8 ms·

It's a little ironic that goodeggs is considered a food technology firm, when it has nothing to do with technology, and in fact has a rejectionist approach to t

It's a little ironic that goodeggs is considered a food technology firm, when it has nothing to do with technology, and in fact has a rejectionist approach to technology in the first place. Monsanto and Cargill are food technology firms. Advances in food technology are what allow us to feed 9 billion people with a fixed resource (arable land). There are serious innovations in food production and distribution that have saved millions of lives in the last half century (Norman Borlaug and the Green Revolution). An online seller of local produce is not "food tech". It is simply using the web to sell food. Add to that their dislike of synthetic pesticide/fertilizer and other real advances in food technology (advances that in the developing world mean a real reduction in deadly diseases that spread through the use of animal manure [natural fertilizer]), and it makes them just another anti-tech firm that happens to peddle goods on the Internet.

akamaka 11y ago
I'm not sure if you just have a problem with organic food, or if this is just another reiteration of the tired old "if you're not trying to solve world hunger..." argument that gets used to criticize business ideas, but none of your points are really relevant to a company whose goal is to conveniently supply food to some of the richest cities in the world.
- zenbowman 11y ago
  Organic food is fine. But it is, fundamentally, an anti-technology approach to growing food. You should be free to eat it if you want. The point is simply that firms that reject technology should not be described as "tech" companies simply because they use the Internet in some way. I'm not suggesting in any way that companies should not exist if they don't solve planet-scale problems.
  - akamaka 11y ago
    I think folks underestimate how much agricultural science and technology there is that doesn't fall under the very narrow categories of genetic engineering and chemical pesticides. Modern society is built on top of the massive productivity improvements in agriculture that occurred before those were introduced, and there is plenty of room to innovate without using those methods. GMO crops are limited[1] in Europe, yet they continue to be a leader in agricultural innovation. [1] edited, see dragonwriter's correction
    - zenbowman 11y ago
      Of course there are other aspects to agricultural science and technology. However, there is nothing in this company that indicates they are advancing technology in any sense. This is not to say they are not providing a worthwhile service. Even my local farmer's market provides a worthwhile service to me, but I don't call it a "tech market" just because some of the vendors have an online presence.
      - akamaka 11y ago
        I see where you're coming from, but I think there are still a lot of possibilities for innovation here. We waste 50% of food, with a big portion of that waste happening at the retail level. Food distribution services like Good Eggs have a pretty good shot at eliminating that waste. Just to give an idea of the potential, attacking only food waste, without any other improvments to our food system, would comfortably allow earth to have a population of 10 billion.
        bwilliams18 11y ago
        Right, but that still doesn't mean there is innovative technology involved. Can I call a tailor a technology company because they have a website?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > GMO crops are banned in Europe No, they aren't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modified_organisms_in_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modi...
      - technotony 11y ago
        They are 'effectively' banned in Europe though. As you can see from this infographic[1] approval of a GMO requires a political vote in the European Commission. This takes place after a very expensive risk assessment, and you can't get that money back. It's a tough business case to spend a ton of money on the risk assessment and then be at the whim of politicians who are publicly against the technology and know they win votes by being against it. My company makes GMO plants and until the situation changes there's no way we'd considered trying to get approval. I conjecture they setup this system because an outright ban, which would be unscientific, would violate international trade treaties, instead they just use this process. [1] http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/docs/decision_making_process.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/docs/decision_making_process....
  - Retric 11y ago
    The world produces ~three times as much food as we need to feed the world. Sure, we can push efficiency up further, but there is no real need for more calories and current practices create huge short and long term problems. Not that fuel ethanol is drinkable, but you can get similar amounts of energy with other processes. Anyway, just the US ethanol production is over 2 gallons of per person on the planet. We are talking ~23,000 calories per person on the planet produced in a horribly inefficient process which is then burned.
    - CPLX 11y ago
      > Not that ethanol is drinkable Ethanol is eminently drinkable, in fact I enjoyed some with tonic water and lime just the other night.
  - codingdave 11y ago
    You have to know that organic vs. Monsanto is a hot button to push, so throwing that into your initial comment is a sure way to derail the conversation into arguments. If you really just want to talk about the "tech" label, then you should just stick to that point.
    - zenbowman 11y ago
      It's a hot topic, yes, but an important one. We are in an age where policy is decided by a scientifically illiterate public, with potentially devastating consequences for people outside the developed world. That needs to be confronted head on, not shied away from. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/05/18/pew-vaccine-gmo-climate-change-science-column/27184389/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/05/18/pew-vaccine... Not being willing to talk about these issues is what allows fearmongers to win the day.
      - akamaka 11y ago
        One of the problems is this idea that opposition to GMOs and growth in demand for organic food is fueled by scientific illiteracy. There an oft-repeated lament of "I can't believe people think GMOs are unsafe!", but why not instead start by asking why purchases of organic food increase alongside increased education level?
        zenbowman 11y ago
        Having gone to college is not evidence that your opinion is any more important than anyone else's. What matters is: what does the data say about GMO safety? Are your views informed by the consensus of scientific studies? If not, then the position is still scientifically illiterate, even if the individual has a Masters degree. Resisting vaccinations is also quite common among educated, affluent people. http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/March-2014/Why-Is-Vaccine-Refusal-More-Prevalent-Among-the-Affluent/ http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/March-2014/Why-Is-Vaccin... The issue is precisely that we have an "educated" public (based on credentials) that is also scientifically illiterate.
batbomb 11y ago
The goal isn't to have cheap food, it's to have good food. People don't say "Ferrari isn't a car technology company" because their technology isn't targeted towards the masses.
- beambot 11y ago
  It's more like comparing to Top Gear than Ferrari...
faithfone 11y ago
I sense from your comment that Monsanto is your client or employer. Would that be correct?
- zenbowman 11y ago
  If that were true, I'd be proud to work there. Food innovation is of critical importance for mankind, in the same realm as space exploration or improved information accessibility. Certainly a lot more important selling ads, or providing an internet-based service to pick up your laundry. But it isn't true. Maybe someday.
  - faithfone 11y ago
    It sounds like you're unfamiliar with both what Monsanto does, and with what I do.
    - zenbowman 11y ago
      I know what they do, not what you do. If you know something I don't, then I have no way of using it to form an opinion until you tell me about it.
    - splawn 11y ago
      I am familiar with what Monsanto does and have pretty much agreed with GP. I am also familiar with the anti-science youtube documentary watching, "do-your-own-research" conspiracy junky crowd accusing strangers of being shills on public forums. Your profile is blank so that is all I have to go on as far as "what you do".
pbreit 11y ago
"Advances in food technology are what allow us to feed 9 billion people" Without a citation I'm disinclined to believe this. Populations have managed to feed themselves without Monsanto/Cargill-style advances for pretty much all of human history. Something like a third of food goes wasted as it is.

akamaka 11y ago

I'm not sure if you just have a problem with organic food, or if this is just another reiteration of the tired old "if you're not trying to solve world hunger..." argument that gets used to criticize business ideas, but none of your points are really relevant to a company whose goal is to conveniently supply food to some of the richest cities in the world.

zenbowman 11y ago
Organic food is fine. But it is, fundamentally, an anti-technology approach to growing food. You should be free to eat it if you want. The point is simply that firms that reject technology should not be described as "tech" companies simply because they use the Internet in some way. I'm not suggesting in any way that companies should not exist if they don't solve planet-scale problems.
- akamaka 11y ago
  I think folks underestimate how much agricultural science and technology there is that doesn't fall under the very narrow categories of genetic engineering and chemical pesticides. Modern society is built on top of the massive productivity improvements in agriculture that occurred before those were introduced, and there is plenty of room to innovate without using those methods. GMO crops are limited[1] in Europe, yet they continue to be a leader in agricultural innovation. [1] edited, see dragonwriter's correction
  - zenbowman 11y ago
    Of course there are other aspects to agricultural science and technology. However, there is nothing in this company that indicates they are advancing technology in any sense. This is not to say they are not providing a worthwhile service. Even my local farmer's market provides a worthwhile service to me, but I don't call it a "tech market" just because some of the vendors have an online presence.
    - akamaka 11y ago
      I see where you're coming from, but I think there are still a lot of possibilities for innovation here. We waste 50% of food, with a big portion of that waste happening at the retail level. Food distribution services like Good Eggs have a pretty good shot at eliminating that waste. Just to give an idea of the potential, attacking only food waste, without any other improvments to our food system, would comfortably allow earth to have a population of 10 billion.
      - bwilliams18 11y ago
        Right, but that still doesn't mean there is innovative technology involved. Can I call a tailor a technology company because they have a website?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > GMO crops are banned in Europe No, they aren't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modified_organisms_in_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modi...
    - technotony 11y ago
      They are 'effectively' banned in Europe though. As you can see from this infographic[1] approval of a GMO requires a political vote in the European Commission. This takes place after a very expensive risk assessment, and you can't get that money back. It's a tough business case to spend a ton of money on the risk assessment and then be at the whim of politicians who are publicly against the technology and know they win votes by being against it. My company makes GMO plants and until the situation changes there's no way we'd considered trying to get approval. I conjecture they setup this system because an outright ban, which would be unscientific, would violate international trade treaties, instead they just use this process. [1] http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/docs/decision_making_process.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/docs/decision_making_process....
- Retric 11y ago
  The world produces ~three times as much food as we need to feed the world. Sure, we can push efficiency up further, but there is no real need for more calories and current practices create huge short and long term problems. Not that fuel ethanol is drinkable, but you can get similar amounts of energy with other processes. Anyway, just the US ethanol production is over 2 gallons of per person on the planet. We are talking ~23,000 calories per person on the planet produced in a horribly inefficient process which is then burned.
  - CPLX 11y ago
    > Not that ethanol is drinkable Ethanol is eminently drinkable, in fact I enjoyed some with tonic water and lime just the other night.
- codingdave 11y ago
  You have to know that organic vs. Monsanto is a hot button to push, so throwing that into your initial comment is a sure way to derail the conversation into arguments. If you really just want to talk about the "tech" label, then you should just stick to that point.
  - zenbowman 11y ago
    It's a hot topic, yes, but an important one. We are in an age where policy is decided by a scientifically illiterate public, with potentially devastating consequences for people outside the developed world. That needs to be confronted head on, not shied away from. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/05/18/pew-vaccine-gmo-climate-change-science-column/27184389/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/05/18/pew-vaccine... Not being willing to talk about these issues is what allows fearmongers to win the day.
    - akamaka 11y ago
      One of the problems is this idea that opposition to GMOs and growth in demand for organic food is fueled by scientific illiteracy. There an oft-repeated lament of "I can't believe people think GMOs are unsafe!", but why not instead start by asking why purchases of organic food increase alongside increased education level?
      - zenbowman 11y ago
        Having gone to college is not evidence that your opinion is any more important than anyone else's. What matters is: what does the data say about GMO safety? Are your views informed by the consensus of scientific studies? If not, then the position is still scientifically illiterate, even if the individual has a Masters degree. Resisting vaccinations is also quite common among educated, affluent people. http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/March-2014/Why-Is-Vaccine-Refusal-More-Prevalent-Among-the-Affluent/ http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/March-2014/Why-Is-Vaccin... The issue is precisely that we have an "educated" public (based on credentials) that is also scientifically illiterate.

batbomb 11y ago

The goal isn't to have cheap food, it's to have good food. People don't say "Ferrari isn't a car technology company" because their technology isn't targeted towards the masses.

beambot 11y ago
It's more like comparing to Top Gear than Ferrari...

faithfone 11y ago

I sense from your comment that Monsanto is your client or employer. Would that be correct?

zenbowman 11y ago
If that were true, I'd be proud to work there. Food innovation is of critical importance for mankind, in the same realm as space exploration or improved information accessibility. Certainly a lot more important selling ads, or providing an internet-based service to pick up your laundry. But it isn't true. Maybe someday.
- faithfone 11y ago
  It sounds like you're unfamiliar with both what Monsanto does, and with what I do.
  - zenbowman 11y ago
    I know what they do, not what you do. If you know something I don't, then I have no way of using it to form an opinion until you tell me about it.
  - splawn 11y ago
    I am familiar with what Monsanto does and have pretty much agreed with GP. I am also familiar with the anti-science youtube documentary watching, "do-your-own-research" conspiracy junky crowd accusing strangers of being shills on public forums. Your profile is blank so that is all I have to go on as far as "what you do".

pbreit 11y ago

"Advances in food technology are what allow us to feed 9 billion people" Without a citation I'm disinclined to believe this. Populations have managed to feed themselves without Monsanto/Cargill-style advances for pretty much all of human history. Something like a third of food goes wasted as it is.