Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
88. ...
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 06:20 PM
Aug 2014


But...no. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply stop destroying the planet, and stop depleting all of our resources in service of profit interests? The system is based on exploitation, profit, waste, and death. People who have been displaced and had their homelands and ability to produce food taken from them because of the greed need of our planet killing system won't have food no matter how much is produced...because they don't have any money to pay for it. The system is what is starving, and killing, people and the planet.

UN Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction

Key Findings

Roughly one third of the food produced in the world for human consumption every year — approximately 1.3 billion tonnes — gets lost or wasted.

Global quantitative food losses and waste per year are roughly 30% for cereals, 40-50% for root crops, fruits and vegetables, 20% for oil seeds, meat and dairy plus 30% for fish.

Every year, consumers in rich countries waste almost as much food (222 million tonnes) as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tonnes).

The amount of food lost or wasted every year is equivalent to more than half of the world's annual cereals crop (2.3 billion tonnes in 2009/2010).

http://www.fao.org/save-food/key-findings/en/


U.S. Lets 141 Trillion Calories Of Food Go To Waste Each Year
February 27, 2014 3:02 PM ET

The sheer volume of food wasted in the U.S. each year should cause us some shame, given how many people are hungry both in our own backyard and abroad.

Now the U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided us with a way to understand our flagrant annual waste in terms of calories, too. It's pretty mind-boggling — 141 trillion calories down the drain, so to speak, or 1,249 calories per capita UN Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction per day.

And if we could actually reduce this staggering quantity of food waste, the price of food worldwide might go down, according to a report from researchers at USDA's Economic Research Service, Jean Buzby, Hodan Wells and Jeffrey Hyman.

To come up with these estimates of all the food that was harvested but never eaten, the team the latest available data from 2010. This "lost" food encompasses all of the edible food available for consumption — including food that spoils or gets contaminated by mold or pests. It also includes the food that's "wasted" — i.e. food discarded by retailers because it's blemished, and the food left on our plates.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/02/27/283071610/u-s-lets-141-trillion-calories-of-food-go-to-waste-each-year


Wasted: How America Is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill

Getting food from the farm to our fork eats up 10 percent of the total U.S. energy budget, uses 50 percent of U.S.
land, and swallows 80 percent of all freshwater consumed in the United States. Yet, 40 percent of food in the
United States today goes uneaten. This not only means that Americans are throwing out the equivalent of $165
billion each year, but also that the uneaten food ends up rotting in landfills as the single largest component of U.S.
municipal solid waste where it accounts for a large portion of U.S. methane emissions. Reducing food losses by
just 15 percent would be enough food to feed more than 25 million Americans every year at a time when one in
six Americans lack a secure supply of food to their tables. Increasing the efficiency of our food system is a triple-
bottom-line solution that requires collaborative efforts by businesses, governments and consumers. The U.S.
government should conduct a comprehensive study of losses in our food system and set national goals for waste
reduction; businesses should seize opportunities to streamline their own operations, reduce food losses and save
money; and consumers can waste less food by shopping wisely, knowing when food goes bad, buying produce that
is perfectly edible even if it’s less cosmetically attractive, cooking only the amount of food they need, and eating their leftovers.

http://www.nrdc.org/food/files/wasted-food-ip.pdf


All this hysterical

UNLESS WE USE GMOS THE CHILDREN WILL STARVE IN ETHIOPIA! GMO's ARE OUR ONLY HOPE!

argument is a bunch of propaganda put out by corporations who only care about their bottom lines and couldn't care less about starving kids in Outer Mongolia or anywhere else unless they can get a reasonable profit return my keeping them alive.

New thinking needed on food aid for refugees in Africa

JOHANNESBURG, 7 July 2014 (IRIN) - The World Food Programme (WFP) and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) have launched an urgent appeal to address a funding shortfall that has already resulted in food ration cuts for a third of all African refugees. As of mid-June, nearly 800,000 refugees in 22 African countries have seen their monthly food allocations reduced, most of them by more than half.

WFP is appealing for US$186 million to maintain its food assistance to refugees in Africa through the end of the year, while UNHCR is asking for $39 million to fund nutritional support and food security activities to refugees in the affected countries. A joint report by WFP and UNHCR released last week warns that failure to prevent continued ration cuts will lead to high levels of malnutrition, particularly among children and the most vulnerable.

Worst hit have been refugees in Chad, Central African Republic (CAR) and South Sudan where a total of nearly half a million refugees are experiencing ration cuts of 50 to 60 percent.

The funding shortfall is not the result of shrinking budgets for either WFP or UNHCR, but a substantial increase in the need for food assistance generated by an unprecedented number of refugee emergencies in 2014. “The amount of large-scale, simultaneous emergencies has never been so high to the best of my memory,” said Paul Spiegel, UNHCR’s deputy director of programme support and management, speaking to IRIN from Geneva.

http://www.irinnews.org/report/100314/new-thinking-needed-on-food-aid-for-refugees-in-africa
You reflect my feelings very well. immoderate Aug 2014 #1
Thanks hope some see it before it gets buried Drew Richards Aug 2014 #2
Evolution is not infinite. jeff47 Aug 2014 #18
I understand that not every combination will come to exist. immoderate Aug 2014 #59
And your suspecting comes from assuming (virtually) every combination has been tried jeff47 Aug 2014 #62
Not really. I know the possibilities involved. Many orders of magnitude. immoderate Aug 2014 #65
Yes, actually. jeff47 Aug 2014 #67
The only assumption I made was that genes evolved from a common ancestor. immoderate Aug 2014 #80
If that were true, you wouldn't ask the question. jeff47 Aug 2014 #81
Common ancestor <> close relatives immoderate Aug 2014 #83
Wow, your understanding is even more abysmal. jeff47 Aug 2014 #86
I'm wondering why you keep reading the opposite of what I'm saying. immoderate Aug 2014 #92
Just label them already. Ruby the Liberal Aug 2014 #3
Here is a pretty good series that addresses quite a few of your points. Eko Aug 2014 #4
I watched your vid here is what i got... Drew Richards Aug 2014 #10
Thanks Eko Aug 2014 #12
You argue your position very well Bjorn Against Aug 2014 #5
How many times do you like explaining to people that women should be paid the same as men? jeff47 Aug 2014 #6
There isn't universal agreement among reputable scientists on this matter. pnwmom Aug 2014 #34
Mechanism. Your example still needs one. jeff47 Aug 2014 #57
Why should the FDA require the mechanism by which a GMO might produce danger? pnwmom Aug 2014 #60
It does to pull a drug. jeff47 Aug 2014 #61
I'm not suggesting we pull GMO's. I'm saying they should be labeled. pnwmom Aug 2014 #69
You're saying we should fear science. jeff47 Aug 2014 #70
No, I'm not. The GMO producers are. They're clearly terrified of the results independent pnwmom Aug 2014 #71
You should probably go look at post 7. jeff47 Aug 2014 #72
Just because the funding is independent doesn't mean the research wasn't restricted pnwmom Aug 2014 #74
Actually, it does. jeff47 Aug 2014 #76
Scientists can't purchase the seeds except through Monsanto, pnwmom Aug 2014 #77
How many times do you want to make the same error? jeff47 Aug 2014 #82
And in Europe they have decided, based on the evidence that you reject, to strictly regulate GMO's. pnwmom Aug 2014 #84
No, they decided based on irrational fear jeff47 Aug 2014 #85
Oh right. Because all those European scientists are suffering from irrational fear. pnwmom Aug 2014 #87
Ande here is a site that lists Eko Aug 2014 #7
Oh, I'm sure the OP has read every single one of those citations, Eko MrMickeysMom Aug 2014 #9
no but to be fair im willing to take a look...only thing that bothers me is the whois lookup Drew Richards Aug 2014 #14
Which is why you read the journal articles instead of trusting the web site. (nt) jeff47 Aug 2014 #15
How very subjective to start that way... MrMickeysMom Aug 2014 #17
We don't think they're "safe" in Hawai'i and are fighting to keep them at bay Cha Aug 2014 #8
Huh, I would like to see Eko Aug 2014 #11
There isn't any. jeff47 Aug 2014 #19
The study in that article Eko Aug 2014 #27
Yes, the author now uses pay-to-publish journals. (nt) jeff47 Aug 2014 #58
We are the lab Rats bahrbearian Aug 2014 #13
We have always been the lab rats Eko Aug 2014 #16
We were lab rats for Monsanto's DDT that's for sure gyroscope Aug 2014 #24
Yeah, Eko Aug 2014 #25
You know the old saying? gyroscope Aug 2014 #26
Well the US govt thought is was safe also. Eko Aug 2014 #28
Do you believe everything the govt tells you? gyroscope Aug 2014 #29
I think you fail to see my point. Eko Aug 2014 #31
Actually gyroscope Aug 2014 #33
So we Eko Aug 2014 #36
as a matter of fact Eko Aug 2014 #37
Monsanto knew for years DDT was dangerous gyroscope Aug 2014 #40
I dont believe any food Eko Aug 2014 #49
You can eat all the GMO you want gyroscope Aug 2014 #38
Because there are a bunch of people out there Eko Aug 2014 #39
What are you talking about? gyroscope Aug 2014 #41
ok then Eko Aug 2014 #43
and Eko Aug 2014 #44
and Eko Aug 2014 #45
Still doesn't say anything gyroscope Aug 2014 #50
from the wired site Eko Aug 2014 #53
on this site Eko Aug 2014 #51
Here is the link Eko Aug 2014 #52
What the heck is www.belch.com? gyroscope Aug 2014 #46
yeah, pro GMO Eko Aug 2014 #48
Not organic. From your link above... Luminous Animal Aug 2014 #68
And here are some organic mangos that were recalled for the same thing. Eko Aug 2014 #47
You think that a transglobal corporate monster like Monsanto should be allowed Peace Patriot Aug 2014 #56
I will give you this Eko Aug 2014 #54
out for the night Eko Aug 2014 #55
Corporate trolls don't care how valid and logical our arguments are, their Zorra Aug 2014 #20
Suing farmers for saving seeds? gyroscope Aug 2014 #21
If you watch the video I posted Eko Aug 2014 #23
Who are you claiming Eko Aug 2014 #22
Isn't it obvious? nt Zorra Aug 2014 #30
Do you often do that? Eko Aug 2014 #32
Post removed Post removed Aug 2014 #42
Thanks for the post, Drew Richards. n/t pnwmom Aug 2014 #35
Well done, and thanks. nt LWolf Aug 2014 #63
Biology isn't a young science n/t Motown_Johnny Aug 2014 #64
I am not talking about the biological cross breeding through biological invito or standard Drew Richards Aug 2014 #66
Which relies on all the old stuff to work. jeff47 Aug 2014 #73
... Zorra Aug 2014 #88
Basic math. Learn some. jeff47 Aug 2014 #89
How about this ~ stop rendering food producing areas infertile, and improve the waste factor? Zorra Aug 2014 #91
Nor is genetics. HuckleB Aug 2014 #90
Is nuclear energy safe? It is a somewhat new science. So to speak. Rex Aug 2014 #75
I agree completely I just hope we proceed with caution and transparency as you say... Drew Richards Aug 2014 #78
Must have both, otherwise we can lose objectivity imo. Rex Aug 2014 #79
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»GMO's are they safe? Ther...»Reply #88