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

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#51

Post by 394549 » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 6:36 PM UTC

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…

> I don't like seeing groups shoehorn welfare into other areas. If you've got an income (or cash welfare) problem, fix that.

And then the problem never gets fixed. You argue against this practice with the reasoning that the "income problem" should be solved directly. Simultaneously, others argue (loudly) against solving the "income problem" directly with the reasoning that practices like this are the answer. At every point, there's an alternative that can be used as an excuse to totally avoid solving or ameliorating the problem.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#52

Post by xg15 » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 6:37 PM UTC

arkades wrote: post #40

hackinthebochs wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I think the problem was more with the inverse claim - that everything you can not find a market for were automatically waste.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#53

Post by gowld » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 6:41 PM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #48

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…

I see nothing wrong with: selling something if a paying market is found for that, instead of giving it away for free. I do see something wrong with: creating that paying market by lying. I suspect most of those conscientious people who think they are helping farmers and reducing food waste would not be paying for this produce if they knew that it was being taken away from poor people.

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

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#54

Post by jimmywanger » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 6:41 PM UTC

darkerside wrote: post #45

VonGuard wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this whole piece is from someone with an axe to grind. I get it, Beet Box was more community focused and basically a non-profit masquerading as a startup. It's natural they'd get stomped by a real startup, but in this case, the competition is literally taking trash and making people eat it. It's great! What could be wrong with that? We waste like 40% of all food made in this country.

But it's not trash. It's food that was being used. I don't think most of Imperfect Produce's customers would subscribe if they knew this food was previously being eaten by people in need. Their entire marketing and product concept is based on a lie.

What? So you're mad for what reason exactly?

You can say that about most things - if something doesn't have an available market, other people will use the sub-optimal thing. I don't see why that's a problem or why people wouldn't pay money for something other people use for free.

If it makes you feel better, you can think of it as supporting farms, because once farms become unprofitable to run as a business, nobody will grow food.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#55

Post by paisawalla » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 6:41 PM UTC

394549 wrote: post #30

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…

> 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 never be used, because we're redistributing it." No, I think you're the one who has it wrong. Previously, the "ugly produce" wasn't food waste because…

Here's a thought experiment for you: suppose that farming technology had developed which allows every fruit and vegetable grown to be "pretty" and saleable. Would it be immoral for farmers to stop producing "ugly" produce in that world?

If so, I think your argument is with capitalism, and not any one actor.

If not, what's the difference here?

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#56

Post by gowld » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 6:43 PM UTC

darkerside wrote: post #45

VonGuard wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this whole piece is from someone with an axe to grind. I get it, Beet Box was more community focused and basically a non-profit masquerading as a startup. It's natural they'd get stomped by a real startup, but in this case, the competition is literally taking trash and making people eat it. It's great! What could be wrong with that? We waste like 40% of all food made in this country.

But it's not trash. It's food that was being used. I don't think most of Imperfect Produce's customers would subscribe if they knew this food was previously being eaten by people in need. Their entire marketing and product concept is based on a lie.

Imperfect Produce's customers are more than welcome to donate their cost savings or other food to people in need if they are dissatisfied with how much someone else is donating.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#57

Post by maxerickson » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 6:43 PM UTC

sithadmin wrote: post #36

maxerickson wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Paying farmers for food that they previously had to give away looks an awful lot like an incremental improvement (payment for more of their crop can be expected to increase their ability to plan).

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#58

Post by paxy » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 6:45 PM UTC

Why skirt around the fact that everyone (farmers, consumers, they themselves) is still free to donate all the food they want? Imperfect Produce has not changed that, just given some value to food that used to be "waste", which is a good thing.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#59

Post by gowld » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 6:45 PM UTC

forapurpose wrote: post #19

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…

> I don't like seeing groups shoehorn welfare into other areas. If you've got an income (or cash welfare) problem, fix that. I'd prefer a better solution, but when one isn't available (and likely not forthcoming), needs of real people outweigh my economic principles: These people need food. It's the same in engineering: As much as we would wish otherwise, sometimes the 'right' solution isn't available and we need to…

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.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#60

Post by jimmywanger » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 6:45 PM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #52

arkades wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

I think the problem was more with the inverse claim - that everything you can not find a market for were automatically waste.

It's waste for the producer. If you stop giving a reason for producers to produce goods, the goods stop being made.