Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-17-2023, 07:46 PM
 
15,580 posts, read 15,650,878 times
Reputation: 21960

Advertisements

I found this surprising on several counts - but seems like a win-win situation.


How New York’s Public Hospitals Cut Carbon Emissions: More Vegetables
Making plant-based meals the default has reduced food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 36 percent, the mayor’s office said. Just don’t say “vegan.”

NYC Health + Hospitals, the country’s largest municipal health system, has made plant-based food the default for inpatient meals. That means the food contains no meat, dairy or eggs. If a patient doesn’t like the first option, the second offering is also plant-based. Anyone who wants meat has to make a special request.
Now, a year after it made those sweeping changes, the hospital system has reduced its food-related carbon emissions by 36 percent, according to the mayor’s office. And, jokes about hospital food aside, the changes seem to be a hit with patients. Samantha Morgenstern, a client executive and registered dietitian at Sodexo, the food services company providing the meals, said that nine times out of 10, patients accepted the dishes, and that the satisfaction rate was above 90 percent.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/31/c...gan-meals.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-04-2023, 04:51 PM
 
966 posts, read 514,798 times
Reputation: 2509
You could probably scrape something off the streets and improve hospital food. The key to this is to always buy local. Transporting food from one end of the country uses lots of energy and it all pollutes to some extent. It quickly gets weird too. When I was living in Florida, the bell peppers that came from California were less money than the locally grown bell peppers! I was in a grocery store once and mentioned this to the guy in the vegetable/fruit dept, he said that NOTHING made any sens in his dept. It just was what it was.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2023, 08:15 AM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,551 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57728
Here in our state we get fresh produce in season, but the rest of the year it comes from Mexico or hothouses in Canada. That's trucks running refrigeration long distances. Meanwhile we have big local egg producers, feedlots and stockyards producing meat. I have spent considerable time as a hospital patient in the last 4-5 years, and the only foods I actually enjoyed were the bacon, meatloaf, and salmon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2023, 11:53 AM
 
Location: In Little Ping's Maple Dictatorship
333 posts, read 153,016 times
Reputation: 877
Quote:
How New York’s Public Hospitals Cut Carbon Emissions: More Vegetables
Making plant-based meals the default has reduced food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 36 percent, the mayor’s office said. Just don’t say “vegan.”
If I was forced to eat a vegan diet for longer than two days I would be producing more greenhouse gas than China's entire industrial sector.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2023, 02:34 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,234 posts, read 5,114,062 times
Reputation: 17722
Why is it the same people who don't want plastic IN our food think it's OK to make food OUT OF plastic?

It's more efficient to grow corn and beans to feed to cattle to turn into meat for us to use as food than to grow fruits and veggies for us to eat directly. We're not very good at digesting/utilizing plant based nutrition...It's protein that's the rate limiting step in nutrition, and the protein t to calorie ratio of meat is very much better for meat than veggies...Eating more veggies/less meat means higher calorie intake-- more obesity, more difficut control of diabetes.

We'd have to devote more acres to growing plants for our sole source of nutrition, and each acre would require many more passes of the tractor to plow, plant, fertilze, spread herbicides/pesticides and harvest than for growing corn and beans for cattle.

I will concede that we could improve on tractor use if we did more grass-finisihng than feedlot finishing of cattle, but that would mean more acres of pasture to replace the row crops acres and to higher meat prices.

"Can we" and "should we" are two different things. Our goal shouod be optimum, not maximum or minimum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2023, 02:31 PM
 
Location: equator
11,046 posts, read 6,632,416 times
Reputation: 25565
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
Why is it the same people who don't want plastic IN our food think it's OK to make food OUT OF plastic?

It's more efficient to grow corn and beans to feed to cattle to turn into meat for us to use as food than to grow fruits and veggies for us to eat directly. We're not very good at digesting/utilizing plant based nutrition...It's protein that's the rate limiting step in nutrition, and the protein t to calorie ratio of meat is very much better for meat than veggies...Eating more veggies/less meat means higher calorie intake-- more obesity, more difficut control of diabetes.

We'd have to devote more acres to growing plants for our sole source of nutrition, and each acre would require many more passes of the tractor to plow, plant, fertilze, spread herbicides/pesticides and harvest than for growing corn and beans for cattle.

I will concede that we could improve on tractor use if we did more grass-finisihng than feedlot finishing of cattle, but that would mean more acres of pasture to replace the row crops acres and to higher meat prices.

"Can we" and "should we" are two different things. Our goal shouod be optimum, not maximum or minimum.
Agree. There's a really excellent book on this subject by a well-known scholar in that field (pun) that explains all this for us lay people. Wish I could remember it.

Let the cattle do the work, not our digestive systems. I almost died in my 20s eating too much fiber, trying a vegan diet. "Nuclear gastritis" the doc called it. Had to let gas out of my bloated stomach with a tube. We didn't evolve to be vegetarians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2023, 07:13 AM
 
3,180 posts, read 1,654,323 times
Reputation: 6028
We need to eat what we're designed to eat. We are omnivores. If you failed to get nutrients that derive from certain sources then your body has to compensate making nutrients that are missing if you don't get them by going to autophagy. This is why most vegans becomes malnourished as their body degenerate due to lacking of animals enzymes not found on plants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2023, 07:40 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,234 posts, read 5,114,062 times
Reputation: 17722
Right.

There's no question that the healthiest way to eat is to eat a varied diet in moderate portions. To think otherwise is to base your your beliefs in fantasy & pseudoscience. The numbers just don't support the contention....

... the question is whether or not the way we are supplying meat (corn & beans grown to feed livestock in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) is the best way too do it, all things (economic, environmental) concerned.....

Benefits of CAFO-- mostly economic-- less expensive to produce more meat for the table. Profit margins in ag are very, very small. We need to balance financial incentive & security to farmers to encourage them to keep on farming vs need to keep food prices affordable.

Risks of CAFOs-- big negative impact on water table in the area surrounding the operation- large capacity wells draw an exceedingly large amount of water, often causing neighbors' small wells to go dry; polluting effects of concentrated manure/urine production on ground water and as run-off to nearby waterways. Small operations spread out over the countryside would produce as much waste, but "diluted" over a larger area would have minimal impact on water supply.

--more use of fossil fuel to grow corn/beans than just maintaining pasture for livestock

--crops have huge negative impact on soil structure & fertility, regardless of how attentive the farmer is to such things. Maintaining pastures actually builds soil structurte & fertility each year. Pasture approaches "natural meadow" much more closely than row cropping.

The notion that doing away with meat production would lower carbon footprint (is that even necessary?) is blatantly false. It would mean we would need to grow more crops, requiring even more fossil fuel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2024, 02:16 PM
 
966 posts, read 514,798 times
Reputation: 2509
I remember the last time I "dined" in a hospital. Sorry, the planet will just have to take a hit, I'm opting for Chinese takeout.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2024, 06:41 PM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
23,656 posts, read 13,964,967 times
Reputation: 18855
Quote:
Originally Posted by MickIlhenney View Post
If I was forced to eat a vegan diet for longer than two days I would be producing more greenhouse gas than China's entire industrial sector.
Something like that.
A and B.
A: There is a lot of food now that as a Type II I can't eat, from fruit to rice (50 cc's of brown rice a day max) to so many other options that I've had to convert to a bean/corn bread diet (cheese and eggs in that recipe). My beans are used in stews with lentils, split peas, and a meat (beef or pork or bird (mostly chicken)). I am sure I am not the only one.

B: In the 1950s, that government moved the Inuit from eating of the hunt (seals and others) to government supplied food. In the 90s (when I researched the subject), that population had higher rates of diabetes.

So do we have scientists with the ability to look far ahead figuring out what we can eat or economists who know more of numbers than people?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top