Matthew Hayek
@matthewhayek.bsky.social
NYU Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies. Climate, animals, land use, and food systems. MatthewHayek.com
In the next graf, he says cheese puffs are proof that processing itself is unhealthy. But cheese puffs are a refined grain, something that dietary guidelines have recommended we substitute for whole grains since the early 00s. And what is 'highly processed starch'? Seems like it's just...starch. 4/
November 10, 2025 at 8:17 PM
In the next graf, he says cheese puffs are proof that processing itself is unhealthy. But cheese puffs are a refined grain, something that dietary guidelines have recommended we substitute for whole grains since the early 00s. And what is 'highly processed starch'? Seems like it's just...starch. 4/
You know what else alters the physical and molecular structure of foods? *Cooking food*
By this logic, we'd be healthier on a raw foods diet. Spoiler alert: that's unhealthy, because while calories become less bioavailable, so do some critical vitamins and minerals. 3/
By this logic, we'd be healthier on a raw foods diet. Spoiler alert: that's unhealthy, because while calories become less bioavailable, so do some critical vitamins and minerals. 3/
November 10, 2025 at 8:17 PM
You know what else alters the physical and molecular structure of foods? *Cooking food*
By this logic, we'd be healthier on a raw foods diet. Spoiler alert: that's unhealthy, because while calories become less bioavailable, so do some critical vitamins and minerals. 3/
By this logic, we'd be healthier on a raw foods diet. Spoiler alert: that's unhealthy, because while calories become less bioavailable, so do some critical vitamins and minerals. 3/
The main voice for "it's the processing, dummy" is Dariush Mozzafarian at Tufts. He argues that we've altered the physical and molecular structure of foods. But that's the naturalist fallacy dressed up on more scientific-sounding clothes. It seems paper-thin and easy to refute. 2/
November 10, 2025 at 8:17 PM
The main voice for "it's the processing, dummy" is Dariush Mozzafarian at Tufts. He argues that we've altered the physical and molecular structure of foods. But that's the naturalist fallacy dressed up on more scientific-sounding clothes. It seems paper-thin and easy to refute. 2/
Congratulations Jon! Incredibly well-earned.
November 6, 2025 at 10:40 PM
Congratulations Jon! Incredibly well-earned.
All of this must come at the same time as lowering the overall global demand for land-exhaustive meat & dairy products. Or at least slowing its growth, so that less deforestation is required than all of our best models project www.nature.com/articles/s41...
The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land - Nature Sustainability
Shifting global food production to plant-based diets by 2050 can sequester 99–163% of the CO2 emissions budget towards limiting climate warming to 1.5 °C.
www.nature.com
November 5, 2025 at 5:04 PM
All of this must come at the same time as lowering the overall global demand for land-exhaustive meat & dairy products. Or at least slowing its growth, so that less deforestation is required than all of our best models project www.nature.com/articles/s41...
One author of the study says "just eat culled dairy beef", reflecting naivete of the study's model assumptions. There's a real reason why the US does less beef-from-dairy to Eastern Europe: dairy beef tastes different, and Americans love the taste of marbled feedlot stake from dedicated beef herds!
October 21, 2025 at 5:46 PM
One author of the study says "just eat culled dairy beef", reflecting naivete of the study's model assumptions. There's a real reason why the US does less beef-from-dairy to Eastern Europe: dairy beef tastes different, and Americans love the taste of marbled feedlot stake from dedicated beef herds!
This also drives the news writers to reach a dubious conclusion that producers can readily drive down impacts: if regional variation is so great, just source lower-emissions beef or emulate those methods, right? This is NOT a readily available mitigation measure though.
October 21, 2025 at 5:46 PM
This also drives the news writers to reach a dubious conclusion that producers can readily drive down impacts: if regional variation is so great, just source lower-emissions beef or emulate those methods, right? This is NOT a readily available mitigation measure though.
But this isn't realistic. The reality is that both regions contain both products, hence a mix of embedded GHG emissions. Because the model didn't differentiate beef product categories, it missed this.
October 21, 2025 at 5:46 PM
But this isn't realistic. The reality is that both regions contain both products, hence a mix of embedded GHG emissions. Because the model didn't differentiate beef product categories, it missed this.
Their simplified model assumptions cause the model to incorrectly flood groceries & restaurants in Chicago with culled dairy beef, while in Omaha they're full of marbled steaks & other cuts from angus steers, driving stark difference in emissions seen in their figure below, which are fictitious
October 21, 2025 at 5:46 PM
Their simplified model assumptions cause the model to incorrectly flood groceries & restaurants in Chicago with culled dairy beef, while in Omaha they're full of marbled steaks & other cuts from angus steers, driving stark difference in emissions seen in their figure below, which are fictitious
This may reflect a model-reality gap. Their FoodS3 model uses linear optimization to minimize total impedance (cost/distance) between processing facilities and final consumption locations. It's likely doing this regardless of what final products are *actually* being sold in each region.
October 21, 2025 at 5:46 PM
This may reflect a model-reality gap. Their FoodS3 model uses linear optimization to minimize total impedance (cost/distance) between processing facilities and final consumption locations. It's likely doing this regardless of what final products are *actually* being sold in each region.
Also, while they say they include feedlots, their supply chain example looks at NYC metro area, in which feedlots are completely missing. Realistically, many of these cattle were shipped to the midwest, then back to NYC for steakhouses, and premium beef products at grocers.
October 21, 2025 at 5:46 PM
Also, while they say they include feedlots, their supply chain example looks at NYC metro area, in which feedlots are completely missing. Realistically, many of these cattle were shipped to the midwest, then back to NYC for steakhouses, and premium beef products at grocers.
BUT the final lower-emission cuts from dairy cattle taste quite different than beef herds! The authors don't seem to recognize this, instead treating diverse beef product categories & preferences as a uniform "beef" commodity that they optimize a simple model to churn out & ship efficiently.
October 21, 2025 at 5:46 PM
BUT the final lower-emission cuts from dairy cattle taste quite different than beef herds! The authors don't seem to recognize this, instead treating diverse beef product categories & preferences as a uniform "beef" commodity that they optimize a simple model to churn out & ship efficiently.
For those who don't know: you can either produce beef from dedicated beef-only herds that don't produce dairy (e.g. angus) or from the male calves or exhausted cows from dairy herds (e.g. holstein). beef-from-dairy has fewer emissions because most effort & cost went to producing the milk, not meat.
October 21, 2025 at 5:46 PM
For those who don't know: you can either produce beef from dedicated beef-only herds that don't produce dairy (e.g. angus) or from the male calves or exhausted cows from dairy herds (e.g. holstein). beef-from-dairy has fewer emissions because most effort & cost went to producing the milk, not meat.
They claim that Chicago & Wisconsin get most of their beef from nearby dairies. But that's immediately suspicious. There are steakhouses in those areas! There are plenty restaurants that pride themselves on serving angus, which like >70% of US beef, must be coming from feedlots.
October 21, 2025 at 5:46 PM
They claim that Chicago & Wisconsin get most of their beef from nearby dairies. But that's immediately suspicious. There are steakhouses in those areas! There are plenty restaurants that pride themselves on serving angus, which like >70% of US beef, must be coming from feedlots.
The result is that, there's a large *modeled* difference between embodied emissions between beef consumed in different municipalities, like NYC vs. Chicago (> 2x), but that modeled difference that they claim is present is much larger than the much smaller variations that are present in reality.
October 21, 2025 at 5:46 PM
The result is that, there's a large *modeled* difference between embodied emissions between beef consumed in different municipalities, like NYC vs. Chicago (> 2x), but that modeled difference that they claim is present is much larger than the much smaller variations that are present in reality.
Reading the paper gave me further pause, as I'm not sure their methods can really identify where grocers & restaurants are sourcing their beef from. I think it uses an optimization model that creates a synthetic or fake beef supply chain that doesn't map onto real world supply & demand very well.
October 21, 2025 at 5:46 PM
Reading the paper gave me further pause, as I'm not sure their methods can really identify where grocers & restaurants are sourcing their beef from. I think it uses an optimization model that creates a synthetic or fake beef supply chain that doesn't map onto real world supply & demand very well.
When I see that differences in how consumers and producers affect beef emissions, that gives me pause. This is a system that has optimized its inputs and operates on massive economies of scale at feedlot & slaughter stage.
October 21, 2025 at 5:46 PM
When I see that differences in how consumers and producers affect beef emissions, that gives me pause. This is a system that has optimized its inputs and operates on massive economies of scale at feedlot & slaughter stage.
This makes much more sense to me. Thanks for following up.
October 20, 2025 at 2:39 AM
This makes much more sense to me. Thanks for following up.
And both of your responses mention population growth, but EAT-Lancet demand growth on fish catch/production seems to exceed population growth.
October 19, 2025 at 6:42 PM
And both of your responses mention population growth, but EAT-Lancet demand growth on fish catch/production seems to exceed population growth.
Thanks for chiming in. I'm still very confused by this though and this answer adds to my confusion. Presumably, an EAT-Lancet 2050 scenario would follow EAT-Lancet dietary recommendations, not projected dietary preferences, which BAU would follow.
October 19, 2025 at 6:42 PM
Thanks for chiming in. I'm still very confused by this though and this answer adds to my confusion. Presumably, an EAT-Lancet 2050 scenario would follow EAT-Lancet dietary recommendations, not projected dietary preferences, which BAU would follow.