Beans! Other than a comparison between beef and tofu, there wasn’t a single reference towards beans. Pushing the insect agenda only creates hesitancy towards sustainability, whereas beans are delicious!
I know, right? I've transitioned into a plant based diet, and my household is slowly transitioning as well. My stomach took some time to transition (gassy for a few weeks), but now I'm fine. My sister is on board and doesn't even enjoy the taste of meat anymore. Legumes are a GREAT way to get your protein, and much healthier than artificial meat, as long as you aren't allergic.
Can we just stop subsidising animal agriculture before we even start talking about all these silly things? If people eat meat they should at least pay the full cost.
@Verum Similis Agreed. It would probably involve countries that stop subsidies putting tariffs on countries that continue them to counteract them. Of course this means many trade deals would need to be renegotiated... I thought one of the benefits of Brexit fir the UK was that it could start again and consider things like this...
This would all be so much easier if people were generally more educated on the topics of climate change, food production, biodiversity and its importance and plastic waste and its consequences. Education systems all over the world should teach these things to children, because children who are aware of these problems become adults who can make a change.
I agree with you in general, but, I live in an area with highly educated people who will say they believe in climate change and we should do something about it. They bring their reusable bags to the store so as not to take a plastic bag, etc. That's were it stops. These same people drive gas inefficient cars, light gas fireplaces everyday during winter months for "ambiance", drive and fly to various destinations for family gatherings and vacations, and barbecue some sort of meat almost every night on their propane grills. I'm not sure what will turn things around, but education alone will not do it unless it is couple with real lifestyle changes.
Totally agree. Unfortunately education in general runs towards profit, with some little exceptions in more humanistic countries. My hope is that the biggest corporations start going green, so the system adapts. That is a slow, bad way of evolving our civilization, but it is all we have for now :(
We need a CO2 rating system on all foods, so consumers can make informed purchases. Actually we need a CO2 rating on every consumer item, including packing As far as scaling up lab grown meats and costs, eat less. Meat wasn’t traditionally eaten everyday, and especially every meal. Eat less. You can start doing that TODAY to lower your consumer CO2 levels with traditionally raised animal based flesh… eat less of it, less often. It should be a garnish, not a main dish
@@blazn0 People who don’t eat meat are threats to you, how? What an odd thing to say. Maybe the problem is people who eat potato chips? Do you not know how much money is spent on caring for people with avoidable, poor diet related diseases?
@@jennifercuddy5663 it's not people who don't eat meat. It's people in general. Every single human that is put in this planet is a problem added. It's not just meat, it's in every aspect.
Johnathan DJING: Like the King of California Gavin Newsom eating at the posh French Laundry Restaurant with the head of California Medical Association. No social distancing, no face diapers while gorging on the finest meats! Rules for Thee but not for me.
Maybe The Economist should focus on trying to get people to be a normal BMI and stop wasting food through obesity and then driving and flying around that extra weight all the time.
@@ArteUltra1195 why can't you guys just read a comment? They're pushing this agenda of alternative protein and I'm against it,just that. And you know what? I'm not definitely eating bugs :-)
@@ArteUltra1195 you are so wrong. One flight is likely an entire ranch of cows. BTW I’m vegan so my plate is just fine. Don’t be fooled by these reports that it’s the fault of what we eat. You need to dig deeper.
@@spacetoast7783 you clearly have no idea how many flights they all take. How many rooms they heat. How much meat they eat. How many yachts they tour around on. We all have a right to live as we chose and eat what we chose.
Not arguing that our dietry impacts the supply chain, but isn't passing the responsibility of emissions from the food industry to the consumers a form of green washing? Is this industry doing their part for better processes to reduce their emissions?
Should be implemented everywhere my guy but you dont know about greenhouse production because its extremely expensive and basic crops aren economically feasible in greenhouses
I’m a farmer and work in Ag and I don’t believe this arguments hold water. Fastest way to reduce carbon footprint on food is to reduce food waste not change the means of production
The globalist elites want to reduce the independent farmers. They want to force people to only consume their lab grown meats and vegetables so they could earn massive dividends from their green tech stocks... Wake up the world those elites arent our friends
Food production shouldn't be monopolized in the hands of a few who have the capital resources to run operations like these artificial foods labs or vertical farms. I'm not against that becoming a thing, because it sounds great as the means of sustainably producing the food we'll need to feed our increasing population, but we should be simultaneously investing in the ability for the masses to produce organic food locally. Here in Hawaii we are already dependent on food imports, and in the case of disaster we lack the ability to feed ourselves without aid, so we must counter this by growing our own food and being self-sufficient.
Hey, how about encouraging people to be more responsible in creating families? Our greedy corporate system has villified any discussion about this because they want the stocks to up and up. Our financial system is not based on sustainability, it is based on grow grow grow. There is not reason why two people can't have one or two babies.
Not really. Even in the woke US, meat consumption on a per capita basis is INCREASING, even though beef consumption has been declining in the past 35 years (not because of this bogus environmental issue). These vegan clowns find a soapbox like RU-vid and make it sound like the world’s in their side, but it’s not. Personally, I’m not interested in even cutting back ...
Yeah, well-done(!) Focus on burgers rather than focusing on the elephant in the room which are energy(electric,coal,nuclear and petrol), fishing and mining sectors. Stop changing the focus from where it should be. The number of cattle hasn't changed in the last 20 years. That does not even make a dent compared to energy sectors negative effects.
Ms. Delap's use of the phrase "what we currently consider" is all important. For example, lobster, a premier delicacy, was once considered a waste catch and fed to prisoners! So, it all depends on one's _currently informed_ frame of reference. Mr. Fasman's repeated use of the term "price" greatly confuses matters. Americans pay an artificially low _price_ for many food items, animal protein included, due to governmental subsidies. The much more appropriate term is "cost." For, these artificially low prices come at a cost. Anything from the portion of taxes we pay, right through to harm that's inflicted on animals and the environment. Vertical farming is a perfect case in point. Everything about vertical farming is a win; for humans and the planet. This takes into account the perceived energy inputs to which Mr. Fasman refers. On the whole, vertical farming is vastly better, requires drastically fewer direct and indirect inputs. Water is a prime example where vertical farms use a tiny fraction of the water needed for equivalent traditional farms. Other examples include herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers. Add to that argument that vertical farms create opportunities, better, higher paying jobs, and dramatic reductions in post-production energy consumption associated with harvesting and transporting food to market and the solution is beyond obvious. If the U.S. government were truly concerned with health and the environment, the USDA, FDA and EPA would have a coordinated strategic plan to address the effects of industrialized farming and livestock production. From the downstream effects of greenhouse gas emissions, herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers on climate and the environment, ground water, estuaries and littoral waters, to the upstream effects of water misuse, herbicide, pesticide and fertilizer production, as well as seed sterilization, to the epidemics and so-called "lifestyle illnesses" resulting from diet, including meat consumption, the entire system must be overhauled...from the top down. Initiatives on the scale of the Manhattan Project and Apollo Program are needed to solve for economically viable plant-based and synthetic alternatives to animal protein production and consumption; both here and abroad. The bottom line is that we can't currently feed the 7.8 billion people on the planet with the current system, let alone a projected population of 10 billion by 2050. Mother Nature has warned us as such for 50 years now. It's way passed time to wake up!
« Lifestyle illnesses » are not caused by meat consumption, but by the ridiculous amounts of carbohydrates most people shove into their system on a regular interval. Less people would solve everything. But everyone seems to think they are super special and entitled to put another batch of pollution units, ie babies, in the world. And we’re really not going to stop at 10 billion. Just keep pushing the system until it collapses
@@justinmytwocents3551 Really? So...heart disease? Red meat not a factor? And, "pollution unit" equated to babies? Really? That's a pretty sociopathic comment coming from, by your reasoning, just another nothing special pollution unit. Or do you consider yourself special? I have one and only one question for you: What are you doing to proactively make this world a better place...for others, not just yourself?
@@ARepublicIfYouCanKeepIt - Heart disease is more attributable to trans fats from hydrogenated oils and margarine. Ever wonder why, after almost a century of misinformation and outright lies, trans fats are being eliminated by law (in the US)? The vegans also claim meat consumption is the major cause of type 2 diabetes (which is a major contributor to heart disease), which is such a joke because high blood glucose levels come directly from carbs, not meat. You may well see fat people that eat meat (and likely eat too much), but if they’re diabetic, they’re gnawing down some major carbs, too - and very likely in the form of sugar. And vegans don’t even want to acknowledged that sugars are the cause of non-alcohol fatty liver disease (NAFLD), which is “the most common liver disease in the world and NASH (NASH cirrhosis is the end stage of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis) may soon become the most common indication for liver transplantation”, according to the US government, National Institute of Health. Of course, most would have you believe that liver disease is the sole province of the alcoholic, but it’s just another lie. No, sugar and high-carbs is every bit as deadly as excessive meat consumption.
@@sking2173 How and why a comment on a video about the future of food and, by extension, the impact of industrialized farming and livestock production, is beyond me. What's not beyond me is the ridiculousness of the replies which, for whatever reason, are in defense of animal protein, and specifically red meat, consumption. My final words on the topic are these: The effects on the environment and people's health are so well documented as to be irrefutable. Factory farming is unsustainable. Period. So stop it. Stop it now. Have a nice life.
We don't need to move beyond beef. We need to reduce beef consumption. If we switch cattle production from the stock yard to being ranched on the prairies, or steppes we can restore natural grassland carbon sinks. Beef on the table and carbon in the ground, is a win win situation.
Serious question: How does eating meat contribute to the carbon-positive cycle? It's carbon that already exists in the current system. Fossil fuels I understand because it comes from underneath the ground, but I don't get how cows eating grass and farting contributes to climate issues because the carbon already exists.
Méthane produced by the cows did not exist prior to the cow because it is literall produced while the cow is alive, growing the total amount of methane in the word. The next problem with cows is that they are not efficient in terms of transforming calories into meat. Basically, a lot of food if wasted in heat and keeping the cow alive. If we eat more cows; we grow more crops and produce more carbon
@@alextran1434 - Methane didn’t exist before the cow? How long do you think cows have roamed the earth, genius ?? How about the first ruminants ? Do you think ruminants just started emitting methane in the last 100 years?
Land clearing for grazing leads to loss of carbon (amongst other problems). The total number of ruminants is on an ever increasing trend… so more methane.
Permaculture. Understand ecology. We Can still have meat, just have to understand the process. Ecology Education would help with the transition. Biomimicry in design of all things. So many options when we become educated in becoming more efficient in our environment. We can do better. Be better together. 🙌🏼
The right type of plant(s) for every environment will always be a more effective solution than animal subjugation/exploitation, it almost never makes logistical sense to exploit animals for food; if one is being truly logical; no matter the environment (besides a few absolute extremes) there are plants which will generate energy and health directly (the sun is the ultimate direct source of energy), eating meat is almost always harmful, exploitative and unnecessary! From someone growing almost all his own plants, and thriving on plants exclusively for almost 20 years.
@@BlissBlessHappiness we are all part of the soil food web. All life is gained by death. Perhaps we would agree on many things but I’m sure not all. I respect your opinion.
@@coachcal4876 Thank you! Agreed my friend, however, this is not a matter of opinion, but empirical fact: ..."no matter the environment (besides a few absolute extremes) there are plants which will generate energy and health directly".... ...The latter will always be most efficient, for obvious, indisputable reasons.
It all depends on what kinds of food or sources of food production you are talking about. The sustainability of the food system is purely a collaboratively systematic work that requires all parts to coordinate and cooperate. Will plant-based food ALONE save the planet? ... how about the extensive farming and the of life pastors in rangelands? It may not be a single/simple answer.
Extensive farming? Animal-based food requires more farming than plant based food. You need farms to grow the food that will be eaten by cows, pigs, goats. And then those cows pigs and goats will be eaten by humans. So if you simply cut the animals from the middle and ate directly from the farm, you'd need to do less farming.
food production isnt the first problem we have to solve it comes second. first we need cheap reliable and idealy green source of energy - thorium fission and later fusion - 5 years once you have this you can build fully automated vertical farms - 1 or 2 years of developing tech for this. in the meantime we could find a way to produce meat in a lab- 2 years if we focus on this. with high amount of vegetables + meat we could revert to more helthier standarts of living - i like to point out japan where fast food have to compete with restaurants with healthy alternatives - rest of the world is lacking in this regard. we should drive prices of energy, food, and living to 0 and we can do that overtime.
You are correct there, it is better to address the problem with a natural process rather than lab/artificial anything. So much misinformation is being spread and most people are tricked into believing technology is the best solution. A perfectly natural process if carried out correctly can feed everyone healthy food from the soil and put carbon back where it came from in the first place. Let's look at the root cause/source of the problem so we can address it rather than identify the problem and address it with technology. By merely finding a solution to a problem doesn't take the problem away as the root cause isn't being addressed.
@@tjarlzquoll9835 if that is what it needs to be called to interest people, it can be. However you do not necessarily need technology of any kind to produce food with regenerative farming. I would say understanding and knowledge is ultimately needed for a truely regenerative practice to work. Let nature do the work, so you don't have to spend time and money fighting against it, which is common in today's conventional agriculture which relies solely on technology.
I'm from Japan and not an expert. I started to wonder if the government may put taxes on consumptions of beef. Actually, I did a quick research on this and found out that some countries such as Sweden, Denmark, or Germany are considering implementing "meat tax". I guess this could work and reduce the impact on the planet in some ways. However, there will be huge backlashes from agricultural industries.
For some population of the world right now, 'eating' itself is a great thing. Forget about sustainable tomorrow. There is enough production, supply chain is the problem.
For something from The Economist, I found this oddly incomplete. "Regenerative agriculture and animal husbandry" was not mentioned. And did I hear anyone say "peanuts"? No. They should: a legume and "nut" at the same time, high protein and nutrient/energy dense, water sparing, self pollinating and nitrogen fixing. Easy to combine with other plant proteins for completeness. Readily accepted throughout the world. Already grown at scale worldwide with a global market. Peanuts along with other legumes are part of the solution.
In Ghana people eat meet a lot. It's not the poorest country in Africa at all! People are largely not educated about nutrition and climate effects of meat production. If anyone would like to develop such a program in Ghana - I am available to be employed. It's a new 'green business idea' for you here. :)
If we hit the gas on vertical farms, GMO's, and cut back on meat production, or have a breakthrough in synthetic meat, than we could completely and cheaply offset whole food products in exchange for proof of servings making it to the end user- trivializing food costs at the store and keeping food service competitive. At the same time our surplus could feed other countries, and our supply chain would be much more resistant to fluctuations. I see a program like this being possible as early as 2030, with excess going to other countries as soon as our current grain shortage is over. Especially if we decrease meat subsidies as market pressures let up, keeping the new elevated price of meat.
Producing carbohydrates for food consumption is the most damaging for humans. Using mostly diesel engine vehicles in farming to produce sugar and cereals is a double blow to us all. Carbohydrates is causing all sorts of damage to the body and accelerate the ageing process almost exponentially.
If producing meat is so bad for the environment and our health, why do we think making something synthetic in a lab will be better for the environment and health. Think about where the ingredients come from to make artificial "meat", the cocktail of wizardry must be fed something produced in soil which probably is a monoculture. Same as for tofu production. Using serum from a pregnant cow at slaughter to produce a starter for lab meat? I thought the production of lab meat was a solution to farming and killing animals? How many cows need to be killed for that? Is it not wiser to make use of the natural meat from that dead cow? A single ingredient which can be produced without adulteration by chemicals.
I don’t think that’s really relevant. Hunting is like “buying local and organic”. It’s niche and aside from the main methods by which we can feed people at scale.
If we eat insects then the no. Of pollinators for different plants will definitely got vanished that's why in my opinion it is totally wrong to eat them as also because they can have no of dangerous parasites also in their body that's why all organisms are interdependent to each other
I'm sure they are talking about farmed insects raised in sterile conditions, but I'm not eating insects anyway. No way. Why don't we talk about improving farming techniques and eating a plant based diet?
Is it sustainable to have human population levels to continue growing forever? If it isn’t, do we need new economic systems that don’t rely on continuous human population growth?
You can still eat chicken, pork, and other farmed fishes. Only Beef is just very inefficient way of producing food. No need for " Gourmet Insects",. Or you can follow the Indian way of eating, like we've been doing it for thousands of years, we actually didn't even eat meat before 7AD, before Islamists came here.
ha ha ha thinking about changing the eating habits..... the way it goes is killing everyone through cancer etc. I am 60years old, i have been a vegetarian for 45 years and trying to became vegan for the last 17years, I am health, spirutualy on peace and look very yong, i am the world citizen...... well travelled person.... I do respect all the lives that is where my energy comes from.
If there's already 2 billion people eating insects, why don't we let them and their offspring keep on eating bugs? It was said in the end that eating habits are actually cultural and emotional. If there's already a large part of the human population eating insects, just let them keep on eating what they see fit. I'm certainly not starting to eat any bugs.
This is baloney- they dismiss smaller-scale production and favor things like vertical farming, which is so energy intensive it's ridiculous. They cannot replace the energy in sunlight by using electrical bulbs, and the heat load is tremendous (the idea that alternative energy will compensate is silly). There is no discussion of the emergence of regenerative methods for both food production and meat production, which directly addresses climate issues. They are lost in a typical urban e-world.
What about bison as a source of sustainable meat? With the right natural grass grown naturally, there is no farming required. It become as sustainable as wild-caught fish.
Regenerative Agriculture AKA low tech equals sustainable. Tech is the problem chemical farming and machine harvesting makes monocropping. Which is not sustainable.
Steven is an expert trader and a certified broker, I've worked with him for years, everyone he processes he or her trade, is so lucky, all you have to do is believe in him and follow his guidance. Then sip your drink and relax.
Give me a choice between veganism and driving my fossil-fuel car, or eating a carnivore diet and switching to an electric car, I’ll take the EV and meat ...
Why not just eat meat AND vegetables? Why does it have to be either or? Veganism isn't really sustainable. By the way, meat only diet will just cause you to spend up to an HOUR on the toilet every morning.
We should scale back. It would be more beautiful for the world population to naturally reduce to a level, where we can rely on traditional farming instead of those perverted ways of food production presented here.
Why is the black hair video turned off though!!!?? Every one of your videos comment section is turned on except that one !? Definitely not a coincidence
Great context. Everyone needs more than there salary to be financially stable. The best thing to do with your money is to invest it rightly, Because money left for savings always end up used with no returns...
Same here, I made $12,400 profits on investing since I started trading with Burton Schilchter his trading strategies are too notch am winning consistently trading with him. He's really the best broker, I've made a lot of profit investing with him.
We would use less fertilizer if we would grow the biblical way. Which is to allow your land to rest in the seventh year so that the animals can get a chance to ferti the land.
Sorry with everything going up people simply won't be able to buy food if they are all to move sustainable source. I rather feed my family first before thinking sustainable.
