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!
Thanks for the pointer Bill. I enjoyed that article too, as you well guessed. The links between our personal food choices and so many large scale problems seem to be all over the place now. Though I'm not sure this is so for everyone as parts of society take a very different approach to idea of reducing meat intake as we've seen this past week in response to false linking of Biden's climate agenda and a paper that explored the climate implications of reducing meat consumption. Two worlds. At least! :^)
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.
Thanks for the pointer, Bill. I hadn't seen that article which was a really good read I felt the author did a good job of explaining the inter dependencies of food, health and the environment. I hadn't realized that 50% of all food is "ultra-processed food" or junk food. That's disturbing. The interviewee stresses the point of view that we need massive scale change to food production because these junk foods are cheaper and so the less wealthy choose them, and then they pay with their health. I completely agree, but IMHO our individual choices are our greatest tool to force that change. I also enjoyed the links made to subsidies. There was an awful lot in the article, but they tied it all together in a very elegant manner.
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
Thanks for the pointer Bill. I enjoyed that article too, as you well guessed. The links between our personal food choices and so many large scale problems seem to be all over the place now. Though I'm not sure this is so for everyone as parts of society take a very different approach to idea of reducing meat intake as we've seen this past week in response to false linking of Biden's climate agenda and a paper that explored the climate implications of reducing meat consumption. Two worlds. At least! :^)
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
Thanks for the pointer, Bill. I hadn't seen that article which was a really good read I felt the author did a good job of explaining the inter dependencies of food, health and the environment. I hadn't realized that 50% of all food is "ultra-processed food" or junk food. That's disturbing. The interviewee stresses the point of view that we need massive scale change to food production because these junk foods are cheaper and so the less wealthy choose them, and then they pay with their health. I completely agree, but IMHO our individual choices are our greatest tool to force that change. I also enjoyed the links made to subsidies. There was an awful lot in the article, but they tied it all together in a very elegant manner.