Our new world diet?

[Odsox]

I assume that you have all seen or heard this over the last few days ... https://www.bbc.com/news/health-46865204

Can someone explain to me why it's better for me to eat lots of rice, that has to be transported literally half way round the world, than it is to eat lots of potatoes from just up the road?
Better for whom?
People living in famine areas are usually closer to the rice growing areas, and people in the north western hemisphere are a lot closer to potato growing areas.

[Flo]

Ah but some people get grants to study and come up with reports like this. They aren't the ones who have to make use of land that won't support crop growing but will support sheep or cattle or similar stock elsewhere in the world. Perhaps they should now be be sent out to put a growing plan in place for say the UK taking into account climate damage due to transport.

And no I have no idea why you should buy imported rice rather than spuds from the farm up the road.

[Weedo]

I have read heaps of this stuff over the years, each one seems to contradict the other, none address the massive population move into cities rather than rural areas and the subsequent labour drain, none address the economic / political issues (corporatisation etc) associated with food production and food distribution, none look at population growth itself and none cover the needs to increase artificial inputs (but manage them better) into agriculture to cover this massive world food demand - While I am not advocating "artificial" farming, in Australia, modern farming" loses around 30% of product to pests, diseases, spoilage etc. while organic agriculture loses aboutn 60%; this is where we need to put some effort in researching better methods.

[Odsox]

All I was trying to do was to point out how ludicrous this "diet" is.

It was "designed" to help save the planet, but recommends shipping rice from half way round the world in ships that burn the dirtiest oil going .... instead of potatoes that I can grow myself, or buy from the farmer next door.

It was also "designed" to feed the billions that are on the point of starvation by me stealing the very food that's available to them.

What sort of brain did it take to come up with that one?

[BernardSmith]

I guess my reading of the report is very different from yours. It suggests that a sustainable diet for the population of our planet is to move away from meat and to move to legumes and grains. You want to focus on rice.. that's your call but grains and legumes is the key, not specifically rice and it's the key because of the amount of land you need to feed one person when the diet is beef focused is far greater than the amount of land needed when the diet is bean and grain. Potatoes are fine but they don't have the same nutrient load as grains WITH beans.

[Weedo]

Regardless of which point of view you take the bottom line is that growth, by its very nature, is unsustainable. Arguing that changing to a plant based diet, or culturing edible algae in tanks etc. is going to solve the world food problem is, at best, specious.

[Odsox]

the amount of land you need to feed one person when the diet is beef focused is far greater than the amount of land needed when the diet is bean and grain

Yes, I've had this quoted to me several times, mainly by vegans.
This premise presupposes that ALL agricultural land is prime arable that is being "wasted" on cattle. Ireland for instance is well known for beef and dairy, in fact it's the major export, but certainly the western half of Ireland could never produce any arable crop of worth. The soil depth is usually in the region of 6 inches over shale, it can only support grass which grows 12 months per year.
If beef farming were to be severely reduced much of Ireland, Wales and Scotland would become wasteland.

Then there's sheep fattened on hills and mountains .......

[BernardSmith]

Both your argument, Odsox, and Weedo's cannot be dismissed and need to engaged with but the key point, I think is that our present approach is fundamentally unsustainable given the need to feed the population of the world we have; given the rate at which this population reproduces; given our increasing ability to prevent premature deaths from disease; given the effects of global warming on the amount of usable land we will have and given the penetration of capitalist economics in much of the world' s subsistence agriculture. That said, in 1798 Malthus was making the same argument as Weedo's. His predictions , so far, have proven to have been incorrect.

[ina]

I think the main problem with all these "diets for a world" is the one-solution-fits-all approach. I think we should restrict our diets mainly on what's available locally - depending on what the area can produce best with the soil and climate there is. That would save masses on transport. It would probably mean that in some areas they'd eat more meat than in others. And it would mean that strawberries might not be available all year round...

[Skippy]

Wholeheartedly agree with Ina . There might be some places where such a diet is possible but then in different parts of the world there would be substitutes till it got to the point of being almost unrecognisable from the original . I've nothing against the idea just that it's wholly impractical.
But , even if it were possible for everyone to have such a diet and we could grow rice in the west of Ireland a much bigger problem is just how to implement such a diet. It would mean a rationing system which firstly would be political Suicide to even suggest and then producers would have a legal right to sue for loss of earnings , the so called investor state disputes. If we can only eat one egg a week how can producers grow their business, sue the government for loss of earnings both real and predicted .
One other thing about the "one size fits all" approach is that it doesn't take into acccount a persons lifestyle. That diet seems ok for a sedentary job but for a more active occupartion it seems a little shy on calories .

[Thomzo]

I will confess to not having read the full report but BernardSmith’s quotation that we should move to a diet based on legumes and grains scares me. As a Coeliac, there are many grains I can’t eat unless I want to be really sick. I wholeheartedly agree that we should go back to eating locally produced food that thrives in the local climate. But I also get the point that this is impossible to implement on any scale. The key would be to get the younger generation on board while they’re still at school but don’t get me started on the quality of school cookery lessons

[Green Aura]

I'm afraid this EAT diet is based on the worst of science - as exemplified by the debacle Ancel Keyes caused in the Western diet since the 60s, where the incidence of first world diseases like heart disease and T2D have risen in conjunction with grain and sugar consumption.

They say producing/eating meat is bad but then base their calculations on these huge feed lot systems they have in the US, where grain-fed, antibiotic treated, sick cattle produce sub-standard, possibly harmful meat and huge amounts of waste which ends up being stored in huge slurry pits. Similar for pigs. This has nothing to do with the healthy meat produced by animals that are farmed according to the animals' needs, rather than mechanisation and profit.
They don't mention the vast swathes of forest that are cut down to grow the grain that feed the cattle and make the grass-feeding ruminants sick. Or to grow the soya meat alternative that seems to be everywhere. Or to be replaced by palm oil plantations, to use in food, that used to be derived from animal sources.
They ignore the food miles incurred, or any indigenous diets, or local strains/varieties/traditional foods in favour huge dust bowls produced by big agriculture.
They don't mention the vast amounts of pampered/artificially fertilised/manicured lawns that would probably sustain a cow or two, per street (complete with free fertiliser ). Those same places where the owners are prosecuted for digging up the lawn to grow veg.
...and breathe.

[ina]

...and breathe.

Fully agree!

My problem is - where do I buy meat that I can trust to be produced "properly"? You can get organic meat boxes - half lambs etc. Nothing available for single persons without a fridge or freezer... The local butcher refuses to label any of his produce. The best I can get is 400g of Scottish Aberdeen Angus from Lidl's... Far too much for me - although, once cooked, it keeps well in my clay pot outside the back door - I just don't want to eat the same meat all week!
I think a lot more people would go for local, grass fed beef, or free range pork, if it was more easily available.

[Green Aura]

It is ridiculously hard to do something that should be quite simple, isn't it.
I'm not sure it needs to be organic, ina. A lot of small producers use organic methods, but can't afford the certification. If the butcher is selling locally produced meat, it's probably fine - certainly much better than stuff transported all over before reaching a supermarket near you.

[ina]

No, it doesn't have to be organic... But I refuse to use the butcher because, as I said, nothing is labelled: I'd have to stand there and ask about everything - and what is that? - and how much does that cost? - and what's in there? - only for then to buy one sausage or nothing at all. OK if I just want a chop, and don't care how much it costs... He specialises in pies, really. Don't think he's much interested in anything else. It's against the law, of course, not to label anything, but hey ho. Who cares.