Five Foods That Are Killing the Planet

[Flaxbee]

Spoiler alert: Stop reading now if you can't live without Quarter Pounders, packaged pastries, or expensive sushi.

(Actually - read on, and change your habits. It's not that hard.)

What are the five foods? Read the article for a full explanation, but here you go:
1) Bluefin Tuna
2) Conventional (non shade grown, non organic) coffee
3) Cheap burgers
4) Genetically modified corn
5) Palm oil

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201401/enjoy-five-foods-killing-the-planet.aspx

We'll let Pulitzer Prize–winning food critic Jonathan Gold get on his soapbox for this one: "People need to stop eating BLUEFIN TUNA. Period. It'll be difficult because bluefin is uncommonly delicious and tends to be served at high-end sushi bars, where the fashion is to say 'omakase' and submit to the chef's will. But the numbers of these magnificent fish are dropping fast. If we don't stop eating them now, we'll stop in a few years anyway because there won't be any more." Carl Safina, who founded the Blue Ocean Institute, adds, "Because they're long-lived, bluefin populations don't stand up well to heavy fishing pressure—that's why they're so depleted. It's just too sad to eat them. Plus, big fish are high in mercury." To rein in your share of the overfishing disaster currently unfolding—bluefin stock is down by more than 96 percent from unfished levels—order a vegetarian roll instead.

[hollysmom]

1. I'm ok

1. allergic to tuna
2. don't drink coffee
3. rarely eat burgers, but when I do, I makethem at home from pretty expensive meat.
4. try to avoid genetically modified corn if I know it and avoid foods with corn syrup (read the labels)
5. real labels try to avoid palm oil,
but I do eat a lot of crap, Love making brownies when my diet will breaks.

[MineralMan]

2. Why am I thinking this is just a tad bit overstated?

Really. Killing the Planet? "Conventional (not shade-grown, non organic) coffee?" Really? Killing the Planet? Someone needs to rethink this article, I believe.

Uff da!

[Flaxbee]

3. Many of these foods are grown by cutting down vast amounts of trees ...

palm oil and coffee being two examples.

Without trees, you might as well just give it up.

Sure, the statement may be designed to draw attention - but the current production methods for coffee, beef, fish are unsustainable.

Easy enough to buy shade grown coffee and avoid cheap food that's going to kill you anyway and causes misery for thousands of creatures ... easier to change your habits than complain about the language used -- unless you're just hoping to justify your habits.

[MineralMan]

7. Overstatement is self-defeating, since anyone

can recognize it.

Human beings manipulate their environment. We've been doing that throughout our time on this planet. There are so many more destructive ways in which we do that than how we grow coffee, that it makes this article seem whiny and overstated.

Burning stuff. That's far more dangerous to the Planet than all the stuff mentioned in this article combined. And here in the United States, we destroyed our prairie lands 100%, long before GMO corn and wheat were created. We also cut down a vast part of our forested land, not to grow food, but to build buildings for people to live in and to print books, newspapers, and other such things. Europe wiped out its forests long before we destroyed ours. That's also more destructive than those food examples. But burning stuff...that's the one that really puts the planet at risk, at least for us humans. Eventually, we'll disappear, though, and the planet will find some new balance. It's the way of things.

The article is overstated, and remarkably so.

[Lordquinton]

13. You do realise

that slash and burn is how many of these foods (obv. not the fish) are grown. You know, cut down the forest and burn the trees.

[MineralMan]

14. Yes, I do know that. Once burned, a forest will not burn again, if

planted to crops. The impact is small, compared to the constant burning of fossil fuels, which represent burning of organic materials built up over very, very long periods.

Once, say, a coffee plantation is created, far more fuel will be burned in roasting, growing, and transporting the crops than from burning of the original forest replaced by the plantation.

GMO crops were also mentioned. What was not mentioned was that most of the land used to grow those was already in use for crop production for long previous periods. Again, it is the production, processing, and shipping of the resultant crops that have the most impact on the environment on a continuing basis. The original ecosystem was destroyed long, long ago.

The whole bluefin tuna thing really has no impact on the planet itself. It is an extinction event of a top-of-the-chain predator. If the bluefin tuna disappears, other predators not of interest to the fishing industry will breed more successfully to exploit the same resources exploited by the bluefin. The net impact on the entire planet will be minimal.

The impact of the things listed in the article, all having to do with food consumed by humans and meat animals, is not what puts the planet's overall ecology at risk, really. It is population of humans that does that. If you want a relationship between food production and planet destruction, it is in the eaters, not the eaten. More eaters means more impact, in one way or another.

But fossil fuel burning is still the main impact humans have on the planet. That is the thing that really threatens, and that is population-based as well. The article is overstated and illogical, as I said earlier.

[Blanks]

17. We are putting the health of the oceans at risk...

With the fossil fuel/CO2 screwing up the chemical balance. That's probably as much a threat to the bluefin tuna than the outright killing of them.

I agree with you and I think the potential human health hazards for the foods listed are more serious than the 'planet health' unless the author means human health when talking about planet health.

[MineralMan]

26. Killing the planet and bad for humans are two

very different things. The planet is independent of humans, who can only ruin it in terms of habitatability for humans. The planet is a planet, and is inanimate as a planet. Anthropomorphizing a planet is a symptom of our arrogance. The planet is indifferent to humans because it is not sentient. It is a planet.

[U4ikLefty]

27. lame

[MineralMan]

28. Thank you for your well reasoned discussion.

[Blanks]

29. I'm not sure what your point is...

Of course we look at the planet in terms of whether the effects on ecological systems is good or bad for humans.

I would personally prefer that we humans have a healthy planet to pass off to the next generation. I don't think that's arrogance. Its an attitude that all species have toward the perpetuation of their species.

Your view seems overly scientific and a bit cold and impersonal. Obviously accurate, but kind of negative. It's an animal instinct to protect your progeny - even when humans are the species doing it. It's the nature of all creatures, and I don't think its a negative attribute.

I'm not sure I believe that we are capable of destroying all human life by following our current path. Nuclear weapons maybe, but at worst we will use enough resources that we kill a lot of the humans and drive a bunch of species to extinction. I expect that humans will evolve even if we don't change our path.

[MineralMan]

33. 'It's an animal instinct to protect your progeny'

No doubt. That's why I made the choice, way back in 1965, not to create any new humans. It's not a choice I think should be insisted on, but it was my choice, based solely on population concerns.

As for being overly scientific, that's how I think about things. I don't consider humans to be any more important as residents on this planet than any other species. We are merely another species of mammal living here. We just happen to be capable of screwing everything up, due to our intelligence and tool-making.

[NoOneMan]

31. Over 30% of GHG emissions are from land use sector

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6126

There is more of an impact than simply releasing the carbon from the trees from the initial burning. Land use change causes the soil itself to emit large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. As that site also mention, our living soil is the 3rd largest carbon reserve on the planet. Just because we can't see it, doesn't mean its not happening.

[MineralMan]

32. Again, population.

People must eat, and to do so, land must be cultivated for crops to grow. It is all population-linked.

[NoOneMan]

35. No, its not all population based. That's an overly simplistic answer

If we were all living like those in Uruguay and still had these problems, then sure, that would make sense. But we aren't all living equally. Small segments of the population are emitting far more than the overall average emitted by the general population. Sure, 8 billion people alone most certainly doesn't help, but it can no more be implicated than the beef in your fridge, the cellphone in your pocket, the two cars in your garage, etc. Our problem requires a much bigger solution than having Africans stop having babies, as a first world baby is responsible for far more emissions than many 3rd world babies.

[MineralMan]

36. Your map is about economics, not population.

Of course wealthy nations use more energy. That's a given. They have more money to spend on fuel. Again, that's one of the reasons I chose not to reproduce. I made no first-world babies. It's something that I've given a lot of thought and study to. You will not find me suggesting population control focused on the second and third world. Ever.

Of course there is unequal wealth distribution. That's unfair, but real.

[NoOneMan]

37. Yep, which is exactly why its not ONLY about population

Economic production and GHG emissions are strictly related. Every piece of wealth depends on the destruction & cultivation of nature.

[yellowcanine]

40. Shade grown coffee not a panacea, however.

First of all, there is the issue of certification and how reliable it is. As with organic certification, this can be very difficult. In a global market, products raised using conventional methods mysteriously end up being labeled as "organic" or "shade grown" simply by being exported as raw product and imported back into the same country as finished product.

And of course, "organic" and "shade grown," even if accurate, is no guarantee that "thousands of creatures" are going to be any better off. Lots of wishful thinking going on. One example here on the effects of shade grown coffee on biodiversity.

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss1/art13/

[bhikkhu]

4. I would agree with some of that, but the bias against grazing livestock is wrong

From a vegetarian perspective, its often said that grazing livestock is a waste of the land, as agriculture produces far more calories per acre than raising livestock for meat. But that critically ignores that livestock are usually grazed on land that's not suitable for agriculture, whether because of the quality of the soil or the availability of water.

I live in a semi-rural area which has a decent mix of grazing land and agricultural land, and its not uncommon to find farmers laughing about someone who bought grazing land cheap and tried to make more money by raising crops. It generally doesn't work well at all.

Another common criticism is that grazing livestock is a great destroyer of the land - "depleting native biodiversity, increasing invasive exotics, diverting water, fouling streams, and baring the soil". The Savory Institute has done a series of case studies that show good practices can easily lead to the opposite, and that grazing animals are an essential element to preventing desertification ( http://www.savoryinstitute.com/science/case-studies/ ).

[Flaxbee]

5. It's a case of extremes, though -- too much grazing is definitely bad

And the giant factory farms where the animals are kept in deplorable conditions cannot be justified under any circumstances.

I'm a vegetarian but I don't have a problem with the concept of meat -- I just hate the way the animals are treated, the waste, the belief that you need meat at every meal or even every day.

Moderation is the key. Americans - well, humans - aren't good at moderation, and the belief that you need to have what you want, whenever you want it at a cheap price WILL eventually destroy this planet.

[bhikkhu]

10. They do specifically mention factorey farming, but then they go on

to bundle that with grazing on public lands, which is a whole different thing. Where I live we have a lot of grazing on public lands, and it causes no problem that I know of. All the criticism comes from outside, generally from people who don't know much about livestock but who might have read an uninformed article or two.

For example, we have a large wetland area wildlife refuge. A particular kind of forage grows there that gradually chokes off the open water areas. Cows are very fond of it, so every five years or so the managers have brought in a big herd in the dry fall to graze down the forage and open up the waterways again. Its worked very well, but this year a group from out of the area filed a lawsuit to prevent it, based on the idea that grazing is universally harmful and shouldn't be allowed on public land. The people who run the refuge are beside themselves - another two years and it won't even be wetland any more without grazing. The deer would have done the job in the past, but there aren't enough deer now and the migratory herds disappeared a generation ago.

[truedelphi]

30. Oh My Gawdess! I didn't think there was one other DU'er here

Who understands that cattle are often out on lands that are not good for farming.

Secondly, so many vegetarians that I know are all "hamburgers bad; why not be a vegan and wine drinker like me."

But a dairy farm that is run correctly, as the small farmers do in my area, the farm totally supports the environment: there are massive trees, some of them old growth. there are ponds, and brush and wild flowers. On those acres, you see every type of animal that the area support.

But go up the road to the vineyards, and there are the damn grapes on their skinny metallic supports. Within five miles of my house, there are five thousand square acre plots, and all you ever see are the metal structures and the vines. Never even a single bird to be seen! No birds, no fox, no cougar or deer ever trespass in that area. We are losing our wildlife to 'ecological" vineyards and every day, as I watch the County transfer land from dairy and wilderness to more grapes of wine, I am sick at heart.

[Flaxbee]

42. Farming - dairy, cattle, etc. - can be a vital part of an ecosystem if it is done well

with respect for the animals and the environment.

As a vegetarian, I am very dismayed by the way other vegetarians don't think of their impact - somehow they think not eating meat is the sole answer, when they're eating fruits that have been flown for thousands of miles to get to their store, they're consuming soy that has been grown on fields stripped of any other life, etc.

People like easy answers. A quick fix, like "no meat". But it is so much more complicated than that - we live in an interdependent ecosystem and the more it is abused, the more we all suffer. As I've said, I don't really have a problem with meat - I just wish all animals were treated with kindness and respect, from birth to a quick, painless death. But that would mean Americans and all humans would have to eat, and live, moderately.

[enki23]

6. Why they have to stupidly imply that non "genetically modified" corn is any better for the planet.

No. It's not better. It's worse. You use a lot *more* and a lot *nastier* herbicides and insecticides, if you want enough of a crop to pay the outrageous cash rent that gets charged in places where corn is grown. The fertilizer requirement is the same. The tillage and resulting soil erosion problems are the same. Irrigation costs, both monetary and environmental, are the same. The fuel costs and greenhouse gas emissions are typically *worse*, because it often requires more trips over the field. Even when you don't end up having to pay an airplane to spray the fields with even nastier shit to save your crop from a bad insect problem that crops up late in the season.

There is literally nothing better about conventional corn farming with non GMO corn. Nothing except PR costs, and farmer autonomy (which most farm workers no longer actually have anyway).

That said, corn is fucking destroying large swaths of the planet, ecologically as well as socio-economically. It *is* going to bite us hard one day, and that day may not be that long in coming. We need agricultural diversity, and we need it badly. GMOs have very little to do with that problem, except in that it may be possible for the technology to help if properly applied.

[otohara]

8. It's So Hard to Find Any Baked Goods w/o Palm Oil

I've stopped buying cookies w/ PO...

I think read more labels than anyone on the planet.

[Codeine]

11. I know what you mean.

Being a vegan means adding twenty minutes of Label Reading Time to every grocery trip.

[RC]

12. Even NOT being vegan means adding twenty minutes of Label Reading Time to every grocery trip.

Everyone should be reading the labels anyway. If they knew what some of those ingredients were, they would not be eating them.
High Fructose Corn Syrup is not all that good for you and it is still in almost everything. In the last few years, they have sometimes been calling it something else, to hide it.
Also the salt content. I call some of the high sodium 'food' Salt Blocks, because of the sodium content. 1200 mg even, in some of the frozen foods. Get rid of the salt and add a few real spices, why don't they? So what if it costs a few cents more? Or leave the salt out and let the customer add their own?

[Blanks]

18. Just as tomatoes have been bred based on their shelf life...

I expect preservative quantities are also based on shelf life. If herbs and spices were added instead of salt - the foods would probably spoil sooner.

More of us need to grow more of our own food.

[Flaxbee]

22. yes, definitely. Grow a few vegetables in the summer - easy ones, like tomatoes, squash, and learn

to do some simple canning for the winter.

And in general, most Americans could probably stand to eat a little bit less, too -- those two things in combination - our own "victory gardens" plus moderation could really do wonders to alleviate the burden humans put on the environment, food-wise.

Also, trying to eat locally and seasonally would be a huge help. Think before you buy those berries from California (if you don't live in Cal) or Peru or wherever - the amount of fuel required to get them to you in December is insane. If you haven't read "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" by Barbara Kingsolver, it might be interesting to anyone posting in or reading this thread.

[bvar22]

23. Health & Environmental concerns aside,

...we would Grow our Own for the Taste only.
Our Strawberries are delicate, and have a shelf life of about 6 hours,
but the TASTE is worth it.

It is wonderful to have FOOD that tastes like Real Food used to taste.

[MineralMan]

34. Gardens like that one always inspire this question from me:

You grow everything you eat in that garden? Obviously the answer is no. So, despite that fun garden, its owners are still buying food produced elsewhere as the bulk of their diet.

[Atman]

39. We had a garden that was quite a bit larger than the one pictured.

We canned or froze a LOT of stuff, from tomatoes and salsas to squash and peppers. You do have a point, though; we supplemented what we grew with trips to local farmers markets. And I mean local. We have the benefit of living in farm country, and have ready access to real free-range chicken and eggs (mass-market "free range" or "cage free" labels don't mean much, you have to actually know where/how the chickens were raised -- we did). When we do eat meat, not too often, it is also purchased from a couple of local farms with very small herds, who also make cheese and milk products. It's not cheap, but it is so much better, and we feel better both physically and from knowing we're sustaining a neighbor, not some giant agri-business. It's wasn't a "fun" garden, it was a lot of work, but it did (and does) supply a sizable portion of our diets.

That said, above poster has a point about the longevity of the produce we grew. Home growers tend to pick when the stuff is ripe, whereas giant agri-business factory farms chemically treat stuff, or pick long before fully ready to ensure a longer shelf life.

[G_j]

9. Palm Oil

Last Stand of the Orangutan

http://ran.org/palm-oil

[JVS]

15. How does shade growing coffee make it eco friendly?

[Blanks]

20. It is the canopy that grows over the coffee plants that makes it more ecologically friendly.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shade-grown_coffee

[MineralMan]

16. One Thing that Is Killing the Planet

Overpopulation. Everything else in the article at the link is based on that. If we ruin the planet as a habitable place for humans, humans will disappear, and the planet will regenerate itself in ways we cannot predict. The planet is not at risk. Human habitation of the planet is at risk.

Of course, we are causing species extinction through the same mechanisms that are making the planet uninhabitable for humans. The billions of years of history of the planet are rife with extinctions, caused by a wide range of mechanisms. When they occur, the extinct species are replaced by other species, and thus it will be when humans, too, are extinct.

The planet, itself, is not at risk. The habitable planet for humans is at risk. If we destroy that, then we will become extinct, in maybe another million years or so. Then, the planet will reconstitute itself in some new image, as it has done so many times before. Human beings are just another species of animal on this planet, and will have their time on it before something causes humans to be yet another extinct species. The planet will go right on just fine for itself.

We are so proud of ourselves, and yet we are really insignificant as a species on this planet. We're here, for now. At some point, we will not be here, gone like the dinosaurs. And so it goes on a planetary time-scale. If we learn how not to screw up our only place to live, we might possible extend our stay, but that's it.

[Flaxbee]

19. Agree with you 100%

Education of women seems to be the best form of birth control, but education of men would go a long way, too -- especially in cultures where the number of children you father factors into your worth as a human being.

I don't understand why people get so upset when it is suggested that they curtail their baby-making efforts. It may be a personal decision about the number of children you have, but it affects more than just your immediate family -- and asking people to take this finite system we all live in/on into account somehow (people say) violates their human rights. I don't get it, really, I don't. Zero population growth would be useful, but we should have negative planetary population growth for a while ... 5 billion people, absolute max.

[Rex]

21. Sounds like a challenge!

I'm still betting on the pollution killing the planet off first before food. Call me a rustic cynic.

[dionysus]

38. it won't kill the planet, it will kill us. give the planet a million years to recover after we're

gone and it'll be good as new. we just won't exist anymore.

[RandiFan1290]

24. I'm eating more hemp

[Liberal_in_LA]

25. thanks for the info