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

91–100 of 191 posts

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#91

Post by cowpig »

SatvikBeri wrote: post #21

Imperfect Produce's reply: https://help.imperfectproduce.com/hc/en-us/articles/11500456...

Beyond the first paragraph which just states that their food would otherwise end up as trash, they don't actually reply to any of the claims in the parent article.

The evidence they provide is broad macro-level statistics about how much food is wasted, but not about where the food they're selling comes from.

The parent article claims specifically that they are getting their food from sources that would otherwise be going to food banks.

The fact that this "reply" repeats talking points with country-level statistics instead of directly addressing the question leaves me feeling suspicious of Imperfect Produce.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#93

Post by cowpig »

wbronitsky wrote: post #6

"The company does this by commodifying food that would go to the poor for free" The article provides 0 evidence towards this case. I'm all for listening to this argument, as it is a good one, but are there any facts to support this other than their shrinking user base?

> Within months of its arrival in the Bay Area, Imperfect Produce fliers were showing up on our car windows, its outreach coordinators were pitching at community meetings, its Facebook advertisements popped up daily in our feeds, and it was edging into community centers we had operated at for years. The marketing blitz paid off. Soon, Imperfect’s single-use cardboard boxes began lining the streets on recycling and garbage days in the East Bay. We lost customers, a lot of customers.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#95

Post by beat »

ajkjk wrote: post #38
kbenson wrote: post #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 somethi…

Later on it says that it specifically helps only midsize- and larger growers, because small growers don't produce large enough quantities for it to be profitable to purchase from them: "'We want to be able to source at least a truckload from these growers each week, so they have to be at least midsize in most cases.' Imperfect Produce is only able to make a profit by working with the larger global agribusinesses, not…

I have yet to see any food industry marketing anywhere that doesn't create a rosy picture of family farming in its marketing, rather than the factory farms and giant agribusiness that actually supply the vast majority of our food.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#96

Post by jonlucc »

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…

This happened previously with "chocolate" diamonds. Those undesirable diamonds were often used in industrial applications. When jewelry stores started promoting them, the cost of "ugly" diamonds went up, making some other applications more expensive.

Also, I do a fair amount of work with a local neighborhood center that has as a part of their mission meeting the basic needs of local residents. I haven't been there during fresh produce bank they run, but I've seen pictures and been told by the management that they get some very high quality produce. Apparently the local markets aren't that great at predicting the desire for a product, so they get some pretty high quality produce from every chain in the city.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#97

Post by ryanackley »

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…

The author's best arguments aren't articulated well. I will try and paraphrase.

Essentially, Imperfect Produce is buying scraps from medium to larger farms and marketing it to people that would normally buy produce from small farmers. They sell you on the concept of buying vegetables and helping the environment and farmers at the same time. They do this by claiming that the food would go to waste if you didn't buy it and they also imply through marketing materials that the food comes from quaint little ma and pa farms.

The thrust of the argument is not "boo, capitalism!", it's that it is deceptive marketing and it's hurting small farmers. Because 1) the food would not go to waste if it wasn't purchased and 2) the food they are selling does not come from small farmers but it's marketed like it does and it's marketed to the same people that would normally buy from small farmers

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#98

Post by in_cahoots »

cowpig wrote: post #93
wbronitsky wrote: post #6

"The company does this by commodifying food that would go to the poor for free" The article provides 0 evidence towards this case. I'm all for listening to this argument, as it is a good one, but are there any facts to support this other than their shrinking user base?

> Within months of its arrival in the Bay Area, Imperfect Produce fliers were showing up on our car windows, its outreach coordinators were pitching at community meetings, its Facebook advertisements popped up daily in our feeds, and it was edging into community centers we had operated at for years. The marketing blitz paid off. Soon, Imperfect’s single-use cardboard boxes began lining the streets on recycling and ga…

So how were the customers or farmers hurt here? It sounds like they chose to switch services, and the only loser is the author of this post. It’s not clear to me how losing customers = food banks suffering.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#99

Post by beat »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #85
beat wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but in our imaginary world of perfect capitalism, the inherent market flaw is that farmers should simply stop growing ugly vegetables, and only grow beautiful ones. Problem solved!

That seems to be the contract model supermarkets operate with. Of course if supermarkets still took "ugly" produce it would sell just fine. Just like it does at the local greengrocers.

There are already good markets for a lot of ugly produce. They wind up in a lot of prepared foods. Good example - baby carrots. They're not "baby carrots", they're lathed-down cores of regular carrots that had the misfortune of being ugly - crooked, lumpy, or broken. And the stuff that gets shaved off in the lathe? It winds up carrot juice, or stock, or animal feed, or any number of other things.

Another example of reducing waste, though not ugly... one of our local co-ops recently started selling "pulled chicken" fresh in plastic containers, great for making dinner. Where does it come from? Their rotisserie chickens that don't sell by the end of the day. They reduce waste and get a valuable new product. (My daughter was raving about it while cooking dinner the other day - stripping chicken carcasses is one of her least-favorite bits of kitchen labor, and she's happy to be able to buy what someone else did for her already.)

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#100

Post by emiliobumachar »

kazinator wrote: post #48
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.

Agreed. Also, the claims for environmental benefits were fake if those were never being thrown out in the first place.
Post reply on HN