I was really wondering that I couldn’t find this topic in this forum. I hope it’s not the 10th time somebody is asking this.
a few years ago a started to think about my ecological footprint. One of the greatest impacts on the environment is our food. You all know there is climate change and there is a growing population and on the other hand space is limited and there is barren farmland, drought and erosion. the whole thing is caused above all by the consumption of meat and food waste, also we have a global distribution problem. There is also the use of pesticides and genetically modified seeds and toxic food additives or production etc etc. This has serious consequences for our ecosystems.
And this is not everything. Food is transported around the world. Everything is wrapped in plastics (and everything that floats in our oceans) and we use energy to cook our meals. Food spoils or proper food is thrown away. We have bigger and bigger supermarkets and more and more product selection.
What is the ecological footprint of Jimmy Joy compared to an ordinary diet?
Jimmy Joy vs traditional food
no spoiling food
less proper food thrown away (-> cooked too much/too much on plate/kitchen fails ->supermarkets etc)
less plastics/wrapping (when i cook a meal, everyingridient is wrapped in plastics )
no meat! (meat production is the biggest waste possible)
saves energy (no heating required)
What about the production of Jimmy Joy? (e.g. are ingridients sustainable and where are they from? How they are grown? gmo? or what about extracted proteins etc (pea/soy protein), what happens with the rest of the plants or whats the source of vitamins or how they are extracted? or whatever … … … … …)
Isn’t it better to eat organic vegetables or have a self-sufficiency?
What if everyone would consume “future foods”? (->monocultures?)
What about all the other vegetables and fruits not used?
Will there be an organic version or different Jimmy Joy with different ingridients to use the variety of plants?
Is it better for the environment to eat only Jimmy Joy or eat it partially? (if everybody would start eating “future foods”)
What do you think? other thoughts?
When I compare my former diet, it seems to be better for the environment to eat (partially) Jimmy Joy .
I think Jimmy Joy is potentially the better option. I totally agree with your less waste arguments, but I would also like to add a few more arguments.
saving energy in home:
- no fridge or freezer
- no stove
- very little dishes
I do think that Jimmy Joy can become more ecofriendly, one example would be changing the recipe for different places in this world (depending on what kind of crops grow there). The crops grown to produce soylent should have a very high production for a small area and it should be grown close to the factory. There should also be more factories so that not as much transport is required. I think gmo will help Jimmy Joy be more ecofriendly, and I also think that using plant proteins instead of animal proteins will help Jimmy Joy be more ecofriendly. However I’m by no means an expert on sustainability.
I thought that most vitamins and minerals in supplement form did not get extracted from actual food items, but I’m not an expert on this. The only vitamin that I’m sure about is B12, because I know it is produced in a lab by certain bacteria (in “nature” as well btw).
In the end these are just hypotheses, it would be great if the actual ecological footprint of Jimmy Joy would be scientifically tested.
Shipping to from Holland to Japan is a huge part of my Jimmy Joy footprint (and makes it cost much more). Localized production would help that. There is a variant made by Kirin called COMP, but it is stupidly expensive and is not nutritionally balanced.
This is a great question where I am also really interested in!
Maybe someone of the customer support can tell us more about the origins of the ingredients?
What if everyone would drink shakes, would these ingredients become easily scarce,
or are they easily and eco/bio -logically grown?
I’m thinking about using Jimmy Joy for a project in school.
I would like to compare it to traditional food, to talk about global waste.
Would love to know and/or discuss about this topic some more!
Have a joyful day!
We’re not fully there yet, but definitely aim to have a completely organic product in the future!
I don’t see the interest for organic product. Organic product aren’t better on the ecological and health aspect. And this method is opposed to technological progress (GMO, micro-irrigation with synthetic fertilizer, etc). These progress can reduce ecological footprint of agriculture. For instance, some GMO can reduce the use of pesticide and fertilizer with a better capacity to catch CO2.
The fact that Jimmi Joy doesn’t use organics and anti-GMO propaganda is one of the argument I choose this product. If you go on the technophobic marketing , you will lost at least one customer.
I am totally for real progress on the ecological side of the product (like recyclable bag). But based on rationnality and science, not irrationnal fear.
I’m not really anti-gmo … humans grow seeds for thousands of years, improved them by selection, gmo has much potential, i think it’s also good trying to safe as lot as possible traditional seeds, to combine natures treasures … But not as long we have Montsanto.
I don’t see why “organic” and “anti-gmo” are always put together. These are two different Topics.
And I also don’t get why organic and scientific are non-matching oposites.
Organic regulations simply control which kind of fertilizers, pesticides etc. are allowed to be used. And that reducing or even eliminating those is highly benificial to the environement and therefore for the plants is easy to see for everyone who ever took a closer look at an organic and a conventional farm.
Because the principle of organics aren’t fact based. They are based on an
essentialist view (synthetic versus natural). Organics aren’t opposed to
pesticid. In fact they used toxic and dangerous “natural” pesticid (not
better than synthetic, and sometimes clearly more dangerous than a
synthetic equivalent). Furthermore, organic agriculture is very inefficient
and used in average 25% more terrains more than conventional agriculture,
and this is very bad for biodiversity.
Only taking a “look” on the apparence of farm aren’t scientifical method.
You need analysis, data, experiment, etc.
GMO means patented DNA that is engineered for the sustainability of the company who created it and not the environment.
And a bit of analysis and data about the organic agriculture:
And so? What’s the problem with the patent? All new variety are patented. It isn’t a problem linked with GMO. Even current organic varieties are under patent. Some were created by mutagenesis, a method far more uncontrolled (random mutation by high level of radiation or genetoxic compound) than genetic edition. And I don’t have any problem with mutagenesis, the facts are “that’s work”. It is just far less efficient than genetic edition. But there isn’t any logical reason to accept mutagenesis and reject GMO. It is no more rational than a religious dogma.
For the “meta-study”, this isn’t a study. It’s commercial document. This document extract only some point from the study so give a deformed view of the result. In reality, the only real advantage of the organics are the antioxidants, but with lower levels of other nutritional elements. But the différence aren’t very important. There isn’t any advantage (or drawbacks) to eat organics.
For a synthese about this: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/nutritional-content-of-organic-and-conventional-foods/
I’m not against the GMO or engineering on living beings in general. But DNA patents are much like software patents which is not even allowed in EU. Unlike real inventions, being the one who is able to do it first or just theoretically claim rights on some -most of the time not even novel- “code” change should not give anybody exclusive rights on it. They can take any patents on the process or the tools but in my view, DNA is naturally licenced like GPL*; nobody has any right to modify and then close the mother natures open source code!
Even if they are able to engineer a brand new “product” from scratch, I would still stand against the idea of allowing it to be planted on open fields. If we want efficiently convert the sunlight to food, we can work on improving the code of something like fusarium venenatum** which can be grown in completely isolated institutions. Replacing the natural species with corporate controlled and patented ones is both environmentally and economically risky. If we take into account the track record of humanity on any kind of big impact matters, I cannot feel safe with trusting the common wisdom of the governments or the companies.
Finally, when it comes to replacing the natural varieties with engineered ones, we should not be responsible for finding any harmful effect to ban it, instead, they should convince the humanity for its goodness with conclusive scientific research which still can be easily discredited as biased or fraudulent commercial documents.
The patent question isn’t linked to the GMO. It is a more societal problem because this problem is general to all research and creation, and it is the very same for any variety. So the fact you reject GMO on this foundation is a proof of ignorance about the agricultural variety or hypocrisy.
The fact you talk about “natural” species is just an essentialization of the subject and clearly a demonstration of the fact you don’t know anything about the present varieties used in agriculture. There is no such thing in agriculture. No “natural” variety. All are the result of millennia of man manipulation, by many means. GMO is only the last. Furthermore, there is natural gene transfer by virus everyday precisely by the same tool we used to make GMO. In fact, we learn the tricks to create GMO from virus and bacteria for the last method (CRISPR/Cas9). So you want “natural” varieties but you are against one the evolution pathways which participated to create them?
And for the last paragraph, we already make more studies for GMO varieties than we do for others varieties. This fact only is very stupid because the GMO are clearly the less risky one. Furthermore, there is no rational way to prove the inexistence of something, including risk.