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

111–120 of 191 posts

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#111

Post by mcrad »

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.

Most marketing is borderline deceptive. I'd venture a guess that most of IP customers are eduacted enough to know that, and are buying the service based on its more tangible benefits (ie. not to save the world)

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#112

Post by bilbo0s »

sgift wrote: post #105
CivBase wrote: post #102

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?

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 him to give his scraps to us so we can feed our masses. There's nothing unreasonable about that. After all, we're only talking about the little food he's able to sell only to the guys who literally only take "scraps".

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#114

Post by makotech222 »

CivBase wrote: post #102

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.…

[dead]

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#115

Post by freetime2 »

MrEldritch wrote: post #78
arkades wrote: post #5

"Our venture, and ventures like ours, which rely on redistributing food waste, cannot succeed if people waste less food. So please waste more food." Talk about putting the cart before the horse. I have no problem with saying, "that food isn't really waste, let's redistribute it if it's going unused." But someone's got their head turned right around if they think that a logical corollary is, "and that food should neve…

I think there's a way to think about this that does actually make sense... "As long as people are only willing to buy pretty produce, then because actual produce inherently contains only a certain fraction of pretty produce, a demand for pretty produce inherently creates a surplus of ugly produce which can then be redistributed. In effect, every purchase of pretty produce hides an invisible tax which goes to buying u…

This is an interesting way to frame the issue! However, your point about there being no overhead to organize food purchases seems dubious to me. Charities have overhead costs, too. And even if a food bank were run entirely by volunteers at no monetary cost to the public, there is a social cost in terms of the time the volunteers are donating.

Furthermore, I suspect that the improper valuation of “ugly” produce leads to other sources of waste. Sure - some percentage of it makes its way to food banks. But how much of it is left to spoil or used to feed livestock?

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#116

Post by greglindahl »

sgift wrote: post #105
CivBase wrote: post #102

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?

Farmers (at least in the US) don't get any subsidies for vegetables.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#117

Post by k2enemy »

> This corporate-supported agriculture was avidly commodifying agribusiness’ food “waste” and had little to do with supporting the community.

I'm not familiar with the publication's audience, but is emphasizing the word "corporate" supposed to prove a point? Is it taken as given that corporations are evil, and therefore Imperfect Foods is evil?

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#118

Post by mtgx »

sgift wrote: post #105
CivBase wrote: post #102

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?

Remove farmer (usually large profitable corporations) subsidies and more directly subsidize the poor maybe?

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#119

Post by Apocryphon »

gowld wrote: post #56
darkerside wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Imperfect Produce's customers are more than welcome to donate their cost savings or other food to people in need if they are dissatisfied with how much someone else is donating.

Then someone needs to first let them know about this situation, because there is information asymmetry afoot.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#120

Post by GirlsCanCode »

Having worked in the food industry, I can tell you that "ugly food" was never wasted. It gets used in applications where aesthetics doesn't matter (shredded carrots used in soups or frozen dinners, etc) or at least used as animal feed. So there's a point that it is a "marketing gimmick" to get more profit from food. And this could have a side effect of making food more expensive for people who used to get a larger discount on imperfect food.

But the argument that this one company is hurting "the poor" is a stretch.

Post reply on HN