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

31–40 of 191 posts

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#31

Post by sithadmin »

loco5niner wrote: post #25
sithadmin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't feel too bad about ordering from Imperfect Produce Stunning cognitive dissonance going on here. Simply redirecting a portion of one's personal funds towards a local food bank doesn't absolve one of the moral wrongs associated with participation in a scheme that systematically undermines access to food for the least advantaged.

> a scheme that systematically undermines access to food for the least advantaged That's quite a claim. Evidence please?

Did you actually read the article linked? Imperfect Produce and similar operations divert food that otherwise would be bound for food banks and other sources of food assistance programs towards more affluent segments of the consumer market.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#32

Post by dcow »

Swizec wrote: post #16
jpollock wrote: post #8

"Imperfect Produce claims it’s saving the world by reducing food waste—and helping farmers by buying surplus 'ugly' produce that would have been thrown out. Sounds great. The reality is that this produce would have otherwise gone to food banks, to be redistributed for free." People are complaining because a hidden subsidy (from government and other food buyers to the food banks) has been removed. I don't like seeing…

It’s crazy the contortions americans go through to avoid having welfare while still trying to have welfare. But god forbid we just have actual welfare. Been living here 4 years, still don’t get it. Prob never will. I’m supposed to only buy expensive produce so the cheap stuff can be left for those less fortunate? Why don’t you just use some of the exorbitant taxes I pay to help the less fortunate directly? Smh

I get the sentiment but...we do have welfare programs. If a food source once available is becoming scarce, then obviously they will need to be revamped where appropriate.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#34

Post by thrower123 »

If I'm throwing something in the trash because it is no use to me, it might be a windfall for you if you can snag it and make use of it. But that's what it is, it's a windfall; you shouldn't get dependent on picking my trash and get irate if I stop tossing out the bits you liked to pick.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#35

Post by rhizome »

jpollock wrote: post #8

"Imperfect Produce claims it’s saving the world by reducing food waste—and helping farmers by buying surplus 'ugly' produce that would have been thrown out. Sounds great. The reality is that this produce would have otherwise gone to food banks, to be redistributed for free." People are complaining because a hidden subsidy (from government and other food buyers to the food banks) has been removed. I don't like seeing…

If you've got an income (or cash welfare) problem, fix that

It wasn't a problem before.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#36

Post by sithadmin »

maxerickson wrote: post #28
sithadmin wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Affluent customers are now buying the ugly beets, does that mean more pretty beets go unsold? Can they be donated? Realistically they probably end up on grocer shelves, which are themselves a horrific contributor to food waste. Some small portion of those that will otherwise end up in a dumpster will be redirected to other ends (e.g. 'made fresh' foods offered by various grocers) or donated.

We waste food because we can. If industrial agriculture and distribution were less effective, there probably would be less food waste. And there would probably be lots more hungry people.

You're not wrong, but just because we possess technical capabilities to produce a surplus of goods such that the economy can tolerate high levels of waste doesn't mean that we should. This is an area where we should be making incremental improvements, not only to increase the efficiency of how and where we distribute goods, but in the interest of things like public health.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#37

Post by forapurpose »

Swizec wrote: post #16
jpollock wrote: post #8

"Imperfect Produce claims it’s saving the world by reducing food waste—and helping farmers by buying surplus 'ugly' produce that would have been thrown out. Sounds great. The reality is that this produce would have otherwise gone to food banks, to be redistributed for free." People are complaining because a hidden subsidy (from government and other food buyers to the food banks) has been removed. I don't like seeing…

It’s crazy the contortions americans go through to avoid having welfare while still trying to have welfare. But god forbid we just have actual welfare. Been living here 4 years, still don’t get it. Prob never will. I’m supposed to only buy expensive produce so the cheap stuff can be left for those less fortunate? Why don’t you just use some of the exorbitant taxes I pay to help the less fortunate directly? Smh

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

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#38

Post by ajkjk »

kbenson wrote: post #29

> Imperfect Produce claims it’s saving the world by reducing food waste—and helping farmers by buying surplus “ugly” produce that would have been thrown out. Sounds great. The reality is that this produce would have otherwise gone to food banks, to be redistributed for free. So I feel for the social cause, and I think the business ventures should be much more up-front about what they are and not masquerade as somethi…

Later on it says that it specifically helps only midsize- and larger growers, because small growers don't produce large enough quantities for it to be profitable to purchase from them:

"'We want to be able to source at least a truckload from these growers each week, so they have to be at least midsize in most cases.' Imperfect Produce is only able to make a profit by working with the larger global agribusinesses, not the picturesque small and mid-sized farms it projects in its marketing campaign."

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#39

Post by icebraining »

MrEfficiency wrote: post #9

When I did the math + realized the shipping costs, it was a no-brainer. I know many people who buy into these 'good feelings' products.

The BeetBox CSA is also a "good feelings" product. In fact, their Facebook feed is much more about the good feelings than the product itself.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#40

Post by arkades »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #26
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…

>that food isn't really waste, let's redistribute it if it's going unused. But this is exactly what I got from the article, that the supposed wasted food isn't being wasted. And so the consumer activism behind the appeal of these products is misplaced.

“Food waste” means, specifically, food that went unsold because a market couldn’t be found for it. Donating something rather than throwing it out is how these venture began.

If you can find a market for it, its not waste.

Post reply on HN