Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

newfoodeconomy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 191 posts

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#41

Post by VonGuard »

horsawlarway wrote: post #24

I... 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…

Yeah, this whole piece is from someone with an axe to grind. I get it, Beet Box was more community focused and basically a non-profit masquerading as a startup. It's natural they'd get stomped by a real startup, but in this case, the competition is literally taking trash and making people eat it. It's great! What could be wrong with that? We waste like 40% of all food made in this country.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#42

Post by DubiousPusher »

dcow wrote: post #32
Swizec wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I get the sentiment but...we do have welfare programs. If a food source once available is becoming scarce, then obviously they will need to be revamped where appropriate.

I think it's easy to take that cold engineerlike approach when you won't be the one occupying this gap until it is filled

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#43

Post by will_brown »

horsawlarway wrote: post #24

I... 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…

>Imperfect produce has managed to create a market for food that was previously not able to be sold. Good for them.

Like when Robin Hood was introduced to capitalism and started “robbing the hood.” Nothing like taking food from the poor and selling it to the rich, just need that good market...I know tell them they are saving the world by buying this food and otherwise it would be waste.

Think of all these “untapped” markets startups can disrupt like soup kitchens and food stamps. These morons out here giving food away when they are just one round of VC money away from creating new markets.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#44

Post by beat »

sithadmin wrote: post #10
jdavis703 wrote: post #4

Earlier 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.

I think this is a very narrow perspective. The situation around access to food has changed radically over the past 50 years or so, in the US and globally. Over that period, the human population has doubled, while the cost of food has actually dropped significantly. Although access to food in the US is sometimes still a problem, it is nowhere near the problem it was for our grandparents' generation.

Perspective, please.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#45

Post by darkerside »

VonGuard wrote: post #41
horsawlarway wrote: post #24

I... 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…

Yeah, this whole piece is from someone with an axe to grind. I get it, Beet Box was more community focused and basically a non-profit masquerading as a startup. It's natural they'd get stomped by a real startup, but in this case, the competition is literally taking trash and making people eat it. It's great! What could be wrong with that? We waste like 40% of all food made in this country.

But it's not trash. It's food that was being used. I don't think most of Imperfect Produce's customers would subscribe if they knew this food was previously being eaten by people in need. Their entire marketing and product concept is based on a lie.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#46

Post by sct202 »

I used Imperfect Produce for several months and I wonder how much of it was actually 'imperfect.' Most of it was labeled 'surplus,' as the imperfection, and came in looking identical to the grocery store.

I ended up cancelling my subscription after I did the math and it was slightly more expensive than going to the grocery store, and their selection was narrow and seemed to rotate between the same items. Also almost none of it was local to my region--just like a normal grocery store supply chain.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#47

Post by jimmywanger »

sithadmin wrote: post #31
loco5niner wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a scheme that systematically undermines access to food for the least advantaged That's quite a claim. Evidence please?

Did you actually read the article linked? Imperfect Produce and similar operations divert food that otherwise would be bound for food banks and other sources of food assistance programs towards more affluent segments of the consumer market.

Yes, they found a way to give profit to farmers while still operating as a for-profit.

By reducing stuff that is not valuable to the farmer at all they are evil?

Food assistance programs take food that is otherwise unsaleable. Making more stuff saleable is how technology works. Considering we have a bustling market in recyclables, is that bad?

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#48

Post by kazinator »

horsawlarway wrote: post #24

I... 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…

I see nothing wrong with: selling something if a paying market is found for that, instead of giving it away for free.

I do see something wrong with: creating that paying market by lying.

I suspect most of those conscientious people who think they are helping farmers and reducing food waste would not be paying for this produce if they knew that it was being taken away from poor people.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#49

Post by xg15 »

horsawlarway wrote: post #24

I... 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…

> Imperfect produce has managed to create a market for food that was previously not able to be sold.

> Does this mean that we may have to restructure social programs as that food becomes sold rather than donated? Sure might.

Except the former is already happening, while it's highly uncertain whether or not the latter will happen.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#50

Post by loco5niner »

sithadmin wrote: post #31
loco5niner wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a scheme that systematically undermines access to food for the least advantaged That's quite a claim. Evidence please?

Did you actually read the article linked? Imperfect Produce and similar operations divert food that otherwise would be bound for food banks and other sources of food assistance programs towards more affluent segments of the consumer market.

Yes, I read every word.

My take-away was that it was a one-sided defensive (well really, attacking) piece so I didn't believe a word of it.

If you have a source from a disinterested party that claims Imperfect Produce is doing a bad thing, I'd love to read it too.

Post reply on HN