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

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#141

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

datavirtue wrote: post #138

CivBase wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hey, next time you comment please take a look over HN's comment guidelines[0]. The parent comment brings up a good point about subsidies, however it would be great to also learn if there is a flaw in their reasoning (as you so strongly believe). Comment's like yours just discourage conversation.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#142

Post by baq » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 9:33 PM UTC

azrael49 wrote: post #70

gowld wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, you should never buy anything, because anything manufactured might be donated if you hadn't bought it.

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

in my country, you need things destroyed and have a paper confirming that or there may be negative tax implications. it's stupid.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#143

Post by komali2 » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 9:35 PM UTC

gjm11 wrote: post #94

This seems to be the exact same thing as https://www.phatbeetsproduce.org/uglyproduce/ , discussed before on HN at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17786894 .

Right, I felt like I was going crazy, because I was sure I had read this line before:

>Soon, Imperfect’s single-use cardboard boxes began lining the streets on recycling and garbage days in the East Bay.

but I couldn't find the linked URL elsewhere on HN! It's almost a verbatim quote from the original article:

>Soon, their single use cardboard boxes began lining the streets on recycling and garbage days in the East Bay.

The whole paragraphs are nearly identical:

>Within months of its arrival in the Bay Area, Imperfect Produce fliers were showing up on our car windows, their outreach coordinators were pitching at community meetings, their Facebook advertisements popped up daily in our feeds, and they were edging into community centers we had operated at for years. Their marketing blitz paid off. Soon, their single use cardboard boxes began lining the streets on recycling and garbage days in the East Bay. We lost customers, a lot of customers.

>Within months of its arrival in the Bay Area, Imperfect Produce fliers were showing up on our car windows, its outreach coordinators were pitching at community meetings, its Facebook advertisements popped up daily in our feeds, and it was edging into community centers we had operated at for years. The marketing blitz paid off. Soon, Imperfect’s single-use cardboard boxes began lining the streets on recycling and garbage days in the East Bay. We lost customers, a lot of customers.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#144

Post by bogomipz » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 9:37 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?

>"Sounds to me like they want privileges, why not a few obligations for a change?"

Exactly, recipients of those subsidies should be obligated to contribute to food banks for the poor. I don't believe any such strings are attached today. Source: I have a American friend who has farm land as part of a second home but has never grown a single crop, he receives an annual subsidy check and has now for many years.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#145

Post by go_away_nsa » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 9:40 PM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #118

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?

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

Then you get to enjoy one bad harvest caused by drought, hail, etc send a large chunk of your farms into bankruptcy and then enjoy food shortages until it becomes profitable to farm again. The subsidies are there to make farming less boom or bust, worst case scenario your citizens get really cheap food.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#146

Post by calcifer » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 9:43 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

Said the man who never relied on donated food to survive.

Still, I know I shouldn't be surprised to see this sort of comment on the mother of all capitalist congregations that is HN.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#147

Post by thebooktocome » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 9:46 PM UTC

avip wrote: post #140

lotsofpulp wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We had agriculture before the subsidies.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#148

Post by Retric » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 9:50 PM UTC

hcurtiss wrote: post #136

Retric wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Crop insurance for one thing: https://www.rma.usda.gov/pubs/2011/vegetable_growers.pdf

At the 75% coverage level the government pays 55% and the farmer pays 45%. Lower coverage levels get a higher subsidy.

But really it’s a smorgasbord of options.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#149

Post by textor » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 9:52 PM UTC

thebooktocome wrote: post #147

avip wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We had agriculture before the subsidies.

It was more profitable back then.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#150

Post by tedivm » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 9:56 PM UTC

thebooktocome wrote: post #147

avip wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We had agriculture before the subsidies.

Agriculture, at least in the US, has always been subsidized. As a country we used slave labor (free labor) to subsidize agriculture, and then over time we gave away an epic amount of land to white farmers (via the Land Act of 1820, the Homestead Act, and the Morrill Act of 1862).