Another excellent article from The Guardian. This one is particularly interesting to me, and likely will be for you, as it points to the power of individuals changing their behavior around meat consumption.
This reminds me of the experiment Finland tried, reducing salt in their food gradually over a period of years without telling anyone. By the end, people were consuming a fraction of the salt they were previously, but there was no fuss about it - they barely noticed. An interesting lesson!
Yeah, I thought it was a good article too. The guy's book may be good, but my reading list is out of control, and now that I'm writing I have far less time to read.
For years, we’ve subscribed to a newsletter called Nutrition Action News from the Center for Science in the Public Interest. They make a lot of the same points, particularly around the perverse incentives of subsidies. They do a combination of advocacy, litigation, and through the newsletter outreach to individuals looking for healthier and more sustainable diets.
I think the combination of these elements is important. I agree that a lot change hinges on individual choice and in a sense everything starts there. But I don’t have confidence that enough people will alter their behaviors quickly enough to really make the difference. I think litigation and government action can move the needle in big ways, and quickly, and can have a very positive impact on the choices individuals make (i.e. accurate food labels, or stopping subsidies to junk food industries so that prices are not kept artificially low).
If all three areas worked in concert, then I think something could really be accomplished – but none in and of themselves are likely to be effective in time to really prevent the most dire consequences.
Another excellent article from The Guardian. This one is particularly interesting to me, and likely will be for you, as it points to the power of individuals changing their behavior around meat consumption.
This reminds me of the experiment Finland tried, reducing salt in their food gradually over a period of years without telling anyone. By the end, people were consuming a fraction of the salt they were previously, but there was no fuss about it - they barely noticed. An interesting lesson!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/30/climate-battle-cutting-down-on-meat-animal-products-dairy-carbon
Yeah, I thought it was a good article too. The guy's book may be good, but my reading list is out of control, and now that I'm writing I have far less time to read.
For years, we’ve subscribed to a newsletter called Nutrition Action News from the Center for Science in the Public Interest. They make a lot of the same points, particularly around the perverse incentives of subsidies. They do a combination of advocacy, litigation, and through the newsletter outreach to individuals looking for healthier and more sustainable diets.
I think the combination of these elements is important. I agree that a lot change hinges on individual choice and in a sense everything starts there. But I don’t have confidence that enough people will alter their behaviors quickly enough to really make the difference. I think litigation and government action can move the needle in big ways, and quickly, and can have a very positive impact on the choices individuals make (i.e. accurate food labels, or stopping subsidies to junk food industries so that prices are not kept artificially low).
If all three areas worked in concert, then I think something could really be accomplished – but none in and of themselves are likely to be effective in time to really prevent the most dire consequences.
I read this article about this new book and it reminded me of your post here. It really echoes a lot of what you say. Thought you might be interested.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/25/our-unequal-earth-mark-bittman-cheap-food-american-diet