[crazygringo]

> Why does it need to be in a container that degrades in 300+ years?

Because there's no other cost-effective material we've invented that keeps the prosciutto airtight (so it doesn't dry out in hours), won't puncture/rip easily, holds up to shipping+stacking, and is transparent (to examine for fat percentage, slice thickness, etc. -- always essential for meats and veggies).

Can you provide a material that does all that but starts degrading after 60 days? If you can, you stand to make a lot of $$$.

Obviously, the main alternative is having someone slice it at the deli counter for you, but that means you could only ever buy prosciutto at places with a staffed deli counter, including the 15-minute wait for the deli counter if you're going grocery shopping at the end of a regular workday...

[michaelbrave]

There are bio-plastics(usually made from corn) that degrade fairly fast, the problem is they cost less than a percent of a cent more. This is really a thing where government subsidies that are forward thinking about the environment could help.

[tomcam]

> they cost less than a percent of a cent more

Citation please? I have dealt with packaging products for 35 years now and it’s expensive. In my experience anything close to what the parent poster described would result in packaging costs an integer multiple price increase per unit if biodegradable. Storage requirements would also increase because 60 days is not a long enough shelf lifetime for prosciutto or anything similar

[lordgrenville]

There was a piece in The Economist a couple of weeks ago about how some scientists made disposable coffee cups out of bagasse (wasteproduct of sugar production) which were basically as good as plastic on all the metrics GP mentioned but just fractionally more expensive. https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/11/14/...

[macspoofing]

Come on, be serious. These kinds of science-y puff pieces come out every day, on all kinds of topics (I can't count the number of times claims around cancer cures, fusion reactors, new battery technology that's 1000x better, etc. are made). This is one engineering group making very preliminary case (that they may have embellished for the media attention - wouldn't the first time - see: recent "life on Venus claims"). It takes time and lots of effort to figure out if this new material can satisfy all the necessary constraints in order to scale to the market.

[economusty]

And they ignore the viability of producing the object at scale. Making one and making one billion are worlds apart.

[TheAdamAndChe]

I think they're referencing PLA, polylactic acid. It takes a while to fully break down, but it still does degrade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylactic_acid

[ksdale]

Are bio-plastics really a big improvement though? Growing corn burns a lot of fossil fuels. I think there's a case to be made that plastic that ends up in a landfill after few carbon emissions is better for the environment than plastic that degrades after lots of carbon emissions. Not saying that's definitely the case, just that I'm not sure it's so clear.

[lenkite]

> Growing corn burns fossil fuels

Head-scratching a bit there. Corn absorbs CO2 while growing right ?

From https://www.agweb.com/article/corns-carbon-cowboy-busts-outs... ...At 200 bu. per acre, every acre of corn absorbs 8 tons of carbon dioxide. In 2012, U.S. farmers grew almost 100 million acres of corn and absorbed 800 million tons of carbon dioxide...

[ksdale]

Tractors, combines, trucks - there's a lot of heavy equipment that gets used to grow corn, and then there's emissions related to both producing and applying fertilizers.

[njarboe]

There's the old quip that corn is just one small step in the chain of converting oil into something people can eat.

[Loughla]

The assumption there is that plastic emits less carbon when it's being created than corn. Is that accurate?

[ksdale]

I believe that pulling oil out of the ground is way less carbon intensive than growing the necessary amount of corn, and I believe plastic is made from some tiny fraction of the petroleum that isn't used as fuel, so the petroleum would be extracted anyway, but the corn would not be grown anyway. I'm assuming the actual production of the good itself is similar in either case.

[X6S1x6Okd1st]

There is also a land cost. I'd be surprised if we determined that plastic is better than bio-plastic, but until we are making bio-plastic with a low land footprint land will continue to be a factor here.

[Loughla]

This might be a really stupid question, but how does land factor into carbon emission?

[frettchen]

I think the issue isn't emissions in that case but a "amount of land space necessary for landfills for traditional plastic" vs. "amount of land space necessary for plant growth for bioplastic."

If the bioplastic growth land takes up more space by a certain amount than is used to dispose of regular plastic, that's presents its own set of issues.

[Broken_Hippo]

In some ways, yes, and in others, definitely not. I think we'll get there: I also think some plastics are made using byproducts of fuel (gas/diesel) production, and as long as that's the case, we should probably use and recycle that (or find something else to do with it). Kind of like using every part of the animal, except with oil.

https://phys.org/news/2017-12-truth-bioplastics.html

[mikem170]

Does it need to be a big deal to wait a few minutes at the deli counter?

In our rush to maximize everything for efficiency we are causing numerous small problems that are adding up, a tragedy of the commons and loss of our humanity. Our culture seems to value efficiency above too much else.

[CountSessine]

we are causing numerous small problems that are adding up

Those numerous 15 minutes waiting in a deli line and waiting in a bakery line and waiting in a butchers line add up too. We value efficiency because we need it and you’ll learn the value of time efficiency once you have kids that need to be fed every day and a 9-5 job with a commute.

How did we solve this before? We deprived half the population of their right to work for a wage and had them run around doing all this waiting and cooking. That’s over now and the rest of our lives need to be more efficient.

[loco5niner]

> We deprived half the population of their right to work for a wage and had them run around doing all this waiting and cooking.

Here's the funny thing though. Your perspective changes when you have kids.

As a personal anecdote, we just had our first baby 3 months ago. My wife had spent the last 3 years getting her masters degree and getting her teaching certificate. She pushed hard. It was important to her. She got the email that her certification came through the day after the birth. She didn't care. All she want's to do right now is take care of her baby. That will likely change, and she'll probably work part time sometime in the future. But saying we've deprived half the population of their right to work is missing another perspective. The joy and privilege of raising a family. Yes, the efficiencies are wonderful, and for my wife (and for me), that means more time with our family.

Who is being deprived now? I would hate to see my daughter deprived of her time with Mom so Mom could sit in an office all day. And I feel like our society is suffering because kids aren't being raised by their parents anymore.

[52-6F-62]

> She pushed hard. It was important to her. She got the email that her certification came through the day after the birth. She didn't care. All she want's to do right now is take care of her baby.

I had a similar discussion with my brother the other day. After multiple miscarriages, they're finally pregnant, 17 weeks in and healthy.

He worked from the time he was a teenager joining military reserves, degree in criminology and kinesiology, and finally a provincial constable around 6+ years in to get to where he is.

An hour after their latest ultrasound, his only words were: work sucks.

[loco5niner]

Congrats to your brother! We can share in both their grief and their joy, as we've suffered through multiple miscarriages too.

[gus_massa]

The time with the father is also important. Did you consider to take a one year sabbatical to be with your daughter instead of sitting in an office all day?

[loco5niner]

I would if I could. I'd retire and be full-time Dad (among other things) if I didn't have all these dang bills to pay ;-) I did consider a 12-week sabbatical, but couldn't afford it since we just bought a house. I do plan on prioritizing daddy-daughter time though, because it's important to me. When I mentioned the efficiencies meaning more time for family, that was including myself.

[nobodyandproud]

I hear you.

As a dad: I tried to take as much time as I could, to spend time with my kid when they were very young (sadly, not anywhere near enough).

The times I could during their younger years led to some memorable memories and jokes, which I still lovingly rib them about MANY years later.

I’d rather have been sight seeing or exploring with my kid, but we live in a society where parents aren’t equipped to teach their children.

[emj]

I'm very privileged to have gotten 12 months paternity leave, even in Sweden that is a bit unusual but not unheard of. I had 7 months at 70% pay financed from the goverment, so I had to pay a lot and it was a bit risky. In the end my girl got a better job because of the time I spent with my daughter, and I had a wonderfull time.

So for me personally getting those 12 weeks alone with the child would be worth every penny, and can be very liberating for your wife, but the first two months were hard on me. Good luck, what ever you decide.

[jonfw]

It's great that she's made that choice, and it's also great that it's her choice to make. That wasn't the case before.

[robertlagrant]

Not because of people forcing other people to not do things. Because most of the things were super dangerous, and there wasn't enough value sloshing around to have lots of nice time-flexible desk jobs.

[crazygringo]

This x1000.

There's nothing romantic or natural or virtuous about wasting time waiting in line and visiting multiple shops and having less items available.

It's just boredom and tedium.

It's a good thing when we're able to free up time from mundane tasks so we do things that are rewarding to our soul -- whether it's spending more time with your family, playing sports with friends, going to the theater, reading a good book, whatever it is.

[mikem170]

There's also nothing virtuous or efficient about the typical modern middle-class American lifestyle, double the house size of fifty years ago, three cars, college as status symbol, etc.

I think most people would say that all this new efficiency is crushing peoples souls. Isn't everyone talking about the loneliness of the modern age, the scary amount of people who are depressed at any time, hiding with drugs, the loss of clubs and other social institutions?

I tend to think that we've been selling our soul for efficiency. We'd have so much free time if we we didn't need to consume so much.

[polishdude20]

That first paragraph is funny. More and more young people are renting more than ever. Three cars to a household is not common.

Although, yes I do agree that wanting to consume and have more items is causing us to suffer.

[crazygringo]

Absolutely none of that has to do with how efficient your grocery shopping is.

What you choose to spend your extra time on is your choice. But that's the point -- it should be your choice to be able to spend it on hanging out with friends, rather than standing in long lines waiting to buy food.

If you want to spend in on working extra hours to buy a third car, I mean that's your choice too I guess. But it's not like wasting your life waiting in line is any better.

[mikem170]

I'll try to clarify/refine where I'm coming from: Systemically we as a culture care more about our quick cheese than we do about the hundred of years of trash. Ideally the price of the fancy cheese and everything else should include the cost of disposal, and right now it doesn't, and that's not right.

Would you agree?

I do believe that our culture is too focused on economic efficiency, and ignoring numerous consequences of that. That might be a separate discussion?

[souprock]

I got three cars so I could be more efficient. Use the right size for the job.

For minor little trips around town, I use the Fiat 500L. It has 5 seats in 2 rows.

For high speed, or a bit more stuff, I use the Subaru Ascent. It has 8 seats in 3 rows.

For traveling with the whole family, I use the Ford E-350 extended-length passenger van. It has 15 seats in 5 rows.

Before I bought the smaller cars, I had to drive the van everywhere. It's a beast, 3 tons empty or 5 tons full. I think I get about 12 MPG, which is efficient per-person when I'm bringing a dozen kids. As a commuter car, the van is horrible.

[whiddershins]

I feel the same way, but it’s worth noting not everyone does.

[jazzyk]

So efficient = working 12 hrs/day and being able to afford everything ready-made/shipped for/to you (frozen and flavorless, on occasion past expiration date).

Even if you have an exciting/fulfilling job (a relative rarity) it gets old very quickly after a few years because most people need some variety in their lives.

Every time I vacation in southern Europe, I love going to markets, picking fruit/vegetables, having prosciutto cut for me. I think the time you claim it takes exagerrated - usually there are 1-2 people in line.

People dream to retire and tend to their garden (very "inefficient"), cooking their meals from scratch everyday, etc.

Lots of cooking shows and shows like "Escape to the country" (BBC) seem to prove my point.

[crazygringo]

What are you even talking about?

Most people work 8 hrs/day, not 12. If you go to your local supermarket, you'll see tons of people shopping for fresh produce and meat, not frozen or flavorless or expired (???).

You're inventing a total straw man. Yes some people work 12 hour days and eat frozen food but it's a small minority.

If spending lots of time at markets is what you enjoy, that do that. That's what farmer's markets in the US are for. But lots of people prefer to spend their free time doing other things they enjoy. Farmer's markets can get old very quickly too. Sometimes people want to spend just 5 minutes grabbing some ingredients and checking out to make a quick dinner, not 30 minutes visiting different stalls, waiting for the three people ahead of you at each one, and then haggling over prices.

[jazzyk]

Not inventing anything.

Northeast US:

Office hours: 9-6pm -> 9 hours (yes, includes "lunch" where people get a sandwich and eat it at the desk) Note that many people work longer, till 7pm or 8pm (startups, etc). Many people need 2 jobs to pay the bills.

Average commute time: 45 mins (you can google it) x 2 E-mail checking/responding at home after the kids go to bed: 1 hr

Total: 11.5 hrs easily (or more if you want to climb the corporate ladder)

So market-browsing/cooking is not your thing - that's fine. But let me just note that we invented all these life "efficiencies" - and are less and less happy (loneliness, drugs, etc).

What's the point?

[jonfw]

> But let me just note that we invented all these life "efficiencies" - and are less and less happy (loneliness, drugs, etc).

There are quite a lot of non-packaging related factors that also play into this

[mikem170]

So how about we add the cost of proper disposal to that cheese? It is inefficient and unfair to pass the cost of someone's cheese to everyone else now and for three hundred years. Then if you have the money you don't have to wait in line. Does that sound fair?

[Broken_Hippo]

We do pay for proper disposal - Often through taxes that go towards waste disposal, but some folks pay direct. The cheese plant pays for this sort of thing too. It simply isn't entirely in the cost of the cheese itself. If things aren't getting properly handled, unfortunately that is a political issue with legal solutions.

Having someone slice the cheese at a counter comes with its own risks: Have they cleaned properly? Are they treated fairly? Is the price going to go up because now places need a staffed deli, sinks, and equipment? Will it be just deli products or is everything in the grocery store going to be more expensive to pay for this extra stuff? Heck, what sort of impact is all of this stuff going to have on the environment?

I'll add that no matter what, we all are paying for things that we, personally, don't do, haven't consumed, or disagree with. It is part of living in a society. If you buy a pair of pants, you are covering the cost of theft and loss. If you go to the doctor, you are paying for other people's care in addition to your own (heck, that's what health insurance is). You may or may not feel you get much back for your tax money, which is really dependent on where you live in the world.

[crazygringo]

Whether it's prosciutto or cheese, of course. It's a common view among economists that externalities, including environmental ones, ought to be factored into costs. It's an unfair subsidy, exactly as you describe, when they're not.

[whiddershins]

Which was the deprivation?

Then or now? Running around and being efficient after spending your days working away in an office might not feel like an upgrade to someone who had the other option.

[mikem170]

Is this a catch-22 though? Would it be a less busy world if we the price of cheese packaging included the externalities of disposal?

Some people would choose the cheaper of more time consuming alternative, and what is wrong with that? Do we have to have everything possible asap, damn the consequences?

[mikem170]

But what is the goal of all these new efficiencies?

Many of the efficiencies the modern age brought us have been in service of "more" - more house, more car, more entertainment, more clothes, more disposable technology, more status symbols, etc. We totally live in a consumer society, our biggest companies revolve around advertising. The economy would fall apart if people stopped buying stuff they don't need.

Instead of all that we could have chosen the best modernity had to offer and only worked twenty hours a week. That would have been way more efficient than what we have now.

But no, everyone went for the prosciutto. The advertisers won.

[stronglikedan]

It's not always about just waiting in a line. If I have a small store selling pre-packaged meats, I may not have enough money to staff a deli counter.

[8note]

Cached cutting would make some sense?

You don't need to be waiting in line but the meats also don't need to be all precut and stored before they get to the store. Cut some off in the morning and put it in simpler packaging, and if that runs out, Cut a bit more

[crazygringo]

Plenty of deli counters do that with their popular items like ham, swiss, salami.

But prosciutto is more of a niche item that won't go bad quickly, which is why it's usually packaged at a factory in packaging that will last months.

[powersnail]

It's not always easy to find a deli that stocks actual Prosciutto; probably not enough people buy them.

On the one hand, I agree that efficiency is valued too high. But on the other hand, sometimes, efficiency is what makes things accessible at all.

[mariodiana]

Yes. Deli counter people are notorious for interrupting you while you have your nose buried in your phone. And then you have to actually talk to them. It's a big deal.

[minikites]

>Our culture seems to value efficiency above too much else.

Capitalism tells us that if we're not making money, we're worthless as humans. It's not about hard work or efficiency, just look at the lack of respect for work that doesn't make money (e.g. stay-at-home parents).

[Chris2048]

No it doesn't it says that the value of living in a capitalist society should be reciprocated with value, i.e. individuals providing value to society, as societal value is nothing more than the aggregation of individual contributions. I'm not saying this is entirely good/correct, but I am saying you misstate the message.

> just look at the lack of respect for work that doesn't make money

This conflates individual value with societal/communal. But why should anyone give a dam about stuff that doesn't benefit them? To be clear, I'm not saying people shouldn't give a damn, I saying why couldn't they i.e. why should they be forced if they choose not to.

There's also a nuance to value: Capitalism determines value on the basis on what money people are willing to spend. Firstly, if people go out of there way to ensure money is not involved with something, don't be surprised if it's value is miscalculated by a capitalist system: this is like not winning a competition you never entered. That said, the economic impact of packaging is undervalued because no one is attaching an accurate debt/penalty to it, which is arguably the real problem here.

Secondly, there is a notion that things of value create "market demand", so if little money is offered for something, then market doesn't want it, and people supplying it are refusing to offer what society actually wants. I think this makes sense: people have children even though parental benefits might be low suggesting they aren't really doing it for society, though I've discussed this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24423077

TLDR: Capitalism only deals with societal value; so it only determines your value (of actions, say) on the basis of value to society. People are free to value things outside that system; If you think "people don't care about X" because "people don't provide money for X" then it is you declaring the value of something to be its dollar amount.

[jschwartzi]

> To be clear, I'm not saying people shouldn't give a damn, I saying why couldn't they i.e. why should they be forced if they choose not to.

In a lot of these cases it's probably true that there's no direct, measurable, benefit. One has to look past the direct benefit to the indirect benefit to understand why we would be forced to do something that has no direct benefit to ourselves.

For example, a property tax increase to pay for improved schools doesn't have any apparent benefit if you're a single adult with no children in school. In fact the whole education system has no measurable benefit to you if you're an adult. It seems like a waste of money. So we can say it has no first-order benefit.

But suppose that the increased funding would help pay for things like civics education. There's a second-order or third-order benefit to paying those taxes. By ensuring other peoples' children are educated in how our Democratic institutions work, they are better able to navigate those institutions, and they will make more informed decisions about their elected officials because of this. If you care about maintaining and improving those institutions then that tax increase is very worthwhile even if you have no kids. But it has no measurable economic benefit.

I think our Capitalist system has gone insane because it no longer acknowledges those benefits that have no tangible monetary value. It also encourages us to think in terms of money above all else. We've gone so far into the weeds with Scientific Management that if we can't measure the direct monetary benefit it doesn't exist. And that's not true.

Being unable to measure something simply means we can't quantify the benefit. It doesn't mean it has no benefit. And that's at the heart of a lot of economic arguments against tax increases. They're arguing that being unable to quantify the benefit implies the benefit doesn't exist. And that's patently untrue in a lot of cases.

[Chris2048]

> But suppose that the increased funding would help pay for things like civics education

That why can't I just opt for that, the civics funding?

I'm not saying that only things with measurable economic benefit should be funded, I'm saying only things with measurable economic benefit OR that people want to pay for should be funded. One or the other, or both. But if neither condition is met, you shouldn't get funded.

and if your opinion is that there is a non-tangible benefit, you need to convince people of that. Our Capitalist system does acknowledge benefits that have no tangible monetary value - by allowing people to freely spend money on what they care about.

[minikites]

>Our Capitalist system does acknowledge benefits that have no tangible monetary value - by allowing people to freely spend money on what they care about.

So the most "successful" society under this reasoning is one where every parent works and childcare is done by employees instead of parents. There's no economic benefit to raising a young child, so the only other option under your axioms is "people want to pay for it".

[mikem170]

> Capitalism tells us that if we're not making money, we're worthless as humans.

I agree that pure capitalism thinks that way, and some cultures are closer to that than others.

[undersuit]

If the only reason we're choking our planet with plastic is so we don't have to wait at the deli counter might I suggest we just start placing orders to the deli counter a few hours before we arrive?

[lhorie]

IMHO, material transparency is the only difficult to meet requirement. Paper works fine to wrap most cold cuts and it's already used extensively in packaging for fruits and vegetables.

People are already willing to pay premium for organic and other hard to inspect/certify labels; it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility that people would be ok buying paper-wrapped prosciutto that has some similar stamp of quality.

[crazygringo]

Paper also works fine if you're ordering your prosciutto at the deli counter.

But even waxed paper isn't going to prevent the prosciutto from drying out for more than a day or two. The whole point of the plastic that prosciutto is often sold in is to keep it good for months, since it's usually a low-volume item that may sit on the shelf for a couple weeks or more.

[quicklyfrozen]

Personally I find paper wrapped items from the local deli fine, but I'd be pretty skeptical of any food products shipped only in paper -- too easy to contaminate.

[SN76477]

Makes me wonder what our diets would look like if plastic was never invented.

[i_haz_rabies]

probably healthier

[hinkley]

If we solve the problem by proliferating plastic eating bacteria and fungi, then all of these qualities will be lost.

[ev0lv]

Couldn't we just augment the existing plastic with seeds/fungi is some way? That way, after some time in the trash, the fungi actually develops a colony which eats the packaging?

[peanut_worm]

Isn’t Cellophane biodegradable?

[minikites]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellophane#Material_properties

>Cellophane is biodegradable, but highly toxic carbon disulfide is used in most cellophane production.

[peanut_worm]

Oh well, I tried.

[minikites]

>Can you provide a material that does all that but starts degrading after 60 days?

What's the motivation (market pressure) to develop such a thing? Plastic is cheap, so without other external pressure, there's no reason for any company to fund the development of something new. This is why pollution and other society-scale problems need a society-scale solution (government regulation).

[ornornor]

> What's the motivation (market pressure) to develop such a thing?

That’s a good point actually. Up until now it was “impossible” to make a vaccine in less than 7-10 years. The epidemic happened and we were able to make one in less than a year. But there was a fuckton of money to be made in it so we found a way.

[gabuyabdabudabu]

Honestly, it's called a glass jar. Folks should eat fresh local meats and produce and make their own preserves. Less reliance on mass-produced products and support local farmers/producers. Back before the garbagization-of-food you'd go to the butcher and get high quality meats. You'd go to the market to get produce. And, you'd make your own preserves for the winter WITHOUT PLASTIC. Simple, and in fact they taste much better if seasoned well!

[slothtrop]

What will actually happen is they'll make the switch to biodegradable plastics. Too few will want to give up the convenience of ready-made packaged foods. It could also require more travel to reach small distributors who don't use plastic, which wastes CO2 and time.

The alternative would be more feasible if we had better-designed, walkable cities. But in North America places are built staggered, public transpo sucks.

[gabuyabdabudabu]

Yeah, it's unfortunate really. All I can say is, as a collective people are really lazy and stupid. Even smart people are stupid because they think adding an _unnatural_ amount of mushrooms to the world will solve the problem. Like, hello people, adding _a bunch_ of something to the _bunch_ of something else is not a solution. By bunch I mean _trillions of tons_. People just value money more than anything and it will be our undoing.

[walleeee]

> Obviously, the main alternative is having someone slice it at the deli counter for you, but that means you could only ever buy prosciutto at places with a staffed deli counter, including the 15-minute wait for the deli counter if you're going grocery shopping at the end of a regular workday...

This and a million other small inconveniences hardly seem too great a price to pay to avoid filling the planet's air and water (and by consequence our bodies) with plastic waste

[whiddershins]

I think this is overblown. The earth is already ‘full’ of oil and gas and minerals and lots of toxic things. We are just transforming one type of substance into another - more useful to us - type of substance.

The issue is when the waste gets in to places where it wreaks havoc, like especially waterways.

Currently, afaik, this problem is primarily driven by a few countries in Asia, so I think the effort that would have the most impact is figuring out how to convince those particular Asian countries to stop throwing plastic in to rivers.

And anyone else who gets it in their head to throw plastic in to rivers.

As long as waste is contained properly it doesn’t seem to make so much of a net change in the earth.

[walleeee]

> Currently, afaik, this problem is primarily driven by Asia, so I think the effort that would have the most impact is figuring out how to convince Asian countries to stop throwing plastic in to rivers.

The west could start by not exporting a huge portion of its plastic waste to said Asian countries.

> I think this is overblown. The earth is already 'full' of... toxic things.

The earth was certainly not "full" of macro-, micro-, and nano-plastics 50 years ago.

Americans ingest and inhale tens to hundreds of thousands of microplastic particles per year[0]. Microplastics likely impair cognition in hermit crabs[1]. Nanoplastics accumulate in plants[2]. It's not just waterways.

Nobody really understands how this might affect human health. We're all participants in a planet-sized experiment to find out.

[0]: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2020.0030

[1]: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01517

[2]: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-020-0707-4

[crazygringo]

> The west could start by not exporting a huge portion of its plastic waste to said Asian countries.

That's not how it works. Worst-case scenario that winds up in landfills instead of being recycled.

The problem in Asia is 100% domestic, with citizens and households and apartment buildings dumping their local plastic trash on the side of the road, burning it in backyards, dumping it in the river.

[walleeee]

> That's not how it works. Worst-case scenario that winds up in landfills instead of being recycled.

It's a problem even if it ends up in landfills. Plastics can leach chemicals into groundwater. My point is that the "Asian countries are responsible for most of the world's pollution" narrative is simplistic and unhelpful. Most of the plastic in the oceans is indeed from Asian countries. But plastic concentrations are 4-20x higher on land than in the oceans. The United States has the highest tapwater contamination rate in the world (94%).

> The problem in Asia is 100% domestic, with citizens and households and apartment buildings dumping their local plastic trash on the side of the road, burning it in backyards, dumping it in the river.

You're of course correct to point out that this happens, but calling the problem 100% domestic is disingenuous.

[foobiekr]

Traditionally, that would be cellophane.

[hairytrog]

The ham itself will protect it, wrapped in Aluminum foil or even a hemp bag for shipping. The packaging is simply an artifact of people not wanting to buy a whole ham and wanting it presliced, which is perhaps an artifact of the fact that most people in the US will heat the majority of their meals by themselves and do not like to prepare meals. Sad.

[crazygringo]

Maybe you don't know what prosciutto is...? It's not just ham.

Buying an entire prosciutto costs hundreds of dollars, obviously people don't want to buy a whole one.

It's also usually not heated, by the way. This has zero to do with not liking to prepare meals... most people who buy sliced prosciutto are doing it as part of the meal they're preparing. We're not talking about hot pockets or frozen lasagna here.

[aaronblohowiak]

Maybe they know what prosciutto is but don’t know that in USA we use that term to only refer to prosciutto crudo?

[Broken_Hippo]

Even when I ate meat, I wouldn't buy a whole ham. What the heck am I going to do with a whole ham?? I literally do not have the freezer space for this. I've never had children, and have only been in a house with one other human.

That's a lot of food waste. Heck, I sometimes lament that I can't buy smaller amounts of spinach because I hate seeing half the bag go to waste.And I'll add that this has nothing to do with cooking or not cooking: I like to cook, and do so most days.

That packaging keeps food waste down because it breaks things into smaller portions - not to mention that many food places seal them in ways to make them last longer (example being adding a mix of gasses to help it not oxidize).

[powersnail]

It's not sad; it's practical. A whole ham is giant, expensive, hard to store, and might take months to get through, unless you eat it every meal.

I prepare my own meal, and I don't need meat to be pre-sliced, but I do need it to be in a small enough portion that can be put into my fridge.