# documentary Food, Inc



## jmgray (Sep 23, 2016)

I just wanted to share that I found this very imformative. I knew some of this but really didn't know the scale of it all. Probally won't change a lot of what I do because I can't really afford to go organic meat and veggies with my lifestyle but it really made me think. With the all responses on the future of fish I thought I see what you guys think about it

Jeff


----------



## jessf (Sep 23, 2016)

Is one of them GMO hating docs?


----------



## jmgray (Sep 23, 2016)

Part of is about about corn and soybean and Monsanto. There are good parts about the industrial raising of beef and chicken.


----------



## foody518 (Sep 23, 2016)

I don't stress out too much at this time about the organic thing, but I do eat largely plant based (and am now lactose intolerant, so that helps). The plant based eating has helped with my grocery bill too since I liked to get stuff such as jamon serrano and smoked salmon as treats. 

Seeing the CAFO type shots of livestock raising from Food Inc. like 6-7 years ago I think was the first piece of awareness I had into how large scale ag/livestock production tends to be done these days


----------



## alterwisser (Sep 23, 2016)

All the criticism aside... and I get it how much people hate GMO stuff, but we just won't be able to feed the earths population if it keeps growing like it does without GMO products and or without drastically reducing meat consumption ... and that doesn't even factor in that climate change (I just pretend it's not fictional for this post haha) will probably devastate harvests and agricultural land more and more going forward ... Just my two cents...


----------



## jessf (Sep 23, 2016)

I would agree and further by saying GMO products are likely supporting more population growth while being the solution to feeding that growing population.



alterwisser said:


> All the criticism aside... and I get it how much people hate GMO stuff, but we just won't be able to feed the earths population if it keeps growing like it does without GMO products and or without drastically reducing meat consumption ... and that doesn't even factor in that climate change (I just pretend it's not fictional for this post haha) will probably devastate harvests and agricultural land more and more going forward ... Just my two cents...


----------



## ecchef (Sep 24, 2016)

alterwisser said:


> ...but we just won't be able to feed the earths population if it keeps growing like it does without GMO products and or without drastically reducing meat consumption...



That's one way of looking at it. Population control would solve a host of other problems as well.


----------



## LostHighway (Sep 24, 2016)

ecchef said:


> That's one way of looking at it. Population control would solve a host of other problems as well.



While I'm concerned that we're getting dangerously close to the realms of politics and religion I very strongly agree. The worst population pressures/growth at present are in Africa and the Middle East followed by the Indian sub-continent, SE Asia and Mexico and Central America. Famine, disease (especially if antibiotic resistance continues to increase) and war/violence will address some of that, unfortunately far less humanely than good population control programs. Both Europe and North America should anticipate that their immigration issues aren't going away anytime in the foreseeable future.
It seems likely that we're going to have to adjust to eating less seafood and less meat no matter what. The GMO issue has been clouded by some very disingenuous propaganda on both sides of the debate. I'm not an agronomist or a plant geneticist but I do have enough academic background in horticulture, botany and bio-geography plus knowledge of how to structure research to say that much of the GMO crop trialing has been IMO far less rigorous and more methodologically lax than I think it should have been. A big chunk of the blame for that falls on the U.S. and Canadian governments no matter which party was in control. As always, "follow the money."


----------



## alterwisser (Sep 24, 2016)

ecchef said:


> That's one way of looking at it. Population control would solve a host of other problems as well.



I agree. But I have no idea how that can be achieved ...especially not on a global level...


----------



## Bill13 (Sep 24, 2016)

alterwisser said:


> I agree. But I have no idea how that can be achieved ...especially not on a global level...



Even China has had a hard time with this, not that anyone should look to them for answers. That is unless you agree with them politically.


----------



## jessf (Sep 24, 2016)

Self control is a big part of that as well. The next time someone says they can't conceive and are considering in-vitro or fertility drugs ask them if they would consider adopting. Gauge their reaction and you'll see why population control resulting from free will is pretty much impossible.

I tell people they should adopt and get the oddest reactions. As if suggesting they adopt i'm implying they shouldn't procreate. Of course that's not what i say or mean but their reaction is telling. Do they want to guide and nurture a life, or claim it as their genetic property?




ecchef said:


> That's one way of looking at it. Population control would solve a host of other problems as well.


----------



## zetieum (Sep 24, 2016)

GMO. Big debate.... Aside from using GMO for making plant produce molecule that are useful for something else than eating or in project in the direction of the golden rice, GMO are not going to solve the problem of "feeding people". In short, GMO are basically almost not improving the productivity. It can help reducing the labour on the field for the same productivity at the cost of a dependency to the crop producer and a dependency to specific chemical. Moreover, it is a huge factor of reduction of the biological diversity, and it is a total utopia to think that gene transfer from GMO crops to surrounding corps is not going to happen. 
In fact humanity has been modifying plant genome since ages though selection and breeding. GMO is not a break through advance in this regard. It is at best silguht incremental improvement. Therefore, it cannot change the deal. 
Solution to feed the world will go through much less meat from mammals and fish, eating insects, much more people in the fields, and "greenfly desert". You can replace the gain of productivity of both genetic modification/breeding and chemistry by doing micromanagement of the field. But it requires man power. A lot of it. 
That is my opinion that I forged over the years from my studies and my job. Note that most academics that share this opinion...


----------



## spoiledbroth (Sep 24, 2016)

People seem to think that veg is somehow more sustainable to produce en masse ... However I believe it's patently untrue


----------



## zetieum (Sep 25, 2016)

spoiledbroth said:


> People seem to think that veg is somehow more sustainable to produce en masse ... However I believe it's patently untrue



yep. Very true. That is what I mean by more people in the fields: micro local management, like every one use to do. on 70m2 of vegetable garden you feed a family


----------



## LostHighway (Sep 25, 2016)

spoiledbroth said:


> People seem to think that veg is somehow more sustainable to produce en masse ... However I believe it's patently untrue



How so? Every credible study I've seen indicates that non-meat food sources are vastly more energy efficient in terms of calories in to calories out. There may be an argument that meat is more sustainable under very specialized conditions: areas with a long grass growing season that are too dry for most forms of farming without irrigation and meat animals adapted to that environment (in North America think bison and antelope). The problem with that scenario is that it is very inefficient in terms of geographic density. In terms of conventionally produced meat poultry is more efficient than four legged animals and pork is considerably more efficient than beef. We'll put the methane and waste issues aside for now. 

As several other posters have noted the problems of sustainable agriculture become much more manageable with fewer people and much less mangeable as populations increase.


----------



## ecchef (Sep 25, 2016)

Then there's the 'Soylent Green' scenerio.


----------



## LostHighway (Sep 25, 2016)

ecchef said:


> Then there's the 'Soylent Green' scenerio.



Generally too fatty and you never know what contaminants are in it


----------



## alterwisser (Sep 25, 2016)

spoiledbroth said:


> People seem to think that veg is somehow more sustainable to produce en masse ... However I believe it's patently untrue



I'm far from a hardcore environmentalist, vegan or anything of that matter, but there are countless studies showing that it's more efficient to produce veg in comparison to meat (sources) just based on the fact that a large amount of food/feed needs to be produced for just kg/lbs of meat.

Talking about mass produced meat of course, but the world won't be fed from sustainably sourced meat from family farms.

If you have links to studies to show the opposite, I would love to see them. I love meat and I would love to continue eating it ...


----------



## foody518 (Sep 25, 2016)

There's a general rule about energy recovered as you go further down the food chain (more steps away from the sun), no? Order of magnitude loss from sun -> first plant, first plant to the thing that eats it, etc. Etc until you get to us


----------



## Bill13 (Sep 25, 2016)

Here is an interesting take on this: https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_sav...eserts_and_reverse_climate_change?language=en


----------



## Bill13 (Sep 25, 2016)

And another take, http://www.wsj.com/articles/actually-raising-beef-is-good-for-the-planet-1419030738 maybe more biased, but I like it when people don't make up their mind and shut out any other ideas or thoughts.

Around here it's always fun to tell Tesla owners that their car is worse for the environment than a new car with average fuel efficiency. I like to call them coal powered electric cars.


----------



## Mucho Bocho (Sep 25, 2016)

Thanks fir that Bill. WOW, that's thinking outside the box but seems so obvious. Has given me an inkling of hope.


----------



## jessf (Sep 25, 2016)

Funny you should say that as a while back i found this article in a peer reviewed journal. Talks about the life cycle costs of EV verses a gasoline equivalent. I haven't gone back to see if there has been any peer reviewed rebutals so read at your own discretion. 
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x/full

In general though i find most of what i hear in thr news is clever double speak. Really, the "green movement" you see touted is more about the movement of green from your pocket to someone elses and not about responsible stewardship. EVs represent a change in fuel, not a change in philosophy. We've gone through several changes of fuel in the past 200 years. 



Bill13 said:


> And another take, http://www.wsj.com/articles/actually-raising-beef-is-good-for-the-planet-1419030738 maybe more biased, but I like it when people don't make up their mind and shut out any other ideas or thoughts.
> 
> Around here it's always fun to tell Tesla owners that their car is worse for the environment than a new car with average fuel efficiency. I like to call them coal powered electric cars.


----------



## alterwisser (Sep 25, 2016)

Bill13 said:


> And another take, http://www.wsj.com/articles/actually-raising-beef-is-good-for-the-planet-1419030738 maybe more biased, but I like it when people don't make up their mind and shut out any other ideas or thoughts.
> 
> Around here it's always fun to tell Tesla owners that their car is worse for the environment than a new car with average fuel efficiency. I like to call them coal powered electric cars.



I saw that article discusses on Reddit recently. I think it focuses mostly on small farms, grass fed animals, producing about 1% of beef consumed in the US. I agree this is a good and important part of our ecosystem. It's the 99%, the mass produced beef that's more troublesome...

Anyway, I know this is a touchy subject. We - as mankind - are not capable it seems of long term planning and what our actions mean for future generations. Maybe it's engrained that we just care more about us and the immediate future than anything else. In any way, mankind greatly overrates its importance anyway. Humankind as a whole is just a mere blink of an eye in earths life. Existed long before us and probably will exist long after human life has been eradicated...

Great book to read, btw: Jared Diamond, Collapse, how societies choose to fail or succeed


----------



## LostHighway (Sep 25, 2016)

I'm very familiar with the work of Alan Savory, the Land Institute https://landinstitute.org/, exemplary farmer Joel Salatin, etc. All these people and many more have some good ideas and they are pieces of the solution but they aren't a "fix" unless we get a handle on population growth. Here in North America we can create a much more sustainable agricultural system that feeds more people than we do now *IF* we're prepared to get many more people physically working in agriculture, pay more for our food and change our diets. As alterwisser suggests above cheap feedlot beef and pork are not part of a sustainable future.


----------



## Keith Sinclair (Sep 25, 2016)

alterwisser said:


> I agree. But I have no idea how that can be achieved ...especially not on a global level...



Don't know with certainty what the future will bring. The trend since the 1980's esp. is glacial melt at a faster rate. Glaciers white surfaces reflect suns rays as they melt darker exposed surfaces absorb & release heat. If this continues for decades to come a lot of people on a global level will be in deep kim chee. Billions of people rely on mountain glacial melt as their main fresh water supply.

Since the ice ages have gone through cycles the earths sea levels have been much higher and lower than they are now. That is long before man's industrial carbon footprint.

Border wars in the future could be over water nature has a way of thinning out the herd.


----------



## Marek07 (Sep 26, 2016)

Bill13 said:


> Here is an interesting take on this: https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_sav...eserts_and_reverse_climate_change?language=en



Thanks for the link. An eye-opening talk from my perspective. I've always read about how much more it costs in water, energy and resources to produce animals to eat than plant equivalents. However Allan Savory's TED talk has opened my eyes to another way of thinking where herds of feed animals actually assist the environment. The caution here is that in his proposed model, herds need to be moved around. It would appear that this would not work with typical Western landholdings where fences (and private property) prevent the very herd migration that seems to prevent land degradation.

And on the ancillary point of feeding the ever expanding numbers of us on the planet, there is much recent talk of of insects becoming part of our diet. A recent episode of an Australian cooking show, MasterChef, featured crickets as an ingredient. The resulting winning dishes were highly lauded - though I for one, will not be queuing up to sample them.

Here's a recipe for Cricket Caramel Semifreddo with Lime Curd and Betel Leaf Crumb if you're game: http://tenplay.com.au/channel-ten/m...emifreddo-with-lime-curd-and-betel-leaf-crumb


----------



## spoiledbroth (Sep 26, 2016)

alterwisser said:


> I'm far from a hardcore environmentalist, vegan or anything of that matter, but there are countless studies showing that it's more efficient to produce veg in comparison to meat (sources) just based on the fact that a large amount of food/feed needs to be produced for just kg/lbs of meat.
> 
> Talking about mass produced meat of course, but the world won't be fed from sustainably sourced meat from family farms.
> 
> If you have links to studies to show the opposite, I would love to see them. I love meat and I would love to continue eating it ...



I'd be curious to see your studies. You should quickly google energy efficiency + eggplant or + lettuce and you'll see what I mean.


----------



## foody518 (Sep 26, 2016)

http://graphics.latimes.com/food-water-footprint/


----------



## alterwisser (Sep 26, 2016)

spoiledbroth said:


> I'd be curious to see your studies. You should quickly google energy efficiency + eggplant or + lettuce and you'll see what I mean.



you show me yours, I'll show you mine 

No, but seriously, if you focus on the energy input in the form of feed alone, there's no doubt what's more efficient. What you grow and feed your animals, you can't feed humans. Or at least you take away agricultural land that could be used for growing other food (not saying we should all eat corn and grain). If you look at the overall picture IN THE US, there's a difference, but not a massive one between the overall energy input and output between industrialized meat and vegetable production (and the industrial part is the key). The most efficient form of agriculture per the United Stated Dept. of Agriculture is actually small, diversified farms that grow veggies, raise animals, produce dairy etc. Basically your average "old school" family run farm ... that has been driven out of business by mega corporations in the last decades.

I am not an expert if that approach could actually produce the massive amounts of food we need to feed an ever growing population, but it sure something I'd like to see come back ...


----------



## LostHighway (Sep 26, 2016)

spoiledbroth said:


> I'd be curious to see your studies. You should quickly google energy efficiency + eggplant or + lettuce and you'll see what I mean.



That click bait synopsis headline has been widely debunked. It is based on cherry picking comparisons and does not accurately reflect the real study results http://modernfarmer.com/2015/12/is-eating-lettuce-really-worse-for-the-environment-than-eating-bacon/ The full study is behind a $40 paywall.


----------



## Bill13 (Sep 26, 2016)

jessf said:


> Funny you should say that as a while back i found this article in a peer reviewed journal. Talks about the life cycle costs of EV verses a gasoline equivalent. I haven't gone back to see if there has been any peer reviewed rebutals so read at your own discretion.
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x/full
> 
> In general though i find most of what i hear in thr news is clever double speak. Really, the "green movement" you see touted is more about the movement of green from your pocket to someone elses and not about responsible stewardship. EVs represent a change in fuel, not a change in philosophy. We've gone through several changes of fuel in the past 200 years.



The study you link toI had not seen before, so thanks! Here is the one I am familiar with, although I get lost in some of the details. http://www.pnas.org/content/111/52/18490.full In this study they come to the conclusion that if you generate your electricity from coal that your EV is 80% worse for the environment. If you get your energy from hydo, it's 250% better. This is what drives me nuts about the national tax break EV cars get, that plus the tax break in the large majority of cases goes to the wealthier population.

To funny, just got a call to run power for a Tesla in Bethesda MD, and no I won't bring any of this up with the new owner:biggrin:.

The lifespan of the batteries plays a critical role in determining the pollution cost. Most studies I believe are overly optimistic about battery life. I don't have proof on that, just that batteries in general don't last as long as claimed.


----------



## foody518 (Sep 26, 2016)

http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock and Climate Change.pdf


----------



## WildBoar (Sep 26, 2016)

Bill13 said:


> To funny, just got a call to run power for a Tesla in Bethesda MD, and no I won't bring any of this up with the new owner:biggrin:.


Tell them the copper for the wiring was strip-mined


----------



## Keith Sinclair (Sep 26, 2016)

See a few Tesla's here. Ala Moana shopping center in the mist of high end shops is a Tesla showroom. Remember not to long ago they were deep in the red struggle to survive.

Notice more Nissan Leafs I read somewhere that the Nissans don't have a good cooling system for the batteries in a place like Hawaii I imagine that would shorten battery life. Of coarse car co. exaggerate gas mileage too. Maybe with ideal conditions taking foot off the gas & coasting on the down hills you can get those numbers.


----------



## LifeByA1000Cuts (Sep 26, 2016)

Unless you are talking growing animal feed on land that cannot sustain the production of human-palatable plant based food, or restraining animal feeding to a) herded, grazing animals, b) hunted/fished ones, c) ones that will mainly feed on food scraps left from farming and food processing, how can animal based food ever be more land/energy efficient?


----------



## spoiledbroth (Sep 29, 2016)

LostHighway said:


> That click bait synopsis headline has been widely debunked. It is based on cherry picking comparisons and does not accurately reflect the real study results http://modernfarmer.com/2015/12/is-eating-lettuce-really-worse-for-the-environment-than-eating-bacon/ The full study is behind a $40 paywall.



Sorry did you even read that link? What's more these facts have not been debunked lol. And certainly not by an amateur blogger.

And a cursory glance at other debunking (of a Carnegie Mellon study by a PhD LMFAO) seem to have been written by folks with a very low level of education and almost no understanding of even basic nutrition

What's more I have never heard of meat spoiling on a long haul however we know as much as a quarter of produce can spoil on long haul yielding a net loss on the carbon/water footprint necessary to grow the crops in the first place. Then let's forget about the megatonnage of produce shipped from California across the world of which a higher percentage will go down the drain in spoilage.


----------



## LostHighway (Sep 29, 2016)

spoiledbroth said:


> Sorry did you even read that link? What's more these facts have not been debunked lol. And certainly not by an amateur blogger.
> 
> And a cursory glance at other debunking (of a Carnegie Mellon study by a PhD LMFAO) seem to have been written by folks with a very low level of education and almost no understanding of even basic nutrition
> 
> What's more I have never heard of meat spoiling on a long haul however we know as much as a quarter of produce can spoil on long haul yielding a net loss on the carbon/water footprint necessary to grow the crops in the first place. Then let's forget about the megatonnage of produce shipped from California across the world of which a higher percentage will go down the drain in spoilage.




I'm sorry but I'm getting the impression that you don't quite grasp the difference between reading a news report based on a press release and actually dissecting the research in the way it would be done in good peer review. The actual study is linked here http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10669-015-9577-y?wt_mc=Affiliate.CommissionJunction.3.EPR1089.DeepLink but $40 paywall, which I'm willing to bet you haven't paid and hence haven't actually read the paper. Without getting into the weeds of their raw data sets (they are drawing from a large number of sources) you can't meaningfully dissect the paper or draw sweeping conclusions. 
Let's take beef for an example: calves originating from a cow-calf operation in Florida might be sold at auction as yearlings and shipped on to a feedlot in Texas or Oklahoma, after another six months or so they are shipped again, this time to the packing plant, after being processed they are shipped again to grocery wholesalers or retail grocery chain warehouses and shipped again to the final retail destination. Feedlots almost always purchase rather than grow their grains so there is shipping at this stage too. This is inherently a lossy process, putting aside for the moment mortality, transportation, waste and water issues. It takes approximately 7.5 pounds of corn and other feed grains to produce one pound of weight gain. We're not talking processed beef here, we're talking a one pound gain in the gross weight of the animal and only about 40% or less of the live weight of animal ends up as trimmed meat for human consumption. Alternatively, but far less commonly, the animal may be raised from birth on a small mixed farm that pastures as much as possible and puts up most of their own forage and is eventually butchered and processed within the region and sold directly to area stores. Obviously, the second example will enjoy some, probably considerable, advantages in energy usage and carbon foot print and if the farm is well managed, sustainability. You can pick best and worst case scenarios for vegetables or grains as well. When you make comparisons across different food sources you can cherry pick something with very low caloric density like lettuce to compare to something that has a high caloric density like fish or pork. The point, if it is not clear, is that if you want to argue that meat is more sustainable or energy efficient you really need to talk specifics and not just base opinions on having read news reports based on the press releases or the abstracts of papers. If you really want to discuss this in serious detail and not just indulge in ad hominem attacks please let me know.


----------



## LifeByA1000Cuts (Sep 29, 2016)

Yep, the lettuce is more likely gonna spoil than a big mass of frozen meat, or a shelf stable piece of charcuterie - so is a fish or a bag of minced meat more likely to spoil than a bag of dried pulses or a pack of shelf stable tofu or flour or a load of spuds, bell peppers, citrus fruit...


----------

