|
Talmonis posted:Many of us are physically, mentally and emotionally exhausted by the time we get home at night. It makes the prospect of doing anything but sitting on the couch and unwinding from that near suicidal form is really unpalatable. If you're stressed out and miserable, what could be nicer than throwing on some music, pouring a glass of wine, and cooking a lovely quick meal? I get way more testy when I can't cook at home, for the most part.
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 08:50 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes, as I said, usage would likely increase, but my point is not infinitely. The issue is not with waste, really, as much as ensuring an available supply. Oh hey look, 40 out of 50 states report they will experience shortfalls in their freshwater supply under average weather conditions. http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/663344.pdf
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Oh hey look, 40 out of 50 states report they will experience shortfalls in their freshwater supply under average weather conditions. Well yes if you live in a desert that will happen, but even then, it's a question of infrastructure. If you wanted to you could cover both coasts in desalinization plants and pipe it across the country, but that's hard to do without national-level investment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
PT6A posted:So, you basically get a set amount of basic staples, inexpensive proteins and in-season fresh produce, and then you'd be allowed to buy additional or different food if you chose to do so? I think the bigger point is that food waste is not really that significant, at least not if you want to avoid punishing individual people. It sounds cliche, but this really is a case where capitalism incentivizes correctly. Companies don't like giving away food for free, but they really don't like being put in a position where they'd have to give away food for free. Any businessman that's not a total idiot will say "If I'm having to throw away so much food, I must be making too much in the first place". Now this doesn't solve hunger issues, but that's an issue that works better from a state driven solution rather than what's (essentially) business provided charity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well yes if you live in a desert that will happen, but even then, it's a question of infrastructure. If you wanted to you could cover both coasts in desalinization plants and pipe it across the country, but that's hard to do without national-level investment. Yes, notable deserts like Florida and North Carolina. But hey let's forget that desalination is an energy intensive process with a substantial carbon footprint, lets just sink some massive national level investments into seeing if we can just brute-force our way through the tragedy of the commons. edit: computer parts posted:I think the bigger point is that food waste is not really that significant, at least not if you want to avoid punishing individual people. It would be much more efficient just to give money to people to buy food then to set up an entire parallel distribution chain for free rice and carrots. Not to mention if you think letting people walk away with as much free food as they want is going to reduce food waste then you're out of your mind. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Run it off nuclear power, and consider doing the same thing to the energy grid while you're at it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Not to mention if you think letting people walk away with as much free food as they want is going to reduce food waste then you're out of your mind. It was already mentioned earlier in the thread but the end consumers are where the mist waste occurs. The idea that just offering up food for free in significant quantities will reduce waste is insane. A lot of the waste upstream is from 1) baked in waste to meet consumer expectations of variety and quantity of good available at any given time and 2) ag subsidies designed to prop up certain farming systems and crops. I mean, yeah in theory it may be possible to give everyone free rice and beans, but doesn't mean it's a desirable or efficient end goal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I'm not trying to hurt you're feelings. I use the term "goony" because it bears connotations of being mentally and physically unhealthy, socially isolating and aesthetically depressing. All of those are descriptions I'm comfortable using regarding a post that amounts to "I prefer unhealthy prepackaged foods they let me maximize my TV watching time." Sorry but I'm going to go ahead and say you should buy some rice, some veggies, and some dry pasta, familiarize yourself with the stove and oven, and maybe leave the TV off for the evening and crack open a book when you're all done. I am perfectly aware of how to cook. I grew up with a (mostly) stay-at-home dad who was downright obsessed with gourmet cooking and made drat sure I knew how to do it, to the point that he eventually trained me into doing most of it. Risotto, fried chicken from scratch, casseroles, brussels sprouts in vinaigrette, vegetable stew, shrimp with panko breadcrumbs, spaghetti with homemade cream sauce, home-made pizza (making even the loving dough from scratch), oven baked carrots with herb du provence, and a dozen other frou-frou things he saw watching the cooking channel. Now he's dead, I'm living on my own, and I never cook unless I'm basically forced to, and hearing the occasional finger-wagging by self-satisfied assholes like you does not fill me with one ounce of shame over that fact. (Edit: Oh, and to get on the thread topic: we always cooked with fresh ingredients and produce and threw out tons of poo poo, all the time, because it's almost impossible not to get a little bit more than you actually need for a recipe, and people who are really into cooking tend to also consider themselves too good for leftovers) PT6A posted:If you're stressed out and miserable, what could be nicer than throwing on some music, pouring a glass of wine, and cooking a lovely quick meal? I get way more testy when I can't cook at home, for the most part. Be careful you don't break your arm patting yourself on the back there, that'll put a cramp in your cooking flair for sure!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Run it off nuclear power, and consider doing the same thing to the energy grid while you're at it? Do you believe that resource constraints are a thing, or are they a conspiracy of the capitalist oppressor?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Be careful you don't break your arm patting yourself on the back there, that'll put a cramp in your cooking flair for sure! Yeah, boy, I'm just so proud of myself for being a functional adult who manages to prepare their own food on a regular basis. It's not really something to be proud of, so much as the lack thereof is something to be properly ashamed of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, boy, I'm just so proud of myself for being a functional adult who manages to prepare their own food on a regular basis. Newsflash: ~30% of all American adults are nonfunctional and should be ashamed of themselves - especially black people. I'm PT6A, and I've always held that urban black populations just don't receive enough public shaming in the media.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Newsflash: ~30% of all American adults are nonfunctional and should be ashamed of themselves - especially black people. I'm PT6A, and I've always held that urban black populations just don't receive enough public shaming in the media. Did you suffer a traumatic brain injury or were you born a complete moron?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:I am perfectly aware of how to cook. I grew up with a (mostly) stay-at-home dad who was downright obsessed with gourmet cooking and made drat sure I knew how to do it, to the point that he eventually trained me into doing most of it. Risotto, fried chicken from scratch, casseroles, brussels sprouts in vinaigrette, vegetable stew, shrimp with panko breadcrumbs, spaghetti with homemade cream sauce, home-made pizza (making even the loving dough from scratch), oven baked carrots with herb du provence, and a dozen other frou-frou things he saw watching the cooking channel. I'm not telling you to feel bad about how you live I'm just saying that the life choices you're describing are pretty strongly linked to poorer mental and physical health, which makes me believe that the appropriate response here would be to ask what the constrains are on you having the necessary time and income to live a healthier and more fulfilling lifestyle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Most waste around here just gets turned into biodiesel or fertilizer, but I guess the waste you are talking about is it not being eaten.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I'm not telling you to feel bad about how you live I'm just saying that the life choices you're describing are pretty strongly linked to poorer mental and physical health, which makes me believe that the appropriate response here would be to ask what the constrains are on you having the necessary time and income to live a healthier and more fulfilling lifestyle. To which I say, thank god I live in a modern society founded on principles of individualism and I don't have to subscribe to your definition of a "fulfilling lifestyle". I would be perfectly happy to have the government come along and tell me, in an impersonal way, that I can no longer eat foods x, y, or z (or will have to pay a prohibitively expensive premium for them) - but to have people like you be able to physically come knock at my door, demand my attention, and tell me that I'm wrong for enjoying the things I enjoy would be a never-ending hell for me. And this does really get to the crux of the food-waste issue, as well. Modern western society puts a high premium on individual choice and a person's right to define their own life. It is my opinion that the best solutions for the health issues (physical health, because I refuse to grant anyone else the right to judge my moral health, which is what people actually mean when they say "mental health") are those which are impersonal, technocratic, and large in scale - like the suggestion to force supermarkets to donate their overstock instead of throwing it in the dumpster. But no - almost immediately the conversation shifted to how it's the choices of individuals that are the problem. And the real thrust of many posters' criticism becomes clear when I, who have not thrown anything edible in the trash for weeks if not months, am singled out as a sinner by the latest incarnation of the cult of domesticity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I'm not telling you to feel bad about how you live I'm just saying that the life choices you're describing are pretty strongly linked to poorer mental and physical health, which makes me believe that the appropriate response here would be to ask what the constrains are on you having the necessary time and income to live a healthier and more fulfilling lifestyle. Which behaviors? I'm not seeing anything specifically where variance in outcomes wouldn't be explained by separate causes. With the possible exception of salt levels, brand dependent, TV dinners aren't innately unhealthy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:To which I say, thank god I live in a modern society founded on principles of individualism and I don't have to subscribe to your definition of a "fulfilling lifestyle". If our society makes it hard for (some) people to learn how to cook, isn't that a societal problem and not an individual one? We don't have home ec or cooking classes in school and so I guess my parents were supposed to teach me (they yelled at me when I wanted to learn) or now I'm teaching myself. People might waste less food in general if they knew how to make better use of it - for instance, people throwing out parts of a whole chicken that they could turn into soup or broth instead, but they don't know how. So they throw all the bones and dark meat in the trash. I eat frozen food sometimes as well, but if Trader Joe's goes under or their Indian food gets really bad, it's good (for me) to have the ability to make and use things myself. Since I've been trying to learn a little bit more about cooking I find I throw less out because I'm willing to just throw a bunch of vegetables in the pan and have a bit more confidence it will be ok in the end. If we taught people how to cook more/better maybe they wouldn't throw so much stuff out because "I can't use this, it's not in the recipe book, what do you do with an expired beet anyway?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:
This is just not true: bartlebyshop posted:If our society makes it hard for (some) people to learn how to cook, isn't that a societal problem and not an individual one? We don't have home ec or cooking classes in school and so I guess my parents were supposed to teach me (they yelled at me when I wanted to learn) or now I'm teaching myself. People might waste less food in general if they knew how to make better use of it - for instance, people throwing out parts of a whole chicken that they could turn into soup or broth instead, but they don't know how. So they throw all the bones and dark meat in the trash. I eat frozen food sometimes as well, but if Trader Joe's goes under or their Indian food gets really bad, it's good (for me) to have the ability to make and use things myself. Since I've been trying to learn a little bit more about cooking I find I throw less out because I'm willing to just throw a bunch of vegetables in the pan and have a bit more confidence it will be ok in the end. If we taught people how to cook more/better maybe they wouldn't throw so much stuff out because "I can't use this, it's not in the recipe book, what do you do with an expired beet anyway?" If you think ahead a little if you're buying for more then one meal you can even try to pick dishes whose leftover ingredients combine to make something else. Also at some point you realize if you have a stocked pantry you can pretty much always turn leftover veggies and protein into a decent fried rice/noodle dish.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Do you believe that resource constraints are a thing, or are they a conspiracy of the capitalist oppressor? Mostly the latter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Which behaviors? I'm not seeing anything specifically where variance in outcomes wouldn't be explained by separate causes. With the possible exception of salt levels, brand dependent, TV dinners aren't innately unhealthy. The nutritional content of a hypothetical frozen dinner is irrelevant in this discussion: posters like Jarmak and Helsing see not wanting to cook/choosing food products based on convenience as a moral failing. When what's wrong with American/western/whatever diets is discussed in media, the lion's share of the blame is usually placed at the feet of the "uneducated" (sometimes they'll drop the pretense and just say "lazy") individual consumer. Which is why this thread almost immediately devolved into clucking of tongues about such people even though it was pointed out almost immediately that food waste from supermarkets is the most easily preventable and thus makes the most sense to focus on. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the puritanism from the left side of the political spectrum is vastly stronger than that of the right on this particular issue (cooking from scratch vs. pre-prepared meals). And I get that; avoiding food waste aside, it really would be better if we all ate less red meat, corn syrup and other processed sugars. Putting taxes on those commodities, or at least stopping the subsidies flowing to them, is a capital idea. But please, for the love of god, stop talking about food choices and cooking choices with all this moralistic language; it is equally unwelcome regardless of whether it comes dressed in the clothing of the priest or the psychologist. Cooking is not a loving sacred ritual that heals the mind and body; stop trying to turn it into one. A person could easily be far unhealthier and far more wasteful by following the Paula Deen philosophy of cooking, and spend a lot more time doing it, than eating a bunch of frozen tofu dinners and poo poo. When all of these convenience food technologies were new, consumer demand was enormous and people were ecstatic to be able to buy them for the first time. It wasn't because those people were stupid and didn't know what "real food" tasted like, or how to make it. It's because people didn't consider cooking complex meals to be a fulfilling use of their time, and you (meaning the thread as a whole, not Discendo Vox) don't get to say they were wrong or mentally unhealthy for making that choice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Which is why this thread almost immediately devolved into clucking of tongues about such people even though it was pointed out almost immediately that food waste from supermarkets is the most easily preventable and thus makes the most sense to focus on. There is no "almost" about this. I said this in the very first reply of the thread, and pointed out that the argument was even raised in the OP itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
The fact that supermarket food waste is a bigger source of waste than personal food waste is no excuse to behave as a loving child that can't be bothered to cook for yourself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
It's worth noting that while there is a certain symbolism to food waste it's not a particularly special kind of waste. There is zero question that we have the economic resources to feed everyone on the planet and given that economic activity is rather interchangeable it's not terribly different if I throw food out versus throwing out or generally consuming anything else. Everything consumes land and resources. Does food consumer larger amounts of environmental resources than most other types of consumption (I'm not sure one way or the other). If so then that should probably be addressed more directly and honestly increased prices should perhaps be part of the picture (as it should be for anything else that has large externalities, like gas for example).
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
I don't tend to cook for myself, but my food waste is extremely low because I eat nearly everything I purchase and store food properly to prevent spoilage. Whether or not one cooks is not going to be a direct cause of personal food waste.Liberal_L33t posted:Perhaps unsurprisingly, the puritanism from the left side of the political spectrum is vastly stronger than that of the right on this particular issue (cooking from scratch vs. pre-prepared meals). And I get that; avoiding food waste aside, it really would be better if we all ate less red meat, corn syrup and other processed sugars. This is about what I was afraid of-you don't know what you're talking about. Red meat bad for you, maybe-the carnitine literature isn't fully developed and the initial heart damage studies were probably overstated. The rest is completely wrong. Corn syrup is a sugar, and is not meaningfully different from other "processed sugars", which are not meaningfully different from cane sugar. Sugars are overwhelmingly identical in their health effects unless you're looking at glycemic impacts of things like honey or, in particular, agave "nectars". To the extent that you're referring to weight gain, the content of interest is calories. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The fact that supermarket food waste is a bigger source of waste than personal food waste is no excuse to behave as a loving child that can't be bothered to cook for yourself. So... this seems to be you conceding that your objection to habits of avoiding cooking is not based on any specific issues with the products themselves as such - certainly not that they promote waste, which is the topic of this thread, nor because of any inherent health benefits or detriments (since it would be similarly easy to harm oneself eating nothing but home-grilled steak, home-baked bread and home-scrambled eggs); rather, your objection stems from what you see as a moral deficiency. (The reason this subject was on my mind is because a week or so ago, Time Magazine or whoeverthefuck ran some story on how cereal sales are supposedly declining because millenials find having to wash the bowl afterwards too much work, or something to that effect. Predictably, this has set off another round of Baby Boomer kvetching about millenials failing to live up to (a slightly modernized version of) the Ward and June Cleaver home life that they themselves roundly failed to live up to. Discendo Vox posted:This is about what I was afraid of-you don't know what you're talking about. Red meat bad for you, maybe-the carnitine literature isn't fully developed and the initial heart damage studies were probably overstated. The rest is completely wrong. Corn syrup is a sugar, and is not meaningfully different from other "processed sugars", which are not meaningfully different from cane sugar. Sugars are overwhelmingly identical in their health effects unless you're looking at glycemic impacts of things like honey or, in particular, agave "nectars". To the extent that you're referring to weight gain, the content of interest is calories. This is all a good point; I acknowledge my mistake, and realize that I fell prey to the insidious meme of "processed sugars" without consciously realizing it. Perhaps closer to what I meant is that highly processed foods are likely to have more sugar added, and it is certainly true that people should be taught to carefully read the nutritional facts of everything they buy and have a frame of reference for how much sugar or calories is too much. Corn syrup is simply the most infamous because it has a reputation (rightly or wrongly) for being inserted into products which you wouldn't expect to have any added sugar. In the case of red meat, it's more a matter of the ecological impacts - beef is in a league of its own even among other meats when it comes to being unsustainable. Pork is fairly bad too, as I understand it, as are some types of seafood. Anyway, I think that we can all agree that the MOST unsustainable practice is huge percentages of perfectly edible food which might otherwise be made available getting thrown out. Since the thread seems hell-bent on discussing consumer-level wastage, I'd just like to add that probably the most immediately effective remedy (aside from rationalizing the system of use-by dates which is obviously screaming to be done) would be a garbage tax. Charging people a premium based on how much they throw out, by weight. Many garbage cans are lifted and dumped by mechanical arms anyway, would adding a scale be difficult? Sure there might be collateral problems of public dumping or sneaking things into neighbors' trash cans - but solutions like those would probably be more trouble than they're worth for most households
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
The stressing of fresh home-cooked food in the context of food waste seems really bizarre, since it's home cooking that's most likely to give you ingredient proportion mismatches, perishable items, and unused byproducts. I just made a bunch of sandwiches, and now I've got 4 unused slices of bread and 8 unused slices of cheese. I guess I'll put them in my fridge next to the 3 unused eggs, 2 unused sticks of butter, and half-empty jar of spaghetti sauce.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:The stressing of fresh home-cooked food in the context of food waste seems really bizarre, since it's home cooking that's most likely to give you ingredient proportion mismatches, perishable items, and unused byproducts. Agreed. Home-cooking is hugely inefficient. If we did stuff at scale, we'd massively reduce packaging materials, prep time, and waste from mis-estimation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
I don't think anyone can really argue that food waste is out of control in america, whether it is waste by over consumption or discarding edible food. I recall in 3rd grade our teacher, who came from India, refused to take the lunch shifts because she couldn't stand to see the immense amount of waste produced every day My room-mate and I managed to live off the waste from a local central market by dumpster diving nightly. The amount perfectly good food thrown away by supermarkets is mind boggling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
Somebody is mega defensive  Cereal sales are probably on the decline because millennials are realizing that maybe it's a bad idea to eat a big bowl of sugar for breakfast, not because it's too hard to wash a bowl. Even if it's like whole grain adult cereal, combined with the milk you're looking at a high amount of sugar-based carbohydrate content and a modest amount of fiber. It's probably fine if you're about to go on a long-rear end run or something, but most people aren't. I find that a modest protein-based breakfast of like a couple fried eggs and some cottage cheese works just as well for me, and I barely feel hungry by lunch time. Acealthebes posted:I recall in 3rd grade our teacher, who came from India, refused to take the lunch shifts because she couldn't stand to see the immense amount of waste produced every day. This is super true, or at least it was when I was in school. There were like one or two things on that lunch tray that most kids were willing to eat, and the rest got trashed. At least we drank our milk  . In high school, you could get actually a pretty nice chef salad, but it was more expensive than the regular school lunch. I didn't start giving a poo poo about what I ate until like my late 20s, so I missed that boat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The fact that supermarket food waste is a bigger source of waste than personal food waste is no excuse to behave as a loving child that can't be bothered to cook for yourself. Just to reiterate since it's in the OP.. Supermarket food waste is not a bigger source of waste than personal food waste. In aggregate, personal waste accounts for about 70% of wastage and supermarket waste about 10% if you include smaller markets. Large supermarkets represent like 5%. There are ongoing programs run by governments, ngos, and the supermarket chains themselves, to increase donations of foods that would otherwise be wasted. It is entirely appropriate to talk about personal food waste. A 10% decrease in food wastage at a personal level has 7 times the impact of a 10% decrease in wastage at the distribution level.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:Agreed. Home-cooking is hugely inefficient. Convincing consumers to give up some degree of choice would solve a lot of allocation problems but would it make us per se better off?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Convincing consumers to give up some degree of choice would solve a lot of allocation problems but would it make us per se better off? I'd say it depends on the perspective. From the resource and environmental side, yes of course. For being happy and enjoying what your life? Not so much. Much like Bloomburg's attempt to ban salt and butter, though it'd make everyone eat healthier, it'd also make food bland and awful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Just to reiterate since it's in the OP.. Got a source for that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Cooking truly is inefficient. Just eat raw vegetables, rusk or crispbread, and cheese. Saves time and there is no food waste either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Got a source for that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:I am perfectly aware of how to cook. I grew up with a (mostly) stay-at-home dad who was downright obsessed with gourmet cooking and made drat sure I knew how to do it, to the point that he eventually trained me into doing most of it. Risotto, fried chicken from scratch, casseroles, brussels sprouts in vinaigrette, vegetable stew, shrimp with panko breadcrumbs, spaghetti with homemade cream sauce, home-made pizza (making even the loving dough from scratch), oven baked carrots with herb du provence, and a dozen other frou-frou things he saw watching the cooking channel. Hahaha too good for leftovers. Its funny you guys are taking Liberal_L33t seriously, and only gradually learning that he's possibly the worst poster in D+D, and that is loving saying something. Anyway, as far as food waste goes, I was surprised to see in the OP that 2/3rds of waste came from consumers. This was in France, I wonder how that number changes in other countries, or in urban vs rural areas. For myself, I try to not waste, though I could try harder. Its true that being single makes it easier to waste food. It certainly isn't impossible though. I get my bread from a local bakery. Made that day, good quality, no preservatives (and pretty cheap too, like 3-4 bucks a loaf). Anyway, stuff goes bad fast. My solution is to wrap the loaf in a plastic grocery bag (to prevent it going stale) and to put the bag in the fridge, to prevent mold. Lasts a week, easily, when left on the counter it would go bad in 2 days. Vegetables I'm not as good with these days, I get distracted by the noodle place nearby and don't cook as much as I should. When I do cook I don't worry much if the veg looks a bit diminished. It'll usually still cook up ok, especially if its in something like a pasta sauce. I don't want to cook everyday, so I'm trying to get myself back into the habit of making bulk meals (chilli, pasta, soup) and storing them in the freezer for a few weeks. I'm a bit lazy, but this is extremely cost effective and very healthy. I can spend 20 bucks and a a few hours of work (including shopping and cleaning up) to make 15 meals that keep a long time. Rice is your friend. When I was very poor I lived largely off rice and assorted cheap or discarded veggies from a local market. Cream of mushroom soup as a sauce. I don't know how many times I had that meal. Not glamorous nor especially delicious, but cheap as dirt and really quite healthy. I never got into bulk beans/peas but these are ultra cost effective as well. I understand the feeling of getting home and not wanting to work anymore, just to flop down, eat something tastey and bake in front of a screen, with some beer. This is a lifestyle thing I know, but even when I do this I don't usually feel better, or satisfied by the end of the night. I just shuffle off to bed, still feeling beat. I do feel better if I get exercise or eat something like good food. Its a discipline thing, and often hard to do if you're living alone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Anyway, as far as food waste goes, I was surprised to see in the OP that 2/3rds of waste came from consumers. This was in France, I wonder how that number changes in other countries, or in urban vs rural areas. It's probably pretty close in other countries. The smaller scale you are, the harder it is to control your inputs and outputs (or the variation thereof anyway). The big scale operations are able to devote time and resources to determine if there is a problem, where the problem is coming from, and how to fix it. The average joe? Maybe he sees he's spending more than he should but he doesn't really know where because different stuff might go bad every week.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:To which I say, thank god I live in a modern society founded on principles of individualism and I don't have to subscribe to your definition of a "fulfilling lifestyle".  If I promise you that the whole foods gestapo is not moments away from smashing down your door and dragging you off to a concentration camp run by Jamie Oliver then will you calm down and get off that ledge? quote:And this does really get to the crux of the food-waste issue, as well. Modern western society puts a high premium on individual choice and a person's right to define their own life. It is my opinion that the best solutions for the health issues (physical health, because I refuse to grant anyone else the right to judge my moral health, which is what people actually mean when they say "mental health") are those which are impersonal, technocratic, and large in scale - like the suggestion to force supermarkets to donate their overstock instead of throwing it in the dumpster. I would actually argue that the more important technocratic solution is better community planning and better working conditions (i.e. more job stability, higher wages, more worker autonomy from management). That having been said, some kind of mandatory home economics / nutritious eating class in High School wouldn't hurt. Discendo Vox posted:Which behaviors? I'm not seeing anything specifically where variance in outcomes wouldn't be explained by separate causes. With the possible exception of salt levels, brand dependent, TV dinners aren't innately unhealthy. Do I really need to explain to you why someone who says that a staple of their diet is a "frozen broccoli with cheese sauce" dish that's loaded with sodium, and who justifies this because it gives them an extra couple hours a day for "sedentary activities" such as TV watching, doesn't sound like they're living the healthiest life? There's nothing wrong with junk food when it's in moderation but when it's a staple of your diet then that's kind of a red flag that you aren't eating very healthy. It also sounds an awful lot like the lifestyle of a solitary 20 or 30 something man with limited social contact, which is also pretty dire. Even if you live alone, I'd suggest that inviting over a friend, romantic partner, family member, etc. and cooking a meal together (or having one person prepare a meal for the other, and perhaps returning the favour at a later date) is a timeless, intimate and deeply satisfying way for two or more people to spend time together.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:
That source says nothing about anything you are claiming, unless I missed something and this thread has been about France. Try this one from the ERS instead. Here's the most relevant parts of the summary. quote:In the United States, 31 percent—or 133 billion pounds—of the 430 billion pounds of the available food supply at the retail and consumer levels in 2010 went uneaten. Retail-level losses represented 10 percent (43 billion pounds) and consumer-level losses 21 percent (90 billion pounds) of the available food supply. (Losses on the farm and between the farm and retailer were not estimated due to data limitations for some of the food groups.) Helsing posted:Do I really need to explain to you why someone who says that a staple of their diet is a "frozen broccoli with cheese sauce" dish that's loaded with sodium, and who justifies this because it gives them an extra couple hours a day for "sedentary activities" such as TV watching, doesn't sound like they're living the healthiest life? What I'm seeing is that you're extrapolating from limited information to make a bunch of assumptions in as uncharitable a manner as possible about the person you're arguing with in order to attack them personally. It has nothing to do with what's being argued and is intensely counterproductive. "junk food" isn't a meaningful descriptor, cheese on broccoli isn't likely to be particularly high in salt, manufacturer dependent. "fresh" isn't meaningful in terms of nutritional impact for most foods. "Processed" doesn't have health connotations either, except under specific circumstances not immediately relevant. Cooking is not a high-impact caloric activity, so complaining that the time displaced by not doing it is spent in a sedentary fashion isn't meaningful either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 08:50 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That source says nothing about anything you are claiming, unless I missed something and this thread has been about France. Try this one from the ERS instead. Cool source with data from the US. thanks. If 21% of food purchased is lost at the consumer level and 10% at the retail level, those statistics are consistent with the French figures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 20:24
|
|