101–110 of 191 posts
If those laws need an update, it doesn't seem like a huge deal. There's a lot of support for food assistance programs. I don't see any reason to villainize people trying to reduce food waste.
So the argument is as follows: Farmers were donating food to the poor because they couldn't sell it. Imperfect Produce figured out how to sell that food, so now farmers are selling it instead of donating it. This is bad because now poor people get less food.
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?
That is even assuming Imperfect Foods is negatively affecting these food banks. The New Food Economy seems to think so, but Imperfect Foods disagrees.
https://help.imperfectproduce.com/hc/en-us/articles/11500456...
I don't know who to believe, but I also don't think it matters. My takeaway is that the food bank model for donating to the poor is less viable now. We'll have to find a better model moving forward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> conscientious people who think they are helping farmers But they are helping farmers, they are giving them money they otherwise would not have gotten. Why should the burden of providing food for the needy solely come out of farmers' incomes?
The rate at which most people consume food is relatively constant, and it's a fair bet that people in these services' target market are more likely than most to get a lot of produce from smaller farmers at farmer's markets.
Meaning that it kind of depends on what you mean by "helping farmers". If you narrowly mean increasing the income of some set of farmers, yeah, sure. If you implicitly mean the small family farms many of us like to romantically think of when we use phrases like "helping farmers", nah, it's probably diverting money away from family farmers and toward bigger players in the industry. If you mean diverting more money toward farmers in general, that also seems doubtful - most people have a relatively fixed grocery budget, and these services are probably just shuffling around who gets a cut of it, and naturally keeping some of it for themselves. That suggests a good chance of a net decrease in the amount of money going to farmers of any size.
There's also an angle that's not-so-tacitly baked into the sales pitch: Less food wasted translates pretty directly into less economic demand for food to be grown.
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
What is exorbitant about U.S. taxes? Is the overall tax burden relatively high compared with other countries? Compared with the past?
This produce used to be readily available to food banks but now that “ugly” and “imperfect” produce can turn a profit, they are less available to those in need. So the argument is as follows: Farmers were donating food to the poor because they couldn't sell it. Imperfect Produce figured out how to sell that food, so now farmers are selling it instead of donating it. This is bad because now poor people get less food.…
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
In that case, you should never buy anything, because anything manufactured might be donated if you hadn't bought it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This produce used to be readily available to food banks but now that “ugly” and “imperfect” produce can turn a profit, they are less available to those in need. So the argument is as follows: Farmers were donating food to the poor because they couldn't sell it. Imperfect Produce figured out how to sell that food, so now farmers are selling it instead of donating it. This is bad because now poor people get less food.…
> 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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the majority of cases, retailers trash their products (sometimes after physically destroying them) that go unsold. Even for used items, most people are too lazy to donate even things in perfect condition
Problem with unsold stuff is that people don't want it at any price. Even poor people. Before stuff is unsold, it goes on sale for 50% off, or maybe 75% or more. Poorer people can afford it at those lower price points.
https://theoutline.com/post/2602/clothing-companies-are-tras...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2010/01/07/why_hm_destr...
I guess that's why some of those startups that tried to create an "exclusive" outlet prospered (Gilt Groupe, Vente Privee).
This produce used to be readily available to food banks but now that “ugly” and “imperfect” produce can turn a profit, they are less available to those in need. So the argument is as follows: Farmers were donating food to the poor because they couldn't sell it. Imperfect Produce figured out how to sell that food, so now farmers are selling it instead of donating it. This is bad because now poor people get less food.…
> 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?