Comments on: Food Inc: tasty but unsatisfying

By: M

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:27:19 +0000

McDonalds is touting that they are sustainable, however, their main business involves Meat, which according to the United Nations Report causes more greenhouse gases than transportation http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
The UK Hospitals are cutting meat to cut carbon http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jan/26/hospitals-nhs-meat-carbon
In the U.S., NRDC and EDF Food innovation Winner Bon Appetit Management Company is cutting meat and cheese by 20% to cut carbon http://www.gratitudegourmet.com/1/post/2009/04/interview-with-fedele-bauccio-ceo-bon-apptit-management-company.html
They have even developed an online food carbon calculator to show us how our food choices impact carbon emissions http://www.eatlowcarbon.org/
The Belgian City, Ghent, is going vegetarian for one day a week to cut carbon
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/13/ghent-belgium-vegetarian-day
At the Fortune Brainstorm Green Conference’s Food Session, a McDonalds Representative was on the panel. I mentioned these facts and trends to the Panel and asked if the Companies were looking at this data and if it is impacting their company goals, operations and supply chains.
The short answer is that McDonalds is not reducing meat in their operations.
I think McDonalds isn’t innovating like it should when taking into account the readily available climate change facts.
It’s like saying that a chemical company emitting chemicals into the air and causing contamination and disease is installing solar panels, thus they are sustainable….
Here’s a positive analogy: IBM engineers reduced metal deposited during semiconductor manufacturing reducing water used in the mechanical polishing step by 14% (90,000 liters/yr).
McDonalds needs to look at its core products, reduce meat and cheese, and add more sustainable food products to its menu.
Thanks.

By: Parke

Parke — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:00:41 +0000

Okay, (a) was less strong. Interesting discussion! Cheers.

By: Marc

Marc — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:05:39 +0000

Great comment. I’ve heard both arguments–that organic ag is more productive and that it is an utterly unrealistic way to generate more calories with fewer inputs. I will invite a couple of smart people I know to chime in here.

By: R

Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:33:11 +0000

Point (b) is complicated by the fact that the majority of current meat consumption and the VAST majority of future growth in meat consumption takes place in the developing world. It’s easy to make a moral case for why an obese American should eat less meat; much harder for a poor Malawian farmer or Chinese laborer with a protein-deficient diet.

As far as I understand, the jury is still out on both the long-term environmental sustainability of the “Norman Borlaug” model (i.e. high fertilizer/pesticide/herbicide use, monocultures of GM seeds, etc.) and whether the “Michael Pollan” model (i.e. organic inputs, high crop rotation, etc.) can deliver sufficient yields on a large scale to feed a world population of 8-10bn people a nutritious diet without dramatically expanding land use (which causes deforestation, reduces biodiversity, etc.). I’d love to know if anyone is aware of balanced, authoritative academic research into these topics – most of what I’ve seen is fairly polemical from one side or the other.

By: Marc

Marc — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:25:23 +0000

Parke, I’m not sure about (a) but (b) is an excellent point. If we want to feed more people on less land with fewer inputs, grain-fed meat is not the way to go. There’s lots of “waste” of energy (fossil fuels) and calories along the way. I’m no expert but I think the same is true of some fish farms. I’m hoping to write more about Monsanto, DuPont and biotech food in the future.

By: Parke

Parke — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:21:31 +0000

Enjoyed your review, but took Food, Inc. more favorably on several of your key points. It’s not surprising that you have trouble distinguishing the real merits behind the save-the-world green marketing of Coke, Pepsi, Cheerios, and Post. The movie did well to raise questions about even the most green brands like Stonyfield. The real contrast it draws is between conventional and local and organic food.

I understand the question about whether the world can produce enough food, but I have a pair of standards for those who raise this concern: (a) Did they acknowledge that advanced non-GMO technologies are immensely productive and that GMOs make only a modest further improvement?, and (b) did they discuss the inefficiency of historically unprecedented per capita grain-fed meat and dairy in the same paragraph as their concern about non-GMO technology? Without these points, the repeated mantra “But how can we feed the world” risks misdirection.