Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hn_throwaway_99 1323 days ago
But the whole point is that Barilla's definition is ludicrous. The only definition that really makes sense is how much energy did it take to get the pasta from the box to my plate, and Barilla is excluding the vast majority of that energy in their 80% number for the sole purpose of inflating it to make it look better.
1 comments

Barilla's definition is ludicrous, and I'm playing the Devil's advocate.

> The only definition that really makes sense is how much energy did it take to get the pasta from the box to my plate

Including the energy required (and the carbon footprint) to manufacture the pasta in the first place, yes? Or no?

no, because we're only comparing the energy required to cook the pasta; not the whole lifecycle.