there are many questions we should ask
ourselves when we go to the grocery
store does it matter if it's organic
what about how far did the food travel
to get to your table what kind of milk
should you buy in this video we will
answer all these questions and more here
is everything you should know before you
go to the grocery store first let's look
into why you should avoid cheap meat
1.92 cents that was the average price of
one pound of chicken in 2019 that's
almost half of what it was in 1960 at
the same time the beef price fell by
roughly 20 percent the world now
produces more than three times the
amount of meat is in nineteen
all this while more and more evidence
reveals that meat production has a huge
negative impact on the environment
climate and human health
and here we are more people are eating
meat because it's cheap and delicious
but production on an industrial level is
coming at an exorbitant price how did we
end up here how did meat prices get so
cheap
let's take a look
on average americans consumed 180 pounds
of beef pork and poultry in 2018 10
percent more than in 1970 americans pay
a lower per capita rate for most foods
than anywhere else in the world less
than 10 percent of american household
budget goes toward food meanwhile meat
production results in carbon dioxide
emission methane and other global
warming gases and also plays a role in
deforestation and the overuse of
fertilizers to understand how we got
here we need to look into the history of
meat production and how it has changed
over the years in the early decades of
the 20th century in the midwest of the
united states farmers raised animals
they would then ship the live animals to
stockyards in major metropolitan areas
around the country those animals would
be processed there and later sold to
local butchers who would cut them into
stakes and sell to consumers fast
forward to post world war ii the local
butcher expanded into grocery stores and
the technology to ship refrigerated
foods became available grocery stores
started to look for suppliers that could
ship the meat already processed not the
big animal pieces like before the
packing houses then moved out of the
metropolitan areas and built facilities
close to where animals were being raised
this was the beginning of the
infrastructure we have today at this
time the industry started to adapt to
consumers taste instead of sending all
cuts of meat they started shipping
specific cuts and the whole operation of
raising slaughtering and processing into
something easy to buy and cook moved
very far from consumers all the
streamlining that these changes demanded
contributed to making meat production
more efficient and therefore cheaper but
one other development would become the
most consequential change in the
industry we are talking about
consolidation today the american market
is dominated by three big companies
tyson jbs and cargill together these
three mega conglomerates control
two-thirds of the beef and about half of
the chicken market in the united states
the pork market also has one other
bigger player smithfield owned by
chinese conglomerate wh group together
they determine prices production
conditions and even push for regulations
the number of slaughterhouses has
decreased by about 70 percent since 1976
from 2001 to 2019 not one year went by
without tyson announcing another
acquisition as companies got larger in
production scaled up the costs per unit
decreased and created a cycle of cheaper
prices more sales more powerful
companies and consequences with a direct
impact on consumers consolidation led to
big changes in the way need is processed
it is important to understand that the
larger the plant the lower the prices
per pounding process
but a cheaper price also means
significant changes in the production
chain
in this reality everyone takes a hit
animals workers and suppliers everybody
has to sacrifice and suffer so the final
product is cheap enough to sell millions
of pounds every day while still
generating big profits for the
conglomerates
in the chicken industry for example the
big companies control the entire process
from chicken genetics to packaging from
1925 to 2015 the average days to market
for a u.s chicken has been reduced from
112 to 48 days at the same time the
average chicken's weight has ballooned
from a market weight of 2.5 pounds to
6.24 pounds with only one animal the
industry can have almost three times
more meat in less than half the time
as the industries consolidated
productivity growth and optimization
became the norm with a profound impact
on the workers conditions this became
very obvious during 2020 when the world
tried to adapt to the covet 19 pandemic
according to the food and environment
reporting network from april until the
end of november 2020 at least 555 meat
plants have had confirmed cases of covet
19 at least 49
454 workers on these plants have been
infected and 254 have died a huge pork
facility belonging to smithfield in
sioux falls south dakota for example
became one of the biggest covet hot
spots of the sector out of the 3700
workers
1294 tested positive
jobs like the so-called gut snatchers
people who slice open pigs and pull out
the intros require people to work in
close quarters if they follow social
distancing rules productivity would be
reduced and therefore scale effects of
production and prices would be affected
in the pork industry nine out of 10 hogs
are slaughtered in plants that could
process more than 1 million animals a
year
in the cattle industry a little more
than 50 plants are responsible for as
much as 98 percent of slaughtering and
processing in the united states shutting
down one of these plants is like
shutting down an airport hub and has a
knock-on effect impacting the entire
chain and therefore on the meat price
and supplies throughout the country no
matter what happens a government always
avoids endangering the country's food
supply closing one of the giant
factories never seem to be an option and
this gives the neat lobby immense power
so it is no surprise that there are few
regulations for this industry in
september 2019 the us department of
agriculture simplified the oversight of
slaughterhouses where pigs are killed
and processed the new regulations
changed two things first it gave local
plant employees more responsibility for
inspections
second it removed limits on line speed
that means they can kill as many pigs as
they want per minute prior to the new
guidelines factories were allowed to
slaughter a maximum of one thousand and
one hundred and six hogs per hour this
limit does not exist anymore similar
changes happened in the poultry industry
and are likely to happen in the beef
sector in the near future
critics have also blamed the meat
industry's mega infrastructure for
spreading diseases
in 2018 for example jbs ordered the
largest recall of ground beef in u.s
history about 12 million pounds of
contaminated beef infected with a virile
and strain of salmonella in 30 states
made 403 people sick and 117 were
hospitalized after the recall less than
two percent of the meat was recovered
abuse of power is another problem that
arises from the development of the meat
industry the u.s department of
agriculture said that jbs underpaid
family farmers and ranchers in 2019 at
three slaughterhouses in colorado
nebraska and texas by claiming the
cattle weighed less than they did
delivering a huge loss to the families
they were fined seventy nine thousand
dollars for this illegal practice this
amount is almost nothing for a company
with net revenue of roughly 40 billion
dollars in 2019
it's almost impossible to hold these
giants accountable
the lobbying abilities of these meat
producers are seemingly limitless
according to the washington post jbs
alone has spent 7.7 million dollars on
lobbying
meanwhile the company has won more than
900 million dollars in government need
contracts and jbs is not the only one
wielding its power over government the
leverage that these giant meat producers
exercise over both republicans and
democrats is huge basically no
government official wants to collide
with such important food suppliers
they have the market in a stranglehold
and are able to sometimes get away with
serious problems like the environmental
consequences of the production
the british newspaper the guardian
published an article in july 2020 saying
that there are signs that need giant jbs
used cattle supply from a farm in the
brazilian amazon which is under sanction
for illegal deforestation it was the
fifth time that the company was linked
to such accusations jbs according to the
article denied the story
in 2017 a report by mighty an
environmental group linked tyson foods
to the widespread manure and fertilizer
pollution contaminating water in the
gulf of mexico the report said that
tyson slaughters 35 million chickens
125 000 heads of cattle every week and
that 5 million acres of corn are needed
to feed all the animals annually
it also stated that this consumption
resulted in tyson generating 55 million
tons of manure in one year with 104
million tons of pollutants dumped into
waterways in one decade
mighty earth also accused cargill of
operating a soy plantation on indigenous
land in brazil and being one of the u.s
top 10 polluters
tyson and cargill also denied any
wrongdoing
the impact of meat on the environment is
so big that the intergovernmental panel
on climate change has already stated
that human diets have a fundamental
influence on tackling climate change and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions
without any changes in our diet the ipcc
predicts that co2 emissions due to food
production and consumption are expected
to double by twenty fifty if animal
sourced food could be completely avoided
a global decrease of up to eight billion
tons of co2 by 2050 is possible zero
animal meat consumption might not be
realistic but there are alternatives
plant-based meat for example could be
part of the solution but due to the low
price of animal meat these products are
still not nearly as competitive price
wise the average price for plant-based
meat sold in grocery stores in the u.s
in 2019 was 9.87 cents per pound 70
percent more than beef and even five
times the price of chicken
while the plant-based meat industry is
still at the very beginning making up
about 0.5 percent of meat sales in the
us the secret to success might be to
copy the animal meat industry process
hope lies in more efficiency from the
companies along with government
subsidies this might lead to lower
prices but who knows until then it's
everyone's responsibility to understand
how the system works and what is behind
that very cheap pack of meat on the
counter
now we will look into what is behind
milk production and how you can choose
the right substitute
we put milk in our coffee pour it over
our cereal use it for baking cooking and
we all love cheese but what most people
don't know is that behind all of these
delicious things is an industry going
through some seismic changes there have
never been so few dairy farms in the
united states as today
look what happened to the number of
farms in the state of wisconsin which
for a long time was an industry leader
at the same time milk production has
consistently been growing for decades
with supply levels high in minimum price
fluctuations margins sank in small and
medium dairy farms suffered the result
was a drastic process of consolidation
in the sector that led to the
concentration of production and bigger
farms one of the characteristics of
these producers is the way animals are
treated most have exclusively confined
animals with cows being milked several
times per day for activists and ngos
this is the equivalent of animal cruelty
some even question if drinking cow milk
is ethical meanwhile milk substitutes
have been gaining market shares all over
the world let's see what is behind this
phenomenon to better understand the
transformation that the dairy sector has
gone through in the united states over
the past decades we need to look at
numbers dairy farms peaked in the 1930s
when there were 3.6 million of them
today the country has only 37 000 left
the sector has changed a lot but remains
economically important with an estimated
impact of 620 billion dollars annually
in the united states
production has been growing and has
surpassed 212 billion pounds in 2020
that is thanks to dairy derived products
like yogurt and cheese while the average
american is drinking less milk than ever
milk consumption per person has dropped
40 since 1975
a trend that is accelerating every year
on average an american drank 109 liters
of milk in 1975 and only 66.2 liters in
2018
it is not only consumer behavior that
changed dairy farms have changed
dramatically as well they are more
concentrated and bigger as corporations
and big players have absorbed most of
the small and medium-sized producers the
dairy industry consolidated faster than
any other agricultural sector in the us
for example consolidation in crop
production doubled within the 30 years
between 1986 and 2016
at the same time consolidation among
dairy producers increased by 16-fold for
example in 1992 there were 16
315 farms with a herd size between 10
and 49 cows in 2017 there were only 11
479 farms the same size
meanwhile the farms with more than a
thousand cows passed from 564 in 1992 to
1009
in 2017
over the past decade twenty thousand
dairy farms have gone out of business
while average milk production per farm
rose more than five-fold between 1987
and 2017. this reflects an industry with
bigger and more efficient farms
one able to deliver a lot more milk per
cow this happened due to practices some
activists consider cruel and
unacceptable and a lot of it has to do
with the size of the farm and the way it
is managed there are big differences
between larger and smaller dairy farms
and their production practices the small
ones usually are family-owned businesses
with family labor and homegrown feed
where cows have more time out of barns
and are milked daily the bigger ones
however usually rely on hired labor
purchase feed and confine their animals
within barns or lots for the majority of
their existence among the farms with
more than 2 000 cows in the united
states 96.1 percent of them never graze
their animals and 61.5 percent milk
their cows three times per day among
farms with 10 to 49 cows only 22.6
percent of them never graze their
animals and none milk their cows three
times a day but some facts do not change
according to the size of the farms it's
important to know that dairy cows are
repeatedly impregnated by artificial
insemination and have their newborns
removed at birth usually the female
calves have their horn buds destroyed
when they are about eight weeks old for
what producers argue is a matter of
security for the employees they are then
kept in individual pens until they are
ready to be impregnated the male calves
have an even sadder destiny they are
usually sent to veal farms or cattle
ranches a normal dairy cow can live up
to 20 years but its milk production
lasts an average of five so five years
is the average lifespan of such cows in
the united states after that yes they
will probably also be sent to a
slaughterhouse
most of them will spend their life
inside a concrete floored enclosure if
they are lucky to be born among a
producer that allows grazing
possibilities they might see the world
but most do not producers try to reject
the notion that dairy farming is
inhumane and cruel according to the new
york times the national milk producers
federation which represents most of the
country's dairy farms is encouraging
veterinarians visits and workers trained
in humane cow handling and phasing out
tail docking the practice of cutting a
cow's tail off
all of this could lead to improvements
in the treatment of dairy cows but might
not be enough to change public opinions
in october 2020 the ngo animal outlook
published an investigation at a dairy
factory farm in southern california the
images show sick cows unable to walk
subjected to extremely painful treatment
that shocked the world besides that the
environmental impact of milk production
is also under the spotlight a 2018 study
by the university of oxford showed that
producing one glass of dairy milk
results in almost three times more
greenhouse gas emissions than any
plant-based milk and uses up to nine
times more land
images like the ones published by animal
outlook and studies like the oxford one
are widely promoted online and are
leading a cultural change that will
impact the industry forever
milk one day seen as a healthy source of
protein and calcium no longer has a good
image and very often is seen as a result
of cruel practices and environmental
damage
in the end there are big challenges
ahead for an industry trying to survive
such a massive cultural shift but if cow
milk can be problematic what is the best
substitute there are many options let's
take a look at some of them
almond milk is by far one of the most
popular but it is also problematic as
its production requires more water than
any other dairy alternative to produce
one glass of almond milk one needs 61.5
liters of water according to a study
from oxford university the california
central valley is home to 70 percent of
the world's almond production and this
has had an impact on the bee population
yep nowadays 70 percent of the
commercial bees in the u.s are drafted
every spring to pollinate the almonds in
california and they are dying in record
numbers due to pesticide exposure and
diseases from parasites also commercial
bees are in most cases european
honeybees and the proliferation of this
species especially because of almond
farms is affecting and undermining the
ecosystem for all bees
retail sales of oat milk in the u.s
passed from 4.4 million dollars in 2017
to 29 million dollars in 2019
the good thing is oats are grown in
cooler climates and are not associated
with the deforestation of rain forests
in southern countries
another advantage is the fact that oats
are also used as animal feed that means
that much before people started drinking
milk there was already a lot of oat
production in the world using a part of
this production for milk is pretty
reasonable and won't affect the
environment in a damaging way but it's
not all perfect of course
most of the oats in the world come from
mass-produced monoculture operations
that very often use pesticides
and this might end up in your milk
[Music]
well just take a look where a lot of the
soybeans are being produced big chunks
of rain forest in the amazon in brazil
have been burned to make way for soy
farms but not all soy production is a
result of deforestation if the soy on
your milk does not come from areas like
the brazilian amazon soy milk can be a
very good milk substitute the oxford
study showed that soy is the only plant
milk that comes close to offering a
protein content comparable to dairy
from a nutritional point of view rice
milk doesn't offer much
there are not enough nutrients to be
considered a real dairy substitute from
an environmental point of view it can
also be problematic rice plantations use
a lot of water and produce more
greenhouse gas emissions than any other
plant milk in summary it's better to
stick to other options
in a nutshell not a great option
coconut trees are concentrated in poorer
tropical countries the recent global
surge for the product has caused the
exploitation of workers who are paid
very little as well as the destruction
of the environment where they are found
farmers in countries like the
philippines indonesia and india used to
feed their families and produce for
local communities
this is disappearing in a culture of
exploitation and destruction is taking
over
in summary the most important thing is
to know the origin of your milk there
are ways to consume responsibly
regardless of your favorite drink in the
end the best way to make an informative
decision is to make sure you know where
it comes from and how it's produced
now we will explain why it's important
to know where your food comes from
you probably already noticed that every
time you go to the supermarket and check
your foods labels they don't usually
come from somewhere nearby
in fact sometimes they come from very
far away bananas from central america
berries from south america fish from
china even meet from very distant new
zealand but how bad is it for the
environment should we just eat local
hold on things are not that simple let's
look into it the united states has never
imported so much food the numbers are
staggering from 1999 to 2017
the total passed from 43 billion dollars
to 137 billion the amount of imported
fruits in the markets has increased more
than three times in the same period and
the number of vegetables also saw growth
of more than threefold the us imported
most of the food from mexico followed by
canada france italy and china all of
this food traveling around the world
poses some questions does it make sense
to buy food that came from so far away
in an era of global warming and climate
change why do we need to eat a piece of
meat from an animal raised on the other
side of the world these concerns became
a theory in the term food miles was
coined in the 1990s by tim lane a city
university of london professor the term
is used to present the distance that the
food is transported from the place it's
produced until it reaches the consumer
and can also be used to measure the
carbon footprint of a product
basically speaking the longer the
product travels more energy is needed
and therefore the worse it is for the
environment a big movement of buy local
eat local was created in response to
this environment activists started to
believe that food from distant countries
was probably worth avoiding and the
locally produced fruits meat and
vegetables from the nearby farmers
market was probably a better choice but
things are not as simple as they seem
food miles alone does not show exactly
how bad a carbon footprint of a product
is
it is certainly one of the indicators
but taking it alone can lead to a false
sense of green responsibility a better
way of calculating the environmental
impact of a product is called life cycle
assessment and takes into consideration
more than just how far away it was
transported it considers the production
process the way it is stored the
international distribution the way it is
processed packaged how it is locally
distributed how it's kept in the
supermarket and how it is dealt with by
the consumer
as we can see here in this graph food
miles are just a fraction of the actual
impact of the product on the environment
the life cycle assessment method takes
into account details like the kind of
fertilizers it is used for production
what kind of packaging and the way the
product is disposed of and recycling
possibilities but although more complex
than just looking into food miles the
method is also not perfect and might
still leave out some important aspects
of food production of the calculation
like the social impact in summary it's
very complicated to precisely say what
the carbon footprint of our food is
so much so that even companies that
tried to calculate and label all
products have had a hard time doing so a
famous case is from british supermarket
chain tesco one of the biggest in the
world
in 2007 they announced the plan of
labeling the carbon footprint of all the
seventy thousand products they had in
stores
five years later they called off the
plan blaming the amount of work in the
process the difficulties involved and
other supermarket chains that were not
doing the same
figuring out carbon footprint is hard
because we must look into the details if
we look at food miles for example there
are many nuances the way the food is
transported is very important cargo
ships are the most efficient followed by
trains then trucks and lastly planes
a container transported on a ship emits
0.14 kilograms of co2 per ton kilometer
while this number is
by plane
but if we look at how food is
transported around the world nowadays
only 0.16 are transported by planes and
58.97
are transported by ships
scientists of lincoln university
discovered that a piece of lamb meat
produced and sold in the uk can have a
higher carbon footprint than if produced
in new zealand and transported to the uk
by ship they analyzed in both countries
the water use harvesting techniques
fertilizer outlays renewable energy
applications means of transportation and
the kind of fuel used the amount of
carbon dioxide absorbed during
photosynthesis disposal of packaging
storage procedures and dozens of other
cultivation inputs through their
calculations a land raised on new
zealand clover choked pasture and
shipped eleven thousand miles by ship to
britain produced one thousand five
hundred and twenty pounds of carbon
dioxide emissions per ton
at the same time if this same lamb was
produced in britain using the feed it
would produce six thousand two hundred
and eighty pounds of carbon dioxide per
ton in summary buying british lamb from
the local market would be more damaging
to the environment than buying from new
zealand
however there are also examples of
studies that point in the other
direction that's the case with german
apples in general countries that produce
apples can sell fresh ones year-round
without importing this is thanks to a
technology called controlled atmosphere
the apples are usually harvested in the
autumn with the second semester in the
northern hemisphere and are stored in
rooms with controlled temperature oxygen
carbon dioxide and humidity levels this
way the stored apples do not fully
develop but let's say they go to sleep
this allows apples to stay fresh for
longer after harvest than if they were
simply refrigerated that's how you can
buy local apples the whole year but does
this increase the apple's carbon
footprint is it still better to buy
local two german scientists tried to
answer this question they compared
german stored apple's energy use to
fresh apples imported from new zealand
different from the lamb meat from the uk
the german apples had a better result
taking into consideration all the
emissions from cultivation to consumer
shopping the local apple stored in a
controlled atmosphere required 5.893
megajoules per kilo while the imported
apples from new zealand required 7
499 megajoules per kilo but again it's
not that simple the two scientists
calculated the impact of keeping the
apples for five months in the apple
industry it's not rare for the fruit to
stay in these stored rooms for more than
that if it stays nine months for example
importing from new zealand might be a
better solution and it also depends on
what kind of energy is used in the
process
in summary food miles can be indicators
of an environmental impact but alone are
not usually enough to point out the
actual damage the best way is to look at
the whole food supply chain but there
are ways of making informed decisions
when it comes to what food and from
where you should buy let's look into
some important actions you can start
taking to minimize the carbon footprint
of your food
if you are going to worry about food
miles make sure that you avoid what is
transported by air
this includes perishable products such
as asparagus green beans strawberries
and other berries
just as an example let's take a look at
the difference in co2 emissions between
green beans that are found in dutch
supermarkets
the ones coming from kenya by plane emit
much more co2 than the ones grown
locally or from morocco which arrived in
the country by sea
so regardless of what you buy just make
sure it arrived at your city by land or
sea never by air
the best way to avoid berries traveling
around the world by plane is not eating
them all year round purchasing in season
produce can help you reduce the carbon
footprint of your food
this way it's very much likely that you
are not only going to avoid the products
coming from far away but you will also
avoid the local ones that are cultivated
in heated greenhouses or stored in cold
storage the amount of energy used in
in-season products is usually lower and
can result in products with a lower
carbon footprint
don't forget the way you consume also
impacts the carbon footprint of your
food if you are buying a couple of
oranges and placing them in a plastic
bag the carbon footprint is already much
higher than if you took them home in
your tote bag
make sure you avoid packaging when not
necessary and remember any petrochemical
derived packaging along the way just
increases the carbon footprint of your
food
[Music]
it is always important to check where
your food comes from as we saw in this
video distance alone is not the only
information that matters when it comes
to carbon footprint but it can be very
important
and if the package does not have the
information about how the product got to
you knowing where it comes from can help
you understand the journey that the food
took to get to your table there is
plenty of information available online
and it is usually possible to find out
how the journey might have impacted the
environment do your research
you don't need to be a radical vegan to
make a difference but reducing the
consumption of foods with a high carbon
footprint can already be helpful the
total emissions from global livestock
are 7.1 gigatons of co2 per year this is
14.5 percent of all greenhouse gas
emissions by human activities cattle are
the animal species responsible for about
65 percent of the livestock sector's
emissions reducing the amount of beef
consumption would already be a step in
the right direction if your idea is to
reduce the carbon footprint of your diet
in the end knowing what you eat and
where it comes from can make a huge
difference be aware pay attention
research and make sure that what you eat
is in line with the world you want to
live in
and next we will explain why some people
believe that less consumption is the
only alternative for a sustainable
future
you probably remember when greta
thundberg accused world leaders of
believing in fairy tales of eternal
economic growth how dare you she said
the climate activist was livid she
believes that leaders should focus on
discussing how constant growth is
destroying the planet instead and she is
not alone a lot of people believe that
the only way to avoid climate
catastrophe and provide a better life to
the population is to shrink production
and consumption causing an economy to
degrow forget gdp growth the d growth
movement wants to redefine the system
with different targets and reshape the
world as we know it but does it make
sense
let's look into it
to understand what the d growth movement
wants we need to understand our
situation at the moment if we look at
what scientists are warning about
climate change it's hard to disagree
that our societies need to go in a new
direction
according to goals decided by the paris
climate accord the world needs to limit
global warming to well below 2 degrees
preferably to 1.5 degrees celsius
compared to pre-industrial levels
scientists believe that we would be
heading to catastrophic effects of
climate change if we cross this
threshold right now there is a 40
percent chance that global temperatures
reach 1.5 degrees celsius above
pre-industrial levels in the next five
years the latest prediction indicates
that every year until 2025 will be at
least one degree celsius warmer this
does not mean that the world will be 1.5
degrees warmer in the long term there is
still time to change but it does show
that we are on the wrong track to avoid
this scenario we need to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions in the
atmosphere those are gases like carbon
dioxide methane and nitrous oxides they
are largely considered the drivers of
global warming and we are producing a
lot of these gases in 25 years the
emissions grew around 15 billion tons
but reducing the emissions of these
gases is not something easy that's
because our lifestyle is just possible
as a result of those ignitions the
biggest source of these gases is the
energy used in the industries it
accounts for around 24 percent of all
emissions electricity use transport and
also agriculture and land use have a big
impact as well
in summary producing more means more
emissions heating our houses eating meat
driving cars flying all of these
activities emit gases that are warming
the planet and therefore threatening our
existence and although there is a lot of
talk right now most of the countries are
not reducing their emissions a study
shows that only 64 countries managed to
reduce their emissions since the paris
agreement was signed in 150 countries
the emissions grew since then globally
emissions grew by 240 million tons of
co2 per year during 2016 to 2019
compared to the previous four years the
situation is getting so dramatic that
scientists believe that just small
things like a personal dietary change or
starting to drive an electric car while
everything continues business as usual
won't make any significant difference we
need to think of solutions to
decarbonize the economy as a whole to do
that the leaders around the world
essentially rely on two solutions
traditional green technologies like wind
and solar energy sources and what is
known as negative emissions technologies
which is basically a way of compensating
your emissions with something else like
reforestation for example if we look at
the world energy consumption just a
small fraction of the energy used today
is renewable it's unrealistic to expect
the transition from fossil fuel to green
sources will be fast enough to save us
from the impacts of global warming and
while world leaders discuss strategies
the de-growthers are demanding more
radical changes
[Music]
the d growth movement believes that the
climate targets set by countries are not
ambitious enough and that there is no
way we can avoid climate catastrophe if
we don't change how our economy works
the de-growthers want countries to
reconsider the value of the growth of
the gross domestic product as a metric
for progress and find ways to live
within the limits of nature the gdp is
the total value of goods produced in
services provided in a country during
one year they see no other strategy to
avoid climate catastrophe than forcing
countries to reduce their output in
consumption causing the economy to
degrow
they believe this is the change we need
for them if growth is going to continue
the consequences ecologically and
socially will be very bad
and although it might seem radical for
some a study by york university has
shown that it might be our only solution
to fight climate change and its
consequences the scientists compared the
greenhouse gas emissions within three
scenarios normal growth slow growth and
d growth using the canadian economy as a
simulation model the results show the d
growth is the only way to drastically
reduce emissions in a timeline from 2005
to 2035 the study shows that greenhouse
gas emissions continue to rise in the
business as usual scenario growing 77
during the period in a no growth
scenario the greenhouse gas emissions
would be reduced by 22 percent and
degrowth would reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by 78 percent
canada's long-term goal is to reduce
emissions by 80 percent below 2005
levels by 2050. according to the study d
growth is the only way the country could
achieve this goal
[Music]
for de-growthers downscaling production
and consumption would not necessarily
result in a recession as we know it but
looking at how the economy works it is
hard to believe that this would not be
the case to understand that we need to
understand how gdp is calculated the
number can be quantified in different
ways but the most common method adds up
consumption investment government
spending and net exports less production
and consumption would mean fewer exports
and fewer revenues for companies and
taxes for the government it's hard to
see how we would downsize our production
and consumption as de-growthers want and
at the same time avoid a recession and
well-known consequences like rising
poverty and unemployment rates but the
de-growthers don't see it this way
in contrast to a recession for them the
process of degrowing an economy should
be planned and accompanied with measures
that would reduce risks of negative
impact in the society
among others they want to shorten the
working week introduce measures
providing job guarantee with a living
wage review the tax system with the
super rich paying a lot more taxes and
create policies to expand universal
access to health care education and
housing following this chain of thought
those planned actions would mean better
living standards to the population while
reducing production and consumption and
its impact on the environment in summary
what d growthers want is not just about
producing and consuming less but also
reforming the pillars of the capitalist
society we live in
[Music]
it has happened before if we go way back
income per capita at the end of the
first millennium was lower than at the
beginning of the christian era in egypt
and byzantium for example we could say
that in those two places somehow there
was d growth for almost a thousand years
in europe we don't need to go back too
much in time in the 500 years that
preceded the industrial revolution there
was no growth at all in the continent in
india income per person shrank
consistently between the 17th to late
19th centuries so as we can see it's
possible and it has happened consistent
economic growth around the world is a
quite new phenomenon and began around
200 years ago with the industrial
revolution so in a way humans have lived
long eras with no growth there is no
reason to think it's not possible to do
it again it's also important to mention
that those were not always peaceful
times
back then when a country didn't have
enough resources to keep its population
safe and fed conquest and plunder of
other nations became a mechanism of
growth how can we expect that countries
will not behave in such a manner again
it's hard to predict what a world of no
growth would bring upon us
[Music]
among d growthers there is a debate
about how to implement it and which
country should do it some believe that
the theory should be put in practice
exclusively in rich countries some not
after the industrial revolution rich
countries were able to develop mainly
because they burned lots of fossil fuels
like coal and petroleum but how about
the countries that have not yet
developed in a world where every economy
needs to de-grow poor countries would
suffer the most with the consequences
forcing poor and middle-income countries
to de-grow or not grow at all would have
a devastating impact on the lives of the
citizens of these countries although gdp
growth is not a perfect measure to
calculate living standards and poverty
reduction it's known that every one
percent increase in gdp per head reduces
poverty by around 1.7 percent removing
the possibility of growth would mean
stripping countries of a way of taking
people out of poverty
that's why some believe that rich
countries should de-grow and reduce
emissions while poorer countries grow
and occupy the carbon space
the problem is complex and fewer
emissions in rich countries cannot mean
that poor countries can burn their ways
to development but a degrowth strategy
could see the less privileged slip into
a cycle of poverty unemployment and no
money to invest
for now degrowth is still a theory that
delivers more noise than practical
solutions in a world recovering from a
recession caused by covet 19 it's hard
to believe that not growing is on top of
the agenda of any government at the
moment but thinking about solutions that
can avoid climate catastrophe is urgent
and if shrinking economies might not be
the priority putting the well-being of
people as the main goal should not be
seen as radical or revolutionary but
necessary
and now let's look into how the chewing
gum market which has previously enjoyed
big success is now struggling
chewing gum was a sign of coolness and
rebellion for a long time hollywood
stars chewed on it with confidence in
the 1940s and pop culture references
were abundant throughout the 70s 80s and
90s
every cool character in a movie or tv
series was chewing gum everyone chewed
with pride
at the same time the industry thrived
new flavors products without sugar and
the classic spearmint kept the market
growing for years
until it didn't
from 2009 on sale started to decline the
decade that followed was lost year after
year sales dropped and just like that
chewing gum was not cool anymore but
what is behind this phenomenon let's
take a look at what is making this
industry struggle after a decade of
falling sales the chewing gum industry
continued to register disappointing
results in the united states in the year
up to july 2020 the whole gum market
continued shrinking
a producer has blamed the sharp decrease
during corona lockdown on people being
less concerned about bad breath
but the pandemic on its own does not
explain the long-term decrease
analysts believe that there are many
reasons behind these numbers and it's
not very obvious some even referred to
the phenomenon as somehow mysterious it
is a combination of facts and it has to
do with different aspects of our society
that are changing our behaviors let's
dive into what can explain the fall of
chewing
[Music]
gum it's no coincidence that the slow
sales of gum happened pretty much at the
same time that healthy eating and
organic food became the trend
millennials the generation born after
1980 that started to enter the labor
market more or less at the same time the
chewing gum started to decline is famous
for worrying about the source of what
they eat
a morgan stanley study showed that they
especially care about food being fresh
less processed and with fewer artificial
ingredients and they want products that
are natural organic and sustainable
among this generation chewing a piece of
chemical product added with artificial
sweeteners and flavors just for the sake
of chewing is not a trending behavior
alternative breath fresheners such as
mints with less artificial ingredients
are preferred in most cases chewing gum
is made with many unpronounceable
substances and sometimes even sugar it's
no coincidence that the sugary chewing
gum category was especially hit by this
crisis the sales of gum with sugar
decreased more than the entire category
the industry aware of these trends is
trying to adapt big players are
launching new versions of the product
without sugar without artificial flavors
or with special natural components
they are all trying to find niches and
trying to give gum a makeover all of
this in the hope that maybe if it looks
environmentally friendly naturally
produced and tastes good the industry
can still convince consumers to chew
again
[Music]
one other popular theory trying to
justify the decline of the market claims
that self-checkout lanes have eroded the
last minute impulse purchases which are
especially important for chewing gum it
was during this time waiting to pay for
your groceries in front of the cashier
that people would reach for the product
according to estimates purchases that
are made right before customers checkout
are responsible for between 85 percent
to 90 percent of overall chewing gum
sales but fewer and fewer people are
finding themselves in line to pay for
their groceries around 48 percent of
consumers in the united states said they
used self-service checkouts almost all
the time and 60 percent of them said
they prefer to self-checkout over store
associates if they could choose a study
has found that impulse purchases made by
women and men fall significantly on
self-checkouts when compared to those
made in a staffed environment this has
hurt the sector so much because checkout
zones are one of the highest areas for
sales and stores and confectionary items
represent 22.5 of those sales with gum
accounting for almost half of this total
this means that long lines in the
supermarket cashier were an ally of the
chewing gum market impulse buy was an
important pillar of sales and this is
slowly disappearing when they are paying
for their products on self-checkout
stations consumers are focused on
checking out and leaving the store they
go from the shopping mode to the
transaction mode and don't look around
much it seems like in these situations
somehow all the chewing gum resting in
front of them has no appeal
[Music]
[Applause]
another reason that could be behind the
decrease in sales is the increase in
online shopping the amount of americans
buying groceries online is growing and
chewing gum is not the ideal product for
e-commerce most of the time it's a small
product low priced and usually not the
reason why people go shopping gum ends
on carts while people are passing by
buying groceries that are higher on
priority it's very hard to convince
customers to buy chewing gum in an
online environment and e-commerce retail
sales are growing consistently in the
last years and represent already 13.6
percent of total sales in the united
states the coveted pandemic was also
responsible for a spike in this number
with more people doing their groceries
online the chances that a pack of gum
will end up as part of the online
shopping list are much smaller another
problem is the amazon effect
according to estimates around 50 percent
of all chewing gum online sales are done
on amazon but the volume is still much
smaller brands selling on amazon are not
big players like mars wrigley's and
cadbury which usually represent most of
the in-store sales the brands that are
being successful in this online
environment usually look different they
are startups usually betting on a niche
trying to redefine the chewing gum
experience and they might be a way out
of the crisis for the sector but it
won't be simple let's take a look at
what the years ahead look like
[Music]
with sales and decline and a bad image
is there hope for the chewing gum
industry yes there are some positive
facts as well
after the sales in february this year
fell 30 percent in comparison with 2020
early april saw the growth recover and
in may sales jumped more than 23 percent
unfortunately the rhythm of growth has
already decelerated after may and after
a decade of decline this is not near the
recovery that the sector needs but it
could be the first sign that chewing gum
might have a place in a post-pandemic
world what seems to be clear is that
maybe the growth of traditional chewing
gum will never be the same again it's
important to mention that worldwide and
in some countries especially in asia
sales of traditional chewing gum are
still thriving but more and more the
sector will have to innovate and right
now it seems like the alternatives are
not on the big producers but on startups
trying to redefine the product
in a way they are focusing on the
benefits of chewing an oral health
company released a gum that helps
prevent cavities for example it's sold
together with toothbrushes dental floss
and toothpastes another is betting on
exotic flavor a favorite of millennials
there are also brands claiming their
chewing gums can help boost the immune
system and there is also a caffeinated
version that could replace your cup of
coffee every morning
they are all online most of the time on
amazon and claiming to have growing
sales
this could be an alternative for the
market but it's still too early to tell
the companies are still very niche with
no big volumes it seems that people are
not very keen on chewing just for the
sake of chewing or to look like a rebel
or cool person anymore in 2021 maybe
chewing needs to come with extra
benefits
[Music]
chewing on something for no reason is an
old human habit ancient greeks chewed on
bark but the classic chicken a white
resin from a mexican tree that would be
the origin of the modern chewing gum
made its way to people's mouths during
the mayans and aztec civilizations
natural from a sappadilla tree the
product arrived in the united states
from mexico in the mid 19th century
first without any additives it was sold
as small gray rolled balls with no
flavor later on producers started adding
sugar and creating versions with
peppermint william wrigley the founder
of wrigley's one of the biggest us
producers that now is part of mars
conglomerate was the first one to add
spearmint flavor he was also the one
that pushed the marketing to a different
level and popularized the product in the
early stages of the business his company
sent a package of four spearmint chewing
gum to all of the 1.5 million people
listed in the u.s phone book at the same
time it created a chain of 117
billboards in the shape of a gum wrapper
along a railway in new jersey the sails
exploded and wrigley created a lucrative
empire that still survives
since the first world war american
soldiers have chewing gum in their
rations this has helped spread the habit
around the world according to some
specialists by the 40s the demand for
chickel was so big that trees were dying
off after so much extraction and
producers were not keeping it up with so
many orders this fact combined with a
hike in taxes on imported material which
ended with higher prices made u.s
producers start looking for synthetic
alternatives this is how modern chewing
gum was created today chickel is a very
niche product it's rare to find
most of the companies use a mix of
synthetic material with naturals or just
synthetics that can include all kinds of
artificial rubbers and oil-derived
products as the industry struggles to
appeal to new generations one thing
seems to be obvious chewing gum just
isn't cool anymore
and whatever the reason is the fact is
that americans aren't buying as much gum
as they used to
if the industry is going to be able to
reinvent itself remains an open question
but maybe going back to the roots and
producing a more natural product
catering to a more health obsessed
generation could be the answer to the
crisis
so that's it for this video since you
made it to the end click around and keep
watching and don't forget to like our
video and subscribe to our channel