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

151–160 of 191 posts

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#151

Post by horsawlarway »

ryanackley wrote: post #97
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…

I think I understood the author fairly well, I just find fault in his argument.

He hasn't proved "1) the food would not go to waste if it wasn't purchased" AT ALL. He's merely implied it through incorrect facts about donations to food banks.

number 2 is likely true, but that actually make it MORE likely that the food would have gone to waste. I've worked with donation programs in my local state that harvest crops left in the field. Large farms will leave crops unharvested if the price drops below a certain point (either because of market changes or because the produce grade would be lower). They do this because it costs more to hire the labor to harvest it than the crop will bring in.

Small farms are much less likely to do this.

Finally: The author of this piece is basically just a competitor in the SAME market. Literally. You can sign up for 16 weeks of BeetBox deliveries for a mere 530 bucks (I'm being facetious if it's not entirely obvious... they're asking 35 dollars a box for self pickup - they're selling expensive freaking veggies.)

So I fail to find the argument that this is hurting donations compelling (or even factual) and I don't believe the author's motives are any more pure.

Basically - this is a hit piece against a competitor in the same market, and it should be read as such.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#152

Post by nraynaud »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #110
sgift wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't get it. You could argue that the poor need food more than farmers need money. That same argument could be made to any business, though. Why are farmers more obligated to donate to the poor than anyone else? One of the arguments for subsidies to farmers is that they are the "feeders of people". Sounds to me like they want privileges, why not a few obligations for a change?

Instead of adding opacity to the system, I would rather they remove the subsidies instead.

Subsidies and government things are subject to disclosure laws, private contracts don't.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#153

Post by CydeWeys »

avip wrote: post #140
lotsofpulp wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of adding opacity to the system, I would rather they remove the subsidies instead.

You will not have agriculture then. It'll be like not having any industry, only much worse.

Food has pretty much the most inelastic demand curve imaginable. There's no way that agriculture will disappear without subsidies. Prices might increase, sure. But anyone who has any money will pay whatever prices are necessary when the alternative is literally starving to death.

If you're referring to agriculture disappearing from the US, that definitely wouldn't happen either. Some of it might, but not the majority. Most countries don't heavily subsidize farming to the extent that we do, and transportation costs are non-trivial, especially for fresh produce or anything that needs freezing.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#154

Post by horsawlarway »

calcifer wrote: post #146
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…

> 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. Said the man who never relied on donated food to survive. Still, I know I shouldn't be surprised to see this sort of comment on the mother of all capitalist congregations that is HN.

To repeat myself

---

The author of this piece is basically just a competitor in the SAME market. Literally. You can sign up for 16 weeks of BeetBox for a mere 530 bucks (I'm being facetious if it's not entirely obvious... they're asking 35 dollars a box for self pickup - they're selling expensive freaking veggies.)

So I fail to find the argument that this is hurting donations compelling (or even factual) and I don't believe the author's motives are any more pure.

Basically - this is a hit piece against a competitor in the same market, and it should be read as such.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#155

Post by TheOtherDave »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #110
sgift wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't get it. You could argue that the poor need food more than farmers need money. That same argument could be made to any business, though. Why are farmers more obligated to donate to the poor than anyone else? One of the arguments for subsidies to farmers is that they are the "feeders of people". Sounds to me like they want privileges, why not a few obligations for a change?

Instead of adding opacity to the system, I would rather they remove the subsidies instead.

+1, would vote for

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#156

Post by jimmywanger »

tivert wrote: post #66
jimmywanger wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's waste for the producer. If you stop giving a reason for producers to produce goods, the goods stop being made.

> It's waste for the producer. If you stop giving a reason for producers to produce goods, the goods stop being made. Not in this case: we're talking about growers not manufacturers. A farmer can't tell his beet not to grow in unaesthetic shapes at scale. If he wants to produce X tons of produce, Y% will be edible but "ugly," and there's not a lot he can do about it (absent an uneconomic increase in costs or some fan…

You can tell your vegetables and fruit not to grow into unaesthetic shapes or colors at the very least. That's why commercial tomatoes and apples don't have as much flavor as heirloom varieties. They spend a lot of money on such things as travel durability, skin toughness, size, and color at the expense of taste.

If you make it so that farmers can actually sell blemished food, that will increase the profits of farmers, making it a more attractive to be a farmer. Otherwise they'll get another job.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#157

Post by rch »

I thought that CSA stood for Community Supported Agriculture:

https://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/community-supported-agricultu...

Is Community Service Agriculture a new social justice version of that, or was there a typo in the article?

CSAs are a great idea for supporting small farms, but adding a social justice mission to an already challenging undertaking seems like biting off too much at one time.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#158

Post by rapnie »

bilbo0s wrote: post #112
sgift wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't get it. You could argue that the poor need food more than farmers need money. That same argument could be made to any business, though. Why are farmers more obligated to donate to the poor than anyone else? One of the arguments for subsidies to farmers is that they are the "feeders of people". Sounds to me like they want privileges, why not a few obligations for a change?

Hmm. Good point. One question though, are there farmers out there who are not taking the famed agricultural subsidies we give out? Because if there are, (even if there are not that many such farmers), I think those guys should be able to monetize their "ugly" produce or fruit all they want. They're not being supported by tax money at all. But yes, if we are subsidizing a farmer, we certainly have the right to oblige…

Maybe we shouldn't look at the farmer solely. In NL potato farmers get 9 ct/kilo of potatoes. This is near cost price, sometimes even below. In the supermarket the consumer pays $1.60 for that kilo. And I am talking local produce here.. the potato fields are literally right next to the supermarkets (NL is very small, no long supply lines). With those 9 cts it is clear they need subsidies. The supermarkets set the prices, and something is wrong here.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#159

Post by jakelazaroff »

greenshackle2 wrote: post #126
jakelazaroff wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not reducing waste: before Imperfect Produce, this food went to food banks. It's just that now someone has found a way to make money off of it.

Farmers are no more on the hook to give free food to food banks than you and I are.

I'm not saying that they are. I'm saying that food that is donated and eaten is not "wasted" just because no one has paid money for it.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#160

Post by pixl97 »

thebooktocome wrote: post #147
avip wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will not have agriculture then. It'll be like not having any industry, only much worse.

We had agriculture before the subsidies.

We also had lots of starvation before subsidies too.
Post reply on HN