobody knows about I think we'd have hear about it.
While it is a joke, taco bell was sued because their beef mixture contained only 35% beef. They weren't slapped a fine by the FDA or required to reclassify prior, it took someone suing them to surface this. It's very possible that McDonald's chicken nuggets contains substances we are not privy to that might raise some eyebrows.
There-in lies the problem. The FDA doesn't really proactively police a whole lot when it comes to food and food product (unless it's related to bacterial contamination), whereas they're a lot more "hands-on" when it comes to drugs. The supplement industry is a good example of how little they actually police anything. They set standards but the standards don't mean much when they don't enforce them.
That extra filler wasn't insect or anything though, it was soy protein which, all things considered, actually made the taco meat healthier and better for the environment than we probably all initially assumed.
It was all documented, it just didn't really hit the major press until some enterprising journalist realized that "silicon dioxide" is actually sand and whatever lignin thing is actually just cardboard so they got a sexy headline out of it. If there was a hidden name for maggot meat, that definitely would have made a much sexier headline.
That's fair, even. Insects, in general, I believe, will be the protein source of the future. Far more dense than any veg can be, cheaper to produce than cultured meat, and already accepted around the globe.
If it helps, just remember there are medically prescribed maggots, that come in test tubes and everything :)
Slimy, but satisfying.
Intuitively this just makes sense. The green revolution was focused on dramatically increasing the yields on staple grains. Some of those techniques are transferrable to veggies, but not many of the most dramatic ones. You also can't harvest them nearly as efficiently since lots of them need people to do the labor instead of big machines.
Presumably if we actually cared about boosting supply of a more diverse diet, though, we'd focus some research on improving the process beyond what the study concluded here. Part of this is that contemporary policy frameworks don't believe in concerted public effort around doing things and mostly stick to market-based incentives for innovation. I'm suspicious as to how well that would work out for something like this.
study link here; see also this long report which is linked in this article on improving the sustainability of food around the world (tildes thread here)