Question Description
Globally, about a third of the food produced for human consumption goes to waste, implying that a third of the water, land use, energy and financial resources that go into producing it are also squandered. Yet people often think of food as environmentally benign because it is biodegradable, while label food packaging as a wasteful use of resources leading to nothing but more pollution, despite the reality that the energy that goes into packaging makes up a mere 10% of the total energy that goes into producing, transporting, storing and preparing food. Needless to say, their view ignores the negative impact of food production, supply, and consumption, and the benefits possible from the right kind of food packaging.Indeed the dislike for food packaging is not all baseless. There is a lot of bad and wasteful packaging out there. But any assessment of its impact on the environment must take into account the benefits one can derive from packaging in the shape of reduced food waste that can be realized by protecting and dispensing food properly. For instance, two percent of the milk produced in the US goes bad on supermarket shelves before it can be purchased. This dairy waste can be avoided with packaging technology such as Tetra Pak that saves milk from spoiling, even without refrigeration. However, environmentally aware consumers tend to dislike Tetra Pak material because they think it cannot be recycled. The truth, however, is that it can be recycled, but the process is rather complicated. Irrespective of the recycling aspect, Tetra Pak is a good environmental bet because it can extend the shelf life of milk up to nine months, reducing the need for refrigeration — and reducing the amount of milk that goes bad on retail shelves. Clearly, the environmental benefit of the food-protection technology outweighs the negative impact of the packaging itself.The author is primarily concerned witha)presenting a more complete picture of a situation and suggesting a radical solution to the problemb)citing an example of a belief that isnot entirely baselessc)summarizing the negative impacts of an industry, effects of which people are not fully awared)arguing against a popular beliefe)attacking a mindset that has no empirical basisCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Globally, about a third of the food produced for human consumption goes to waste, implying that a third of the water, land use, energy and financial resources that go into producing it are also squandered. Yet people often think of food as environmentally benign because it is biodegradable, while label food packaging as a wasteful use of resources leading to nothing but more pollution, despite the reality that the energy that goes into packaging makes up a mere 10% of the total energy that goes into producing, transporting, storing and preparing food. Needless to say, their view ignores the negative impact of food production, supply, and consumption, and the benefits possible from the right kind of food packaging.Indeed the dislike for food packaging is not all baseless. There is a lot of bad and wasteful packaging out there. But any assessment of its impact on the environment must take into account the benefits one can derive from packaging in the shape of reduced food waste that can be realized by protecting and dispensing food properly. For instance, two percent of the milk produced in the US goes bad on supermarket shelves before it can be purchased. This dairy waste can be avoided with packaging technology such as Tetra Pak that saves milk from spoiling, even without refrigeration. However, environmentally aware consumers tend to dislike Tetra Pak material because they think it cannot be recycled. The truth, however, is that it can be recycled, but the process is rather complicated. Irrespective of the recycling aspect, Tetra Pak is a good environmental bet because it can extend the shelf life of milk up to nine months, reducing the need for refrigeration — and reducing the amount of milk that goes bad on retail shelves. Clearly, the environmental benefit of the food-protection technology outweighs the negative impact of the packaging itself.The author is primarily concerned witha)presenting a more complete picture of a situation and suggesting a radical solution to the problemb)citing an example of a belief that isnot entirely baselessc)summarizing the negative impacts of an industry, effects of which people are not fully awared)arguing against a popular beliefe)attacking a mindset that has no empirical basisCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Globally, about a third of the food produced for human consumption goes to waste, implying that a third of the water, land use, energy and financial resources that go into producing it are also squandered. Yet people often think of food as environmentally benign because it is biodegradable, while label food packaging as a wasteful use of resources leading to nothing but more pollution, despite the reality that the energy that goes into packaging makes up a mere 10% of the total energy that goes into producing, transporting, storing and preparing food. Needless to say, their view ignores the negative impact of food production, supply, and consumption, and the benefits possible from the right kind of food packaging.Indeed the dislike for food packaging is not all baseless. There is a lot of bad and wasteful packaging out there. But any assessment of its impact on the environment must take into account the benefits one can derive from packaging in the shape of reduced food waste that can be realized by protecting and dispensing food properly. For instance, two percent of the milk produced in the US goes bad on supermarket shelves before it can be purchased. This dairy waste can be avoided with packaging technology such as Tetra Pak that saves milk from spoiling, even without refrigeration. However, environmentally aware consumers tend to dislike Tetra Pak material because they think it cannot be recycled. The truth, however, is that it can be recycled, but the process is rather complicated. Irrespective of the recycling aspect, Tetra Pak is a good environmental bet because it can extend the shelf life of milk up to nine months, reducing the need for refrigeration — and reducing the amount of milk that goes bad on retail shelves. Clearly, the environmental benefit of the food-protection technology outweighs the negative impact of the packaging itself.The author is primarily concerned witha)presenting a more complete picture of a situation and suggesting a radical solution to the problemb)citing an example of a belief that isnot entirely baselessc)summarizing the negative impacts of an industry, effects of which people are not fully awared)arguing against a popular beliefe)attacking a mindset that has no empirical basisCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Globally, about a third of the food produced for human consumption goes to waste, implying that a third of the water, land use, energy and financial resources that go into producing it are also squandered. Yet people often think of food as environmentally benign because it is biodegradable, while label food packaging as a wasteful use of resources leading to nothing but more pollution, despite the reality that the energy that goes into packaging makes up a mere 10% of the total energy that goes into producing, transporting, storing and preparing food. Needless to say, their view ignores the negative impact of food production, supply, and consumption, and the benefits possible from the right kind of food packaging.Indeed the dislike for food packaging is not all baseless. There is a lot of bad and wasteful packaging out there. But any assessment of its impact on the environment must take into account the benefits one can derive from packaging in the shape of reduced food waste that can be realized by protecting and dispensing food properly. For instance, two percent of the milk produced in the US goes bad on supermarket shelves before it can be purchased. This dairy waste can be avoided with packaging technology such as Tetra Pak that saves milk from spoiling, even without refrigeration. However, environmentally aware consumers tend to dislike Tetra Pak material because they think it cannot be recycled. The truth, however, is that it can be recycled, but the process is rather complicated. Irrespective of the recycling aspect, Tetra Pak is a good environmental bet because it can extend the shelf life of milk up to nine months, reducing the need for refrigeration — and reducing the amount of milk that goes bad on retail shelves. Clearly, the environmental benefit of the food-protection technology outweighs the negative impact of the packaging itself.The author is primarily concerned witha)presenting a more complete picture of a situation and suggesting a radical solution to the problemb)citing an example of a belief that isnot entirely baselessc)summarizing the negative impacts of an industry, effects of which people are not fully awared)arguing against a popular beliefe)attacking a mindset that has no empirical basisCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Globally, about a third of the food produced for human consumption goes to waste, implying that a third of the water, land use, energy and financial resources that go into producing it are also squandered. Yet people often think of food as environmentally benign because it is biodegradable, while label food packaging as a wasteful use of resources leading to nothing but more pollution, despite the reality that the energy that goes into packaging makes up a mere 10% of the total energy that goes into producing, transporting, storing and preparing food. Needless to say, their view ignores the negative impact of food production, supply, and consumption, and the benefits possible from the right kind of food packaging.Indeed the dislike for food packaging is not all baseless. There is a lot of bad and wasteful packaging out there. But any assessment of its impact on the environment must take into account the benefits one can derive from packaging in the shape of reduced food waste that can be realized by protecting and dispensing food properly. For instance, two percent of the milk produced in the US goes bad on supermarket shelves before it can be purchased. This dairy waste can be avoided with packaging technology such as Tetra Pak that saves milk from spoiling, even without refrigeration. However, environmentally aware consumers tend to dislike Tetra Pak material because they think it cannot be recycled. The truth, however, is that it can be recycled, but the process is rather complicated. Irrespective of the recycling aspect, Tetra Pak is a good environmental bet because it can extend the shelf life of milk up to nine months, reducing the need for refrigeration — and reducing the amount of milk that goes bad on retail shelves. Clearly, the environmental benefit of the food-protection technology outweighs the negative impact of the packaging itself.The author is primarily concerned witha)presenting a more complete picture of a situation and suggesting a radical solution to the problemb)citing an example of a belief that isnot entirely baselessc)summarizing the negative impacts of an industry, effects of which people are not fully awared)arguing against a popular beliefe)attacking a mindset that has no empirical basisCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Globally, about a third of the food produced for human consumption goes to waste, implying that a third of the water, land use, energy and financial resources that go into producing it are also squandered. Yet people often think of food as environmentally benign because it is biodegradable, while label food packaging as a wasteful use of resources leading to nothing but more pollution, despite the reality that the energy that goes into packaging makes up a mere 10% of the total energy that goes into producing, transporting, storing and preparing food. Needless to say, their view ignores the negative impact of food production, supply, and consumption, and the benefits possible from the right kind of food packaging.Indeed the dislike for food packaging is not all baseless. There is a lot of bad and wasteful packaging out there. But any assessment of its impact on the environment must take into account the benefits one can derive from packaging in the shape of reduced food waste that can be realized by protecting and dispensing food properly. For instance, two percent of the milk produced in the US goes bad on supermarket shelves before it can be purchased. This dairy waste can be avoided with packaging technology such as Tetra Pak that saves milk from spoiling, even without refrigeration. However, environmentally aware consumers tend to dislike Tetra Pak material because they think it cannot be recycled. The truth, however, is that it can be recycled, but the process is rather complicated. Irrespective of the recycling aspect, Tetra Pak is a good environmental bet because it can extend the shelf life of milk up to nine months, reducing the need for refrigeration — and reducing the amount of milk that goes bad on retail shelves. Clearly, the environmental benefit of the food-protection technology outweighs the negative impact of the packaging itself.The author is primarily concerned witha)presenting a more complete picture of a situation and suggesting a radical solution to the problemb)citing an example of a belief that isnot entirely baselessc)summarizing the negative impacts of an industry, effects of which people are not fully awared)arguing against a popular beliefe)attacking a mindset that has no empirical basisCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Globally, about a third of the food produced for human consumption goes to waste, implying that a third of the water, land use, energy and financial resources that go into producing it are also squandered. Yet people often think of food as environmentally benign because it is biodegradable, while label food packaging as a wasteful use of resources leading to nothing but more pollution, despite the reality that the energy that goes into packaging makes up a mere 10% of the total energy that goes into producing, transporting, storing and preparing food. Needless to say, their view ignores the negative impact of food production, supply, and consumption, and the benefits possible from the right kind of food packaging.Indeed the dislike for food packaging is not all baseless. There is a lot of bad and wasteful packaging out there. But any assessment of its impact on the environment must take into account the benefits one can derive from packaging in the shape of reduced food waste that can be realized by protecting and dispensing food properly. For instance, two percent of the milk produced in the US goes bad on supermarket shelves before it can be purchased. This dairy waste can be avoided with packaging technology such as Tetra Pak that saves milk from spoiling, even without refrigeration. However, environmentally aware consumers tend to dislike Tetra Pak material because they think it cannot be recycled. The truth, however, is that it can be recycled, but the process is rather complicated. Irrespective of the recycling aspect, Tetra Pak is a good environmental bet because it can extend the shelf life of milk up to nine months, reducing the need for refrigeration — and reducing the amount of milk that goes bad on retail shelves. Clearly, the environmental benefit of the food-protection technology outweighs the negative impact of the packaging itself.The author is primarily concerned witha)presenting a more complete picture of a situation and suggesting a radical solution to the problemb)citing an example of a belief that isnot entirely baselessc)summarizing the negative impacts of an industry, effects of which people are not fully awared)arguing against a popular beliefe)attacking a mindset that has no empirical basisCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Globally, about a third of the food produced for human consumption goes to waste, implying that a third of the water, land use, energy and financial resources that go into producing it are also squandered. Yet people often think of food as environmentally benign because it is biodegradable, while label food packaging as a wasteful use of resources leading to nothing but more pollution, despite the reality that the energy that goes into packaging makes up a mere 10% of the total energy that goes into producing, transporting, storing and preparing food. Needless to say, their view ignores the negative impact of food production, supply, and consumption, and the benefits possible from the right kind of food packaging.Indeed the dislike for food packaging is not all baseless. There is a lot of bad and wasteful packaging out there. But any assessment of its impact on the environment must take into account the benefits one can derive from packaging in the shape of reduced food waste that can be realized by protecting and dispensing food properly. For instance, two percent of the milk produced in the US goes bad on supermarket shelves before it can be purchased. This dairy waste can be avoided with packaging technology such as Tetra Pak that saves milk from spoiling, even without refrigeration. However, environmentally aware consumers tend to dislike Tetra Pak material because they think it cannot be recycled. The truth, however, is that it can be recycled, but the process is rather complicated. Irrespective of the recycling aspect, Tetra Pak is a good environmental bet because it can extend the shelf life of milk up to nine months, reducing the need for refrigeration — and reducing the amount of milk that goes bad on retail shelves. Clearly, the environmental benefit of the food-protection technology outweighs the negative impact of the packaging itself.The author is primarily concerned witha)presenting a more complete picture of a situation and suggesting a radical solution to the problemb)citing an example of a belief that isnot entirely baselessc)summarizing the negative impacts of an industry, effects of which people are not fully awared)arguing against a popular beliefe)attacking a mindset that has no empirical basisCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Globally, about a third of the food produced for human consumption goes to waste, implying that a third of the water, land use, energy and financial resources that go into producing it are also squandered. Yet people often think of food as environmentally benign because it is biodegradable, while label food packaging as a wasteful use of resources leading to nothing but more pollution, despite the reality that the energy that goes into packaging makes up a mere 10% of the total energy that goes into producing, transporting, storing and preparing food. Needless to say, their view ignores the negative impact of food production, supply, and consumption, and the benefits possible from the right kind of food packaging.Indeed the dislike for food packaging is not all baseless. There is a lot of bad and wasteful packaging out there. But any assessment of its impact on the environment must take into account the benefits one can derive from packaging in the shape of reduced food waste that can be realized by protecting and dispensing food properly. For instance, two percent of the milk produced in the US goes bad on supermarket shelves before it can be purchased. This dairy waste can be avoided with packaging technology such as Tetra Pak that saves milk from spoiling, even without refrigeration. However, environmentally aware consumers tend to dislike Tetra Pak material because they think it cannot be recycled. The truth, however, is that it can be recycled, but the process is rather complicated. Irrespective of the recycling aspect, Tetra Pak is a good environmental bet because it can extend the shelf life of milk up to nine months, reducing the need for refrigeration — and reducing the amount of milk that goes bad on retail shelves. Clearly, the environmental benefit of the food-protection technology outweighs the negative impact of the packaging itself.The author is primarily concerned witha)presenting a more complete picture of a situation and suggesting a radical solution to the problemb)citing an example of a belief that isnot entirely baselessc)summarizing the negative impacts of an industry, effects of which people are not fully awared)arguing against a popular beliefe)attacking a mindset that has no empirical basisCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.