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

61–70 of 191 posts

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#61

Post by macspoofing »

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.

Nothing is taken away from poor people and nobody is lying about anything.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#62

Post by gowld »

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.

If it cost X resources to create Y food yesterday, and thanks to modern technology it costs X resources to create Y+W food today, and W of that food is trashed, why does that W waste matter at all?

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#63

Post by macspoofing »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #33
paxy wrote: post #22

Lol "We donate waste food, so people who reduce waste are bad"

They're not reducing waste: before Imperfect Produce, this food went to food banks. It's just that now someone has found a way to make money off of it.

>It's just that now someone has found a way to make money off of it.

Yeah. The farmers.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#64

Post by tedunangst »

sithadmin wrote: post #15
tedunangst wrote: post #7

But the total beet supply remains unchanged? Affluent customers are now buying the ugly beets, does that mean more pretty beets go unsold? Can they be donated?

>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.

I assume at some point the grocer realizes their sales are down and reduces their own order, no? There's no profit to them for increased spoilage.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#65

Post by refurb »

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.

Food is wasted because it’s the most efficient method of meeting demand. Don’t forget that solving the wastage issue may increase the overall resources needed.

In other words, the extra effort to prevent food waste might cost more than the food waste itself.

It doesn’t make much sense to spend $1 to prevent the waste of a $0.50 potato.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#66

Post by tivert »

jimmywanger wrote: post #60
xg15 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Not in this case: we're talking about growers not manufacturers. A farmer can't tell his beet not to grow in unaesthetic shapes at scale. If he wants to produce X tons of produce, Y% will be edible but "ugly," and there's not a lot he can do about it (absent an uneconomic increase in costs or some fantasy bit of genetic engineering).

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#67

Post by kazinator »

macspoofing wrote: post #61
kazinator wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nothing is taken away from poor people and nobody is lying about anything.

This is in fact the accusation made in the article, rightly or wrongly, in its simplest form.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#68

Post by kbenson »

ajkjk wrote: post #38
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…

I suspect we'll see co-ops of smaller growers to gather this food from members for the purpose of selling in bulk then. If there's a market, and it's worth enough, that's what I would expect to happen, just like it does for other market situations with small growers (e.g. farmers markets).

Markets tend to work around inefficiencies like that, just as they worked around the inefficiency of product waste in general here. It's generally best to work with and nudge the market through incentives than to expect it to not behave like expected.

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#69

Post by xondono »

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…

That’s probably because you are not an Oakland hipster who attended a liberal college }:)

Jokes aside, the article does read like a buzzword soup, and looks like a low blow from someone who is getting outcompited fair and square.

I would also like to see an analysis of the impact in consumer prices, since imperfect food is making a net loss for producers into a net gain.

If these producers are competing this should lower the prices, what could potentially reduce the need for donated food altogether (I know it’s very optimistic, but hey, a man can dream)

Re: The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

#70

Post by azrael49 »

gowld wrote: post #53
kazinator wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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
Post reply on HN