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

121–130 of 191 posts

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#121

Post by vorpalhex »

greglindahl wrote: post #116
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?

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

Err, is corn not a vegetable?

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#122

Post by forapurpose »

Swizec wrote: post #104
forapurpose wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is exorbitant about U.S. taxes? Is the overall tax burden relatively high compared with other countries? Compared with the past?

Fine maybe they’re not exorbitant comparatively but paying 30 to 50% of my income to taxes and seemingly not getting much if anything in return feels wrong. I’m okay paying taxes, I’d just like them to be used better (meaning for things I can see/experience)

> not getting much if anything in return

Wow - security, both from war and crime, a legal system, safety in everything from water to food to airplanes, almost the entire transportation infrastructure, most of the education everyone receives including college and post-grad, research in everything from history to cancer to basic physics to fracking to computer science and integrated circuits (let's recall that the industry that probably employs you was founded on government research), a stable business environment both domestically and internationally, healthcare, democracy, freedom ... I kinda feel like I underpay.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#123

Post by forapurpose »

ItsMe000001 wrote: post #73
gowld wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't disagreeing. People need food, so fund a food bank . Don't create absurdly contorted markets to preserve unnecessary waste streams to be reprurposed for food banks.

In the same line and as an anecdotal aside, here in Bavaria we are soon going to have state-wide elections (i.e. for Bavaria). One party that is known to be a kind of comedic joke party but nevertheless actually managed to get someone elected for EU parliament put up posters all over town that are not all that funny down deep: For background, here in Germany quite a few retirees walk around town and collect deposit b…

That'a brilliant. The world needs more satire, the (only?) good answer to the crazy, lying ideologues. It's like we've forgotten how.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#125

Post by Pica_soO »

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

#126

Post by greenshackle2 »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #33
paxy wrote: post #22

Lol "We donate waste food, so people who reduce waste are bad"

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.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#127

Post by gorpomon »

I was an imperfect customer, frankly it figuratively stunk. I was charged $14-$18 per week for around a pound of produce. It was mostly just overstock. Honestly, weird shaped produce was part of the fun for me. It was always on the brink of going very bad, so ironically even though it was just a pound I often threw some away.

After a few weeks I realized that I could get the same value by simply buying some older produce at my grocery store for much cheaper. I can get a pound from any store here in the Chicago area for around $5 - $6.

Also the "carbon savings" their website gave to me seemed pretty suspect. It seemed they were just spitting an average at me and not doing any hard calculations. It's curious that getting a pound of food each week delivered on a truck could actually be a net positive for the environment. I'm sure they can justify it but the premise itself seems kind of absurd.

I was suckered in by the allure this article talks about. No more fancy food startups for me, let me just focus on using all of what I get from a conventional grocery store.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#128

Post by beautifulfreak »

Maybe supermarkets will begin selling ugly produce now, too, since Imperfect Produce is raising awareness. If they had aisles of ugly produce at discount prices, would it really undercut their sales of pretty produce? Maybe they should run experiments, to see if they can make higher profit margins on ugly veggies, even sold at discount prices, since they have bargaining power over what they pay the producers.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#129

Post by Retric »

greglindahl wrote: post #116
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?

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

US farmers do receive non crop based subsidies for growing vegetables. The absolute subsidy is far smaller, but far less land is used for vegetables 2.5 million acres vs 81.8 million acres of corn for grain, 47.8 million acres of wheat, and 89.6 million acres of soybeans.

Sources: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/VegeSumm/VegeSu... https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2018/06-29-2018.php

Post reply on HN