Would or would not the trillions of tonnes of processed foods/medicines/drinks/beauty products/toiletries etc. being manufactured globally, require trillions of tonnes of additives? Now that’s a lot of processing.
The less-processed consumer products are, the more sustainable they are to produce…
I went to buy some washing-up-liquid yesterday and Fairy Liquid is selling at 2 for £2, when it was previously at £1.55 a bottle… the eco options have come right down in price, so as to now be highly competitive with the ‘old guard’ brands, so swapping unnatural-artificial for natural-biodegradable foods.
The more processed/additive-containing consumer goods are, the less sustainable and environmentally-friendly they are… and don’t even get me started on the health issues they cause, that medicines then need to be manufactured in order to remedy them… a cycle of excessive toxic manufacturing is then set in motion.
The opposite, in-fact… the OP was an inquiry, into how far a person would go in-order to optimise and sustain their sustainability life-style. Not that far, it seems.
Okay.
So, despite what you really want to ask, here is what you actually asked and made a quiz for.
Would you be happy to eat at a sustainably-sourced eatery?
I really green person might well answer no, since they might feel that the necessary machinations of civilized life, rents, rates, street lighting, industry that creates ovens and cutlery and the rest of the panoply of a capitalised project to cook for other people is not ultimately sustainable nor in any sense green.
On the other hand a petrol head who does not give a shit about polluting the planet, has shares in big pharma, big food, and the oil industry, having no care could well be as happy eating such an eatery as anywhere else.
Personally I did not answer the question. One reason is that for the most part eateries claiming to be “sustainable” is false for several reasons. In the long term and in the short term there is almost zero difference in sustainability between such eateries and any other. “Sustainablity; green; organic” are life-style choices, yet another USP and marketing ploy to offer an alternative. Its like buying “low fat”, - this means added sugar. Or “low sugar” which means more artificial sweetener. “Lower salt” on a bag of crisps (pot chips), when the real problem eating crisps is the carbs and trans fats.
We are constantly bombarded with such choices to make us think we are doing the right thing is buying such stuff but in the end we would probably do better to not buy at all.
An eatery, any eatery, even an eatery claiming to be has a prime objective - making money.
What might they be peddling that looks other than it proports to be?
Guaranteed organic French Beans? Problem is they are flown in from Kenya.
Responsibly sourced Tuna - problem is they are packed with mercury - Tuna has one of the highest being a predator.
…and that was exactly what I was inquiring after, in the complexity of the sustainability/green issue and concerns, in that where is a definitive line drawn… in different places for different people, it seems.
So say when I eat out, I wouldn’t dine at an eatery that served scavenged produce, but I would expect the venue itself to operate and run sustainably… whereas it could be the opposite for others, in eating scavenged-produce but not concerned about anything beyond that.
Indeed… was that in Metabolical?
I am very well-aware of all that… more people should try to become more aware of all that. Remember during Brexit, when the EU said that if we leave we’ll be missing out on continental biscuits, and we all laughed and said we’ll be all the more healthier for it?
I buy British produce whenever I can and try to live sustainably in general, but I always wonder if I can do more… and if so, what!?
All that non-sustainable nonsense is being rectified where possible, and that is a good place to start as any… the less of a market there is for such things, the less of them there will be on our shelves and in our shops.
I wanted to open up a dialogue about the topic, gauge thoughts on the matter, etc… and not just regarding food, but clothes, lifestyle, household goods and products, etc.
Not in so few words but yes.
And you might want to consider “Spoon Fed” by Professsor Tim Spector.
They both recommend the avoidance of processed food and recommend avoiding especially refined carbs.
This is a different issue since there is no direct overlap to “sustainable”.
My overriding thought here is that the human population as it is, - nay as it was 100 years ago is inherently unsustainable if we want to keep the earth in good fettle.
Until we address that, most of us will continue to live in poverty and have to eat fake food to live.
…I’ve abstained from both those items, for decades…
You keep saying that, but both those items have to be made in energy-guzzling manufacturing plants and then emitting toxic waste… think Nestle etc., so has everything to do with sustainability.
Bringing farming and manufacturing back in-house… Nation-wise, would help solve endemic food crises and over-reliance on anything but that.
Like I said… a good place to start is buying local, where possible.
Life in the UK has been artificial for a very long time requiring increasing in-roads in the the natural environment and the wholesale import of food for generations; to stem the flow more and more artificial means to produce food have been made such as heated greenhouses and artificial lighting. But still having to import around half of our food.
In the modern period alone the population has grown from 2 million circa 1500 to around 70 million today.
The UK is temperate; cold in winter where no food can grow to hot in the summer where growing food requires technological support to make it in quantities that make it economic.
In 1500 calories were stored in sheep and cattle through the winter fed on hay gathered in the summer, or killed and salted to keep it through till lent; as well as root crops and dried grains.
The prospect of sustainability is somewhat laughable, and unlikely to suspend imports.
That would be a very big list.
We are so dependant on imports that the UK would be incapable of running the economy.
There are very few things the UK makes more than it imports.
If you want to live by bread alone then you’ll be happy to learn that grain is probably the only thing we are self sufficient at.
No bread, I’m toxin-intolerant, lol… the meat, eggs, fruit and vegetables, that I buy, are Uk-produced… I have mentioned that already, and even if/when I do indulge in (free from) manufactured snacks, they are also UK-made/small-business brands. I think you’re thinking of big brands and chains, here… I’m not.
In my local mini-mart for instance, the average customer is health-conscious and socio-economically-smart, and most shop like I do… except for the toxin-abstinence need, well most.
I’ve not had any processed food since Xmas, except one or two Heinz soups for convenience.
I have only had one meal per day, with tea and coffee with full fat milk.
I have lost over 30lbs and feel better than ever. I am hoping this is sustainable, but I cannot seem to lose anymore weight even though I only eat once per day. I want to lose more, but my body does not want to.
What has surprised me is just how little I need to live on. I wonder if this example were generally applied humanity might be more sustainable too.
It might help to add an extra meal, once or twice a week… a frittata, lettuce-wrapped cheeseburger, fruit, chicken n vegetable stir-fry etc. etc. etc…
That’s the point, and a good one at that… humans do not need to eat the daily amounts, that they are programmed to think they need to eat, save for a ‘victory’ cheat/treat-meal once in’a while… like what animals do.
That type of eating regimen would definitely help humanity be much more sustainable in the long run… less to no processing, more au naturale.
One of the most pernicious and unhealthy myths; breakfast is the most important meal of the day - no.
Another shocking piece of flim-flam - also dangerous; eat little and often. Since when did humans ever have the chance to evolve the ability to eat all day long?
Another slightly less bad; 3 square meals per day.
I have been shocked and amazed how much of a better dieting strategy time restricted eating is to a calorie restricted diet.
I’ve experienced calorie restriction diets nearly every year of my life since I was 15 yo and they all do the same. They work for a few weeks then, borg-like, the body adapts to lower calories and slows down the metabolism so that you need less, you do less and you need to drop calories further in order for the diet to keep working.
The other problem with calorie restriction is that you have to obsess about food all the time; counting calories, planning meals, - meals which are always unsatisfying.
The body reacts completely differently with fasting. I get a morning boost, and no loss of energy.
There is an evolutionary rationale to this which suggests that having not breakfast is normal and the body give you a glucose boost from fat stores to get you out and hunting. It all make pretty good sense.