Carbon density of food exposed under new Swedish label
I'm excited as fuck about this one.
One of the main issues with sustainability is simply information parity or lack of information. With the excesses and externalities of capitalism, tracking food through the supply chain is a cost that most simply don't see the need to do. But under a regulatory framework, where reductions of carbon dioxide is prioritised, these [jokingly] nasty, socialistic [/joke] regimes can provide people with information beyond the constraints or benevolence of pure capitalism.
By Degrees - To Cut Global Warming, Swedes Study Their Plates - NYTimes.com:Shopping for oatmeal, Helena Bergstrom, 37, admitted that she was flummoxed by the label on the blue box reading, “Climate declared: .87 kg CO2 per kg of product.” ...
New labels listing the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production of foods, from whole wheat pasta to fast food burgers, are appearing on some grocery items and restaurant menus around the country.People who live to eat might dismiss this as silly. But changing one’s diet can be as effective in reducing emissions of climate-changing gases as changing the car one drives or doing away with the clothes dryer, scientific experts say.
Food labeling has a drastic effect on behaviours for those who care to be engaged. While it is difficult here to find food labels when we go out, I've been using www.livestrong.com for 10 months now to track my calories. I have then been able to make more informed decisions about quantities and types of food that I eat. I know that pizza, essentially, isn't worth it, but I can pretty much eat as many apples as I care to.
Porting that to making more informed decisions about what to eat, in a quantifiable, scientific way, I could both consider caloric and carbon content in the foods that I eat. That would probably mean eating more locally, which would probably coincide with healthier dietary decisions as well. And where they diverged, you could figure out which foods are no-win situations, or are double-losers.
On the social equity/justice end of this, providing the information would at least enable poorer people to make decisions. They may not be able to afford more expensive items, but it could also empower people to simply demand more types of local foods knowing that every time they buy X brand, they take a 15kg carbon hit in their carbon budget.
I know, it is probably wishful thinking to think that everyone cares about this in the way that I do, but I do know a wide breadth of people with various income levels. Income level and intelligence aren't necessarily correlative (especially amongst my misfit gang of people); in fact, some could argue just as effectively that some real dumbasses have better chances of being rich because they don't rock the Establishment Boat. Paris Hilton is a fine example of someone who could afford to be conscious but just doesn't give a shit. And conspicuous consumers, also rich generally, also wouldn't care. But the social worker, activist, punk, goth, etc. friends that I have would definitely take part in something like this. Knowing that you could be green on the cheap would just be another feather in many people's cap.
Of course, it is a struggle here in America to just get calories labelled. Getting place of origin or other information is met with a humongous roadblock of opposition by the powers-that-be who don't want to lose the few hours it would take to retool their labels. Nevermind that they'd do it to write "New" or "Improved" on there...
One of the main issues with sustainability is simply information parity or lack of information. With the excesses and externalities of capitalism, tracking food through the supply chain is a cost that most simply don't see the need to do. But under a regulatory framework, where reductions of carbon dioxide is prioritised, these [jokingly] nasty, socialistic [/joke] regimes can provide people with information beyond the constraints or benevolence of pure capitalism.
By Degrees - To Cut Global Warming, Swedes Study Their Plates - NYTimes.com:Shopping for oatmeal, Helena Bergstrom, 37, admitted that she was flummoxed by the label on the blue box reading, “Climate declared: .87 kg CO2 per kg of product.” ...
New labels listing the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production of foods, from whole wheat pasta to fast food burgers, are appearing on some grocery items and restaurant menus around the country.People who live to eat might dismiss this as silly. But changing one’s diet can be as effective in reducing emissions of climate-changing gases as changing the car one drives or doing away with the clothes dryer, scientific experts say.
Food labeling has a drastic effect on behaviours for those who care to be engaged. While it is difficult here to find food labels when we go out, I've been using www.livestrong.com for 10 months now to track my calories. I have then been able to make more informed decisions about quantities and types of food that I eat. I know that pizza, essentially, isn't worth it, but I can pretty much eat as many apples as I care to.
Porting that to making more informed decisions about what to eat, in a quantifiable, scientific way, I could both consider caloric and carbon content in the foods that I eat. That would probably mean eating more locally, which would probably coincide with healthier dietary decisions as well. And where they diverged, you could figure out which foods are no-win situations, or are double-losers.
On the social equity/justice end of this, providing the information would at least enable poorer people to make decisions. They may not be able to afford more expensive items, but it could also empower people to simply demand more types of local foods knowing that every time they buy X brand, they take a 15kg carbon hit in their carbon budget.
I know, it is probably wishful thinking to think that everyone cares about this in the way that I do, but I do know a wide breadth of people with various income levels. Income level and intelligence aren't necessarily correlative (especially amongst my misfit gang of people); in fact, some could argue just as effectively that some real dumbasses have better chances of being rich because they don't rock the Establishment Boat. Paris Hilton is a fine example of someone who could afford to be conscious but just doesn't give a shit. And conspicuous consumers, also rich generally, also wouldn't care. But the social worker, activist, punk, goth, etc. friends that I have would definitely take part in something like this. Knowing that you could be green on the cheap would just be another feather in many people's cap.
Of course, it is a struggle here in America to just get calories labelled. Getting place of origin or other information is met with a humongous roadblock of opposition by the powers-that-be who don't want to lose the few hours it would take to retool their labels. Nevermind that they'd do it to write "New" or "Improved" on there...