Not very often that I have seen such a confusing graphic


Ok, glad to see this. I thought “what…in the hell? I…don’t…get it.” Greenhouse gas…emitted by it’s existence on the retail aisle? By it’s consumption? Or by it’s production? Shouldn’t have to ask that many questions about a graph/figure, right?!


i would have guessed it was for the prodction and distribution lifecycle stages of the product per 100g


Geez…I never COULD have guessed that. lol! Don’t ya think that’s a lot to have to assume/presume?!


I think so too. In my experience most "environmetalist" think this is common knowledge so they state things like everyone know what they talking about. Now, it may sound like a lot, but it is not that much to assume, OP is giving a dimension and most emmisions are produced in those stages. Yet I'm still assuming.


I have no idea what I'm looking at!


Same thought here




Hello twin


What does “impact” mean here? I guess we’re hoping for as little as possible in each category.


Yes, read the research here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2120584119#fig05






Where the funk was this published? Coffee has zero calories. But, if I’m to understand this correctly, coffee has more calories than Yorkshire pudding. And more than pizza.? Hot chocolate > doughnuts (and cake)? Thought I may have misinterpreted some of those…but milkshakes correspond w/(generally speaking) it’s calorie-dense nature. It’s like every item has its’ own outlier. If this is meant to hold sway, convince anyone of anything perhaps start with some clear, definitive categories. I’ve never even seen the word eutrophication. I mean, technically….I have (now). But only bc I had to look it up.


The point around 'coffee' is fair. After reviewing this chart for a while I realized that each circle isn't a specific item but rather a 'category'. So 'coffee' includes things like lattes, macchiatos... basically anything that Starbucks would sell in a cup. Some of those drinks have massive amounts of sugar and calories in them. The average very closely hugs the bottom of the range which to me means MOST people don't drink their coffee with all that crap in it. But at least 5% do.


Still….average caloric density of: **COFFEE (any) < CAKE/DOUGHNUTS** Oh…and **PIZZA > COFFEE** And if that were the case, it would need to be designated appropriately, such as: “**drinks WITH coffee**.” Not “***Coffee***”.


I’m not saying the graph is perfect, of course. But I was translating the words and images to what was likely intended. I don’t know what items were captured in the various categories, since I wasn’t there and am further translating through the lens of British to American English. I know that “cakes” has a significantly broader meaning in the UK vs US. 100g of coffee is much much less than you might thing, btw. Water is heavy as fuck, esp compared to a highly aerated baked good.


Dude or dudette: water contains zero calories. Weight is not directly related to caloric density. It (mass) has little to no relationship w/caloric content. And there are [**3 kcal** per 8oz. of coffee](https://www.javapresse.com/blogs/enjoying-coffee/how-many-calories-are-in-coffee). Three. Doesn’t matter if you’re in the UK, US, or China, a calorie is a calorie. 1 TBSP. sugar = 50 kcal [Cheesecake Factory Chocolate Tower Truffle Cake has 51.5 tsp. of sugar = 1,679 kcal (total)](http://www.weightymatters.ca/2012/06/worlds-most-dangerous-piece-of-cake-has.html?m=1)


100 grams of coffee is 100 ml of coffee, exactly as much as I might think


This is one of the best arguments I've seen against radar plots.


Okay, if you say so . . . .


This graph has a TON of detail smashed into it. Af first I didn't understand it but decided to take a moment to figure out what it meant. After a minute or two it started making sense and then I realized the power of the graph once translated. Speaking of translation - I get this chart was crafted by a Brit. And most of it is fine. But there are a few terms like 'World Food' 'Party Food' 'Squash & Cordial' and 'Tins, Cans and Packets' that range from presumptive in understanding to un-Google-able.


BONK go to bad graphics jail


Puzzling over yogurt vs cheese, isn't the difference just time?


And amount difference. Because you can make much less cheese with the same amount of milk. But that doesn't makes much of a difference when it comes to the this graphic is just bad and misleading.


Holy hell, this might be the most confusingly visualized data I have ever seen.


I love how we have milk, butter, & eggs, - totally separate categories mixed together, but then we have 'dairy alternatives' standing by themselves. 628 liters of water are required to produce one liter of cow milk. Whereas 1 liter of oat milk takes 47 liters to make. Even almond milk, which is touted as being an environmental destroyer, and a water guzzler, only takes 384 liters of water to make a liter. You see when a dairy graph is isolated, like we see with 'Cheese' on this visual, the issue is apparent. Dairy is delicious (or at least its byproducts are, I think plain milk is gross personally), but it's much worse for the environment than its alternatives.


cows pee


This sucks. How is “hot beverage” less water impact than jams and spreads. Cool idea, try again


I don't really get this, but I feel as though the information could be cool displayed in less confusing manner


Figure text below and [link to the publication](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2120584119) for those of you as confused as I was. This is not a great standalone figure, it needs the context given in its publication. >Radar plots indicating the variation in impacts per 100 g of product within each retail Aisle. Solid vertical and horizontal lines separate radar plots into one of eight food types, which are further differentiated by color. Within each food type, radar plots are ordered such that the Aisle with the lowest mean environmental impact score and nutrition impact score are in the upper left, and the Aisle with the highest environmental and nutrition impact are in the bottom right. In each radar plot, the black line indicates the mean impact of products in the Aisle while the shaded area indicates the 5th to 95th percentile impacts of the products within that Aisle. Inner and outer bounds of the radar plot correspond with 5th and 95th percentile impact of all food products available at Tesco, respectively. For the four individual nutrition indicators, the values used for plotting are the number of points assigned to each product for that food component using the NutriScore algorithm. For the four environmental indicators, the values used for plotting are the environmental impact per 100 g of product for the environmental indicator. When plotting, Aisles containing similar products were condensed for visibility and clarity (see SI Appendix, Supplementary Information Text). For instance, the Aisles “Fresh Vegetables” and “Frozen Vegetables” were condensed into “Vegetables.”


The graphics are very bad and misleading imo. How can yoghurt doesn't have any impact on environment while cheese just nukes the Earth? Also veggies are just nonsense. That doesn't make sense. You need literally tons and tons of water and land for veggies and fruits yet, graphic shows almost none. Also dairy and meat group shown demonized. I think whoever did the research just ignored the connection between each "item" in the graph and with the other things. So they can show cheese as one of the worst on environment. You get many more stuff from cattle farms. Meat, skin, milk, manure... If you cut this connection and assume that you only get cheese from the milk, then it's really bad. Reality is totally opposite.


> You need literally tons and tons of water and land for veggies and fruits yet, graphic shows almost none. Also dairy and meat group shown demonized. Well yeah, because you need to grow the 'veggies' for the meat as well, so their minimum can only ever be the maximum of land use for produce.


This right here. I thought on the issue of yogurt vs cheese for a while. And I realized that cheese loses almost all of its water through the process, requires significant area for storage, and presses the product resulting in eutrophic run off. This is the sort of graph that I need to make sense of those variables. The only thing that I wish I could see is animal protein through poultry. I don't eat much beef or lamb, but do love a good chicken, turkey or duck.


That's a fair point, I agree with you. Still, I think this graph is very bad. There are so many connections and variables, which I think, ignored or dismissed. If you cut the connections (like cows needs food from farms and farms (plant or animal) generates multiple products etc.). From where I live, imported products are very expensive. Due to transportation, higher profit margins, currency fluctuations and taxes. I think this is the real problem for the environment. I think, importing something, let's say kinoa, from other side of the world is much more harmful than a cow in a farm right next to my city. Local products should be prioritized.


I ain't reading all that


Saving for later (1)


from the article you've listed, i find more insightfull the matrix than comparative webs.


Ya this can go on r/hmm


Loving the yoghurts


Maybe keep the general concept but focus on either nutrition or environmental impact?


How do I read this graph?


0 information from this graphic.


Some really interesting data in here. One thing that could improve how quick it is to parse the data would be to use the shading a bit differently. As it stands, the ones with a big coloured area are those with a big variance, which confuses my eyes a bit. So a very high impact food type with little variance would be a narrow band at the edge of the circle, which wouldn't stand out visually as much as one with a middling impact and high variance. I wonder if shading up to the mean impact would be better? And then providing lines for the 5th and 95th %?


I have no idea what I'm looking at


Radar chart is the new pie chart.


proof we should only eat dirt to save the planet


can I has barchart?