482
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 38 points 6 months ago

You can argue, sure. But people have actually studied this, and you're factually just plain wrong.

You've seen the centralized waste. But you haven't picked through a neighborhood's worth of trash cans to put that centralized waste into the larger decentralized context.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago

People mistaking anecdotes and feels for data

[-] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Can you point to the part in the study that confirms that half of food waste is at an individual residential level?

It's not that I don't believe you but this study is absolutely dense and kinda doesn't have any specific data as far as I can see on that subject but is instead a much wider view in the topic. And FLI number include any post production waste which includes retail, restaurants and consumer level, which means grocery stores and other supply points could be adding to the numbers.

I also don't love that this references waste of food generates green house gases but states composting as a clean alternative despite it being practically the same process of degradation that leads to emissions of green house gases.
I would love to see cities implement large scale composting programs but that's just to preserve the biological components for fertilizer instead of mining for artificial phosphates.

I notice articles and papers on food waste tend to have not enough data points and a lot of motivated thought points on them. Not enough practical work or solutions. No mention of scaling back production, or local centralized composting (only individual), and adapted policies on food safety.

We just all need to eat more apparently.

Edit: found the original paper cited for North America consumption food waste which includes restaurant and home use and the answer is we definitely need to eat more cause of man is it insane. Higher than the article posted actually.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

Look at figure 2.

Consumption isn't 50%, but it's the largest single bar in that chart - significantly so.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Thank you for the figure you were looking at it led me to the original source for that data which is actually even more wild.

So in the North America region it's actually worse with it being around 61% of food loss occurs at the consumption stage and 42% of food overall is wasted which is INSANELY high and nearly double that of Europe.
Man I guess we really do need to eat more.

Consumption stage however does include restaurants and catering, as well as in the home use.
With according to the study the 3 main reasons being
• sorted out for appearance
• not consumed before expired
• cooked but not eaten

It's speculative to try and guess the amount that is from restaurants and commercial food prep but I would guess the amount thrown out by the cumulative 300+ million Americans each day is probably a good chunk of the percentage if not the majority.

Really interesting study, the one you linked too even steals a couple of their charts. Thanks!
http://pdf.wri.org/reducing_food_loss_and_waste.pdf

[-] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

Not sure why eating more would be the takeaway. Producing less seems like the way to go considering we already massively overeat.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

It's a joke about not being able to do less. Nowhere in the research papers do they suggest as a solution less production just more composting or self responsibility for buy less or ways to make scraps more edible.

It's a joke of line doesn't go down. Sorry guess the sarcasm doesn't come through even with the bolded text.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Looking at the chart you linked my feeling is that the best way to reduce food waste is:

More/tastier/healthier frozen foods.

This will reduce post sales food wastage, as well as wastage at the market.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I mean they do cite limitation in food storage as one of the issues to be solved with new tech. Frozen doesn't last forever.

I will say it does feel like sometimes companies make a purposefully gross product to use an ingredient they don't otherwise kn ow what to do excess of and maybe it's ok if that just goes back to farms at growing stage for compost.

In fact I think my takeaway is I'd rather just us have farm waste then wasting all the energy to make it and then have it end up in the trash where it takes up space and doesn't contribute back to the planet.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

What I'm getting from this figure is to look at what Latin America is doing. Not only is less food wasted but it's more evenly wasted across the process. I think that's a good thing no?

this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
482 points (96.0% liked)

politics

18869 readers
3957 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS