From 2020-2025, 400% increase was expected
Please Lidl, come back to Norway
that’s good! i may not be vegan (yet) but due to the significant price difference i just buy vegan now lol
i may not be vegan (yet)
why though
i’m a dumb conformist
Thanks Lidl. Now communicate that to Murca’ grocery stores so I have more options.
Ok… good.
And yet, it’s mostly still packed in plastic. I know, not the same tough, but the title image triggered me. How are we not getting a hold on this!? It’s almost like we’re not even properly trying.
In Germany they sell a couple of these vegan patties, nuggets etc. frozen in a cardbord box.
A lot of the veggies are in open containers only the more vurnarable smaller fruits, like tiny tomatoes etc are wrapped in plastic. If they would not wrap them, chances are high people won’t buy them generating more food waste. So its also not great.
Would not using plastic actually be the more environmentally friendly option here?
Sure, plastic is bad when it gets dumped where it shouldn’t, but so is spoilage and other packaging solutions also have significant carbon footprints.
Not using plastic could hurt their profits :(
Its stills leaps and bounds better, simply from an environmental stand point, than dairy or meat based products.
what makes you think that?
reality?
this is handwaiving, not evidence.
what’s your evidence that it isn’t evidence?
disengage
This is some ai bot shit right here. @moderator please ban.
The effect animal ag has on the environment
all agriculture has an impact on the environment.
Mods please ban this shill.
Either completely illiterate or an animal ag shill, or ai bot.
True.
But still greatly misleading. Having impact doesn’t mean having equal impact. Plant-based foods all have dramatically lower impact than any animal-based foods. See some of my comments further up the chain
your comments don’t actually establish that well. they rely on poor data gathering processes.
Which is what i meant but the other commenter is on an antivegan crusade and is just being a debatepervert to silence vegan voices. The one time I asked them for a proof of what they said they simply terminated the conversation with a “have a nice day” 😂
let me see if i can find that thread againhttps://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/15837346
Not equally so
Transitioning to plant-based diets (PBDs) has the potential to reduce diet-related land use by 76%, diet-related greenhouse gas emissions by 49%, eutrophication by 49%, and green and blue water use by 21% and 14%, respectively, whilst garnering substantial health co-benefits
[…]
Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].
this study relies on poore-nemecek 2018 for its data, which improperly combines LCA studies with disparate methodologies. it’s not good science.
Yes, but animals require significantly more resources. You can grow plants to eat, or you can grow plants for a cow to eat and then eat it. The amount of energy that reaches the consumer is significantly lower for animals per unit of production required to make it. The only reason it isn’t more expensive is because it’s heavily subsidized.
You can grow plants to eat, or you can grow plants for a cow to eat and then eat it.
false dichotomy. cows eat corn cobs and corn stalks and soy cake. people eat corn and corn syrup and corn starch and soybean oil. the food system is more complex than you’re saying.
Sure, it’s more complex than just that animals have to consume energy to live, but it’s simple enough that we know the answer to the question. If we focus on plants that are best for humans to consume, it’s trivial to see that feedings animals to eat wastes resources.
You’re making a staw man. Growing crops that create scraps that we can’t eat is partially only done because of subsidization of those crops to feed animals. Also, we can eat the most nutritious parts. The cob and stalk of corn are not rich in energy. Sure, cows can eat them, but they have to consume a ton of them.
If we grow crops for humans to consume, we get significantly more energy out of it than if we grow food for animals. This is trivial. Argue against this if you’re going to argue. Don’t argue against something else that’s not relevant.
It requires significantly more agriculture to feed animals to feed humans than to just feed humans directly. This is actually obvious if you think about it for more than a second and a half.
Transitioning to plant-based diets (PBDs) has the potential to reduce diet-related land use by 76%, diet-related greenhouse gas emissions by 49%, eutrophication by 49%, and green and blue water use by 21% and 14%, respectively, whilst garnering substantial health co-benefits
[…]
Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].
this study relies on poore-nemecek 2018 for its data, which improperly combines LCA studies with disparate methodologies. it’s not good science.
Have you yourself read or looked through publications on this question and formed your own opinion? If so, what is it that you think, and what is it based on?
as much as I can. it’s not my profession. I think I don’t have enough evidence that changing ones diet has any impact on the environment once easy or the other.
