Dietary choices have an effect on the environment

Our dietary choices do carry environmental impacts. But, eating meat in reasonable amounts is not detrimental to our environment. The impact comes from eating processed and packaged goods. The best choice is to eat locally and in season as often as possible. But, that is not always feasible and rarely convienent.

The environmental impact comes from the packaging we throw away and all the energy used to produce the packaging. Every step of the way from the box that was made from trees to the plastic wrapping. More often than not plastic is a petroleum product. The oil may have come from producers that use a process called hydraulic fracturing. This process involves pumping chemicals into the ground to help extract the oil. But, this is not always the case. If not recycled, the packaging is sometimes burned. Which can put off fumes. Other time it accumulates in landfills and it doesn't always stay there.

I feel the best option for somebody who doesn't have massive resources for food storage, is to simply purchase more minimally processed goods where they already shop. There is no need for a massive dietary overhaul. Small simple changes will have an impact. And, I know it is difficult to make choices with this in mind. I like quick fix dishes and sometimes canned soup is the easiest option.

What do you think?

Not just that, but the actual raising of farm animals can put a strain on the environment. Runoff full of farm waste can really damage surrounding ecosystems and the simple space that the animals live in can cause runoff to flow in a way that might not be natural and can cause flooding and other problems, effecting not only people, but habitats as well.

That only applies to commercial feedlots though. Right? If options such as free-range are available locally, the environmental impact is less is what I have been told. Also I have heard, for fish, wild caught is better than farm raised overall.

Unfortunately there is no way really support world populations need without certain amount of farms, especially the ones where animals don't have very good lives. By what I have heard the way western world eats anyways world can only support 1.5 billion people and even by the way most Asian cultures eat it can only support about 9 billion which we are going to hit rather soon in current rate. There is a lot that would have to be done in order to change this and I don't think there is very many people who will be willing to give up on certain food products.

Though there is a lot of good things that have happened in past few years like people leaning more and more towards more gas efficient cars or even hybrids or fully electronic ones as well as discovery of bio-plastic which has far less of an impact on environment than regular plastic. So I could say that we are on right track, but lots of work needs to be done.

What comes to buying locally produced stuff as well as using products packed in things that are more environmental friendly, it's usually difficult to do so. First of if you live in big city it might be hard to find any produce that is locally produced as farms are usually far from the cities and then in another hand small communities don't have wide variety of products to choose from that would be local. Also Locally produced things are generally far more expensive which do not appeal to most people especially if they live close to poverty. And things packed in glass or metal are easy to identify but bio-plastic is usually the one that causes problems even if you want to buy items packed in it.

I think aiming for recycling is the best thing people can currently do to effect on environment as well as try to move away from fossil fuels. Using wind, water or Nuclear energy is far better option than coal and way safer too.

I know I went a bit off the title of the thread, but I do think these are the things that are way easier to tackle rather than the specific diet you're having and have greater impact as well. Of course, what been said doesn't hurt either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lionloversam

That only applies to commercial feedlots though. Right? If options such as free-range are available locally, the environmental impact is less is what I have been told. Also I have heard, for fish, wild caught is better than farm raised overall.

---

Not necessarily. It depends on the location regardless. Even free-range stock create a lot of waste that be washed through a watershed and into water sources. Some animal waste can also cause soil leeching which is really bad for plants, and therefore everyone else. Also, farms directly over recharge zones of aquifers can pollute that source with chemicals from the feces. I know chicken manure is especially bad about that.

Wild caught fish generally don't have a huge impact on the environment itself, but catching wild fish commercially wrecks all sorts of havoc on the ecosystems themselves. Removing those fish from the food chain can hurt populations both above and below. While farm raised fish have the land requirement against them, they don't completely remove animals from the populations and are more sustainable. Not to mention nets and by-catch that can have unintended consequences for non-commercial species (sharks, dolphins, turtles, etc).

As for locally grown products, our grocery chain in southern Texas actually goes out of its way to make sure everything is local, at least to Texas. All of the fish comes from the Gulf, the beef and chicken comes from north Texas, the produce comes from various farms around each city. Pretty much everything comes from somewhere in Texas. It's really nice, and they've actually won some awards for their efforts. Sure, there are things that aren't local, but a good chunk of it is, which I guess kind of cancels that out. Even the ice cream is produced locally, with local ingredients. You've never had strawberry ice cream until you've had strawberry ice cream made with strawberries from Poteet, TX. Seriously the best ice cream I've ever had... And the best pineapples are from south Texas. Just saying. :lol:

Well I can't saying something is from Texas is necessarily local. ;) After all Texas is huge it's almost like saying something sold in Germany that is actually from Spain is local. To me local is something that does not require more than 2 hours of transport time on a truck. At least I thought the impact from local goods to the environment was good due the cut of emissions from transferring it to the consumer. Thought the closer the better, I do agree.

While it's a good idea to be mindful of trash, processing, and packaging associated with foods, I would argue that the food we eat has far greater impact on the environment in terms of nutrient-rich pollution runoff, direct release of greenhouse or ozone-depleting gases, and the introduction of invasive species/strains. If you enjoy prairies, don't eat wheat products. If global climate change keeps you up at night, avoid rice like the plague. If the prospect of global famine from phosphorus scarcity is a major concern, go vegetarian. I don't do any of those things, because the amount that I care about these subjects is less than the amount that I care about delicious things. Eating less processed food when possible certainly is a good idea for plenty of health reasons.

Small, locally-owned farms are by far the greatest offenders when it comes to pollution and gas emissions. They're hard to regulate, there is little incentive for them to participate in long-term, often experimental techniques, and there is little leverage against them except for the most egregious violations. Even with shipping emissions, the world would do much better in these matters to have all their food shipped from a few well-regulated mega-farms rather than a million locally owned farms. There are drawbacks to that solution -- spoilage of food, outbreaks of disease (harming both humans and agriculture), corporate monopolies, and violation of personal freedom and autonomy. Plus, there's something to be said about helping local families by buying locally. In the end it's people that matter, for me anyways.

As an aside, I have no problem with responsible fracking.

Pntbll248, what articles would you recommend to read on fracking? All the articles and videos I found gave a negative viewpoint of it.

Well, on diet, I don't eat rice for the most part. Mainly because I don't like the taste of it. Unless its rice pudding.

Fracking research is very complicated. There are extraneous variables.


Recent (2010-present) Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania EPA reports on fracking have relatively neutral findings regarding fracking and give no special recommendations for the short term. My conclusion is based on my own research background in aquatic biogeochemistry as well as unpublished data that will remain unpublished. Due to extraneous variables.

My understanding of fracking in a nutshell is a very deep hole is drilled. Then, mixture of various chemicals, sand and water are pumped into the hole. After that, the mixture is agitated to cause fracturing in the soil. The chemicals are the pumped out. The oil is then drawn to the micro fractures being held in place by the sand. The oil is then extracted. Once dry, the pump is removed and the chemicals are put back into the hole. And, a new hole is dug and the process is repeated.

The danger, from what I heard, comes from putting the chemicals back into the dried well and leaving them. Because they seep into underground fresh water sources. But, I will read what the EPA has to say on their site.

I can dig up the reports for you, they can be hard to find and hundreds or thousands of pages in length. The extraneous variables that have great impact on fracking research are not of strictly scientific origin. If you'd like to have a private discussion, I would go into more detail.

Okay. I would be interested. Sent you a PM.