The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement • Hacker News Board

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#131

Post by SonicSoul » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 9:02 PM UTC

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 think op's point is that ugly food business is based on peoples charitable instincts, while those same customers are not aware the food would not in fact be wasted. so the consumers are buying it for wrong reasons

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#132

Post by HBlix » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 9:02 PM UTC

CivBase wrote: post #108

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?

If Imperfect Foods's business model works out, it sounds like farmers will see an increase in profits. I don't see why that couldn't coincide with a decrease in subsidies. In an ideal world, we could even redirect that money towards the poor - potentially making up for the impact to food banks.

The subsidies aren’t going anywhere, the lobby is very strong and senators like being re-elected. “Just get rid of the subsidies” sounds great, but it won’t happen. So given that as a baseline reality, and given how much produce is grown by small farmers vs. giant conglomerates, this is really just about more money in the bank and less food in the food bank.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#133

Post by HBlix » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 9:03 PM UTC

kibibyte wrote: post #124

vorpalhex wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err, is corn not a vegetable?

I think it's considered more of a grain than a vegetable.

Corn is a heavily modified grass, so definitely a grain and not a vegetable.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#134

Post by cwkoss » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 9:04 PM UTC

sithadmin wrote: post #14

394549 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't feel too bad about ordering from Imperfect Produce, it's convenient way to get produce delivered to your door Honest question: are there similarly convent ways to get produce delivered to your door that don't undermine the food banks' fresh food supply? If you can afford to pay for produce, why not pay for the produce that's traditionally been on the market?

Local CSAs frequently have a delivery, or convenient nearby pickup option.

Bit off topic, but does anyone know of a CSA that delivers in Seattle? I've only been able to find ones that have pickup options.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#135

Post by djrogers » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 9:07 PM UTC

There is some very disingenous sounding hand-waving going on in this article - and it appears to have been successful! Most of the commenters here seem to have come away with the idea that the problem is that Imperfect Produce is taking food that would have otherwise gone to food banks. While the article never claims thus, I think the misunderstanding is intentional on the part of the author. The key point to me is this:

> Three years later and with a 30-percent drop in customers

and

> We lost customers, a lot of customers.

With a more careful reading, one can see that the "loss" to food banks is because BeetBox is not making as much money now that they have competition with better marketing. In fact the article even says as much:

> subscriptions have fallen so much we’ve had to cut back on many of the food justice programs that our CSA proceeds had previously supported.

Sounds a lot less like Imperfect Produce is an evil monster here, and a lot more like they're just a more succesful competitor.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#136

Post by hcurtiss » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 9:13 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #129

greglindahl wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What are these non-crop-based vegetable subsidies you speak of?

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#137

Post by menzoic » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 9:13 PM UTC

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 think its just an observation of the outcome of a real world change. People put effort into reducing food waste and the outcome is reduced food for the poor. I think the question is, was it worth it?

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#138

Post by datavirtue » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 9:18 PM UTC

CivBase wrote: post #108

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?

If Imperfect Foods's business model works out, it sounds like farmers will see an increase in profits. I don't see why that couldn't coincide with a decrease in subsidies. In an ideal world, we could even redirect that money towards the poor - potentially making up for the impact to food banks.

You don't know shit about subsidies. Kindly shut up.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#139

Post by bogomipz » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 9:29 PM UTC

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?

I think the argument most commonly put forth is not "feeders of the people" but "national security." Proponents of the subsidies say that the ability of a nation to feed itself is a matter of national security. Although in the era of factory farms and big agra it seems like the "national security" is maybe less of a concern that during say the Eisenhower era.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#140

Post by avip » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 9:29 PM UTC

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.

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