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

161–170 of 191 posts

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#161

Post by TruffleLabs »

bilbo0s wrote: post #112
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?

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…

This paper by Dr. Jayson Lusk at Purdue University outlines the valuation of farm support programs (what is being called subsidies in this thread). He also includes analysis of farm support from other countries.

http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2016/6/26/impacts-of-usda-program...

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#162

Post by TruffleLabs »

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.

This is not an accurate statement: see the USDA info on non-crop specific programs that are counted as farm support programs:

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/fruit-tree-nuts/policy...

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#163

Post by ricw »

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.

The EU has successfully tested this and removed any subsidies to the sugar agricultural sector. The sugar industry in Europe has not imploded. In fact, it’s just adjusted to the new reality of not being subsidised. Other than that, it’s pretty much business as usual.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#164

Post by dang »

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.

Yikes, posting like this will get you banned on HN. Please don't do that again.

If you know more than someone else, the best thing to do is to post correct information, hopefully with a good amount of detail. Then the rest of us can learn something too. Alternatively, you can just not post anything. But no personal attacks, please.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#165

Post by PinkMilkshake »

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.

Not always true. In New Zealand we had subsidies for farmers (about 40%) and then they were taken away. The removal forced the farmers to innovate and now we have very efficient farming methods that have far less environmental impact. 2/3 of NZ's exports are agricultural.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_New_Zealand

Edit: The thing I found most interesting about this is agriculture was deregulated by the left wing government in what is a very socialist leaning country. Kiwi's are very pragmatic.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#166

Post by munificent »

HBlix wrote: post #133
kibibyte wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

More specifically (I looked it up because I was curious):

Maize is an annual grass in the family Gramineae, which includes such plants as wheat, rye, barley, rice, sorghum, and sugarcane.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#167

Post by shawn »

dang wrote: post #164
datavirtue wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yikes, posting like this will get you banned on HN. Please don't do that again. If you know more than someone else, the best thing to do is to post correct information, hopefully with a good amount of detail. Then the rest of us can learn something too. Alternatively, you can just not post anything. But no personal attacks, please.

Speaking of bans, can I be unbanned yet? I'm trying to submit stories like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18128969 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18135771

How about a joke? What do you call a gathering of musically-inclined Lisp programmers? A consert.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#168

Post by jpatokal »

forapurpose wrote: post #122
Swizec wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 indu…

In most European countries, your taxes get you all that and universal health care, reliable unemployment benefits and free higher education.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#169

Post by lotsofpulp »

nraynaud wrote: post #152
lotsofpulp wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of adding opacity to the system, I would rather they remove the subsidies instead.

Subsidies and government things are subject to disclosure laws, private contracts don't.

Subsidies add opacity to the market, so that the true cost of something is obscured from the consumer.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#170

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN