I’m all ranted out for now, so I shall bring this series to a close. I have hinted at a number of things we, the average consumer, can do to improve the system. So, to finish off the series, I am posting a list created by a professor of Environmental Studies, Dr. Richard Andrus, which I think is completely reasonable to attain.
For personal health-
- Eat more whole foods and avoid processed sugars & starch.
- Avoid factory farmed meat, dairy & eggs wherever possible.
- Eat modest amounts of grass-fed meat.
For the environment-
- Avoid factory farmed meat. They cause massive pollution issues from concentration of nitrates and massive erosion from corn & soybean production for animal feed.
- Buy local. This cuts back of food miles and helps reduce CO2 emissions.
- Buy unprocessed food, as processing takes huge amounts of fossil fuels.
- Avoid any processed drinks that come in a non-reusable container. The only reusable containers available currently are glass beer bottles from Canada. Recyclable does NOT mean reusable. Most recycled containers end up in the landfill.
- Buy organic, as long as it’s unprocessed.
- Grow, cook and brew your own.
For everything!
1. Purchase as little food as possible that results in profits for corporations. There are two reasons. One is that by law they are bound to maximize profits for shareholders, which means they are bound to take advantage of human weaknesses that attract us to unhealthy foods. The second reason is that a prime way to increase profits is do whatever you can legally do to externalize the costs of your activities. This results in pollution from agricultural fields, abuse of farm workers. contamination from factory farms, abuse of farm animals,and huge production of packaging solid waste.
Andrus, Richard, PhD. Some Simple Dietary Suggestions. Binghamton University. Web. 15 Nov. 2009.
I enjoyed reading your last few posts on the food system. I have been working through the implications of what you write for the past year or more and am now eating a mainly local, 99% vegan diet. I feel much better in many ways, about myself and the environment. Grocery shopping sure is easier once you avoid all the processed foods and animal products. After visiting the agricultural areas of California I see how important this is to their economy. I do buy bananas (fair trade) and have not eliminated other imported foods. In Canada I would be eating storage apples, turnips, onions, carrots and potatoes primarily in the winter if I only ate locally.
By: Ruth on November 15, 2009
at 2:22 pm
Ruth, you are doing great. If everyone ate like you do. we wouldn’t be in this mess!
By: scienceguy288 on November 15, 2009
at 3:41 pm
Is it simply a matter of corporations being the problem?
How does Jared Diamond, author of Germs, Guns, and Steel and Collapse, view corporations?
Would he say that “they are bound to take advantage of human weaknesses that attract us to unhealthy foods”?
I think not.
And why are unhealthy foods profitable? Because of human weaknesses?
By: kharma frum on November 15, 2009
at 6:40 pm
I will definitely stock up on Canadian beer (in glass bottles, of course). Seriously, what is the meaning of “recyclable” then? I have always thought it was roughly equivalent to “reusable” in some form.
By: Observator on November 15, 2009
at 7:02 pm
@kharma: “When humans were first evolving on the African Savannah, we had appetites similar to those we have today. The appetite was developed to encourage people to eat what they needed. The African Savannah had plenty of grazing animals for us to kill and eat. This gives us our proteins, minerals, and some vitamins. There are also plenty of edible roots, nuts, and plants which provide us with fiber, oils, and more minerals and vitamins. However, there was a problem. Humans need some fat to survive, and grazing animals, which eat grass (more on that later), don’t have too much of that. It was also rather difficult to find salt and sugar. So, if you found something with salts or sugars, evolution encouraged us to gorge ourselves.”
Also, the company’s only loyalty is the the stockholder. Most large companies that are dominating the food industry (ie Monsanto, Carghill, Archer Daniels Midland) don’t really give a damn about ethics because it would undercut their profits and those of the shareholders. This is shown by their appalling social and environmental records!
@Observator:
Here is a good article about the differences: http://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/100/1/Reuse-vs-recycle.html
Just some highlights:
“While the energy required to recycle the aluminium in a drink can is one twentieth of that to produce the can from raw materials; when you start thinking in terms of billions of cans; it’s still a lot of energy consumed. You can buy the equivalent of 5 cans in a plastic PET recyclable bottle and I suspect (I’m not sure on this) that the recycling process would require less energy.”
“In terms of larger items, let’s say an old busted washing machine – we can send it to scrap merchants who may strip it of useful components for recycling which is great; but Fred from down the road is handy with washing machines and he may find that it just needs a fuse or some cheap component. Fred may be able to make use of it or resell the item. Reuse extends the life of a product before it has to hit the recycling stage. You may have saved Fred (or someone else) some cash in having to buy a new washer, so there’s also a definite feel good aspect to re-use aside from the consumption issue.”
So essentially, recyclable items cannot be used for anything else: scribbled pieces of paper, old coat hangers, pop cans, etc.; they can only be turned into their base elements and used for production again. Reusable items can be used for another purpose without simplifying them (like twist top bottles, milk jugs, etc). The later is much more energy efficient.
By: scienceguy288 on November 16, 2009
at 11:37 am
I have enjoyed your food edition.
So important to pay attention. Now for awareness on all of our buying.
What is next? I always enjoy whar you come up with.
Sherry
By: Sherry on November 16, 2009
at 2:45 pm
“Also, the company’s only loyalty is the the stockholder”
Well, that’s not what Diamond writes.
Do you really think that “the company’s only loyalty is to the stockholder”?
Aren’t they at all concerned about consumer demand and public opinion? Which in turn impacts upon profits?
How completely are these big food corporations able to manufacture consumer demand and public opinion?
Whose fault is it if we are led by the nose to buy what they want us to buy?
Also, we no longer live on the Savannah.
By: flotsam on November 16, 2009
at 3:05 pm
And ask people on the African Savannah today if they have enough fruits, nuts, etc..
By: flotsam on November 16, 2009
at 3:07 pm
Are they really concerned with what the consumer thinks? Or are they just concerned that if the consumer thinks poorly enough of them that they will stop purchasing goods, DECREASING PROFITS. I tend to think the later.
Whose fault is it? Both theirs and our’s. They are to blame for the problems in the first place and we are to blame for not wanting to dig deeper to uncover the truth. If we found something with salts or sugars, we are still encouraged to gorge ourselves.
As for the savannah question, you are right, we do not. But our appetites are adapted to a life on the savannah. Evolution takes some time.
By: scienceguy288 on November 16, 2009
at 3:47 pm
Thanks for the reminder about our American eating habits and corporate greed. Yes, eating local will not only aid our communities but it will also aid our personal health.
Processed foods contain unnecessary sugars, salts, unhealthy fats, and many other items that are not healthy.
Corporate america is bent on increasing profits without increasing jobs or fair wages. They use the “excuse” of responsibility to shareholders to turn larger profits when in fact it is simply a display of classic greed.
A never ending expanding economy is impossible without a never ending expanding population. It is evident to most that our planet cannot support more than it does now.
It is sad, but corporations intend to make a large short term profit at the expense of the less fortuneate and our planet.
Only the educated consumer can turn this around.
bill:www.wildramblings.com
By: bill;www.wildramblings.com on November 16, 2009
at 4:47 pm
If the sole motivator and bottom line is simply profit, then the onus of responsibility lays upon the consumer, not corporate executives or shareholders.
And what do the CEOs of these corps eat?
And who are the shareholders?
Nobody forces us to eat this or that. Nobody gets injected with twinkies.
Why are “they” to blame “in the first place”? The chicken or the egg?
If the masses don’t want to take responsibility for what they eat, they have nobody but themselves to blame.
By: kharma frum on November 16, 2009
at 5:47 pm
Let’s not forget that people are born not only with mouths that need to be fed, but also with hands that can produce, and minds that can create and innovate. As for the environment, just to mention one instance, countries with as few as 5% of the world population are responsible for more than one quarter of the principal greenhouse gas, while countries with up to a quarter of the world population contribute as little as 5% of the same greenhouse gas.
A serious and concerted effort aimed at protecting the environment and at promoting development will not be possible without directly addressing the structural forms of poverty that exist throughout the world. Environment is devastated and development thwarted by the outbreak of wars, when internal conflicts destroy homes, fields and factories, when intolerable circumstances force millions of people to desperately seek refuge away from their lands, when minorities are oppressed, when the rights of the most vulnerable — women, children, the aged and the infirm — are neglected or abused.
The poor, to whom the earth is entrusted no less than to others, must be enabled to find a way out of their poverty. This will require a courageous reform of structures, as well as new ways of relating among peoples and States.
Regrettably, advantaged groups often seem more intent on curbing Third World births than on restraining the even more voracious consumerism of the developed world. But this perspective compounds injustice and increases disrespect for the life of the weakest — and most disadvantaged and exploited — among us.
To eliminate hunger from the planet, the world community needs to reform the institutional and political structures that restrict the access of people to food.
By: flotsam on November 17, 2009
at 3:06 pm
That is a perfectly worded statement. If you would not mind, I would like to edit this post and include it in the conclusion.
By: scienceguy288 on November 17, 2009
at 10:37 pm
Actually, I cut and paste most of of it from Catholic statements from all over the web, only very occasionally throwing in my two cents. Bits and pieces from Popes, Vatican commissions, etc.
By: flotsam on November 18, 2009
at 3:16 pm
Good post sciencebloke. I do all those things as much as possible. And it’s pretty darned easy down here. I’d give some great examples but I’d end up getting long-winded. Hmmmm, this might call for a blog post…
Yes, reusable is much much much better than recyclable which is infinitely better than (yes, I know the mathematical ramifications, it’s just a figure of speach in this case) than the ole use it and chuck it.
By: Alaskan Dave Down Under on November 20, 2009
at 11:14 pm
The best thing about all of this is that not only does it help the environment, it also can help improve our health. For some odd reason, the most unhealthy food is the food the corporations want us to eat.
By: Ratty on November 21, 2009
at 9:36 pm
You mean the corporations that push organic food?
Some of the most profitable food corporations have developed organic product lines. But then dropped them due to lack of profits.
By: kharma frum on November 22, 2009
at 8:19 am