https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/15/legal-plastic-content-in-animal-feed-could-harm-human-health-experts-warn?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR2qfM-Uf_NKV26NLWTmp851Es0twOwFP3p2BvItsy4TGDZ7QX-yIX2KvLs

It makes me a little upset to think that it is illegal to source food for pigs and boil it down into pig swill…but feeding them a percentage of plastic..by weight…is not a problem.

It’s worrying. As is the fact that: “Globally, about a third of all food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted from the farm to the fork.”

Bubblecar said:

It’s worrying. As is the fact that: “Globally, about a third of all food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted from the farm to the fork.”

I was thinking of collecting all the outer cabbage leaves, bundle them up and send them off to Africa, but as usual I was defeated by complacency

What did pussycats do before cardboard boxes.

Bubblecar said:

It’s worrying. As is the fact that: “Globally, about a third of all food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted from the farm to the fork.”

95% of what is produced of fresh food, doesn’t make it on to the supermarket shelves. So We are a wasteful lot.

We used to call it “roughage”.
Then that fell out of fashion and we called it “fibre”.
Now the trend is to call it “plastic”.

At least plastic in food that isn’t infected with pathogens.

I used to worry about food waste. But that was before I realised how much our wildlife relies on human food that doesn’t make it all the way from crop to mouth.

mollwollfumble said:

We used to call it “roughage”.
Then that fell out of fashion and we called it “fibre”.
Now the trend is to call it “plastic”.

At least plastic in food that isn’t infected with pathogens.

I used to worry about food waste. But that was before I realised how much our wildlife relies on human food that doesn’t make it all the way from crop to mouth.

Particularly since we took away their food to grow ours.

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

It’s worrying. As is the fact that: “Globally, about a third of all food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted from the farm to the fork.”

95% of what is produced of fresh food, doesn’t make it on to the supermarket shelves. So We are a wasteful lot.

Got a ref for that number?

mollwollfumble said:

We used to call it “roughage”.
Then that fell out of fashion and we called it “fibre”.
Now the trend is to call it “plastic”.

At least plastic in food that isn’t infected with pathogens.

I used to worry about food waste. But that was before I realised how much our wildlife relies on human food that doesn’t make it all the way from crop to mouth.

Who is we?

What I used to call roughage, and now call fibre, is not plastic.

And how much of the 33-95% of wasted food do you reckon actually makes its way into the bellies of wild life?

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

It’s worrying. As is the fact that: “Globally, about a third of all food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted from the farm to the fork.”

95% of what is produced of fresh food, doesn’t make it on to the supermarket shelves. So We are a wasteful lot.

Got a ref for that number?

Post soviets collectivisation maybe. But hard to see Australian farmers surviving on only 5% sales cos I am sure the supermarkets don’t buy stuff that doesn’t make it to the shelf. Actually they do have some rejects but 95% sounds bogus.

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

95% of what is produced of fresh food, doesn’t make it on to the supermarket shelves. So We are a wasteful lot.

Got a ref for that number?

Post soviets collectivisation maybe. But hard to see Australian farmers surviving on only 5% sales cos I am sure the supermarkets don’t buy stuff that doesn’t make it to the shelf. Actually they do have some rejects but 95% sounds bogus.

I suspect that Mr Car’s 33% is closer to the truth. That’s certainly the number that’s usually quoted (although that doesn’t make it right of course).

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

We used to call it “roughage”.
Then that fell out of fashion and we called it “fibre”.
Now the trend is to call it “plastic”.

At least plastic in food that isn’t infected with pathogens.

I used to worry about food waste. But that was before I realised how much our wildlife relies on human food that doesn’t make it all the way from crop to mouth.

Who is we?

What I used to call roughage, and now call fibre, is not plastic.

And how much of the 33-95% of wasted food do you reckon actually makes its way into the bellies of wild life?

Close to 100% gets eaten eventually. By gulls, crows, mynas, ibis, sparrow, pigeon, etc., By stock. By bacteria and fungi, by worms, by insects. By plankton and fish.

Very little ends up in the lithosphere.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

We used to call it “roughage”.
Then that fell out of fashion and we called it “fibre”.
Now the trend is to call it “plastic”.

At least plastic in food that isn’t infected with pathogens.

I used to worry about food waste. But that was before I realised how much our wildlife relies on human food that doesn’t make it all the way from crop to mouth.

Who is we?

What I used to call roughage, and now call fibre, is not plastic.

And how much of the 33-95% of wasted food do you reckon actually makes its way into the bellies of wild life?

Close to 100% gets eaten eventually. By gulls, crows, mynas, ibis, sparrow, pigeon, etc., By stock. By bacteria and fungi, by worms, by insects. By plankton and fish.

Very little ends up in the lithosphere.

are you kidding?

long long in the future, archaeologists will be finding plastic in fossils.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Who is we?

What I used to call roughage, and now call fibre, is not plastic.

And how much of the 33-95% of wasted food do you reckon actually makes its way into the bellies of wild life?

Close to 100% gets eaten eventually. By gulls, crows, mynas, ibis, sparrow, pigeon, etc., By stock. By bacteria and fungi, by worms, by insects. By plankton and fish.

Very little ends up in the lithosphere.

are you kidding?

long long in the future, archaeologists will be finding plastic in fossils.

most of the wasted food gets eaten by slaters and bacteria etc.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Close to 100% gets eaten eventually. By gulls, crows, mynas, ibis, sparrow, pigeon, etc., By stock. By bacteria and fungi, by worms, by insects. By plankton and fish.

Very little ends up in the lithosphere.

are you kidding?

long long in the future, archaeologists will be finding plastic in fossils.

most of the wasted food gets eaten by slaters and bacteria etc.

We were talking about wild life eating waste food, not plastic.

Whilst I agree that all or almost all waste food will end up as food for other living things eventually, I’m not convinced this is of any great benefit to the environment, since most of it will be concentrated in landfill sites.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

are you kidding?

long long in the future, archaeologists will be finding plastic in fossils.

most of the wasted food gets eaten by slaters and bacteria etc.

We were talking about wild life eating waste food, not plastic.

Whilst I agree that all or almost all waste food will end up as food for other living things eventually, I’m not convinced this is of any great benefit to the environment, since most of it will be concentrated in landfill sites.

I also mentioned food waste in another post. Yes and the stuffnin landfill is usually still wrapped in plastic, unopened.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

are you kidding?

long long in the future, archaeologists will be finding plastic in fossils.

most of the wasted food gets eaten by slaters and bacteria etc.

We were talking about wild life eating waste food, not plastic.

Whilst I agree that all or almost all waste food will end up as food for other living things eventually, I’m not convinced this is of any great benefit to the environment, since most of it will be concentrated in landfill sites.

> I’m not convinced this is of any great benefit to the environment.

Totally agree. We don’t normally grow human food for the purpose of benefitting the environment.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

most of the wasted food gets eaten by slaters and bacteria etc.

We were talking about wild life eating waste food, not plastic.

Whilst I agree that all or almost all waste food will end up as food for other living things eventually, I’m not convinced this is of any great benefit to the environment, since most of it will be concentrated in landfill sites.

> I’m not convinced this is of any great benefit to the environment.

Totally agree. We don’t normally grow human food for the purpose of benefitting the environment.

We used to do so though. It wasn’t that far in the past that it is ancient history.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

We were talking about wild life eating waste food, not plastic.

Whilst I agree that all or almost all waste food will end up as food for other living things eventually, I’m not convinced this is of any great benefit to the environment, since most of it will be concentrated in landfill sites.

> I’m not convinced this is of any great benefit to the environment.

Totally agree. We don’t normally grow human food for the purpose of benefitting the environment.

We used to do so though. It wasn’t that far in the past that it is ancient history.

No “we” didn’t (sorry Transition).

We have always grown human food to feed humans.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

> I’m not convinced this is of any great benefit to the environment.

Totally agree. We don’t normally grow human food for the purpose of benefitting the environment.

We used to do so though. It wasn’t that far in the past that it is ancient history.

No “we” didn’t (sorry Transition).

We have always grown human food to feed humans.

but but with or without benefitting the environs?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

We used to do so though. It wasn’t that far in the past that it is ancient history.

No “we” didn’t (sorry Transition).

We have always grown human food to feed humans.

but but with or without benefitting the environs?

Both.

Depending on how you measure ‘benefit’.