The article's term "gentrification" has a more specific focus than overall social welfare, and I think it's spot-on. Entrepreneurs notice an "underutilized" re

The article's term "gentrification" has a more specific focus than overall social welfare, and I think it's spot-on. Entrepreneurs notice an "underutilized" resource (housing / food waste) and create a new distribution network, disrupting the old one. This is good ol' competition (which I am a fan of), but it's important to acknowledge that it impacts people who aren't "competing", like food bank visitors. Even if the new network captures more value than the old one, it may also redistribute that value -- as the article contends, from food banks that would get more donations to "conscious consumers" who prefer this to traditional groceries, and of course to Imperfect Produce via profits. Regardless of how you feel about the ethics of the above, it's at least part of Imperfect Produce's identity. If they are marketing to conscious consumers, this article helps those consumers consider more broadly their social impact. For my own value judgement, I feel like I'm missing some important data: - If IP is taking waste produce from larger farms, are they actually competing with BeetBox for the supply of produce? - Downstream of above, has IP's activity actually reduced the amount of food donations being made available to food banks? If IP is mainly competing with BeetBox for the "conscious consumers" that subsidize their charitable work, maybe BB can focus efforts to marketing their distinction from IP. Maybe this article is the first step. Alternatively, if the BB folks are prioritizing social impact, have they tried to convince/train IP to work with the same social gaps they fill? If IP is more efficient in extracting conscious-consumer dollars, they have more surplus that could be poured back into the community.