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

Most “ugly” produce gets turned into soups, sauces, salsa, jam

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 229 posts

Re: Most “ugly” produce gets turned into soups, sauces, salsa, jam

#211

Post by subjectsigma »

dkarl wrote: post #168
feross wrote: post #3

> The "eat ugly fruit!" movement is classist as FUCK. You've got to have a debilitating level of ignorance to assume that if Whole Paycheck Market doesn't stock ugly fruit, it must be getting "wasted." It is possible to not know much about the agricultural industry without being "classist as fuck." There are an infinite number of things one can learn about and a finite amount of time. While the content is interesting…

I think what this quote is responding to is people disseminating some first world millennial's first uninformed guess about an issue as if were a revolution and a blessing to the world, instead of stopping to think that their precious intellectual virtues are not limited to people of their class, education, and supposed intelligence. The idea that our enlightened attitudes set us apart from the rest of unwashed human…

>...and put them in a frame of mind to consider that they might be wrong.

You are entirely correct, but I think what GP is saying is that there's a very specific kind of person who goes from being insulted on the Internet to open to reflection and it's not most people.

Re: Most “ugly” produce gets turned into soups, sauces, salsa, jam

#212

Post by m_eiman »

hopler wrote: post #174
m_eiman wrote: post #55

I didn't see any numbers anywhere, so I'll add this one: according to a recent show on Swedish television, about 30% of all food produced is wasted somewhere along the way to our mouths. "Ugly fruit doesn't sell" is just one part of it, there's waste all along the chain of production, and not least in the homes. Modern society tends to interpret "best before" as "poison after", which leads to a lot of food being need…

That's 10% of consumption, a non-issue.

If we can reduce global CO2 emissions by 0.7% and methane emissions by 5% at the cost of actually eating the food we buy (and also save money in the process), I'd say that's pretty low hanging fruit in the efforts to reduce global warning.

Re: Most “ugly” produce gets turned into soups, sauces, salsa, jam

#214

Post by soared »

legostormtroopr wrote: post #147

This is a comment about the presentation of this content, but twitter threads are the worst method for presenting a coherent and compelling argument. They enforce unnatural character limits, lack formatting and links, and the whole twitter echo system encourages "hot takes", eg. 'The "eat ugly fruit!" movement is classist as FUCK'

Skip reading it on twitter and throw it in one of the million web apps that convert it to a blog. Probably some chrome extensions out there doing it too

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1086055092321697794.html

Re: Most “ugly” produce gets turned into soups, sauces, salsa, jam

#215

Post by dkarl »

subjectsigma wrote: post #211
dkarl wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what this quote is responding to is people disseminating some first world millennial's first uninformed guess about an issue as if were a revolution and a blessing to the world, instead of stopping to think that their precious intellectual virtues are not limited to people of their class, education, and supposed intelligence. The idea that our enlightened attitudes set us apart from the rest of unwashed human…

>...and put them in a frame of mind to consider that they might be wrong. You are entirely correct, but I think what GP is saying is that there's a very specific kind of person who goes from being insulted on the Internet to open to reflection and it's not most people.

That's true when they're reacting to criticism from outside their tribe, but "classist as fuck" (and the whole rest of the rant) sounds like it comes from the same perspective that people were trying to inhabit by buying into the "rescue ugly produce" story. This creates a "the calls are coming from inside the house" moment that makes people nervous that they're on the wrong side of the issue, so when the issue comes to their doorstep (somebody is marketing some "ugly produce" product or service to them) they might look into the specifics instead of blithely accepting it at face value.

Re: Most “ugly” produce gets turned into soups, sauces, salsa, jam

#216

Post by notatcomputer68 »

dkarl wrote: post #168
feross wrote: post #3

> The "eat ugly fruit!" movement is classist as FUCK. You've got to have a debilitating level of ignorance to assume that if Whole Paycheck Market doesn't stock ugly fruit, it must be getting "wasted." It is possible to not know much about the agricultural industry without being "classist as fuck." There are an infinite number of things one can learn about and a finite amount of time. While the content is interesting…

I think what this quote is responding to is people disseminating some first world millennial's first uninformed guess about an issue as if were a revolution and a blessing to the world, instead of stopping to think that their precious intellectual virtues are not limited to people of their class, education, and supposed intelligence. The idea that our enlightened attitudes set us apart from the rest of unwashed human…

As someone who was only briefly acquainted with the "buy ugly produce" idea in the first place and thought it sounded vaguely good. I never looked into actually taking action because I couldn't be bothered.

I do think they are being unkind and rude. There were too sides here the "scammers" and the clueless good people who got taken for a ride. Alienating the latter group is a mistake and will just make people avoid you because they will never be good enough for you anyway.

I on the other hand, feel vindicated in my apathy. "Trying to do good is a waste of time, the world is too ungrateful"

Re: Most “ugly” produce gets turned into soups, sauces, salsa, jam

#217

Post by rleigh »

plopz wrote: post #202
rleigh wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A farm up the hill from where I live produces eggs from several thousand free-range chickens, and they sell them on site with a vending machine by the dozen. They also sell "catering" eggs in trays of 30, for under half the price of a dozen standard eggs. These are irregular shapes (too elongated for "large" egg boxes) and double-yolk eggs. All perfectly tasty and edible, but cosmetically unsaleable. I'm happy to tak…

I've always been curious how people bake with non-standard size eggs. How do you translate a recipe that calls for "3 eggs" when your egg sizes are all different?

Most recipes are very lax in their quantities. The size of an egg doesn't usually make much difference, at least for the cooking and baking I do.

For the most part, they are a mixture of sizes including both large and small, so it usually evens out. They are rejects primarily because of shape (can't be packaged in standard containers, too long and they would break when the lid was closed; too small and they would move around and crack) or because they have double yolks (purely cosmetic). The cosmetic look was a bit offputting at first--we are all used to the expected appearance with a single yolk--but it makes zero difference to the taste.

Re: Most “ugly” produce gets turned into soups, sauces, salsa, jam

#218

Post by pkaye »

jolmg wrote: post #201
erikbe wrote: post #44

This was actually (part of) MUJI's concept at launch. An example is selling broken-off mushrooms: "For example, there was a poster of dried shiitake mushrooms that were slightly damaged during the production process. In the Japanese market, only perfectly round shiitake were sold, but MUJI sold imperfectly shaped shiitake because they taste just as delicious. In another poster, the copy reads “The entire fish is salm…

> In another poster, the copy reads “The entire fish is salmon.” This is straightforward copy reminding readers that salmon is delicious head to tail, so all of it should be eaten. I heard once that some steaks sold are actually separate pieces of meat glued together and made to look like a natural steak. Maybe this happens with fish as well. Wouldn't "the entire fish is salmon" be referring to that there's no pieces…

> It's kind of like how all those sweeteners sold as being stevia are actually only like 1 or 2% stevia.

Sometimes they add filler to match the volume of sugar for equivalent sweetness. This makes it easier to proportion out for baking and adding to drinks. Otherwise the baking might be off or the drinks too sweet.

Re: Most “ugly” produce gets turned into soups, sauces, salsa, jam

#219

Post by jolmg »

pkaye wrote: post #218
jolmg wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In another poster, the copy reads “The entire fish is salmon.” This is straightforward copy reminding readers that salmon is delicious head to tail, so all of it should be eaten. I heard once that some steaks sold are actually separate pieces of meat glued together and made to look like a natural steak. Maybe this happens with fish as well. Wouldn't "the entire fish is salmon" be referring to that there's no pieces…

> It's kind of like how all those sweeteners sold as being stevia are actually only like 1 or 2% stevia. Sometimes they add filler to match the volume of sugar for equivalent sweetness. This makes it easier to proportion out for baking and adding to drinks. Otherwise the baking might be off or the drinks too sweet.

If I remember right, from the time I took a look at them, some didn't even have stevia at all. Their only relation was having a branding that made you think of stevia.

Re: Most “ugly” produce gets turned into soups, sauces, salsa, jam

#220

Post by nchlswu »

hobs wrote: post #185
nchlswu wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it sounds like the poorer quality produce you're describing is just coming from lower quality farms? I have no clue how the supply chain works, but I don't think produce from the same source is separated by the quality you're describing.

It generally is, almost all produce is graded and sold by its grade.

my original post wasn't clear.

what I meant was one farm generally wouldn't have a crop that yields "great" produce that tastes great while simultaneously having produce that is:

> plasticky, perfect-looking, and utterly tasteless.

these would generally come from completely different crops and farms.

I understand that produce is graded by physical appearance but that produce of varying condition from the same crop would pretty much taste the same, which leads to the whole discussion about ugly produce.

Post reply on HN