6 ms·

I visited Denmark from San Francisco in 2014. The food there was atrociously expensive. ATROCIOUS. Denmark does many things better than the US ... such as bi

I visited Denmark from San Francisco in 2014. The food there was atrociously expensive. ATROCIOUS. Denmark does many things better than the US ... such as bicycle lanes. But food isn't one of those things. Plus, much of organic food theory is total pseudoscientific bunk. Check out this survey of research on organic food in the Gimlet Media podcast: https://gimletmedia.com/episode/5-organic-food/ https://gimletmedia.com/episode/5-organic-food/

the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
> I visited Denmark from San Francisco in 2014. The food there was atrociously expensive. ATROCIOUS. I live in Austria where food is also expensive and most is organic but that's mainly because there is a 20% VAT tax on it, not because production is that much more expensive. I do think that our vegetables are tastier than in the US but I doubt it has anything to do with organic.
- xyzzyz 10y ago
  I don't know how about Austria, but in many European countries there's a separate VAT rate for raw unprocessed food. E.g. in Poland, regular VAT rate is 23%, while it is 8% or 5% for basic food items like bread, milk, butter, meat etc.
  - olau 10y ago
    In Denmark it's 25% VAT on everything.
  - open-source-ux 10y ago
    In the UK, most food and drink is zero-rated for VAT. Exceptions include snacks, confectionery, crisps, alcohol etc.
Svip 10y ago
You are saying that we don't do food better because it's more expensive? But it's expensive to you. The local purchasing power in Denmark is higher than it in the US. To Danish people (such as myself), it doesn't feel expensive. Although, it doesn't feel cheap either. We are quite aware that we have the third highest cost of living. But seriously, food being expensive is not the same as not doing food right. The few times I've been in the US, I've always been disappointed about the food available in supermarkets. It's hard to find stuff such as good milk or butter.
- davidw 10y ago
  If you want food done right in Europe, you go to Italy, of course! It's 'real' food (not necessarily 'organic') that tastes good, and gets lots of sunlight, so all kinds of delicious things grow.
- TheMagicHorsey 10y ago
  I doubt the purchasing power of Denmark is more than the purchasing power in San Francisco. But even if you are right, that doesn't mean a good should be so expensive ... just because it CAN be expensive. Also, its easy for Danes to distort the cultivation practices abroad by encouraging low yield practices to entertain their organic fetish. But that reduced yield forces additional open space to be brought under cultivation ... reducing wild habitat. There are ways of doing agriculture sustainably, with a mix of traditional practices and a measured and scientific use of fertilizer and pesticide. Just because pesticide and fertilizer can be abused, does not mean they are abusive by nature.
- mesh 10y ago
  San Francisco is very different from the rest of the US, particularly in the quality and cost of food. So, the cost comparison may be apt although this page, which compare cost of living between San Francisco and Denmark suggests that groceries in San Francisco are way more expensive (nearly 60%), although restaurants are cheaper (16%). https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Denmark&city1=Copenhagen&country2=United+States&city2=San+Francisco%2C+CA https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou... Not sure how reliable a source this is though.
  - olau 10y ago
    It makes sense to me that prepared meals at restaurants are more expensive. Wages for low-paid jobs are generally higher in Denmark I think. Less inequality. It probably has the side-effect that more Danes cook their meals themselves.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  No it's not, food is expensive in Europe and in Denmark period. The purchasing power is high, but the cost of food are not remotely cheap to the local population, Danes spend more than twice the percentage of their annual income on food than the their fellow Americans. Also the purchasing power of a US citizen is about 25% higher than that of a Danish citizen.
MrBuddyCasino 10y ago
It still is, at least in Copenhagen. The only affordable food are hotdog, I have no idea why.
- rory 10y ago
  Eating cheap in CPH entails a healthy, balanced diet of hotdogs, pay-by-weight candy, and döner kebabs :)
rojobuffalo 10y ago
Food is artificially cheap in the U.S., by a lot. U.S. factory farming is heavily subsidized--to the point that those farmers basically live off the subsidies. That podcast guest is shit--food from ecological systems is absolutely better tasting. Ask any decent chef (myself included). The idea that "organic food theory is bunk" is really hand-wavy. The importance of organic is the emphasis on ecology and soil health. Basically, life is made of carbon. So farms that are rich in life hold onto carbon. Whereas factory farm systems rely on monocrops, pesticides, and fertilizers, which sterilize life. These practices get an initial productivity bump, but end up depleting carrying capacity over several seasons. Subsidies are the crutch that keeps all that going.
- TheMagicHorsey 10y ago
  There is nothing that says a farmer can't use sustainable crop rotation practices with fertilizer and pesticide use. In fact, that is what farmers do regularly ... in many places. They aren't idiots that just pump fertilizer and pesticide in their fields to destroy them. If you actually spend some time on a regular commercial farm, you'll find that is the case in this day and age ... even in the US. Organic food theory is bunk. The double blind taste tests prove, scientifically that your better taste theory is wrong. You know you can grow heirloom varieties and perishable varieties with pesticide and fertilizer too right? Just because people grow perishable and heirloom varieties with organic methods, because rich people like organic, and rich people pay for these lower yielding varieties also, doesn't make these factors inherently confounded. You can separate them if consumer tastes at the top of the market change. My family grows very delicious fruit and vegetable by using a judicious amount of pesticide and fertilizer, in a sustainable way, in central california. We practice crop rotation in our vegetable gardens (but our primary crop is walnuts which does not allow for crop rotation ... but we are exploring mixed use ... but harvesting constraints and other issues dominate the calculation on whether crop mixing is feasible there). I am a programmer in San Francisco, and my father would probably have been one in 1970 if such a career was available to him then. He is a really smart guy. You think he is an idiot who doesn't examine all the issues when choosing to use pesticide and fertilizer? Our land has been in our family for almost a century. It is still yielding well. We know very well how to farm sustainably. Edit: as for subsidies, we don't want them. But we live in a market where prices are determined by them. Subsidies are bad. But, we cannot remove subsidies as individuals. And I disagree that low prices are a result of subsidies in the aggregate. They are certainly for specific crops ... and certainly for meat. But unless you consider water use a subsidy, I don't think food would get 50% more expensive without subsidies. Total US Ag subsidies is around $20 Billion while the size of the Ag sector is like $900Billion. 20 Billion removal will not effect an almost 1 Trillion dollar market in such a drastic way. Specific crops will be more expensive, but on the whole, agriculture will migrate to better, unconventional crops. We will actually meet market demand BETTER once subsidies don't distort our crop choices.
open-source-ux 10y ago
"Plus, much of organic food theory is total pseudoscientific bunk." There tends to be more than one angle on organic food 1. It's more nutritious than non-organic cultivation 2. It's more flavourful 3. It's less damaging to the environment I can't speak for the veracity of reasons 2 or 3 (although, anecdotally, supermarket organic produce seems just as bland and tasteless than the non-organic variety), but reason 1 was challenged some years ago (2008) by an independent study. The study was commissioned by the UK's Food Standards Agency. An overview: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120206100416/http://food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organic http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120206100416/htt... The final report: Systematic review of differences in nutrient content of organically and conventionally produced food http://tna.europarchive.org/20100929190231/http://www.food.gov.uk/science/research/choiceandstandardsresearch/consumerchoicestandards/l01list/organicreview/ http://tna.europarchive.org/20100929190231/http://www.food.g...
- terravion 10y ago
  That's because there are no proven systemic benefits to organic. It is sometimes a signal for higher quality growers, but almost every organic cropping system could have higher safety and sustainability by adding some conventional inputs.
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
>Plus, much of organic food theory is total pseudoscientific bunk. I agree that the idea of Frankenfood is hysteria. My fear of GMO's is due to my distrust of Monsanto, their near monopoly position in the global food supply, the legal tactics they use to bankrupt farmers for having the unmitigated gall to unwittingly use Monsanto seeds that blew onto their farm, and their regulatory capture of the FDA. There is a revolving door of former politicians they employ. It's also unconscionable how they're able to ram through legislation that removes labeling of foods that are GMO's. Even if someone has an irrational fear of GMO's, they should still have the right to know the origin of their foods. Logic clearly dictates that the rights of the many outweigh the avarice of the few. God forbid they should try to educate the public on their safety or be open and transparent about their products.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Monsanto and "near monopoly position in the global food supply"? That's really, really distorted. Monsanto revenues are 15 billion USD, global food supply market is 7800 billion USD. Monsanto, including all its non-food-related businesses, is about 0.2 % of global food supply business. "Organic" food business revenue, also just a niche globally, is about 5 times as big as Monsanto's revenue. >legal tactics they use to bankrupt farmers for having the unmitigated gall to unwittingly use Monsanto seeds that blew onto their farm That is a claim widely spread by Monsanto's adversaries, but it is simply not true. The case usually referred to is Monsanto Canada vs. Schmeiser, and it very clearly wasn't about "unwittingly" using Monsanto seeds. Schmeiser didn't even make such a claim in court, it's just a fabrication by anti-GMO activists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
    You are right on both accounts. In general, there's a lot of distortion concerning this issue as any google search mentioning Monsanto inevitably turns up a lot of natural food blogs parading as authoritative sources. We're going to need this type of technology if we are truly going to become an interplanetary species and endure the negative consequences of climate change. I just have a marked distrust of any organization that employs regulatory capture as evident as Monsanto. The point about food labeling still stands though. It's true that a little information in the hands of the ignorant can be dangerous, but that is the cost of living in a free and democratic society and individual choice. Putting corporate interests over the freedom of information rarely, if ever, works out well. Monsanto has the resources and the former politicians to do effective public outreach and education. That they would rather use legislation makes them seem, at best, not worthy of trust.

the_mitsuhiko 10y ago

> I visited Denmark from San Francisco in 2014. The food there was atrociously expensive. ATROCIOUS. I live in Austria where food is also expensive and most is organic but that's mainly because there is a 20% VAT tax on it, not because production is that much more expensive. I do think that our vegetables are tastier than in the US but I doubt it has anything to do with organic.

xyzzyz 10y ago
I don't know how about Austria, but in many European countries there's a separate VAT rate for raw unprocessed food. E.g. in Poland, regular VAT rate is 23%, while it is 8% or 5% for basic food items like bread, milk, butter, meat etc.
- olau 10y ago
  In Denmark it's 25% VAT on everything.
- open-source-ux 10y ago
  In the UK, most food and drink is zero-rated for VAT. Exceptions include snacks, confectionery, crisps, alcohol etc.

Svip 10y ago

You are saying that we don't do food better because it's more expensive? But it's expensive to you. The local purchasing power in Denmark is higher than it in the US. To Danish people (such as myself), it doesn't feel expensive. Although, it doesn't feel cheap either. We are quite aware that we have the third highest cost of living. But seriously, food being expensive is not the same as not doing food right. The few times I've been in the US, I've always been disappointed about the food available in supermarkets. It's hard to find stuff such as good milk or butter.

davidw 10y ago
If you want food done right in Europe, you go to Italy, of course! It's 'real' food (not necessarily 'organic') that tastes good, and gets lots of sunlight, so all kinds of delicious things grow.
TheMagicHorsey 10y ago
I doubt the purchasing power of Denmark is more than the purchasing power in San Francisco. But even if you are right, that doesn't mean a good should be so expensive ... just because it CAN be expensive. Also, its easy for Danes to distort the cultivation practices abroad by encouraging low yield practices to entertain their organic fetish. But that reduced yield forces additional open space to be brought under cultivation ... reducing wild habitat. There are ways of doing agriculture sustainably, with a mix of traditional practices and a measured and scientific use of fertilizer and pesticide. Just because pesticide and fertilizer can be abused, does not mean they are abusive by nature.
mesh 10y ago
San Francisco is very different from the rest of the US, particularly in the quality and cost of food. So, the cost comparison may be apt although this page, which compare cost of living between San Francisco and Denmark suggests that groceries in San Francisco are way more expensive (nearly 60%), although restaurants are cheaper (16%). https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Denmark&city1=Copenhagen&country2=United+States&city2=San+Francisco%2C+CA https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou... Not sure how reliable a source this is though.
- olau 10y ago
  It makes sense to me that prepared meals at restaurants are more expensive. Wages for low-paid jobs are generally higher in Denmark I think. Less inequality. It probably has the side-effect that more Danes cook their meals themselves.
dogma1138 10y ago
No it's not, food is expensive in Europe and in Denmark period. The purchasing power is high, but the cost of food are not remotely cheap to the local population, Danes spend more than twice the percentage of their annual income on food than the their fellow Americans. Also the purchasing power of a US citizen is about 25% higher than that of a Danish citizen.

MrBuddyCasino 10y ago

It still is, at least in Copenhagen. The only affordable food are hotdog, I have no idea why.

rory 10y ago
Eating cheap in CPH entails a healthy, balanced diet of hotdogs, pay-by-weight candy, and döner kebabs :)

rojobuffalo 10y ago

Food is artificially cheap in the U.S., by a lot. U.S. factory farming is heavily subsidized--to the point that those farmers basically live off the subsidies. That podcast guest is shit--food from ecological systems is absolutely better tasting. Ask any decent chef (myself included). The idea that "organic food theory is bunk" is really hand-wavy. The importance of organic is the emphasis on ecology and soil health. Basically, life is made of carbon. So farms that are rich in life hold onto carbon. Whereas factory farm systems rely on monocrops, pesticides, and fertilizers, which sterilize life. These practices get an initial productivity bump, but end up depleting carrying capacity over several seasons. Subsidies are the crutch that keeps all that going.

TheMagicHorsey 10y ago
There is nothing that says a farmer can't use sustainable crop rotation practices with fertilizer and pesticide use. In fact, that is what farmers do regularly ... in many places. They aren't idiots that just pump fertilizer and pesticide in their fields to destroy them. If you actually spend some time on a regular commercial farm, you'll find that is the case in this day and age ... even in the US. Organic food theory is bunk. The double blind taste tests prove, scientifically that your better taste theory is wrong. You know you can grow heirloom varieties and perishable varieties with pesticide and fertilizer too right? Just because people grow perishable and heirloom varieties with organic methods, because rich people like organic, and rich people pay for these lower yielding varieties also, doesn't make these factors inherently confounded. You can separate them if consumer tastes at the top of the market change. My family grows very delicious fruit and vegetable by using a judicious amount of pesticide and fertilizer, in a sustainable way, in central california. We practice crop rotation in our vegetable gardens (but our primary crop is walnuts which does not allow for crop rotation ... but we are exploring mixed use ... but harvesting constraints and other issues dominate the calculation on whether crop mixing is feasible there). I am a programmer in San Francisco, and my father would probably have been one in 1970 if such a career was available to him then. He is a really smart guy. You think he is an idiot who doesn't examine all the issues when choosing to use pesticide and fertilizer? Our land has been in our family for almost a century. It is still yielding well. We know very well how to farm sustainably. Edit: as for subsidies, we don't want them. But we live in a market where prices are determined by them. Subsidies are bad. But, we cannot remove subsidies as individuals. And I disagree that low prices are a result of subsidies in the aggregate. They are certainly for specific crops ... and certainly for meat. But unless you consider water use a subsidy, I don't think food would get 50% more expensive without subsidies. Total US Ag subsidies is around $20 Billion while the size of the Ag sector is like $900Billion. 20 Billion removal will not effect an almost 1 Trillion dollar market in such a drastic way. Specific crops will be more expensive, but on the whole, agriculture will migrate to better, unconventional crops. We will actually meet market demand BETTER once subsidies don't distort our crop choices.

open-source-ux 10y ago

"Plus, much of organic food theory is total pseudoscientific bunk." There tends to be more than one angle on organic food 1. It's more nutritious than non-organic cultivation 2. It's more flavourful 3. It's less damaging to the environment I can't speak for the veracity of reasons 2 or 3 (although, anecdotally, supermarket organic produce seems just as bland and tasteless than the non-organic variety), but reason 1 was challenged some years ago (2008) by an independent study. The study was commissioned by the UK's Food Standards Agency. An overview: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120206100416/http://food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organic http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120206100416/htt... The final report: Systematic review of differences in nutrient content of organically and conventionally produced food http://tna.europarchive.org/20100929190231/http://www.food.gov.uk/science/research/choiceandstandardsresearch/consumerchoicestandards/l01list/organicreview/ http://tna.europarchive.org/20100929190231/http://www.food.g...

terravion 10y ago
That's because there are no proven systemic benefits to organic. It is sometimes a signal for higher quality growers, but almost every organic cropping system could have higher safety and sustainability by adding some conventional inputs.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

>Plus, much of organic food theory is total pseudoscientific bunk. I agree that the idea of Frankenfood is hysteria. My fear of GMO's is due to my distrust of Monsanto, their near monopoly position in the global food supply, the legal tactics they use to bankrupt farmers for having the unmitigated gall to unwittingly use Monsanto seeds that blew onto their farm, and their regulatory capture of the FDA. There is a revolving door of former politicians they employ. It's also unconscionable how they're able to ram through legislation that removes labeling of foods that are GMO's. Even if someone has an irrational fear of GMO's, they should still have the right to know the origin of their foods. Logic clearly dictates that the rights of the many outweigh the avarice of the few. God forbid they should try to educate the public on their safety or be open and transparent about their products.

ptaipale 10y ago
Monsanto and "near monopoly position in the global food supply"? That's really, really distorted. Monsanto revenues are 15 billion USD, global food supply market is 7800 billion USD. Monsanto, including all its non-food-related businesses, is about 0.2 % of global food supply business. "Organic" food business revenue, also just a niche globally, is about 5 times as big as Monsanto's revenue. >legal tactics they use to bankrupt farmers for having the unmitigated gall to unwittingly use Monsanto seeds that blew onto their farm That is a claim widely spread by Monsanto's adversaries, but it is simply not true. The case usually referred to is Monsanto Canada vs. Schmeiser, and it very clearly wasn't about "unwittingly" using Monsanto seeds. Schmeiser didn't even make such a claim in court, it's just a fabrication by anti-GMO activists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  You are right on both accounts. In general, there's a lot of distortion concerning this issue as any google search mentioning Monsanto inevitably turns up a lot of natural food blogs parading as authoritative sources. We're going to need this type of technology if we are truly going to become an interplanetary species and endure the negative consequences of climate change. I just have a marked distrust of any organization that employs regulatory capture as evident as Monsanto. The point about food labeling still stands though. It's true that a little information in the hands of the ignorant can be dangerous, but that is the cost of living in a free and democratic society and individual choice. Putting corporate interests over the freedom of information rarely, if ever, works out well. Monsanto has the resources and the former politicians to do effective public outreach and education. That they would rather use legislation makes them seem, at best, not worthy of trust.