We share debattörernas view that the food system needs to change and become more sustainable, but not the method to achieve the goal. Our post is all about farming and food production impact on the environment, climate and social sustainability. The discussion of health we leave to other experts.
these are our main objections:
• A global diet brings devastating consequences. A global diet is the opposite of a sustainable and resilient food security, which instead is based on to use and conserve the site’s resources. Climate and soils differ worldwide and has turn format different types of food. Why should we not eat the same food as you do at the Mediterranean sea, in India or in Peru. It is the globalization of food production has trasat break these local contexts.
• means of production is not questioned. Should the food be sustainable, there is a particular way to produce the food that needs to change. There is a big difference in the impact when it comes to how we grow and raise our food. To assume that all vegetables and nuts are always good, regardless of the method of production, but that the animal products and potatoes is always negative, is a foregone conclusion. All the proposals relating to the changes of the output sweeping, and in several cases contradictory. It is clear that you believe that the actual diet is the key to the solution.
• in the Absence of carbon dioxide. the Writers know, of course, that agriculture’s largest impact on the climate comes from the use of fossil fuels. Despite this selects the report to not count in the emission of carbon dioxide but only the methane and nitrous oxide. With their way to work will all the crops except rice have very low emissions and in emissions of methane and nitrous oxide count in full. It is a strange reckoning that rhymes badly with the serious research.
• the Analysis is missing. We agree with the authors that one should control whether support to agriculture and the entire food system from volume to health. We also think that it is regrettable that the number of species that we grow and eat are becoming fewer and fewer, but a global diet only reinforces the negative development. We also see no real suggestion how this should change. On the contrary, we lack the analysis and questioning of the global market that has led to this silliness and unsustainable production. An increasingly globalised and industrialised food production prefer namely so few and so cheap staple crops as possible. It is also why wheat, rice, maize, soy, palm oil and sugar is so dominant crops.
• Wrong solution to reducing food wastage. of Course, we agree with the writers about food wastage must be reduced and there are lot of actors in the whole chain can do to reduce it. Wastage also depends on that food is too cheap and that it is in the stakeholders interests to produce and sell more. One reason why food is so cheap is that many of the effects on the environment, health and society are not included in the price of the food we buy.
today, We have a food system that uses far too much resources to produce far too much food that both makes us and the planet sick. The most important step should therefore be to focus on changing how food is produced and food system works, not what is produced. A global diet is the wrong answer to this difficult question.
