If everyone ate healthy - would there be enough food? (1 Viewer)

[KCitons]

What if everyone suddenly wanted to eat foods that didn't contain preservatives? Maybe 30 years down the road, the long term effects of aspartame, etc become known.

This topic came up this morning when I noticed a loaf of bread in the cabinet was still good, even though the expiration date was August 12th. While the fresh bread we bought last week was already moldy.

 

[culdeus]

No, not even close.

 

[NutterButter]

Couldn't you just freeze stuff instead? Would a diet consisting mostly of frozen chicken, frozen vegetables, dry rice and dry beans have any preservatives? That would be pretty damn healthy.

 

[culdeus]

This is going to depend how you define healthy.

 

[the moops]

we throw away a staggering amount of food. if people would buy smaller quantities at a time and not let food go rotten, there certainly would be plenty of food to feed everyone.

 

[culdeus]

we throw away a staggering amount of food. if people would buy smaller quantities at a time and not let food go rotten, there certainly would be plenty of food to feed everyone.

myth

 

[Thunderlips]

Sure there would be enough food.....and if there weren't...people would start advocating more space in their yards for bigger, more extensive gardens to pick up the slack.

 

[culdeus]

Sure there would be enough food.....and if there weren't...people would start advocating more space in their yards for bigger, more extensive gardens to pick up the slack.

What's your best guess for how much room it takes to feed a family of 4 in square feet?

 

[cstu]

What if everyone suddenly wanted to eat foods that didn't contain preservatives? Maybe 30 years down the road, the long term effects of aspartame, etc become known.

This topic came up this morning when I noticed a loaf of bread in the cabinet was still good, even though the expiration date was August 12th. While the fresh bread we bought last week was already moldy.

People in Europe stop by the bakery every day, doesn't seem to be a food shortage there.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

Time to buy stock in mealworms

 

[the moops]

we throw away a staggering amount of food. if people would buy smaller quantities at a time and not let food go rotten, there certainly would be plenty of food to feed everyone.

myth

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that 32 percent of all food produced in the world was lost or wasted in 2009. This estimate is based on weight. When converted into calories, global food loss and waste amounts to approximately 24 percent of all food produced. Essentially, one out of every four food calories intended for people is not ultimately consumed by them.

Link

 

[dparker713]

we throw away a staggering amount of food. if people would buy smaller quantities at a time and not let food go rotten, there certainly would be plenty of food to feed everyone.

myth

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that 32 percent of all food produced in the world was lost or wasted in 2009. This estimate is based on weight. When converted into calories, global food loss and waste amounts to approximately 24 percent of all food produced. Essentially, one out of every four food calories intended for people is not ultimately consumed by them.

Link

Farmers throw away much more food than consumers.

 

[culdeus]

we throw away a staggering amount of food. if people would buy smaller quantities at a time and not let food go rotten, there certainly would be plenty of food to feed everyone.

myth

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that 32 percent of all food produced in the world was lost or wasted in 2009. This estimate is based on weight. When converted into calories, global food loss and waste amounts to approximately 24 percent of all food produced. Essentially, one out of every four food calories intended for people is not ultimately consumed by them.

Link

This is the epitome of useless math to make a point.

Our food is inexpensive in this country because we throw away so much. Supply/demand. If we made lets say only 105% of necessary food the food costs in this country would skyrocket leading to extreme hardship for many levels of economic stratas, even middle class. And that would cascade throughout the world.

And at 105% of demand the quality of the food would have to drop because many areas in this country are simply not setup to supply food in a timely manner to meet demand.

It's also asinine to think that if we stopped throwing away food we could find a way to get it to areas of the world that simply can't supply enough for their demand.

 

[the moops]

we coukd certainly get food to anywhere in the world. we dont have the will or the stomach to swallow the financial burden.

 

[FUBAR]

Sure there would be enough food.....and if there weren't...people would start advocating more space in their yards for bigger, more extensive gardens to pick up the slack.

Advocating?

But yes to your point, if food got expensive many people would grow veggies. Potato chip trees would be all the rage.

 

[Thunderlips]

Sure there would be enough food.....and if there weren't...people would start advocating more space in their yards for bigger, more extensive gardens to pick up the slack.

What's your best guess for how much room it takes to feed a family of 4 in square feet?

Sure there would be enough food.....and if there weren't...people would start advocating more space in their yards for bigger, more extensive gardens to pick up the slack.

What's your best guess for how much room it takes to feed a family of 4 in square feet?

Looking it up, 800 to 1200 square feet.

 

[FUBAR]

Sure there would be enough food.....and if there weren't...people would start advocating more space in their yards for bigger, more extensive gardens to pick up the slack.

What's your best guess for how much room it takes to feed a family of 4 in square feet?

Sure there would be enough food.....and if there weren't...people would start advocating more space in their yards for bigger, more extensive gardens to pick up the slack.

What's your best guess for how much room it takes to feed a family of 4 in square feet?

Looking it up, 800 to 1200 square feet.

Vegetarians?

 

[Thunderlips]

Sure there would be enough food.....and if there weren't...people would start advocating more space in their yards for bigger, more extensive gardens to pick up the slack.

What's your best guess for how much room it takes to feed a family of 4 in square feet?

Sure there would be enough food.....and if there weren't...people would start advocating more space in their yards for bigger, more extensive gardens to pick up the slack.

What's your best guess for how much room it takes to feed a family of 4 in square feet?

Looking it up, 800 to 1200 square feet.

Vegetarians?

I'd imagine.

 

[FUBAR]

Sure there would be enough food.....and if there weren't...people would start advocating more space in their yards for bigger, more extensive gardens to pick up the slack.

What's your best guess for how much room it takes to feed a family of 4 in square feet?

Sure there would be enough food.....and if there weren't...people would start advocating more space in their yards for bigger, more extensive gardens to pick up the slack.

What's your best guess for how much room it takes to feed a family of 4 in square feet?

Looking it up, 800 to 1200 square feet.

Vegetarians?

I'd imagine.

I could be a vegetarian if bacon were a vegetable.

 

[NCCommish]

we throw away a staggering amount of food. if people would buy smaller quantities at a time and not let food go rotten, there certainly would be plenty of food to feed everyone.

myth

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that 32 percent of all food produced in the world was lost or wasted in 2009. This estimate is based on weight. When converted into calories, global food loss and waste amounts to approximately 24 percent of all food produced. Essentially, one out of every four food calories intended for people is not ultimately consumed by them.

Link

This is the epitome of useless math to make a point.

Our food is inexpensive in this country because we throw away so much. Supply/demand. If we made lets say only 105% of necessary food the food costs in this country would skyrocket leading to extreme hardship for many levels of economic stratas, even middle class. And that would cascade throughout the world.

And at 105% of demand the quality of the food would have to drop because many areas in this country are simply not setup to supply food in a timely manner to meet demand.

It's also asinine to think that if we stopped throwing away food we could find a way to get it to areas of the world that simply can't supply enough for their demand.

I hope you were kidding, if not that is a ridiculous theory. Our food is cheap in the US because of subsidies and factory farming which relies on subsidized feed to keep their costs down. Not because we waste food.

 

[Judge Smails]

I just came back from a travel baseball tournament. Judging by the size of 80% of the people there, I don't think we have to worry about this..

 

[Thunderlips]

Sure there would be enough food.....and if there weren't...people would start advocating more space in their yards for bigger, more extensive gardens to pick up the slack.

What's your best guess for how much room it takes to feed a family of 4 in square feet?

Sure there would be enough food.....and if there weren't...people would start advocating more space in their yards for bigger, more extensive gardens to pick up the slack.

What's your best guess for how much room it takes to feed a family of 4 in square feet?

Looking it up, 800 to 1200 square feet.

Vegetarians?

I'd imagine.

I could be a vegetarian if bacon were a vegetable.

Bacon is the ####........

ETA: #### being boobies...as in awesome.

 

[captain_amazing]

As long as beer doesn't have meat, I'll always be a vegetarian. I could not care less about everything else - I miss bacon the most, but I just swallow those memories of bacon with beer.

 

[AAABatteries]

I just came back from a travel baseball tournament. Judging by the size of 80% of the people there, I don't think we have to worry about this..

Excellent point - we can just start eating the fat people if necessary.

 

[culdeus]

we throw away a staggering amount of food. if people would buy smaller quantities at a time and not let food go rotten, there certainly would be plenty of food to feed everyone.

myth

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that 32 percent of all food produced in the world was lost or wasted in 2009. This estimate is based on weight. When converted into calories, global food loss and waste amounts to approximately 24 percent of all food produced. Essentially, one out of every four food calories intended for people is not ultimately consumed by them.

Link

This is the epitome of useless math to make a point.

Our food is inexpensive in this country because we throw away so much. Supply/demand. If we made lets say only 105% of necessary food the food costs in this country would skyrocket leading to extreme hardship for many levels of economic stratas, even middle class. And that would cascade throughout the world.

And at 105% of demand the quality of the food would have to drop because many areas in this country are simply not setup to supply food in a timely manner to meet demand.

It's also asinine to think that if we stopped throwing away food we could find a way to get it to areas of the world that simply can't supply enough for their demand.

I hope you were kidding, if not that is a ridiculous theory. Our food is cheap in the US because of subsidies and factory farming which relies on subsidized feed to keep their costs down. Not because we waste food.

Again, left wing hype machine at work.

If we stopped wasting food nothing would change, hungry people would still be hungry, and our food costs would rise because there would be opportunity costs and other costs that currently do not exceed the waste costs. They would if we ate a reasonable % of production and/or were able to store more food for consumption.

This is similar to global warming, we make excess CO2, to cut CO2 production there are costs to deal with. You have to decide if they are worth it or not.

Wasting food is the least of our issues. If you want to make the biggest impact stop feeding cows corn. That solves several huge issues all at once.

 

[NCCommish]

we throw away a staggering amount of food. if people would buy smaller quantities at a time and not let food go rotten, there certainly would be plenty of food to feed everyone.

myth

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that 32 percent of all food produced in the world was lost or wasted in 2009. This estimate is based on weight. When converted into calories, global food loss and waste amounts to approximately 24 percent of all food produced. Essentially, one out of every four food calories intended for people is not ultimately consumed by them.Link

This is the epitome of useless math to make a point.

Our food is inexpensive in this country because we throw away so much. Supply/demand. If we made lets say only 105% of necessary food the food costs in this country would skyrocket leading to extreme hardship for many levels of economic stratas, even middle class. And that would cascade throughout the world.

And at 105% of demand the quality of the food would have to drop because many areas in this country are simply not setup to supply food in a timely manner to meet demand.

It's also asinine to think that if we stopped throwing away food we could find a way to get it to areas of the world that simply can't supply enough for their demand.

I hope you were kidding, if not that is a ridiculous theory. Our food is cheap in the US because of subsidies and factory farming which relies on subsidized feed to keep their costs down. Not because we waste food.

Again, left wing hype machine at work.

If we stopped wasting food nothing would change, hungry people would still be hungry, and our food costs would rise because there would be opportunity costs and other costs that currently do not exceed the waste costs. They would if we ate a reasonable % of production and/or were able to store more food for consumption.

This is similar to global warming, we make excess CO2, to cut CO2 production there are costs to deal with. You have to decide if they are worth it or not.

Wasting food is the least of our issues. If you want to make the biggest impact stop feeding cows corn. That solves several huge issues all at once.

Yes ending our reliance on corn would be good. Do you know why it is fed to cows? It is heavily subsidized and therefore cheap which makes beef cheaper. Which is why our food is so cheap we waste it.

 

[Ned]

I just came back from a travel baseball tournament. Judging by the size of 80% of the people there, I don't think we have to worry about this..

Excellent point - we can just start eating the fat people if necessary.

Think of all that delicious marbling.

 

[FUBAR]

we throw away a staggering amount of food. if people would buy smaller quantities at a time and not let food go rotten, there certainly would be plenty of food to feed everyone.

myth

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that 32 percent of all food produced in the world was lost or wasted in 2009. This estimate is based on weight. When converted into calories, global food loss and waste amounts to approximately 24 percent of all food produced. Essentially, one out of every four food calories intended for people is not ultimately consumed by them.Link

This is the epitome of useless math to make a point.

Our food is inexpensive in this country because we throw away so much. Supply/demand. If we made lets say only 105% of necessary food the food costs in this country would skyrocket leading to extreme hardship for many levels of economic stratas, even middle class. And that would cascade throughout the world.

And at 105% of demand the quality of the food would have to drop because many areas in this country are simply not setup to supply food in a timely manner to meet demand.

It's also asinine to think that if we stopped throwing away food we could find a way to get it to areas of the world that simply can't supply enough for their demand.

I hope you were kidding, if not that is a ridiculous theory. Our food is cheap in the US because of subsidies and factory farming which relies on subsidized feed to keep their costs down. Not because we waste food.

Again, left wing hype machine at work.

If we stopped wasting food nothing would change, hungry people would still be hungry, and our food costs would rise because there would be opportunity costs and other costs that currently do not exceed the waste costs. They would if we ate a reasonable % of production and/or were able to store more food for consumption.

This is similar to global warming, we make excess CO2, to cut CO2 production there are costs to deal with. You have to decide if they are worth it or not.

Wasting food is the least of our issues. If you want to make the biggest impact stop feeding cows corn. That solves several huge issues all at once.

Have you purchased grass fed beef? While it's awesome and better for you, it's expensive because grass is more expensive than corn. (At least when it comes to farm land. Might be a different story if we had cows in every open field or neighborhood)

 

[culdeus]

we throw away a staggering amount of food. if people would buy smaller quantities at a time and not let food go rotten, there certainly would be plenty of food to feed everyone.

myth

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that 32 percent of all food produced in the world was lost or wasted in 2009. This estimate is based on weight. When converted into calories, global food loss and waste amounts to approximately 24 percent of all food produced. Essentially, one out of every four food calories intended for people is not ultimately consumed by them.Link

This is the epitome of useless math to make a point.

Our food is inexpensive in this country because we throw away so much. Supply/demand. If we made lets say only 105% of necessary food the food costs in this country would skyrocket leading to extreme hardship for many levels of economic stratas, even middle class. And that would cascade throughout the world.

And at 105% of demand the quality of the food would have to drop because many areas in this country are simply not setup to supply food in a timely manner to meet demand.

It's also asinine to think that if we stopped throwing away food we could find a way to get it to areas of the world that simply can't supply enough for their demand.

I hope you were kidding, if not that is a ridiculous theory. Our food is cheap in the US because of subsidies and factory farming which relies on subsidized feed to keep their costs down. Not because we waste food.

Again, left wing hype machine at work.

If we stopped wasting food nothing would change, hungry people would still be hungry, and our food costs would rise because there would be opportunity costs and other costs that currently do not exceed the waste costs. They would if we ate a reasonable % of production and/or were able to store more food for consumption.

This is similar to global warming, we make excess CO2, to cut CO2 production there are costs to deal with. You have to decide if they are worth it or not.

Wasting food is the least of our issues. If you want to make the biggest impact stop feeding cows corn. That solves several huge issues all at once.

Have you purchased grass fed beef? While it's awesome and better for you, it's expensive because grass is more expensive than corn. (At least when it comes to farm land. Might be a different story if we had cows in every open field or neighborhood)

Every path to improving the food supply chain involves more cost to everyone. Even wasting less. It's pure fantasy to think there is a more efficient way to feed people, or else Monsanto would have used it.

Question is how many costs are consumers willing to pay to decrease waste and help the environment. I say none.

 

[El Floppo]

Sure there would be enough food.....and if there weren't...people would start advocating more space in their yards for bigger, more extensive gardens to pick up the slack.

What's your best guess for how much room it takes to feed a family of 4 in square feet?

Sure there would be enough food.....and if there weren't...people would start advocating more space in their yards for bigger, more extensive gardens to pick up the slack.

What's your best guess for how much room it takes to feed a family of 4 in square feet?

Looking it up, 800 to 1200 square feet.

Vegetarians?

I'd imagine.

I could be a vegetarian if bacon were a vegetable.

it definitely is.

signed,

a vegetarian

 

[FUBAR]

we throw away a staggering amount of food. if people would buy smaller quantities at a time and not let food go rotten, there certainly would be plenty of food to feed everyone.

myth

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that 32 percent of all food produced in the world was lost or wasted in 2009. This estimate is based on weight. When converted into calories, global food loss and waste amounts to approximately 24 percent of all food produced. Essentially, one out of every four food calories intended for people is not ultimately consumed by them.Link

This is the epitome of useless math to make a point.

Our food is inexpensive in this country because we throw away so much. Supply/demand. If we made lets say only 105% of necessary food the food costs in this country would skyrocket leading to extreme hardship for many levels of economic stratas, even middle class. And that would cascade throughout the world.

And at 105% of demand the quality of the food would have to drop because many areas in this country are simply not setup to supply food in a timely manner to meet demand.

It's also asinine to think that if we stopped throwing away food we could find a way to get it to areas of the world that simply can't supply enough for their demand.

I hope you were kidding, if not that is a ridiculous theory. Our food is cheap in the US because of subsidies and factory farming which relies on subsidized feed to keep their costs down. Not because we waste food.

Again, left wing hype machine at work.

If we stopped wasting food nothing would change, hungry people would still be hungry, and our food costs would rise because there would be opportunity costs and other costs that currently do not exceed the waste costs. They would if we ate a reasonable % of production and/or were able to store more food for consumption.

This is similar to global warming, we make excess CO2, to cut CO2 production there are costs to deal with. You have to decide if they are worth it or not.

Wasting food is the least of our issues. If you want to make the biggest impact stop feeding cows corn. That solves several huge issues all at once.

Have you purchased grass fed beef? While it's awesome and better for you, it's expensive because grass is more expensive than corn. (At least when it comes to farm land. Might be a different story if we had cows in every open field or neighborhood)

Every path to improving the food supply chain involves more cost to everyone. Even wasting less. It's pure fantasy to think there is a more efficient way to feed people, or else Monsanto would have used it. Question is how many costs are consumers willing to pay to decrease waste and help the environment. I say none.

Not really but there's not much corporate profit in personal gardens.

 

[culdeus]

we throw away a staggering amount of food. if people would buy smaller quantities at a time and not let food go rotten, there certainly would be plenty of food to feed everyone.

myth

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that 32 percent of all food produced in the world was lost or wasted in 2009. This estimate is based on weight. When converted into calories, global food loss and waste amounts to approximately 24 percent of all food produced. Essentially, one out of every four food calories intended for people is not ultimately consumed by them.Link

This is the epitome of useless math to make a point.

Our food is inexpensive in this country because we throw away so much. Supply/demand. If we made lets say only 105% of necessary food the food costs in this country would skyrocket leading to extreme hardship for many levels of economic stratas, even middle class. And that would cascade throughout the world.

And at 105% of demand the quality of the food would have to drop because many areas in this country are simply not setup to supply food in a timely manner to meet demand.

It's also asinine to think that if we stopped throwing away food we could find a way to get it to areas of the world that simply can't supply enough for their demand.

I hope you were kidding, if not that is a ridiculous theory. Our food is cheap in the US because of subsidies and factory farming which relies on subsidized feed to keep their costs down. Not because we waste food.

Again, left wing hype machine at work.

If we stopped wasting food nothing would change, hungry people would still be hungry, and our food costs would rise because there would be opportunity costs and other costs that currently do not exceed the waste costs. They would if we ate a reasonable % of production and/or were able to store more food for consumption.

This is similar to global warming, we make excess CO2, to cut CO2 production there are costs to deal with. You have to decide if they are worth it or not.

Wasting food is the least of our issues. If you want to make the biggest impact stop feeding cows corn. That solves several huge issues all at once.

Have you purchased grass fed beef? While it's awesome and better for you, it's expensive because grass is more expensive than corn. (At least when it comes to farm land. Might be a different story if we had cows in every open field or neighborhood)

Every path to improving the food supply chain involves more cost to everyone. Even wasting less. It's pure fantasy to think there is a more efficient way to feed people, or else Monsanto would have used it.Question is how many costs are consumers willing to pay to decrease waste and help the environment. I say none.

Not really but there's not much corporate profit in personal gardens.

I think it's absurd to think that personal gardens are a solution to anything. We'd be much better served starting with a habit of composting food waste rather than letting it go to landfills. Baby steps. Backyard gardens aren't just buy some seeds at home depot and throw them in the ground. It takes a good deal of skill and luck, and effort.

 

[FUBAR]

we throw away a staggering amount of food. if people would buy smaller quantities at a time and not let food go rotten, there certainly would be plenty of food to feed everyone.

myth

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that 32 percent of all food produced in the world was lost or wasted in 2009. This estimate is based on weight. When converted into calories, global food loss and waste amounts to approximately 24 percent of all food produced. Essentially, one out of every four food calories intended for people is not ultimately consumed by them.Link

This is the epitome of useless math to make a point.

Our food is inexpensive in this country because we throw away so much. Supply/demand. If we made lets say only 105% of necessary food the food costs in this country would skyrocket leading to extreme hardship for many levels of economic stratas, even middle class. And that would cascade throughout the world.

And at 105% of demand the quality of the food would have to drop because many areas in this country are simply not setup to supply food in a timely manner to meet demand.

It's also asinine to think that if we stopped throwing away food we could find a way to get it to areas of the world that simply can't supply enough for their demand.

I hope you were kidding, if not that is a ridiculous theory. Our food is cheap in the US because of subsidies and factory farming which relies on subsidized feed to keep their costs down. Not because we waste food.

Again, left wing hype machine at work.

If we stopped wasting food nothing would change, hungry people would still be hungry, and our food costs would rise because there would be opportunity costs and other costs that currently do not exceed the waste costs. They would if we ate a reasonable % of production and/or were able to store more food for consumption.

This is similar to global warming, we make excess CO2, to cut CO2 production there are costs to deal with. You have to decide if they are worth it or not.

Wasting food is the least of our issues. If you want to make the biggest impact stop feeding cows corn. That solves several huge issues all at once.

Have you purchased grass fed beef? While it's awesome and better for you, it's expensive because grass is more expensive than corn. (At least when it comes to farm land. Might be a different story if we had cows in every open field or neighborhood)

Every path to improving the food supply chain involves more cost to everyone. Even wasting less. It's pure fantasy to think there is a more efficient way to feed people, or else Monsanto would have used it.Question is how many costs are consumers willing to pay to decrease waste and help the environment. I say none.

Not really but there's not much corporate profit in personal gardens.

I think it's absurd to think that personal gardens are a solution to anything. We'd be much better served starting with a habit of composting food waste rather than letting it go to landfills. Baby steps. Backyard gardens aren't just buy some seeds at home depot and throw them in the ground. It takes a good deal of skill and luck, and effort.

Sure it takes work. Most solutions do.

But you're probably right, most people are too lazy to do anything for themselves.

 

[The Duff Man]

Personal gardens could be a solution for the unemployed, but the time ROI for most people is horrible when they can buy similar product cheaply.

 

[the moops]

Whether the price of food increases or not has nothing to do with the fact that there is a #### ton of food wasted in the world, especially in this country. My argument is simply that the amount of food we toss away could very easily feed the hungry populations. It would require significant investment, but blah blah blah

 

[culdeus]

Whether the price of food increases or not has nothing to do with the fact that there is a #### ton of food wasted in the world, especially in this country. My argument is simply that the amount of food we toss away could very easily feed the hungry populations. It would require significant investment, but blah blah blah

No it couldn't, but keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep better at night.

 

[The Commish]

Sure there would be enough food.....and if there weren't...people would start advocating more space in their yards for bigger, more extensive gardens to pick up the slack.

What's your best guess for how much room it takes to feed a family of 4 in square feet?

We had 200 square feet and had all the tomatoes, cucumbers, corn, squash, beans and peppers we could handle for their respective seasons...family of four. Not to mention all the herbs we could handle. It takes a lot of time to keep a productive garden though. No question about that.

To the OP though, with the advances in hydroponics, it shouldn't be much of a problem going forward. A lot of home gardens will require less space.

 

[NutterButter]

Is the consensus that if everyone ate let's say a 2k calorie diet of chicken, beans, rice and fruits and veggies, there wouldn't be enough resources on the planet to provide that?

 

[culdeus]

Is the consensus that if everyone ate let's say a 2k calorie diet of chicken, beans, rice and fruits and veggies, there wouldn't be enough resources on the planet to provide that?

The problem is one of distribution. A lot of people live in dense population centers where there is simply no viable way to feed them in what we would call a healthy manner. This is the central problem.

 

[NCCommish]

Is the consensus that if everyone ate let's say a 2k calorie diet of chicken, beans, rice and fruits and veggies, there wouldn't be enough resources on the planet to provide that?

The problem is one of distribution. A lot of people live in dense population centers where there is simply no viable way to feed them in what we would call a healthy manner. This is the central problem.

Actually there are ways. For instance turning vacant highrises into hydroponic gardens. There are millions of sq ft of empty roof space that could be converted to gardens. Just have to think a little creatively there are solutions.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Is the consensus that if everyone ate let's say a 2k calorie diet of chicken, beans, rice and fruits and veggies, there wouldn't be enough resources on the planet to provide that?

The problem is one of distribution. A lot of people live in dense population centers where there is simply no viable way to feed them in what we would call a healthy manner. This is the central problem.

I think your classification of "healthy" is different than most. Getting whole grains, legumes, meats, fruits and vegetables into highly populated areas does not need to be a problem. (Assuming the population wants it, government doesn't create obstacles, etc.)

 

[msommer]

I can only imagine that cudeus is trolling big time today.

If not,

Although the distribution problem is real.

The question of food waste is extremely complex.

If we had a way to transport every mango in good and edible condition from the tree to the US, Asia or Europe would that mean mango consumption would skyrocket? It would probably grow as prices fell, to the extent that mango demand is elastic.

As prices fell farmers would realize that their mangoes (and their carefully tended groves) were worthless and the more wealthy would migrate to another crop, rinse and repeat. The less well off would become destitute and quite possibly revert to subsistence farming. using their mango groves for kindling.

It's a hypothetical because there are not enough facilities capable of pre cooling the mangoes at origin, and storing them at optimum temperature, nor capacity transporting them to the consumer markets, and thus many mangoes are left to rot.

Obviously there are mangoes that do not physically meet the desired traits in the receiving countries and they are discarded on site during processing.

This doesn't even count the stuff that goes wrong in transit, what is thrown out in the supermarket due to senescence (caused by lower than expected demand, ie incorrect forecasting of consumer behavior) or what sits on the countertop with mr and mrs Jones for a week and gets tossed because it no longer seems like eating the mango is such a great thing.

As you can see, there are many issues to tackle and not least some very chaotic ones (e.g. consumer behavior in supermarket and home)

In so far as reducing food waste's impact on prices. In Denmark in the past couple of years food waste from supermarkets onwards has been reduced by 25% without an inflationary effectt. I could go into the details of that but most likely you don't really care.

 

[msommer]

Oh and to the OP

We have more than enough food today to solve famine. The matter is market and distribution. Again an extremely complex issue that few people are interested in tackling

 

[NCCommish]

I'd like to hear it.

 

[D_House]

Does The FFA seem a little testier of late to anyone else?

 

[The Commish]

I'd like to hear it.

 

[AAABatteries]

Oh and to the OP

We have more than enough food today to solve famine. The matter is market and distribution. Again an extremely complex issue that few people are interested in tackling

Didn't you say culdeus was trolling but actually said pretty much the same as you?

 

[The Commish]

And to add to the discussion, while I was reading msommer's post I found myself asking "why does the world have to have access to mangos?" Generally speaking, why do we have to worry about sending food all over the world? Why not focus on the foods that will grow locally for that area and growing them well to sustain the area? I don't need an orange from Brazil when I can get it from Florida, do I?

 

[msommer]

Oh and to the OP

We have more than enough food today to solve famine. The matter is market and distribution. Again an extremely complex issue that few people are interested in tackling

Didn't you say culdeus was trolling but actually said pretty much the same as you?

As I read culdeus' statements he says food waste is a myth, if it exists it is a good thing, as it keeps food prices down

If you read that into my comments I have failed big time

 

[msommer]

And to add to the discussion, while I was reading msommer's post I found myself asking "why does the world have to have access to mangos?" Generally speaking, why do we have to worry about sending food all over the world? Why not focus on the foods that will grow locally for that area and growing them well to sustain the area? I don't need an orange from Brazil when I can get it from Florida, do I?

It may be better for the environment to get the orange from Brazil by vessel than from Florida by truck. This is one of the major fallcies in the 'food miles' campaign.

But USDA has pretty much made sure you won't be able to get an actual Brazilian orange in the USA. What you do get is juice concentrate and a lot of it.