Among the last trends there is one that strikes me as particularly: lashing out a priori against the so-called “industrial” food. But does this preconceived stance really make sense? Actually not, because “industrially” produced food, if produced in quality and responsibly, offers many benefits in terms of food safety, efficiency and of reduced environmental impact.

Among the last trends there is one that strikes me as particularly: lashing out a priori against the so-called “industrial” food. But does this preconceived stance really make sense? Actually not, because “industrially” produced food, if produced in quality and responsibly, offers many benefits in terms of food safety, efficiency and of reduced environmental impact.

The productions on an increasing scale, that is greater quantities per unit of time of food produced, in fact guarantee low prices, uniformity, quality control. Thus allowing to obtain for a larger number of buyers affordable prices for various household incomes. But it’s not just about convenience. If you take for granted that buying a loose product from a small manufacturer is better, know this is not necessarily the case. Of course, it can make us known personally who sells what we eat and above all it can give support to local producers, vital for the Italian socio-economic fabric and fundamental for the protection of traditions or cultural aspects to be preserved. But beware to think that the “packaged” food from a supermarket is worse than what you bought during your trip to the countryside. You may be very disappointed.

To show how much the convictions to do well for health, nature or animals by choosing products from non-industrial supply chains are largely unfounded, I want to give only three examples: meat, vegetables and milk. Three products of wide diffusion, which are mostly purchased already packaged, and are therefore of industrial origin. The livestock sector of large producers is certainly the one most targeted when it comes to environmental impact or alleged lack of ethics. However, few seem to know that the bigger a farm the more it is subject to controls, both as regards hygiene and as regards animal welfare.

Take a tour of the small farms around Italy and you will often see chickens and hens in very small spaces or cows without the possibility of moving, which is impossible in a large “industrial” farm. Not to mention the large production plants, clean places like a surgery room where animals are kept in far more “ethical” conditions than in other smaller counterparts. Do we want to talk about efficiency? Indoor rearing, the most widespread in Italy, has no comparison in terms of lower environmental impact with those outdoors, considered more sustainable because they are more delightful to look at. But much more expensive in terms of water consumption and resources in general.

Another strong point of “industrial” meat production is the reduction of waste, which has now reached incredible levels, compared to other food sectors. The production and consumption of meat, in fact, generate a more than half of waste compared to fruit and vegetables, and equal to almost half of the waste produced by the cereal chain. Waste that, despite efforts to reduce the environmental impact of this sector, is mainly due to the final consumption phase.

As for vegetables, the comparison is valid above all between those sold as loose product and those already packaged. The latter are generally more expensive (just think of the salad), but if we talk about environmental sustainability and waste the comparison is to the advantage of those in bags. Also known as “fourth range”, the salad washed and ready to eat in bags has higher impacts than the fresh bunch of salad, for the washing and packaging activities necessary to make it ready for use and without waste.

But as noted by an interesting publication of Edizioni Ambiente, “The perfect food” by Massimo Marino and Carlo Alberto Pratesi: “From studies carried out on the supply chains of some of the main Italian companies that produce salad in bags, it emerges that from an environmental point of view the loose product is the winner only if waste from the field to the table is reduced to less than 30%, if it is collected in a differentiated way and sent for composting”.

Unfortunately, this does not happen in most of Italy, and the waste of salad is such as to make the loose product less sustainable than the packaged one. The packaged food, on the contrary, in addition to producing less waste, also supplies animal feed or biogas production through the waste it generates. If loose product is worthwhile, it is a question that has been made more and more often on milk in recent years. It now seems taken for granted that “on tap” is more sustainable, but if you analyse the situation well, as Marino and Pratesi do in their book, you can see that the most significant impacts lie elsewhere. For fresh milk, the greatest environmental impacts occur in the livestock phase, therefore reducing packaging is not very significant.

Then there is the question of home boiling the milk, generally recommended for safety reasons. Well, in addition to having greater impacts per liter (almost 600 grams of equivalent CO2 compared to just over 100 in industrial treatment) compared to pasteurization to which “industrially” produced milk is subjected (which, however, does not risk ruining the nutritional value of proteins), it requires much more energy per unit than that required by the entire industrial system of pasteurization, packaging and storage of packaged milk. The discussion could extend to hundreds of other products (imagine, for example, how much more energy would be consumed if we all had to bake bread or biscuits in our ovens), but I will stop here. My intent, in fact, is to reflect on how inappropriate it is to always dye the industrial sector in dark colours, considering it socially and ethically irresponsible. Maybe without even really knowing it.