Hacker News Reader

Comment by guylhem | Hacker News Reader

What the point of such an headline?

Public outcry?

The agricultural industry needs to find new ways to make food more affordable or more efficiently. Until we find a way to bioengineer proteins from say bacteria, and keep a familiar taste like chicken, we will have to keep using animals.

Finding a way to recycle pig waste to reduce the carbon emission and also create seafood seems like a good idea to me.

What's the alternative? Letting the pig waste pollute natural resources and keeping seafood price up???

View on HN

Where, in the article, did you see any mention of recycling pig waste? The article is about food contamination, not sustainability.

That's just a bloomberg article, not a full cost benefit analysis. If some of the pig waste goes to the shrimps, less of it will go elsewhere. I'd call that recycling - a positive externality here.

Pig manure is causing problems in this world. For example, some serious effort is made to find the best storage temperature to reduce methane emissions - see www.engr.usask.ca/societies/csae/protectedpapers/c0209.pdf for exemple.

So anything that will reduce or convert the amount produced is a good thing.

Including contaminating food? What's with this straw man? Pig waste might be a problem but how does that justify feeding food sources with it? Are you comfortable with the notion of feeding other non-seafood food sources (such as pigs) with it too?

Again, all the context necessary is provided in the article. I'm not against finding a solution to the "pig waste problem." I don't think feeding it to food sources is a logically sound primary solution any more than feeding children radioactive waste is (for the "radioactive waste problem").

It's a solution. Until it has been evaluated, can't say if it's the best solution. It certainly is a way to consider however - like you, I'm not against any solution.

But the radioactive example is a fun one- wasn't there a plan to reduce the risk of radioactive materials by including them in construction materials, so that the emitted radiation would be lower? Some believed that it was safer than concentrating/burying them.

> The agricultural industry needs to find new ways to make food more affordable or more efficiently.

Why? We already have plenty of food. If anything, we have too much food.

Good thing, then absolutely nobody is dying of hunger on this planet, and absolutely no one will buy more seafood if it becomes cheaper.

Let's leave aside the recycling for a moment.

Some people on this planet (without internet access, and thus not on HN unfortunately) might disagree with the "too much food" statement.

(EDIT: Yes I know, distribution is the #1 problem, but lowering prices and increasing productivity is a favorable factor.)

People aren't hungry because seafood is expensive. People are hungry (mostly) because food is distributed in weird ways.

(http://www.wfp.org/hunger/faqs)

> 1 - Is there a food shortage in the world?

> There is enough food in the world today for everyone to have the nourishment necessary for a healthy and productive life.

This is from the World Food Program, a United Nations organisation.

You mention protein. Lack of protein isn't a problem for many people. Lack of micronutrients is much more serious, affecting (killing or maiming) very many more people.

There's plenty of food to go around. Starvation only happens because of war/religious/political reasons.

I believe it's more of a distribution problem than a quantity one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com