The Illusion of Absolute Sustainability
Sustainability is holistic, not binary.
The word “sustainable” gets casually thrown around a lot as if there was a concrete threshold one could pass to earn that title. Food brands collectively spend millions each year to get certifications that they can emblazon on product packaging to give off the strongest sustainable vibes possible. And while it’s commendable that many in the food industry are trying their best to do better for the planet, we need to have a more intellectually honest conversation about what actually constitutes sustainability.
There is no such thing as an absolute definition of sustainability. It defies a binary classification or even a simple spectrum and demands a multifaceted examination to understand its implications fully, often balancing conflicting outcomes.
Consider the choice between aluminum beverage cans and plastic bottles. Advocates for cans, including brands like Liquid Death, argue they are much easier to recycle and significantly reduce landfill waste, which is usually true. However, supporters of plastic bottles counter with the fact that plastic production consumes less energy and resources than aluminum cans, and are lighter to transport, potentially lowering carbon emissions, which can also be true. Deciding whether an aluminum or plastic beverage container is more sustainable relies entirely on one’s specific environmental priorities.
Or look at the idea that plant-based, faux meat companies have floated that their products are unequivocally more sustainable than eating animal meat. While these products do mitigate the environmental degradation caused by industrial animal farming, they can introduce new issues. If Big Plant reaches anywhere near the scale of Big Meat, it would require many more massive fields of monoculture yellow peas and other crops that these faux meat products are comprised of, which also has downsides for the planet. If your primary sustainability lens is eliminating carbon emissions from factory animal farms, then plant-based meats are sustainable, but if you’re more concerned with biodiversity loss and synthetic crop input use, it’s not sustainable.
Even practices assumed to be wholly sustainable, like certain organic farming methods, can have unforeseen environmental consequences. For instance, limited use of copper sulfate as a fungicide is acceptable within organic farming standards but can be detrimental to aquatic life, disrupting natural ecosystems. Organically farmed crops sprayed with copper sulfate will still give off a strong sustainable impression to the average grocery shopper, and eaters may never be aware that their organic salad may have indirectly harmed fish in nearby waterways.
In the race to promote sustainability, half-measures that appear beneficial can be problematic if they overshadow or negate the need for more comprehensive solutions. Most of the time, it’s probably better to do nothing at all than to do something trivial for the planet and greenwash it to appear that you’ve singlehandedly saved the planet.
Companies often succumb to the pressure for quick, impactful narratives, oversimplifying their environmental efforts. This rush for positive publicity belies the slow, complex reality of genuine sustainable progress. It's easier to announce a revolutionary initiative than to articulate the subtle, gradual improvements that characterize real change. Short term wins—real or perceived—sync up with annual executive bonus timelines and quarterly earnings calls, not slow and steady progress.
Short attention spans and clickbait headlines don’t just affect the food sustainability movement. In a world saturated with information, eaters need mental shortcuts, especially when interpreting complex issues like sustainability. The media often distills intricate scientific research into eye-catching headlines, omitting essential details, because black and white conclusions get more clicks than nuanced thinking. This oversimplification of facts has created a post-truth zeitgeist, where one person’s misinformation is another’s facts, making informed decisions on matters of sustainability exceedingly difficult for the public.
True sustainability requires recognizing and accepting its inherent complexity. It is not about absolute stances or simplified dichotomies—such as "good" versus "evil" or "sustainable" versus "unsustainable." Instead, it involves a holistic understanding that accommodates multiple truths and contradictions. The future of food and the planet hinges on society’s collective ability to gain the patience, aptitude, and empathy to manage complex, multi-dimensional issues.
Sustainability is not a binary condition, like a light switch. True sustainability actually looks more like a graphic equalizer where many different, yet related, elements can each be measured on their own spectrum of good, bad, or in between. We need to stop saying something is sustainable or not, and start saying that “it is or isn’t sustainable with respect to [insert your sustainability dimension of choice].” It makes for a clunkier sentence, but it’s more precise and truthful.
In an era where cognitive dissonance is pervasive, preparing future generations to navigate these complexities becomes crucial. Embracing an "equalizer" mentality over a "light switch" perspective acknowledges the multifaceted nature of most significant issues, encouraging a more thoughtful, critical approach. My hope for today’s young people is that growing up in post-truth world will somehow make them more immune and capable to handle misinformation and contradiction than the generations before them.
Sustainability, like so many important issues, is an intricate, nuanced concept that doesn't lend itself to one-size-fits-all answers. Real progress lies in acknowledging these complexities, challenging simplified narratives, and making informed choices that consider various environmental, societal, and ethical implications. Only then can we engage with sustainability in a way that respects and preserves the delicate balance of our ecosystems and societies.
Footnotes
3 Recent posts from my Substack
3 Highlights from my current reading list
Meet the Climate-Defying Fruits and Vegetables in Your Future by Kim Severson - The New York Times
The myths we tell ourselves about American farming by Kenny Torrella - Vox
How Will A.I. Learn Next? By James Somers - The New Yorker
My email is mike@thefuturemarket.com for questions, comments, consulting, or speaking inquiries.