Again, how do you make bacon without raising pig? Explain to me since you apparently know some "common since" way. Stop making crap up. You lost. Game over. Live with it.
New study shows Lettuce more harmful to the environment than bacon
- Thread starter 73chief
- Start date
You can't make bacon without raising a pig. You also can't count the entire environmental footprint of raising that pig against every single individual bite of the pig. That's idiotic. Given that they're working with averages, I assume they determined the total impact of the pig versus the average total calorie count of the pig and did simple division. That assigns an impact number to each calorie. You could then multiply that number by the total calories of a specific cut of the pig. That you don't understand that makes perfect sense, of course
You can't make bacon without raising a pig. You also can't count the entire environmental footprint of raising that pig against every single individual bite of the pig. That's idiotic. Given that they're working with averages, I assume they determined the total impact of the pig versus the average total calorie count of the pig and did simple division. That assigns an impact number to each calorie. You could then multiply that number by the total calories of a specific cut of the pig. That you don't understand that makes perfect sense, of course
.
So, you're saying you're smarter than the scientist who did this study?
LOL...no, I'm saying this is likely how they arrived at their numbers. If you think they counted the entire impact of raising the pig against every single molecule of the pig that's consumed, I am smarter than you.
From the OP link:
The researchers conducted a meta-analysis of life-cycle assessments quantifying the water, energy use and emissions for more than 100 foods. They found fruits have the largest water and energy footprint per calorie. Meat and seafood have the highest greenhouse gas emissions per calorie.
To create a baseline of how many calories the average adult American consumes, the researchers used weight data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and calculated how many calories a person would need to consume in order to maintain that weight. The average calories per day came in at 2,390 per day, or about 200 more than recommended. The researchers tacked on an additional 1,230 calories to account for food waste.
"If what your concern is the greenhouse gas emissions or energy or water use of the entire system, I don't think you should leave out large chunks of it," Fischbeck said. "If you want to know how much energy is being consumed, you have to include waste and what is lost from grocery store or dining room table."
That's not to say all vegetables are bad. Onions, okra, carrots, broccoli and Brussels sprouts all have decent environmental footprints. Lettuce, on the other hand, is difficult to grow, harvest and transport. It requires significant amounts of water and energy to produce.
"I would eat less lettuce and more Brussels sprouts," he added.
This would seem contrary to your accusation that they're not counting the impact of the whole pig. They are accounting for waste, for starters. And compare this to fruit and nut trees. We don't compare the food with the mass of entire tree.
The researchers conducted a meta-analysis of life-cycle assessments quantifying the water, energy use and emissions for more than 100 foods. They found fruits have the largest water and energy footprint per calorie. Meat and seafood have the highest greenhouse gas emissions per calorie.
To create a baseline of how many calories the average adult American consumes, the researchers used weight data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and calculated how many calories a person would need to consume in order to maintain that weight. The average calories per day came in at 2,390 per day, or about 200 more than recommended. The researchers tacked on an additional 1,230 calories to account for food waste.
"If what your concern is the greenhouse gas emissions or energy or water use of the entire system, I don't think you should leave out large chunks of it," Fischbeck said. "If you want to know how much energy is being consumed, you have to include waste and what is lost from grocery store or dining room table."
That's not to say all vegetables are bad. Onions, okra, carrots, broccoli and Brussels sprouts all have decent environmental footprints. Lettuce, on the other hand, is difficult to grow, harvest and transport. It requires significant amounts of water and energy to produce.
"I would eat less lettuce and more Brussels sprouts," he added.
This would seem contrary to your accusation that they're not counting the impact of the whole pig. They are accounting for waste, for starters. And compare this to fruit and nut trees. We don't compare the food with the mass of entire tree.
You forgot that he's smart and made an assumption. I guess he wins.
I was really hoping he could teach me how to grow a bacon tree.
Calories matter not. Remember according to libs, GW is the most serious problem this planet faces. If lettuce makes that worse we need to get rid of the lettuce.
What are they factoring in w/ the pig? What about corn versus lettuce? You have to raise corn to feed the pig. It seems like you're going to double down on any animal by raising crops to fee them or is included in the pig calculus.
You have to feed vegetables, too. Usually with fertilizers derived from fossil fuels (natural gas). Many pesticides are also made from fossil fuels as well (agricultural oils).
*sigh* Ok...they count the ENTIRE PIG against...what...one slice of bacon? Two? Does the entire pig count against the first slice and then again against the second slice? Explain why the entire pig wouldn't count against every single bite? Or against every single molecule?
They are figuring "per calorie" somehow:
The reason for this is because on a per-calorie basis, many fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood—the foods the USDA pushes in the guidelines over sugary processed food and fats—are relatively resource-intensive, the study finds.
So does the impact of the entire pig count against EVERY SINGLE CALORIE? You tell me...how are they arriving at a per calorie number?
Damn...
Last edited:
If you actually read the article, it points out how not all crops are equal. Even in the part trad quote it says that Brussel sprouts would be a better option.
Don't know about trad, but I was just having fun at Huey's and tarheel's expense and hoping to get people to think outside the lettuce wrap.
Corn is a whole other matter. I won't bash it too much being as this board is an Iowa forum, but corn syrup and ethanol are far worse for the environment and our health than lettuce or bacon. Both are a result of pandering by libs and cons. Both are the reason Iowa boasts being an industrial and not just agricultural economy. Most of that industry revolve around farm equipment and refining of corn into other hydrocarbons.
Okay, fired my shots and I'm ducking now.
aflac? Kiting? Trad? You seem to have forgotten about this. I'm seriously curious. I want to know how YOU think they determined the impact "on a per-calorie basis" if not by the mechanism I suggested and you dismissed. None of you have yet suggested anything other than they counted the impact of the entire pig against every single calorie. That would mean - of course - that a single average serving of bacon would have the environmental impact of raising 154 pigs.
Now you can't get bacon without raising a pig...Kiting is surely correct about that...but do you really think it takes 154 pigs to supply you with one serving of bacon? That doesn't sound right.
Like I said...I'm curious. So what's your mechanism for determining the "per-calorie" impact of the bacon?
I just skimmed the article, but I don't think it's much of an analysis. There doesn't seem to be much of a comparison of the production practices. Giant factory farms aren't environmentally sound. Are we talking iceberg lettuce? That has an extremely low nutritional value. I'd compare locally sourced, higher value greens versus the pig. However, I buy my pig from an organic farmer in Washington County. I feel very good about this.
Beyond that the study doesn't seem to start from the premise that the average American eats way too much to begin with.
Beyond that the study doesn't seem to start from the premise that the average American eats way too much to begin with.
I completely agree. They have a fundamentally unsound premise, if they are counting an entire pig footprint against just the bacon derived from the pig. You absolutely need to create the average caloric value for the whole pig (all edible parts) if you want to make an adequate comparison.
Additionally, and more importantly, ALL CALORIES ARE NOT EQUAL from a nutritional standpoint. Humans need specific nutrients that you cannot get all from bacon or all from oranges or all from lettuce.
It would make FAR more sense to compare the RDA values for the nutrients/fats you get from bacon, weighted against those amounts from other foods which provide similar nutritional value, NOT just calories. Plus, you need to look at the environmental imprint required for the pig not based on just bacon, but if you get 4% of the caloric value from pig meats from the bacon, then you use 4% of the total environmental impact of the pig to compute the actual impact, not the whole pig impact. If I am understanding correctly this is not what they did; that's bad science and very misleading.
If I were asked to review this work, I absolutely would have required them to rewrite the paper, so they were not making apples/oranges comparisons like this, because it's basically useless information to compare two things with vastly different nutritional value, and meet different US RDA requirements on just caloric content. That said, it's a good bet that lettuce IS on the 'low end' for efficiency if you were to compare it to other foods providing similar nutritional value. You would also be better off comparing various meets (pork products to beef to chicken, etc) to assess nutritional value where you are meeting similar protein/fat RDAs.
