YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Spreco alimentare (Luca Falasconi)

Spreco alimentare (Luca Falasconi) — Transcript

by FormezPA · 9,881 words · 1,441 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:04So, we will start, as I always like to
0:06share at the beginning, with what I
0:08define as a series of paradoxes, a
0:10series of evidences that perhaps aren't
0:12always, uh, obvious to everyone
0:14regarding our relationship with food,
0:16regarding how, uh, we humans relate
0:18more or less, uh, to food. The first,
0:26the first thing that I always like to
0:33share is this: the fact that
0:34inequalities, to a certain extent,
0:36coexist with one another. I'll start
0:43with a fact that actually isn't on this
0:45slide, but it’s somewhat the basis of
0:46what we will be discussing today.
0:52Currently, according to data from the
0:54FAO, the global agricultural and
1:02agri-food system produces enough food
1:04to feed 12 billion people. And there
1:16are 8 billion of us, a little more, so
1:17that means we have a third more food
1:19than what we would need to feed
1:21everyone. The interesting part of this
1:28is that it is noted in the last line of
1:36this slide that there are two phenomena
1:38at opposite ends of nutrition which,
1:39despite being opposites, have
1:41dimensions that are quite similar. Food
1:49excess and food deficiency. Food excess
1:54. We have a little over 2 billion
1:57people suffering from the problem of
1:59being overweight, and 800 million
2:00people, a little more, who are obese.
2:09On the other side, deficiency: a little
2:11over 2 billion people suffer from some
2:13kind of deficiency, and of these, more
2:16or less depending on the year, 800
2:17million people suffer from quantitative
2:20food shortages. So these two phenomena,
2:31which are incredibly at opposite ends,
2:33present a very, very similar scale, and
2:35I reiterate, they rest on a foundation
2:37that tells us we produce food for 12
2:39billion people today. On the other hand
2:46, undernutrition versus being
2:53overweight, inequalities that coexist
2:55in many contexts, where we might
2:56rightly or wrongly think that the
2:58problem of undernutrition or
3:00deficiencies is greater than that of
3:02excess. As we can see in this slide, in
3:09some contexts, Mexico, Egypt, South
3:11Africa, Nigeria, Uganda, the problem is
3:13actually the opposite: food excess is
3:16greater than deficiency. The other
3:23interesting aspect to highlight is how
3:255%of the world's population manages, uh
3:27, or controls about 1/3 of the planet's
3:29food resources. Who is that 5%of the
3:35world's population? The United States.
3:38The United States controls more or less
3:411/3 of the global, uh, food production.
3:46So you understand what kind of weight
3:48there can be in this context. This is
3:54the snapshot we have just taken. Grant
3:57me what I am about to say. English can
4:02be helpful in these contexts, and what
4:04I am about to say shortly is the
4:06so-called "food for food," that is,
4:08food for our own nutrition. But as we
4:15will see, food is not only used to feed
4:17humans, and as I was saying, English
4:19can come to our aid. We also have what
4:24is called "food for feed," which is
4:26food used for animal consumption. I
4:31want to clarify and state this upfront.
4:33I am not a vegetarian, I am not a vegan
4:36, and I am not here to say, "Ah, we
4:38must all become vegetarians or vegans."
4:45If there are vegetarians or vegans
4:47among you, I at least welcome them with
4:49open arms, because everyone must have
4:51the relationship with food that they
4:52believe is best, that best suits their
4:54lifestyle, their behavior, and their
4:56ethics. And yet, for those who, like me
5:06, occasionally like to consume meat, I
5:08believe there are a series of facts and
5:10data that can be useful and interesting
5:12to know and keep in mind. And what are
5:19these facts that I want to share with
5:21you quickly? That one-third of global
5:27food production is destined as feed to
5:29produce large livestock animals. This,
5:39of course, is not a problem in itself,
5:41because if we naturally want to consume
5:43meat occasionally, we must raise these
5:45animals, so we must feed them and
5:47therefore share with them a portion of
5:49agricultural and plant-based food. What
5:55is the issue underlying this aspect,
5:57though? That the conversion—forgive
6:00the term I will use, which we will look
6:02at better—between......the plant
6:09world and the animal world is a
6:10loss-making conversion. In what sense?
6:14Here are a series of examples; we could
6:16look at it from various points of view.
6:19Here we will look at it from the point
6:20of view of calories; we could look at
6:22it from the point of view of protein,
6:24and the point remains the same. From
6:27the point of view of calories, as we
6:29see here in this slide. For every
6:32calorie of beef we produce, four
6:34vegetable calories are needed. For
6:38every calorie of pork we produce, three
6:40vegetable calories are needed. So, as I
6:44was saying, it is a loss-making
6:46conversion. By transforming the plant
6:48world into the animal world, we lose a
6:50portion of these calories. We could
6:54also put it another way. If we had a
6:59hectare of land and cultivated it with
7:01......and cultivated it with potatoes,
7:10that hectare of land would allow me to
7:12satisfy the nutritional needs of about
7:1422 people in terms of kilocalories
7:16alone for one year. If I cultivate it
7:22with rice, it satisfies the kilocalorie
7:25needs of 19 people. I cultivate it, uh,
7:30with forage or soy or corn, and that,
7:36that, that forage, that soy, that corn,
7:39I allocate for consumption, uh, uh,
7:46therefore for the production of animal
7:48feed, for the consumption of animals; I
7:50can, I can therefore satisfy the
7:52kilocalorie needs of one or two people,
7:54uh, depending on whether I allocate
7:56that feed, uh, to beef or to lambs. So
8:04we return to what we were saying
8:05earlier, the conversion of the plant
8:07world into the animal world, uh, is a
8:09loss-making conversion. Food for Feed.
8:15Earlier we saw Food for Food, here it's
8:17Food for Feed. In recent years, there
8:21has also been a different destination,
8:23in quotation marks, for food. Beyond us
8:28eating it, beyond feeding it to our
8:30animals, we somehow also feed it to our
8:33cars, so-called Food for Fuel. Uh, I'll
8:37start with the first piece of data. The
8:41first piece of data tells us that
8:43between 2005 and 2011, the United
8:45States, uh, tripled the amount of, uh,
8:47soy or corn that was allocated to the
8:50production of biofuels. They went from
8:5541 million tons to 127 million tons.
8:58Surely the first thing some of you
9:00might say to me is, "Luca, what kind of
9:02data are you giving us? 15-year-old
9:05data. You could have updated it these
9:09days when you prepared this
9:10presentation." What I can tell you is
9:14that I would have really liked to. But
9:16why am I giving you this data? Because
9:19since 2012, the United States has, uh,
9:25has avoided—that's the wrong term—
9:32they have closed off communication of
9:34this data; they have considered this
9:36data so strategic for their economic
9:38system that they classified it, and so
9:40since 2011 we have no more official
9:42information from the U.S. government.
9:49...on how much of the plant production,
9:51particularly corn and soy, is allocated
9:53to the production of biofuels. It has
10:00certainly increased; some unofficial
10:02statistics tell us it has increased
10:03enormously, but we don't have an
10:05official figure because the United
10:07States considers this a strategic piece
10:09of data that must not be released. The
10:14other interesting aspect is that, in
10:16this last part of this slide, is that,
10:20uh, the same amount of corn that could
10:28feed a person for an entire year (in
10:30this case, of course, we are only
10:32talking from the point of view of
10:34kilocalories), is the same amount of
10:36corn we need, uh, to produce enough
10:38biofuel to fill up a large-displacement
10:40car. So we are faced with a crossroads,
10:47in this case Food for Fuel. Do I feed a
10:51person for an entire year or do I fill
10:53up a car just one single time? The goal
11:01, as we were saying in today's lesson,
11:03is to talk about food waste, but
11:05naturally when we talk about food waste
11:07—and I'm not saying that what we've
11:09seen so far is food waste—it's, as I
11:11told you a bit earlier, a matter of
11:13food paradoxes. The last paradox, and
11:18it’s the one that brings us to, uh,
11:20oops, sorry, to our, um...to the topic
11:28of our first part of this lesson, uh,
11:30is what we see in this slide. Uh and
11:36what does this—what do these data
11:38tell us? That currently, and we will
11:42see this later, uh we note it in Italy,
11:54we can, let's say, see it again over
11:56several years, for some decades in
11:58Italy, each one of us could purchase
12:01and consume food for 3,700 kilocalories
12:03every day. As we will see later, as we
12:17will see shortly, in reality, uh, to
12:19live in a healthy and sufficient way,
12:21we need more or less between 1,800 and
12:242,000 kilocalories, and this would
12:26allow us to live in the best possible
12:28way in terms of kilocalories. We have
12:343,700 available to us every day. I link
12:39this figure to three other main pieces
12:42of data that tell us that 50%of men, 34
12:44%of women, and 24%of children in Italy
12:46suffer from the problem of being
12:48overweight. Now I am going to make a
12:53simplification, guys, for which I
12:55apologize, but I simply need it to lead
12:57us to ask a question. So, let's assume
13:06that all of us every day, uh, consumed
13:08those 3,700 kilocalories of food that
13:10we have available, being little less
13:12than double what we need to live in a
13:14healthy and sufficient way—here is
13:16the huge simplification I am making.
13:23It's very rough, but I reiterate, I
13:25need it to arrive at a question. If all
13:29of us consumed them, it means we would
13:31have to weigh double what we weigh,
13:32more or less, because we would be
13:34eating double what we should be eating.
13:37And so, but what do the data tell us?
13:40That, quote-unquote, only 50%of men, 34
13:43%of women, and 24%of children suffer
13:45from the problem of being overweight,
13:47which doesn't mean they are obese and
13:49weigh double what they should weigh;
13:51they have just eaten more. So I made
13:58this huge simplification, guys, to get
14:00to this question: "But where does all
14:02that quantity of food that we have
14:04available and do not consume end up?
14:11Let's leave that there for a moment
14:12because now we are going to take a look
14:14, uh, at the world, still using these
14:16data. If we go to look at developed
14:22countries, the situation is entirely
14:23similar to the national one. All
14:29developed countries find themselves in
14:31a situation quite similar, some a
14:32little more or a little less, to the
14:34Italian one. The United States, as we
14:39were mentioning earlier, is actually in
14:41an even higher position compared to
14:42Italy. They have available nearly 4,000
14:47kilocalories of food per person per day
14:49. But if we look at countries that are
14:54not developing nations, what can we see
14:56? These should be, if I recall
14:59correctly, the 2022 data, which should
15:01be the latest figures made available by
15:03the FAO. Only two countries in the
15:09world, in 2022, Somalia and Zambia, did
15:11not have enough food for all their
15:13inhabitants. Somalia, let's remember,
15:18has been in a civil war since 1992-1993
15:21, so that’s 30 years of civil war
15:26that has devastated the entire economic
15:28system and especially the agricultural
15:30production sector. Zambia has faced a
15:38series of natural disasters that have
15:39reduced their production in recent
15:41years, but in reality, all other
15:43countries have an amount of internal
15:44food production and availability that
15:46is sufficient to feed all their
15:48inhabitants. So, in this case as well,
15:57whether it’s developed countries much
15:59more, or developing countries much less
16:01, we can ask ourselves where this
16:03amount of food that they have available
16:05—and which they don't actually
16:06consume—ends up. And here it is. The
16:13first. The first big answer. One-third,
16:20according to the FAO again. I’m
16:22sharing the FAO data with you; we'll
16:24update it quickly because this is still
16:262011 data, but I’ll explain later why
16:28I’m keeping the 2011 figures. In 2011
16:34, the FAO said that 1/3 of global
16:36agricultural and food production is
16:38lost along the journey from the field
16:40to the table. That’s about 1.3
16:48billion tons of food per year that we
16:51lose. So, saying 1/3 of global
16:58production or 1.3 billion tons, we all
17:00certainly understand very well that it
17:03is an enormous, enormous amount of food
17:05. However, when we have such huge data,
17:13even here guys, forgive the comparison
17:15I’m making; but it is such a trivial
17:17comparison, such a simple one, an
17:19equivalence so, uh, trivial, I repeat,
17:28that it immediately gives us, and
17:30visualizes right before our eyes, what
17:33it actually means to waste 1.3 billion
17:35tons of food per year. Let’s think
17:43that today, tonight, when we return
17:45home after our daily activities, we
17:47might want or need to go grocery
17:48shopping, so we go to the supermarket
17:50and say we need to buy tuna. So, we go
17:58to the tuna aisle, we pick up the pack,
18:00the one with the three cans held
18:02together by cardboard packaging. We go
18:07to the checkout, pay for it, and take
18:09it home. We get home, and what’s the
18:12first thing we do? We unwrap that pack
18:17of three cans of tuna, take one of the
18:19three, open the trash can, and throw it
18:22away without even opening it, perfectly
18:24intact. None of us is foolish enough to
18:30do something like that, guys. But that
18:32is what happens in the world. One in
18:37three food products ends up in the
18:39trash bin, even though it is still
18:40perfectly edible. So it’s true that
18:46we don't do it, but we’ll soon see
18:47that it’s actually not quite true
18:49that we don’t do it. As I was saying,
18:53those are 2011 figures, and we could
18:55update them and say that in 2022, what
19:00did FAO and UNEP say? That one-third of
19:03global food production is lost or
19:05wasted. Seventeen percent, the FAO
19:09tells us, is lost in the agricultural
19:11sector, the industrial sector, um...14
19:20percent, or a little more, is lost or
19:23wasted in the distribution sector, the
19:25household sector, and the food service
19:33sector. So, after a little more than 12
19:39years, the results we have available
19:41globally have practically remained the
19:43same. What is it that we waste? Well,
19:48there are various foods that are wasted
19:50, naturally all in different amounts.
19:53The FAO tells us that 20%of meat is
19:58wasted, 20%of oilseed production, 30%of
20:09cereals, 20%of dairy production, 30%of
20:12fish, and nearly 50%of fruit and
20:15vegetables. We know very well what 50%
20:23means. But I like to share a picture
20:28with you. And what is this picture?
20:32Let’s go back to the supermarket
20:34where we went to buy our tuna. Let’s
20:41think about going over to or entering
20:42the fruit and vegetable section. We
20:47look around, we see everything we have
20:49around us. If it is true that 50%of
20:57fruit and vegetables, just as the FAO
20:59and UNEP tell us, is lost or wasted
21:01globally, let’s look around and think
21:03that an equal amount to what we have
21:05around us is thrown into the trash bin
21:07somewhere in the world. That’s what
21:13it means. That just under 50%of the
21:15world's fruit and vegetables is wasted.
21:19This is just to have a dimension that
21:21is closer to us. Guys, I'm giving you
21:24these examples so that we can, in my
21:26opinion, better understand what we are
21:28talking about. Perhaps some of you have
21:31already heard or seen these figures.
21:34This figure is perhaps a little less
21:36well-known. Uh, this is also a 2011
21:41figure, but I’m repeating it, uh,
21:43with other, with other words, with
21:45other measurements. The FAO made it
21:51available to us in 2023 as well, but
21:52I’m sticking with this one because it
21:54gives us an incredible dimension of
21:56what I want to share with you. If we
22:07consider what is thrown away at the
22:09domestic level, therefore at the level
22:11of homes and consumers in
22:12industrialized countries, we are
22:14talking about 222 million tons of food
22:16that is wasted at the domestic level,
22:18in the homes of consumers in
22:19industrialized countries. It is just
22:30under the amount of food that is
22:31produced in all the countries of
22:33sub-Saharan Africa; that is, in
22:35developed countries, just at the
22:36domestic level we throw away as much
22:38food as is produced in, uh,
22:40three-quarters of a continent on our
22:41planet. That is the scale. Okay? Many
22:52of you might tell me," Ah, I am very
22:54careful not to waste anything, what
22:56you’re saying is great, or boring,
22:58but it’s something that doesn’t
23:00concern me. "Uh, guys, I am not fully
23:07convinced of this and of what some of
23:08you might think or what some of you
23:10might be convinced of. And I’m
23:16sharing with you here the data from the
23:18latest survey we conducted last January
23:20. It relates to an activity we have
23:27been carrying out for just over 10
23:29years now, monitoring, uh, what is
23:31wasted at the domestic level, the food
23:33that Italians throw away. We certainly
23:40do this through a survey—a survey
23:42that, for those of you who are a bit
23:44more accustomed to these methodologies,
23:46is familiar. It is certainly not the
23:50best methodology for collecting
23:51quantitative data. Regarding food waste
23:55, we have others, such as waste sorting
23:57analysis or the diary method. Uh,
24:01however, they are, let’s say, very
24:03expensive methodologies to implement.
24:07We have done it and we are doing it
24:08over time, but it is not possible to do
24:10it every year. So that is why we like
24:14to track the trend of waste by using
24:16this questionnaire. This gives us some
24:19very interesting snapshots. The latest
24:26data we have available tells us that,
24:29uh, every Italian wastes a little over
24:31600g of food at the domestic level
24:33every week, so just under 100g of food
24:35per day. This figure is on the rise,
24:44which means 24g of fruit thrown away
24:47per week, 21g of bread thrown away, and
24:49so on and so forth. So, looking at
24:54these data, one couldn't say 21g of
24:56bread a week. Luca, but what are you
24:59talking about? We are talking about
25:01crumbs. 21g of bread a week is 7*3 21,
25:063g of bread a day. We are talking about
25:11nothing. Careful, let's see what 617g
25:17means. 617g a week. If we multiply that
25:24by the 365 days in a year, that's a
25:30weekly figure, we multiply it by 365
25:33days a year, and we arrive more or less
25:35, in round numbers, at 35 kg of food
25:37per capita, on average in Italy, that
25:40is thrown away. Then there are those
25:43who will waste very little, there are
25:45those who waste a lot, but this is the
25:47national average. Here too, allow me to
25:50draw an equivalence. What does 35 kg
25:54mean? 35 kg of food per year? So,
26:01equivalence. Eh, on average, what do
26:04the statistics tell us? That more or
26:09less each of us consumes a quantity of
26:11food per day more or less equal to 1 kg
26:13. I reiterate, in this case too, some
26:18less, some more, but on average 1 kg.
26:23So it means that if we throw away 35 kg
26:25of food on average in Italy, we waste
26:27food that we could consume in 35 days.
26:33What does that mean? That practically
26:37every year we buy food that we could
26:39consume in 13 months; we consume the
26:41food for the first 12 months, and we
26:43throw away the food for the 13th month.
26:50It's as if in December, surely some of
26:52you work, when we get paid our salary,
26:54we also get our 13 th-month bonus. We
26:59go to the ATM, we take that 13 th-month
27:02pay, we open the trash bin and we throw
27:04it away. With money, we don't do that.
27:11In December, we don't open the trash
27:13bin and throw our 13 th-month pay into
27:15the bin. With food, we do. We buy for
27:1913 months, consume for 12, and throw
27:21away the 13th month. This too, guys,
27:26obviously, isn't what we do, but it's
27:29just to give a sense of scale to what a
27:31daily action means, even a minimal,
27:33tiny one, 3g of bread a day that we
27:35throw away on average. What does it
27:41mean if we read it through another lens
27:43, from another angle? Loss of value
27:48perception. What does that mean? That
27:53it is, regarding food, in our opinion,
27:55one of the main causes of waste,
27:57especially in the downstream phase of
27:59the supply chain, therefore especially
28:01at a domestic level. Those data we saw
28:08earlier regarding Italians, so each one
28:10of us, on average, I reiterate, as I
28:12was saying before, is because we have
28:13lost the perception of the value of
28:15food. So, when we talk about the value
28:24of food, we could be here for days and
28:26days talking about it, because there
28:27are so many values of food, but when do
28:29we lose the perception of the value of
28:31something? Often and willingly, when we
28:39don't know what that something is. I
28:44believe that none of us—I'll use this
28:46very simple, even silly example—this
28:48evening when we get home, will open the
28:50trash can and throw away their
28:52smartphone. And why? We know all its
28:59functions, we consider it very
29:00important, in some cases indispensable,
29:03and above all, because we know exactly
29:05how much we paid for it, and so we
29:06immediately attribute a certain
29:08economic value to it. Maybe some of us,
29:18to buy the latest model, even made a
29:20sacrifice, and so knowing all its
29:22various values, we don't throw it away,
29:24but we do that with food, because one
29:25of these reasons is that we don't know
29:27its value. When do we lose the
29:34perception of the value of something?
29:37When we don't know it; we don't know
29:38food. And what is the proof? That very
29:44few people told me that when we eat a
29:46strawberry, we are eating a part of the
29:51flower. In reality, what we eat is the
29:55base of the flower that, at a certain
29:57point, swells up, accumulates sugary
29:59substances, and becomes red. Because
30:06the actual fruit of the strawberry is
30:08what we mistakenly call the seed. When
30:10we eat strawberries, we say," Oh, the
30:12seeds got stuck in my teeth, "those
30:14green things. Those green things are
30:17the fruits of the strawberry, inside
30:19which there are even seeds that are, we
30:21could say, infinitesimal. So, what we
30:25eat of the strawberry is a part of the
30:27flower. What do we eat of the pulp? Of
30:31the, excuse me, of the apple. I, to
30:37lead you on in some way, said pulp; in
30:39reality, what we eat is the peel.
30:47Because the peel—think of an orange
30:49—has an external part that is orange,
30:51an internal part that is white, and
30:53what we actually eat is a part of the
30:55peel: not the external one, which we
30:57usually remove, but the fleshier, more
30:59important part, which is still a part
31:01of the peel. It's true that these are
31:07simply issues, I would dare say almost
31:13semantic or biological, but in reality,
31:15the true fruit of the apple is what we
31:17throw away, the core inside where the
31:19seeds are. That is the true fruit of
31:24the apple. And on the other hand,
31:31it’s wonderful to ask the question
31:32about chicken to kids younger than you
31:34because incredible things come out of
31:36it. In fact, what we eat, and rightly
31:42so, as many of you have said, is a, um
31:47it's a fattened chick. As soon as they
31:56are born, as soon as they hatch, those
31:58that aren't sent for breeding, whether
32:00male or female, are fattened for about
32:02forty days and then they are sent,
32:03after about forty days, a month and a
32:05half, a little more, they are sent to
32:07the slaughterhouse. So, I have partly
32:18shown you that even in a context where
32:20sensitivity is medium-high, we don't
32:21always know what we are eating. The
32:27examples I could give are numerous:
32:29artichoke, asparagus, you name it.
32:32Fennel—what part of the plant do we
32:34eat when we eat fennel, for example?
32:38There are so many; we don't know what
32:40we are eating. If we don't know it, we
32:43don't give it the proper value, and so
32:45it’s easy, it's likely, that we throw
32:47it away. Lack of awareness. We aren't
32:52aware of what is happening. A very
32:56simple and quick example. We go to the
32:59supermarket, we need tuna and so we
33:05find ourselves in front of the shelf
33:07where the tuna is, but the first pack
33:09of tuna in front of us has a torn box.
33:16Tell me if it isn't true, guys, that we
33:18reach right into that shelf and go to
33:20grab the pack behind it, the one that
33:22doesn't have a torn box. I believe it
33:26is normal. It’s an action we don't do
33:32consciously, we do it unconsciously,
33:34yet we do it, and we don't ask
33:35ourselves what might happen to that
33:37pack of tuna with the torn box. None of
33:41us buys it if we notice. In fact, if we
33:44see that they’ve put tape on it,
33:46maybe we even get annoyed because it's
33:47almost as if they were making a fool of
33:49us. But since none of us buys it, that
33:53pack of tuna is taken, brought to the
33:55back of the supermarket, and thrown
33:57away. It would cost them too much to
34:02take it out of inventory as a two-pack
34:03and re-enter it into inventory as a
34:05single pack, or rather as two separate
34:07cans. And besides, usually, cans sold
34:11together have different dimensions than
34:13those typically sold on their own; so
34:15it wouldn't have...this whole operation
34:17would cost them too much: they just
34:19take it and throw it away. Another
34:24reason why we throw away food. I ask
34:27you, guys, to take note of this because
34:29we will look at it again shortly from
34:31another point of view. Extraordinary
34:34abundance. We saw it earlier, in Italy
34:36we have 3,700 kilocalories of food. The
34:40first fact I shared with you told us
34:42that, globally, we produce enough food
34:44for 12 billion people. We have an
34:47extraordinary abundance of food. On the
34:49other hand, extraordinary accessibility
34:51. And what does that tell us? That we
34:57can buy food, we can access food at any
34:59time of the day, wherever we happen to
35:01be. I have no idea where you are, but I
35:10am certain that as soon as you step
35:12outside this building, within a few
35:14hundred meters you will find cafes,
35:16restaurants, supermarkets, shops,
35:18places where you can buy food.
35:25Extraordinary affordability. And some
35:28of you might say," Well, with the
35:30inflation we've had, what are you
35:31talking about, Luca? "But food still
35:34costs relatively little. I’ll just
35:38tell you that in Italy, we spend
35:40between 16 and 18%of our salaries on
35:42food. Everything else, more than 80%,
35:47is managed for all other expenses. So,
35:52in reality, guys, this happens mainly
35:55because food is relatively cheap;
35:56it’s abundant, accessible, and
35:58affordable, so we can afford to waste
36:00it, we can afford to throw away that
36:02600 grams of food at home that we saw
36:05earlier. Let me take a step back. Here
36:10in the middle of the slide, you’ll
36:12see" good mother syndrome "written.
36:15I’m sharing this last because it’s
36:16really interesting. Well, second to
36:19last, because I want to take a step
36:21back since there’s a provocation I
36:23want to explain. What does" good mother
36:26syndrome "tell us? It’s that some
36:29American psychologists studied this a
36:31few years ago in the United States, but
36:33the same thing was later studied
36:35sporadically in Europe. The result was
36:41very similar: we buy about a third more
36:43food than we actually need because of
36:45this syndrome, the good mother syndrome
36:47. What does this syndrome say? Heaven
36:56forbid my child should be left without
36:57a snack in the afternoon. And so, what
37:01do I do? I buy more food than I need,
37:06because heaven forbid I should run out
37:08of something, so I stock up because I
37:10am a good mother, and so what happens?
37:16That food gets old in the fridge or the
37:18pantry, it reaches the consumption
37:20preference dates, and I don't really
37:21know the difference between preference
37:23dates and expiration dates, and so on.
37:29It can go bad, so I take it and throw
37:31it away. A third of what we buy. This
37:35is what happens in the United States,
37:37in Europe; in Italy, it’s a bit
37:39different in terms of scale, but that
37:41is what happens. And then these
37:48psychologists, and here—tell me if
37:50this doesn't happen in your home too,
37:52it happens very often in mine, uh—
37:54highlighted this other aspect, which I
37:56truly find curious: that when we are at
37:58home, preparing lunch or dinner, and we
38:00bring the food to the table, if and
38:02when something is left over,
38:12immediately after finishing lunch or
38:14dinner, we tend not to throw away the
38:16leftovers because we were eating them
38:17just a few seconds earlier. Why should
38:22I throw it away? So what do we do? We
38:24take a Tupperware, we, uh, put the
38:32leftover food inside and put it in the
38:34fridge. We run out of Tupperware
38:36because they are all in the fridge with
38:37the leftover food. We take the plate,
38:40wrap it in cling film, and put it in
38:41the fridge. We run out of cling film
38:44too, so as grandma taught us, plate on
38:46top of plate and we put it in the
38:48refrigerator. Then what happens? The
38:51next night, maybe we go for drinks with
38:53friends, so when we get home, we aren't
38:55hungry and we don't eat the leftovers.
39:00The night after that, maybe we get home
39:02late, we're tired, we don't feel like
39:04cooking or reheating what we already
39:06have, so we order delivery, pizza, or
39:08something else, and we don't eat what's
39:10in the fridge. The next time, maybe for
39:14those who are married, the
39:16mother-in-law invites us to dinner at
39:17her house; what do we do? Do we bring
39:20her the leftovers? If we want to end
39:22the relationship with her, we empty the
39:24fridge and bring her the leftovers. We
39:26can't do that, the leftovers stay in
39:28the fridge. And so what happens? What
39:32do the American psychologists tell us?
39:34What happens? Days pass, and instead of
39:39mold, bacteria, or acidity, the reasons
39:41to throw that food away start to grow.
39:47Those reasons that, at the moment we
39:49were finishing our meal, didn't exist
39:51to justify throwing away what was left
39:53over. We open the fridge after 3 or 4
39:57days, we open that Tupperware," Hmm,
39:59look at the ugly color this food has. "
40:02" Hmm, the smell doesn't seem good, I
40:04won't even taste it because I'm sure
40:06it's gone bad. "That's not the case.
40:10But tell me if it isn't true that
40:12sometimes it happens in our homes too.
40:14In my house, often. I provocatively
40:18mentioned multinationals. What does
40:21multinationals mean? I repeat, it's a
40:24provocation, but I'll give you a figure
40:26to explain this, the reason for that,
40:31uh, word. In Italy, those 100 grams or
40:36so of food per week that each one of us
40:46throws away, if we convert it into
40:48economic value, roughly estimating, we
40:50arrive at 7.5 to 8 billion euros of
40:52food that is thrown away domestically.
41:05What interest do those who produce and
41:07sell that food have in teaching us not
41:08to waste? The interest could be
41:14avoiding the loss of 8 billion in food
41:16sold per year. So be careful, be
41:25careful when those who sell or produce
41:27food tell us they are trying to do
41:28something against food waste. I am not
41:39saying there are no companies working
41:41on this, but be careful when someone
41:43tells us," Well, those supermarkets
41:44recover what they don't sell and donate
41:46it to organizations and associations
41:48that assist people in need. "A
41:59wonderful action, great merit, but
42:01beware that the message they are trying
42:03to convey is:" Attention consumers,
42:05what you don't buy, I don't throw away,
42:08I donate it. "And they are not teaching
42:16us not to waste at a household level.
42:19Okay? That is something we must try to
42:23learn ourselves. And beware, the other
42:36aspect I want to share with you is that
42:37, if we didn't buy that food—I am
42:39fully convinced of this and some data
42:41from studies we did in previous years
42:43have clearly shown it—it's not that
42:44large retailers or food producers would
42:46lose that money, because if we bought a
42:48little less, we would have more money
42:50to increase the quality of what we buy.
43:06If we reduced household waste and
43:08increased the quality of what we
43:10purchase, it means we would reach the
43:11first point: giving more value back to
43:13that food, buying those additional
43:15values that are not just linked to the
43:17calories we buy, but also to where that
43:19food comes from, what work is behind
43:21that food, and what organoleptic
43:22quality is behind that food. Food that
43:31has less impact, that food that also
43:40has a greater economic value and,
43:42therefore, those who sell or produce
43:44that food—data tells us, even if they
43:46are small samples, that they wouldn't
43:48lose that amount of money, because that
43:50smaller quantity purchased translates
43:52more or less into higher quality, and
43:54so the figures would remain nearly the
43:56same. Before we take a few minutes
44:04break, oops, I wanted to share with you
44:11some information regarding what the
44:12impacts of food waste are, and there
44:14are four very quick impacts I want to
44:16share with you. Environmental impact of
44:22waste. The first one we are going to
44:26look at is the environmental impact
44:28linked to the water footprint. Do you
44:32remember we said earlier that the FAO
44:34says one-third of global food
44:35production is lost or wasted from field
44:37to fork? What does that amount of food
44:40that is thrown away really mean? That
44:46means that, uh, to produce that amount
44:48of food, 250 billion liters of water
44:50were used. This scarce resource was
44:56used. Basically, the same amount of
45:02water that New Yorkers use, that all
45:04the inhabitants of New York would use
45:06in 120 years. So, to produce that
45:16amount of food that is thrown away
45:18globally every year, a water resource
45:20is used that is also, in this case,
45:22wasted, and it equals the amount of
45:24water that just the residents of New
45:26York would use in 120 years. To produce
45:37that food, 30%of the Earth's
45:38agricultural land is occupied, which
45:40means that every year we use 30%of
45:42agricultural land—forgive me for
45:44saying this—to produce waste. If we
45:53don't eat that food and throw it away,
45:55it means we are using that land
45:56resource to produce waste. Greenhouse
46:03gases—we will come back to this later
46:05and say more about it too. Food waste.
46:15Through its production, transport,
46:17processing, and disposal, it produces
46:20greenhouse gases. If we were to create
46:27a ranking of countries that emit the
46:29most greenhouse gases, food waste would
46:31be in third place. In first place we
46:36have China, in second place we have the
46:38United States, in third place we have
46:40the" food waste country, "then we have
46:42Russia, India, and so on for all the
46:44other countries in the world. Economic
46:50value—we've said very little about
46:51that for...Italy. Let's look at it on a
46:56global level. How much is all that food
46:58that gets thrown away worth? The FAO
47:00says it's worth more or less 750
47:05billion, uh, dollars. In practice, it
47:08is the equivalent of Switzerland's GDP.
47:13We are not talking about—with all due
47:15respect if any of you are from San
47:16Marino—San Marino; we are talking
47:18about Switzerland, one of the countries
47:20in the world with the highest GDP per
47:22capita that we can count. Okay? Uh, if
47:29you agree, guys, since the information
47:31I've given and shared is a lot, I would
47:34stop here. 4-5 minutes, no more, to
47:42grab a quick coffee, because then we'll
47:44go look at what we've just seen from
47:46another point of view, with another
47:48perspective. Still food, and still, uh,
47:55what is the impact that food, uh, and
47:57agricultural production have, uh, on
47:59our planet. To then close by trying to
48:04see what we can do every day.
48:09Okay, Luca, uh, I'll encourage any
48:12questions, if there are any. There is,
48:15there is one that referred to one of
48:17your initial slides on obesity. Um,
48:21someone associated obesity with Africa
48:24and was wondering how this situation,
48:26this interpretation, was possible.
48:30Okay. No, absolutely not. Obesity and
48:35Africa might seem paradoxical, but it
48:37isn't, in the sense that it depends on
48:39which social class you belong to in
48:42many African contexts. The
48:45middle-to-upper classes, and there are
48:47some even in African countries, in many
48:53African countries of the population,
48:55have...this is the first key to
49:04understanding it, then we'll give
49:06another one right away: they have, uh,
49:09very high income capacity, therefore
49:11very high income, very high access to
49:13food, and so this, in many cases,
49:16causes overeating and obesity, which
49:18someone could rightly say to me:" Well,
49:20but we are talking about small niches,
49:23enclaves. "What is certainly the most
49:29interesting other aspect? The
49:34Westernization of the diet of
49:36populations in many African states.
49:41What does Westernization mean? It means
49:43that, uh, and this has two very, very,
49:46very important aspects, two
49:48repercussions. The first repercussion,
49:56to give an answer to this fact, is the
49:58change in diet, that is, the fact of
50:00consuming foods that are not typical of
50:02that culture, of that context, and
50:04therefore are not typical of that
50:06physiology. So, by changing the diet,
50:18we see that the ability to assimilate,
50:20the ability to use those foods becomes
50:23different, and this causes, uh, the
50:33accumulation of calories in the form of
50:36fat, and therefore overweight and, uh,
50:38obesity. And we see this also in some
50:44foreign populations that come to live
50:46in different contexts, like the one
50:47that can be found in Italy. Uh, if we
50:57go and see what the incidence is in
50:59children who come from North African or
51:01South American countries regarding
51:03overweight and obesity, we see that
51:05they have higher incidences than those
51:07of Italian children. It's not me saying
51:13this. Some statistics—naturally, I
51:18base this statement on the statistics I
51:21have been able to read—precisely
51:23because, and here it is easier, here it
51:25is more obvious to find ourselves
51:27facing this change, this Westernization
51:30of the diet, which then causes weight
51:32gain, and therefore overweight and
51:34obesity. The other aspect of the
51:39Westernization of the diet in these
51:41African countries. Uh, here we go
51:44off-topic from what we are talking
51:46about, but I like to open a small
51:48window that perhaps you could develop
51:50as a curiosity. It is what then happens
51:54from an economic point of view, uh, in
51:57these contexts. Westernization means
52:00the importation of these foods.
52:03Importing these foods means having to
52:06depend on third parties. Uh, those
52:10foods can hardly be produced locally.
52:15So, this habit of Western dietary
52:17patterns that these populations are
52:19adopting means the demand for these
52:21foods increases, and since they cannot
52:23produce them locally, they must be
52:25imported. These imports create a
52:30dependency for these countries on these
52:32types of food, agricultural raw
52:34materials, and processed food products.
52:41With significant consequences also from
52:43the perspective of domestic production
52:45and the trade balances of these
52:47specific regions. In this case too,
52:55just as I did before, we will start
52:57from afar and then slowly move closer
52:59to the final objective, and I'll start
53:01with what? With Earth Overshoot Day. I
53:12believe you all know it, or at least
53:14have heard of it, and it is the day
53:16when—I always like to define it this
53:18way—we should stop, stop completely,
53:20and from that moment on we shouldn't
53:22even breathe, because it is the day
53:24when we exhaust the resources that the
53:36environment we live in makes available
53:38to us for the entire year. For example,
53:44in Qatar, which is the first country we
53:54see here on this kind of clock, they
53:56should have stopped on February 6th, so
53:58just a month ago, because on February
54:006th they finished all the natural
54:02resources that the environment they
54:04live in makes available to them and is
54:15capable of regenerating over the course
54:17of a year. If we go down this clock, at
54:32a certain point we reach May, and we
54:34hit May 6th, which is the day we should
54:36stop in Italy, meaning that on May 6th
54:39in Italy, we finish the resources our
54:41territorial system is able to generate
54:43over the 365 days. So from May 6th
54:57onwards, we are living by using the
54:59resources that our environment would be
55:06capable of regenerating in the
55:08following years. So we are eroding our
55:13reserves. Therefore, at the Italian
55:19level, there is this Overshoot Day
55:21which is May 6th, and at a global level
55:24, it's more or less July 24th.
55:27Essentially, on July 24th, the entire
55:29planet—naturally with different
55:32contexts—should, on average, stop in
55:35some way. Here I am leaving you two
55:40indicators, two, excuse me, two links
55:42that lead to two calculators, one a bit
55:44more detailed, one a bit less detailed,
55:47to go and see what your impact on the
55:49planet is. I will only tell you that my
55:55impact on the planet, what I would need
55:57to continue living, Well, with my
56:11lifestyle, the way I live, I would need
56:13, or more precisely, if everyone on the
56:16planet lived my lifestyle, we would all
56:18need resources equivalent to 3.5 Earths
56:21. So, this means my lifestyle is, uh,
56:31not sustainable. If you have the time
56:38and interest—I’ll leave the
56:40presentation behind so you can find
56:42them—go calculate your own lifestyle,
56:44and you'll see, by including dietary
56:46aspects, what kind of impact you have.
56:51Why do I start with this? Because it
56:57highlights that our way of life
56:58inevitably impacts the system in which
57:00we live. Some more, some less,
57:05depending on whether we make more or
57:07less sustainable choices. Therefore, we
57:11all can play a fundamental role in our
57:14environment. And one of these aspects
57:21falls, uh, entirely within the realm of
57:24our diet as well. And now I will share
57:34with you, quite quickly because we’ll
57:36then have a brief discussion—which I
57:38enjoy and suggest we have—about
57:40nutrition. So, what do we see on this
57:48slide? We see a series of impacts from
57:57various foods that are at our disposal
57:59or that we consume daily, and thus we
58:01see the different impacts they have,
58:03from greenhouse gases to acidification,
58:05um, of the soil, or nitrification of
58:23the soil, land use, photochemical smog
58:25—a series of impacts these different
58:27animal productions have, and
58:29consequently, the different impact of
58:32various food types we can consume. the
58:45different impact of various food types
58:47we can consume. I reiterate, I’m not
58:50here to say" We must become vegetarians
58:52, "we already discussed that earlier.
58:58I’m not here to say" We must consume
59:00only certain types of meat rather than
59:02others, "but to share with you a series
59:04of scientific data that we can all
59:06pause and reflect on for a moment.
59:12Later, we will take these data and fit
59:14them into a series of boxes that we use
59:17to draw a number of conclusions. And so
59:20, what can we say here? We can say that
59:27there are certainly some animal
59:29products that have a greater impact
59:30than others, but we must also take a
59:32moment to explain why some productions
59:34have a greater impact than others. And
59:44the main reason underlying this
59:46difference is the fact that, when we
59:48raise certain animal species, they have
59:50a biological cycle, a life cycle that
59:52is much shorter than others. We
59:58mentioned earlier that a chicken has a
1:00:00life cycle of more or less a month and
1:00:03a half, or a little more. A pig has a
1:00:08life cycle of more or less, let's say,
1:00:1112 months, while cattle have a much,
1:00:13much longer life cycle of several
1:00:15months. And so this highlights how the
1:00:23resources they use and the impacts they
1:00:25have on the environment are closely
1:00:27correlated with their time spent within
1:00:35the farms. The other interesting aspect
1:00:44to highlight is that these impacts are
1:00:46then also subdivided based on the type
1:00:49of meat or cut, excuse me, that we end
1:00:51up eating. The animal has different
1:00:59dimensions. The various parts that we
1:01:07use from a pig, from the rib steak to
1:01:09the ham, the capocollo, and so on and
1:01:11so forth (the same applies to other
1:01:13animals), have different sizes; and
1:01:15therefore, depending on the cut of meat
1:01:18we decide to eat, it has a different
1:01:20impact on the environment in this case
1:01:22as well. Next step, we make the
1:01:32comparison, and here we move to the
1:01:37plant world, between the environmental
1:01:43impact of conventional farming and the
1:01:45environmental impact of organic farming
1:01:47. Well, certainly, when we talk about
1:01:54conventional farming and organic
1:01:55farming, I am fully convinced that the
1:01:58first thing that comes to mind for all
1:02:00of us is that organic farming is more
1:02:02sustainable than conventional farming.
1:02:08Yes and no, with a small 'yes' and a
1:02:11rather big 'no'. However, it is not
1:02:19true a priori, and it is not entirely
1:02:21true that it is always, for all the
1:02:23factors we consider and for all the
1:02:25impacts we look at, more sustainable
1:02:28than conventional farming. I am not
1:02:35saying that organic farming is a scam
1:02:43and that we should stick to
1:02:45conventional farming; we need to look
1:02:46at things from the right perspective.
1:02:53So, for the most part—let's take the
1:02:56example of wheat—what can we say
1:02:58based on the data? Why conventional
1:03:01farming certainly has a lower impact on
1:03:04the environment compared to organic
1:03:06farming. Global warming, therefore the
1:03:13production of greenhouse gases, soil
1:03:15acidification, and soil nitrification
1:03:17are all aspects that tell us that
1:03:19organic farming is more sustainable
1:03:21than conventional farming. If we look
1:03:31at the ecological footprint, meaning
1:03:33land use, on the other hand, we cannot
1:03:35in any way, for any type of production,
1:03:38say that organic farming is more
1:03:40sustainable than conventional farming.
1:03:44In what sense? To produce the same
1:03:48quantity of product, a larger surface
1:03:50area is required. It's not here on this
1:03:57slide, we don't find it in this diagram
1:03:59because these kinds of analyses haven't
1:04:01been done for all crops, but what
1:04:03stands out regarding water consumption?
1:04:14That for many products, organic
1:04:16production actually uses more water
1:04:18than conventional production, so even
1:04:20from a water-use perspective, for some
1:04:22crops—not all—organic farming is
1:04:24not necessarily more sustainable than
1:04:27conventional farming. So, this is the
1:04:34snapshot we can take. However, guys,
1:04:46what I'd like to share with you today
1:04:48—and I'll share another set of data
1:04:50to reach some conclusions—is that we
1:04:52cannot and must not, given our
1:04:54open-mindedness, just take a snapshot
1:04:57of things and dwell on them statically;
1:04:59we need to have, I won't say a 360 °
1:05:01view, but we must try to piece together
1:05:03as many elements as possible. And so
1:05:16I'd like to share what I just mentioned
1:05:18, which is somewhat summarized in this
1:05:20slide with some of the data we saw
1:05:21earlier. Naturally, obviously, we can't
1:05:26have a 360 ° view, but we must try to
1:05:29bring to the table some of the elements
1:05:31we've shared today. And what is the
1:05:34piece of data I want to share? Well,
1:05:37it's the first bit of data I, um, gave
1:05:43you at the beginning: today we produce
1:05:45food for 12 billion people, and we are
1:05:47just over 8 billion, so we produce a
1:05:49bit more—a third more—than what we
1:05:52actually need, and we've also seen that
1:05:54part of that production is lost, wasted
1:05:57, and so on. The reasons, the loss of
1:06:02food value and other factors, lead us
1:06:04to waste it. So let's go back and
1:06:09re-examine these latest figures. It is
1:06:15true that to produce organic, for the
1:06:18same amount, you need more land. But is
1:06:23that really a problem? Or perhaps the
1:06:29fact that organic produces less per
1:06:31unit of area is not actually a problem
1:06:33for us? Because, in reality—and we'll
1:06:37say this more incisively in a moment—
1:06:44we don't actually need all that
1:06:46production, because in the end, we
1:06:48waste a portion of it, since we produce
1:06:50more than what we actually need. And so
1:06:54, perhaps, adopting cultivation
1:06:56techniques that are more sustainable,
1:07:03even if it seems otherwise at first
1:07:05glance, by combining various ways of
1:07:07interpreting it. In reality, this data
1:07:13could take on a different meaning than
1:07:15the information it might give us at
1:07:17first glance. I am speaking here, and
1:07:27it is no coincidence I used the term"
1:07:29sustainable agricultures, "because
1:07:31organic farming is not the only type of
1:07:34agriculture with a lower environmental
1:07:36impact, or whose impacts can be
1:07:38interpreted with a broader, more
1:07:40holistic vision. Naturally, this way of
1:07:47interpreting things applies not just to
1:07:49what interests us, but to all data in
1:07:51general. Therefore, we must have this
1:07:54same ability to interpret information,
1:07:57avoiding a sterile approach to all
1:07:59other data as well. I simply wanted to
1:08:04focus on this, and now I will quickly
1:08:06move on to this other interpretative
1:08:07key I want to share with you. When we
1:08:17talk about—and I will dedicate a
1:08:19moment to this, I'll be very quick, but
1:08:21I like to spend a few minutes on it—
1:08:23it is to understand how much we impact
1:08:25the environment through our dietary
1:08:27style. A few years ago, they created
1:08:35this index, which is the" i "index, the
1:08:37sustainability index. I like to look at
1:08:42it, from a certain point of view, as an
1:08:44unsustainability index. So the" i "
1:08:46stands for" in, "and" s "stands for"
1:08:49sustainability. "And this
1:08:52sustainability index, or as I prefer to
1:08:55call it, unsustainability index, is a
1:08:57ratio between the energy found in the
1:08:59food we use, as the numerator, and the
1:09:02energy used to produce that food, as
1:09:04the denominator. At the beginning of
1:09:10the last century, this ratio was one to
1:09:12one; we consumed as much as we used to
1:09:14produce. As time went on, this ratio
1:09:19increased enormously. We are now using
1:09:25much higher quantities of energy per
1:09:27unit of energy we consume. Three quick
1:09:34examples that we find on this slide.
1:09:37Grant me some leeway for what I am
1:09:38about to say here. The UK wanted to
1:09:42leave the European Union, and now it
1:09:44goes to buy its lettuce from the
1:09:46Americans. That lettuce has a
1:09:50sustainability, or unsustainability,
1:09:53index of 127. For every unit of
1:09:57kilocalorie of energy this lettuce
1:09:59provides, 127 units must be consumed to
1:10:02produce it. What do we have here,
1:10:07quickly? I have taken this chart, which
1:10:20tells us the various types of impacts:
1:10:22from carbon dioxide emissions, oil
1:10:24consumption, and the distance in
1:10:26kilometers that the foods we easily
1:10:28find on our tables have traveled, which
1:10:30I have summarized with our lunch menu
1:10:32for today. Today we will be eating 300
1:10:47grams of Argentine steak. We will drink
1:10:52, we will pair this excellent Argentine
1:10:55steak with half a liter of Australian
1:10:57Merlot, and in the end we will eat, we
1:10:59will finish with some fruit, naturally
1:11:01we don't want to eat too heavily, with
1:11:03a Peruvian mango. I emphasize that
1:11:11Peruvian mangoes from a qualitative
1:11:13point of view are the absolute best, so
1:11:16if you see them buy them because they
1:11:18are usually exceptional, but if we go
1:11:20and eat what I just said, we will
1:11:22release 26 kg of uh carbon dioxide
1:11:24equivalent into the environment. What
1:11:34are 26 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent
1:11:37just from one lunch? A lot or a little?
1:11:41Is it a problem, is it not a problem? I
1:11:44don't know, I don't want to give you an
1:11:46answer because I don't know, it's
1:11:51complicated, I would know, but I like
1:11:53to give you this this answer by sharing
1:11:55with you another series of data. So,
1:12:00our agri-food system has a rather
1:12:07interesting impact on each of us. every
1:12:14year our agri-food system from
1:12:15production to reaching the supermarket
1:12:23and therefore also considering what we
1:12:25import impacts the environment by 1778
1:12:34kg of carbon dioxide equivalent. So
1:12:40each of us, based on what we have
1:12:46available that we could consume 1778 kg
1:12:51of carbon dioxide per capita per year.
1:12:58I take a step, I take a step forward.
1:13:01What does the IPCC tell us? the World
1:13:11Organization for environmental impacts
1:13:13on climate that in Italy if we wanted
1:13:15to be sustainable, if our agri-food
1:13:18system wanted to be sustainable from
1:13:20the field to reaching almost our tables
1:13:22, we should produce 118 kg of carbon
1:13:24dioxide per capita per year. That is,
1:13:36our system should significantly reduce
1:13:38the amount of carbon dioxide we produce
1:13:41. It would need to produce just over
1:13:46600 kg less carbon dioxide to be truly
1:13:49sustainable. And so I will quickly
1:13:58share with you a a theory that I have
1:14:05come up with. How can we contribute
1:14:10with our diet? So, what do we find here
1:14:13? We find the availability of food, we
1:14:16saw it before too, uh that we have in
1:14:19Italy. If we look from '55 to the
1:14:22beginning of this last century, this
1:14:24availability has increased. I haven't
1:14:27taken the next step to today because in
1:14:30reality from the beginning of this
1:14:33century to today we have remained
1:14:35around, as I was telling you before, at
1:14:383700 kcal, so every day each of us has
1:14:403700 kcal of food available. In reality
1:14:46, what does the SIN, the national
1:14:49organization, tell us, that we actually
1:14:51need certain nutritional values. 75 g
1:14:56of protein, 313 g of carbohydrates, 65
1:15:00g of lipids. But excuse me, oops, but
1:15:07in reality we have more or less 175%
1:15:10available more nutrients compared to
1:15:15what our needs are. Next step of the
1:15:21theory. Here we find a food diet that
1:15:28reflects what the Mediterranean diet is
1:15:30. If we wanted to eat in a way that is
1:15:35sustainable and healthy for the
1:15:37environment and for our bodies, we
1:15:38should follow the diet shown here on
1:15:40this slide. Various grams per day,
1:15:45various servings per day. So, what did
1:15:48I have fun doing? I’ll take the next
1:15:52step and arrive here at, uh, developing
1:15:57a series of alternative diets. This is
1:16:04the one proposed by Sinu, and I had fun
1:16:06creating eight alternative diets where
1:16:08I replace the protein intake with only
1:16:10one type of protein. So, I created a
1:16:16beef tenderloin diet, a beef burger
1:16:19diet, a pork steak diet, one with
1:16:21chicken, one with tuna, one with dried
1:16:24peas, one with milk, eggs, and
1:16:26vegetables, and one with just eggs and
1:16:28vegetables. And for all the various
1:16:35diets, I calculated the impact of
1:16:36carbon dioxide equivalent that is
1:16:38produced. Here we find the various
1:16:46impacts from the different diets. The
1:16:48one with the highest impact by far is
1:16:50the beef tenderloin diet. All the
1:16:52others have lower impacts. Why did I do
1:16:55this? Because I wanted to get to this
1:16:57final slide. I will share the reading
1:17:02of this slide and then I will share a
1:17:04series of reflections with you. So, we
1:17:11saw earlier that the diet involving the
1:17:14use of beef tenderloin has the greatest
1:17:16impact, an impact that is by far
1:17:18superior to all the others, almost
1:17:213,000 kg of carbon dioxide per year. If
1:17:29I ate proteins every day coming from
1:17:31beef tenderloin and that was the only
1:17:33protein source, this would be my impact
1:17:35on the environment. We see that it is
1:17:39by far superior compared to what could
1:17:41come from all the other types of diets.
1:17:46So, what can I conclude? I want to say
1:17:54that I exclude beef tenderloin from my
1:17:56diet, and I alternate between the diets
1:18:03that come from other foods. What
1:18:06happens? That more or less my impact on
1:18:13the environment is around 700 kg of
1:18:19carbon dioxide per capita per year.
1:18:23Okay? I don’t want to give up beef
1:18:31tenderloin. Once a week, I include beef
1:18:35tenderloin too. My impact on the
1:18:39environment would go from 700 to 1,000.
1:18:44So, let's start interpreting these data
1:18:47. Do you remember what the IPCC told us
1:18:49before? That, to be sustainable, our
1:18:54agri-food system should have an impact
1:18:57of 1,100 kg of carbon dioxide
1:19:04equivalent per capita per year (1,100
1:19:12based on the two diets I provided,
1:19:14which supply me with 2,100 kcal and
1:19:17therefore are the right amount of food
1:19:19that I must eat to live in a healthy,
1:19:21sustainable way). Both, whether it's
1:19:28the one with the beef fillet or without
1:19:30, are actually inferior compared to the
1:19:38limit of sustainability that the IPCC
1:19:41states, and so, in reality, if we all
1:19:43ate only 2100 calories every day, our
1:19:46agri-food system would be sustainable.
1:19:51What is the big problem? One, that we
1:19:57don't eat 2100 calories, two, that a
1:20:00part of what we buy we throw away,
1:20:02three, that our agri-food system makes
1:20:05available many more kilocalories than
1:20:07we need. It makes about 3700 available,
1:20:14as we said. And so guys, I'll conclude
1:20:18with this by saying what? That in
1:20:24reality, those, uh, oops uh, those 21
1:20:31grams of bread that we throw away on
1:20:34average per week, 3 grams a day, which
1:20:36is our eating style, which is the
1:20:38eating style of one person out of 60
1:20:41million in Italy. Which is the eating
1:20:51style of someone who is not only a
1:20:53citizen, but also a professional
1:20:54working in the field of environment,
1:20:56working in the field of, uh, the food
1:21:06system, working in public
1:21:08administration, working in any other
1:21:10field, has the obligation to give value
1:21:17to what is in front of them, in this
1:21:19case food, to understand what it means
1:21:21to value food and to provide an
1:21:23interpretation of what is in front of
1:21:25them that is as informed as possible
1:21:27and as 360-degree as possible in order
1:21:35to best read what we are facing,
1:21:37because each of us can make an
1:21:38incredible contribution to what is
1:21:48happening around us through individual
1:21:50actions as a single citizen, as a
1:21:52member of a community, and therefore as
1:21:54a member who, through example and
1:21:56sharing, can certainly have a very
1:21:58important impact. Because if we all
1:22:06reduce, uh, by a crumb what we throw
1:22:08away each day, we don't have to give up
1:22:11anything at all; why don't we have to
1:22:13give up anything, because what we,
1:22:15quote unquote, give up is something we
1:22:17throw away, that is, something we don't
1:22:19need and therefore it is not a huge
1:22:27effort but above all, it is not a
1:22:31sacrifice. Hm.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Spreco alimentare (Luca Falasconi) by FormezPA, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 9,881 words across 1,441 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.