Imperfect Produce's reply: https://help.imperfectproduce.com/hc/en-us/articles/11500456...
The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement
21–30 of 191 posts
Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement
#22Lol "We donate waste food, so people who reduce waste are bad"
Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement
#23I stopped reading at "food justice." GTFO.
Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement
#24I... see absolutely nothing wrong with this.
Imperfect produce has managed to create a market for food that was previously not able to be sold. Good for them.
Does this mean that we may have to restructure social programs as that food becomes sold rather than donated? Sure might. That's ok though.
I'd also like to clearly point out that the author misquotes their source for the amount of food donated. The California Association of Food Banks states that they have donated 164 million pounds of fruits and vegetables. That's not 164 million PER YEAR. That's 164 million since they were founded in 1995 - or 7.1 million a year. Additionally, the Imperfect produce comment saying 150,000 lbs specifically calls out "From California farmers". While the food banks numbers are simply totals (they likely purchase and redistribute, as well as take donations from out of state sources). There's probably fudging on both sides, but I find this article fairly disingenuous.
Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
So when I was a kid my family made use of food banks. Now that I'm doing better in life I give a cut of each paycheck to my local food bank (The Alameda County Food Bank). I don't feel too bad about ordering from Imperfect Produce, it's convenient way to get produce delivered to your door, and I still wind up buying some things from the farmers market and co-op. On that note, it is good to know what consequences new…
>I don't feel too bad about ordering from Imperfect Produce Stunning cognitive dissonance going on here. Simply redirecting a portion of one's personal funds towards a local food bank doesn't absolve one of the moral wrongs associated with participation in a scheme that systematically undermines access to food for the least advantaged.
> a scheme that systematically undermines access to food for the least advantaged
That's quite a claim. Evidence please?
Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement
#26"Our venture, and ventures like ours, which rely on redistributing food waste, cannot succeed if people waste less food. So please waste more food." Talk about putting the cart before the horse. I have no problem with saying, "that food isn't really waste, let's redistribute it if it's going unused." But someone's got their head turned right around if they think that a logical corollary is, "and that food should neve…
>that food isn't really waste, let's redistribute it if it's going unused.
But this is exactly what I got from the article, that the supposed wasted food isn't being wasted. And so the consumer activism behind the appeal of these products is misplaced.
Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement
#27"Imperfect Produce claims it’s saving the world by reducing food waste—and helping farmers by buying surplus 'ugly' produce that would have been thrown out. Sounds great. The reality is that this produce would have otherwise gone to food banks, to be redistributed for free." People are complaining because a hidden subsidy (from government and other food buyers to the food banks) has been removed. I don't like seeing…
It’s crazy the contortions americans go through to avoid having welfare while still trying to have welfare. But god forbid we just have actual welfare. Been living here 4 years, still don’t get it. Prob never will. I’m supposed to only buy expensive produce so the cheap stuff can be left for those less fortunate? Why don’t you just use some of the exorbitant taxes I pay to help the less fortunate directly? Smh
Or stop having the exorbitant taxes and be all right with bad choices people make because every "poor" person I know always has money for booze and cigarettes.
Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement
#28But the total beet supply remains unchanged? Affluent customers are now buying the ugly beets, does that mean more pretty beets go unsold? Can they be donated?
>Affluent customers are now buying the ugly beets, does that mean more pretty beets go unsold? Can they be donated? Realistically they probably end up on grocer shelves, which are themselves a horrific contributor to food waste. Some small portion of those that will otherwise end up in a dumpster will be redirected to other ends (e.g. 'made fresh' foods offered by various grocers) or donated.
We waste food because we can. If industrial agriculture and distribution were less effective, there probably would be less food waste. And there would probably be lots more hungry people.
Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement
#29> Imperfect Produce claims it’s saving the world by reducing food waste—and helping farmers by buying surplus “ugly” produce that would have been thrown out. Sounds great. The reality is that this produce would have otherwise gone to food banks, to be redistributed for free.
So I feel for the social cause, and I think the business ventures should be much more up-front about what they are and not masquerade as something else, but let's be clear that buy buying this less than perfect produce, they are helping growers, including small growers, by allowing them to capitalize on more of their crop.
Ultimately, if you want your social cause to not be a victim of market forces, you either need to work yourself into the market correctly, divorce yourself form it, or find a segregating line that works.
If they were taking monetary donations, or allowing write-offs of the produce at full price (something that conceivably could be supported through targeted legislation), then they might be more competitive here. But since they relied on drowers giving them produce that had little or not value, which now does have some value, they'll see the market respond like anyone else.
Again, this doesn't excuse businesses masquerading as social causes (which is nothing new, even if it is loathsome in the worse cases), but this article isn't exactly presenting the case in a balanced light either.
Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement
#30"Our venture, and ventures like ours, which rely on redistributing food waste, cannot succeed if people waste less food. So please waste more food." Talk about putting the cart before the horse. I have no problem with saying, "that food isn't really waste, let's redistribute it if it's going unused." But someone's got their head turned right around if they think that a logical corollary is, "and that food should neve…
> Talk about putting the cart before the horse. I have no problem with saying, "that food isn't really waste, let's redistribute it if it's going unused." But someone's got their head turned right around if they think that a logical corollary is, "and that food should never be used, because we're redistributing it."
No, I think you're the one who has it wrong. Previously, the "ugly produce" wasn't food waste because it was distributed to the needy through food banks and other social uses.
The problem is that the "imperfect produce" startup used a glitzy marketing campaign to turn that produce into a marketable commodity, redirecting it from social uses to profit-making uses, making the poor worse off to benefit some VCs and midsize-to-large agribusiness companies. To add insult to injury, the marketing tries to pass off the profit-making use as a social one.