13 ms·

The ugly truth about the ugly produce movement

214 points by ericdanielski 8y ago

Einstalbert 8y ago
I almost bought into Imperfect Produce, too, what a bad taste in my mouth that would have left. Thanks for the good read.
- jdavis703 8y ago
  So when I was a kid my family made use of food banks. Now that I'm doing better in life I give a cut of each paycheck to my local food bank (The Alameda County Food Bank). I don't feel too bad about ordering from Imperfect Produce, it's convenient way to get produce delivered to your door, and I still wind up buying some things from the farmers market and co-op. On that note, it is good to know what consequences new business models have on the surrounding community.
  - sithadmin 8y ago
    >I don't feel too bad about ordering from Imperfect Produce Stunning cognitive dissonance going on here. Simply redirecting a portion of one's personal funds towards a local food bank doesn't absolve one of the moral wrongs associated with participation in a scheme that systematically undermines access to food for the least advantaged.
    - loco5niner 8y ago
      > a scheme that systematically undermines access to food for the least advantaged That's quite a claim. Evidence please?
      - sithadmin 8y ago
        Did you actually read the article linked? Imperfect Produce and similar operations divert food that otherwise would be bound for food banks and other sources of food assistance programs towards more affluent segments of the consumer market.
        jimmywanger 8y ago
        Yes, they found a way to give profit to farmers while still operating as a for-profit. By reducing stuff that is not valuable to the farmer at all they are evil? Food assistance programs take food that is otherwise unsaleable. Making more stuff saleable is how technology works. Considering we have a bustling market in recyclables, is that bad?
        loco5niner 8y ago
        Yes, I read every word. My take-away was that it was a one-sided defensive (well really, attacking) piece so I didn't believe a word of it. If you have a source from a disinterested party that claims Imperfect Produce is doing a bad thing, I'd love to read it too.
        phil21 8y ago
        My parents spent a lifetime barely making ends meet as organic vegetable farmers, and will be living the rest of their retirement in what amounts to basic poverty. Anything that increased their revenue on their hard work is a good thing. Asking them to give away otherwise sellable produce is simply asking for someone else to perform charity on your behalf. And if you work in tech you would be a (relatively) rich person asking some of the poorest to do so - which I find both immoral and despicable - since this attitude is so prevalent in these circles. The moral thing to do if you care, is donate to the food bank or otherwise directly support charity - not asking someone else to do it on your behalf.
    - beat 8y ago
      I think this is a very narrow perspective. The situation around access to food has changed radically over the past 50 years or so, in the US and globally. Over that period, the human population has doubled, while the cost of food has actually dropped significantly. Although access to food in the US is sometimes still a problem, it is nowhere near the problem it was for our grandparents' generation. Perspective, please.
    - gizmo686 8y ago
      The marginal effect of 1 person buying ugly produce is that that set of produce does not get donated. In other words, a marginal decrease in inkind donations to foodbanks. This can be directly offset by a monetary donation.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      And this is how you get people who would agree with you and try to help and drive them away.
  - 394549 8y ago
    > I don't feel too bad about ordering from Imperfect Produce, it's convenient way to get produce delivered to your door Honest question: are there similarly convent ways to get produce delivered to your door that don't undermine the food banks' fresh food supply? If you can afford to pay for produce, why not pay for the produce that's traditionally been on the market?
    - sithadmin 8y ago
      Local CSAs frequently have a delivery, or convenient nearby pickup option.
      - cwkoss 8y ago
        Bit off topic, but does anyone know of a CSA that delivers in Seattle? I've only been able to find ones that have pickup options.
paxy 8y ago
Lol "We donate waste food, so people who reduce waste are bad"
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  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.
  - macspoofing 8y ago
    >It's just that now someone has found a way to make money off of it. Yeah. The farmers.
  - greenshackle2 8y ago
    Farmers are no more on the hook to give free food to food banks than you and I are.
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      I'm not saying that they are. I'm saying that food that is donated and eaten is not "wasted" just because no one has paid money for it.
ataturk 8y ago
I stopped reading at "food justice." GTFO.
maxerickson 8y ago
I wonder what's better in the long term for the farmers. Making sure people have food to eat is something society in the US can easily do, I really wonder if the heroic volunteerism surrounding food banks is a good way to do it.
arkades 8y ago
"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 never be used, because we're redistributing it."
- hackinthebochs 8y ago
  >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.
  - arkades 8y ago
    “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.
    - xg15 8y ago
      I think the problem was more with the inverse claim - that everything you can not find a market for were automatically waste.
      - jimmywanger 8y ago
        It's waste for the producer. If you stop giving a reason for producers to produce goods, the goods stop being made.
        tivert 8y ago
        > 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).
wbronitsky 8y ago
"The company does this by commodifying food that would go to the poor for free" The article provides 0 evidence towards this case. I'm all for listening to this argument, as it is a good one, but are there any facts to support this other than their shrinking user base?
- cowpig 8y ago
  > Within months of its arrival in the Bay Area, Imperfect Produce fliers were showing up on our car windows, its outreach coordinators were pitching at community meetings, its Facebook advertisements popped up daily in our feeds, and it was edging into community centers we had operated at for years. The marketing blitz paid off. Soon, Imperfect’s single-use cardboard boxes began lining the streets on recycling and garbage days in the East Bay. We lost customers, a lot of customers.
  - in_cahoots 8y ago
    So how were the customers or farmers hurt here? It sounds like they chose to switch services, and the only loser is the author of this post. It’s not clear to me how losing customers = food banks suffering.
tedunangst 8y ago
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?
- sithadmin 8y ago
  >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.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    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.
    - sithadmin 8y ago
      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.
      - maxerickson 8y ago
        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).
      - gowld 8y ago
        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?
jpollock 8y ago
"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 groups shoehorn welfare into other areas. If you've got an income (or cash welfare) problem, fix that.
- Swizec 8y ago
  It’s crazy the contortions americans go through to avoid having welfare while still trying to have welfare. But god forbid we just have actual welfare. Been living here 4 years, still don’t get it. Prob never will. I’m supposed to only buy expensive produce so the cheap stuff can be left for those less fortunate? Why don’t you just use some of the exorbitant taxes I pay to help the less fortunate directly? Smh
  - ataturk 8y ago
    Or stop having the exorbitant taxes and be all right with bad choices people make because every "poor" person I know always has money for booze and cigarettes.
  - dcow 8y ago
    I get the sentiment but...we do have welfare programs. If a food source once available is becoming scarce, then obviously they will need to be revamped where appropriate.
    - DubiousPusher 8y ago
      I think it's easy to take that cold engineerlike approach when you won't be the one occupying this gap until it is filled
      - dcow 8y ago
        Cold? Factual, maybe. Are you saying you buy ugly food?
MrEfficiency 8y ago
When I did the math + realized the shipping costs, it was a no-brainer. I know many people who buy into these 'good feelings' products.
- sithadmin 8y ago
  >I know many people who buy into these 'good feelings' products. Good, quick talk by Zizek on this phenomenon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g
- icebraining 8y ago
  The BeetBox CSA is also a "good feelings" product. In fact, their Facebook feed is much more about the good feelings than the product itself.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
loco5niner 8y ago
> Some may claim we have a case of sour grapes. This is capitalism at its best, they might say. Based on this biased article I agree.
mombul 8y ago
Sounds like they're really mad they didn't partner up with Imperfect Produce when they were given the chance.
SatvikBeri 8y ago
Imperfect Produce's reply: https://help.imperfectproduce.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004564574-Are-you-taking-produce-that-would-have-gone-to-food-banks-otherwise-Where-did-this-produce-go-before-Imperfect-started- https://help.imperfectproduce.com/hc/en-us/articles/11500456...
- neaden 8y ago
  I wonder if this has to do with location as well. This reply cites a food pantry in Chicago, an area of the country that doesn't produce much produce. The farms in Illinois mostly grow corn and soybeans that feed cows. The article is in California, which is where a much more substantial portion of produce is grown.
- cowpig 8y ago
  Beyond the first paragraph which just states that their food would otherwise end up as trash, they don't actually reply to any of the claims in the parent article. The evidence they provide is broad macro-level statistics about how much food is wasted, but not about where the food they're selling comes from. The parent article claims specifically that they are getting their food from sources that would otherwise be going to food banks. The fact that this "reply" repeats talking points with country-level statistics instead of directly addressing the question leaves me feeling suspicious of Imperfect Produce.
  - imperfect1 8y ago
    We source from medium and large scale farms where most of the 20 billion lbs of food waste happens. These farmers either let their ugly produce rot in the field, or sell it for pennies to animal feed. Happy to clear up any other misinformation that this article presents.
horsawlarway 8y ago
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 Association of Food Banks states that they have donated 164 million pounds of fruits and vegetables. That's not 164 million PER YEAR. That's 164 million since they were founded in 1995 - or 7.1 million a year. Additionally, the Imperfect produce comment saying 150,000 lbs specifically calls out "From California farmers". While the food banks numbers are simply totals (they likely purchase and redistribute, as well as take donations from out of state sources). There's probably fudging on both sides, but I find this article fairly disingenuous.
- VonGuard 8y ago
  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.
  - darkerside 8y ago
    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.
    - jimmywanger 8y ago
      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.
kbenson 8y ago
> 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 something else, but let's be clear that buy buying this less than perfect produce, they are helping growers, including small growers, by allowing them to capitalize on more of their crop. Ultimately, if you want your social cause to not be a victim of market forces, you either need to work yourself into the market correctly, divorce yourself form it, or find a segregating line that works. If they were taking monetary donations, or allowing write-offs of the produce at full price (something that conceivably could be supported through targeted legislation), then they might be more competitive here. But since they relied on drowers giving them produce that had little or not value, which now does have some value, they'll see the market respond like anyone else. Again, this doesn't excuse businesses masquerading as social causes (which is nothing new, even if it is loathsome in the worse cases), but this article isn't exactly presenting the case in a balanced light either.
- ajkjk 8y ago
  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 the picturesque small and mid-sized farms it projects in its marketing campaign."
  - kbenson 8y ago
    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.
thrower123 8y ago
If I'm throwing something in the trash because it is no use to me, it might be a windfall for you if you can snag it and make use of it. But that's what it is, it's a windfall; you shouldn't get dependent on picking my trash and get irate if I stop tossing out the bits you liked to pick.
sct202 8y ago
I used Imperfect Produce for several months and I wonder how much of it was actually 'imperfect.' Most of it was labeled 'surplus,' as the imperfection, and came in looking identical to the grocery store. I ended up cancelling my subscription after I did the math and it was slightly more expensive than going to the grocery store, and their selection was narrow and seemed to rotate between the same items. Also almost none of it was local to my region--just like a normal grocery store supply chain.
paxy 8y ago
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.
pascalxus 8y ago
I like the concept but Sprouts is hard to compete with -> the prices seem to be pretty competitive.
lacker 8y ago
It seems quite unlikely that this random startup is actually the source of a 30% drop in business at BeetBox. Both of these companies account for a tiny percent of the produce market. BeetBox would be better off working on making their product better, rather than writing articles criticizing a startup doing something similar.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gjm11 8y ago
This seems to be the exact same thing as https://www.phatbeetsproduce.org/uglyproduce/ https://www.phatbeetsproduce.org/uglyproduce/, discussed before on HN at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17786894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17786894.
- komali2 8y ago
  Right, I felt like I was going crazy, because I was sure I had read this line before: >Soon, Imperfect’s single-use cardboard boxes began lining the streets on recycling and garbage days in the East Bay. but I couldn't find the linked URL elsewhere on HN! It's almost a verbatim quote from the original article: >Soon, their single use cardboard boxes began lining the streets on recycling and garbage days in the East Bay. The whole paragraphs are nearly identical: >Within months of its arrival in the Bay Area, Imperfect Produce fliers were showing up on our car windows, their outreach coordinators were pitching at community meetings, their Facebook advertisements popped up daily in our feeds, and they were edging into community centers we had operated at for years. Their marketing blitz paid off. Soon, their single use cardboard boxes began lining the streets on recycling and garbage days in the East Bay. We lost customers, a lot of customers. >Within months of its arrival in the Bay Area, Imperfect Produce fliers were showing up on our car windows, its outreach coordinators were pitching at community meetings, its Facebook advertisements popped up daily in our feeds, and it was edging into community centers we had operated at for years. The marketing blitz paid off. Soon, Imperfect’s single-use cardboard boxes began lining the streets on recycling and garbage days in the East Bay. We lost customers, a lot of customers.
nitwit005 8y ago
This is largely driven by a US government programs and tax laws, which the Op-ed completely ignores: https://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/resources/donations.htm https://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/resources/donations.htm If those laws need an update, it doesn't seem like a huge deal. There's a lot of support for food assistance programs. I don't see any reason to villainize people trying to reduce food waste.
CivBase 8y ago
This produce used to be readily available to food banks but now that “ugly” and “imperfect” produce can turn a profit, they are less available to those in need. So the argument is as follows: Farmers were donating food to the poor because they couldn't sell it. Imperfect Produce figured out how to sell that food, so now farmers are selling it instead of donating it. This is bad because now poor people get less food. I don't get it. You could argue that the poor need food more than farmers need money. That same argument could be made to any business, though. Why are farmers more obligated to donate to the poor than anyone else? That is even assuming Imperfect Foods is negatively affecting these food banks. The New Food Economy seems to think so, but Imperfect Foods disagrees. https://help.imperfectproduce.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004564574-Are-you-taking-produce-that-would-have-gone-to-food-banks-otherwise-Where-did-this-produce-go-before-Imperfect-started- https://help.imperfectproduce.com/hc/en-us/articles/11500456... I don't know who to believe, but I also don't think it matters. My takeaway is that the food bank model for donating to the poor is less viable now. We'll have to find a better model moving forward.
- sgift 8y ago
  > I don't get it. You could argue that the poor need food more than farmers need money. That same argument could be made to any business, though. Why are farmers more obligated to donate to the poor than anyone else? One of the arguments for subsidies to farmers is that they are the "feeders of people". Sounds to me like they want privileges, why not a few obligations for a change?
  - CivBase 8y ago
    If Imperfect Foods's business model works out, it sounds like farmers will see an increase in profits. I don't see why that couldn't coincide with a decrease in subsidies. In an ideal world, we could even redirect that money towards the poor - potentially making up for the impact to food banks.
    - datavirtue 8y ago
      You don't know shit about subsidies. Kindly shut up.
ThefinalResult 8y ago
Having a good laugh at the abuse and mutilation of terminology here in the comments section, comedy gold.
k2enemy 8y ago
> This corporate-supported agriculture was avidly commodifying agribusiness’ food “waste” and had little to do with supporting the community. I'm not familiar with the publication's audience, but is emphasizing the word "corporate" supposed to prove a point? Is it taken as given that corporations are evil, and therefore Imperfect Foods is evil?
GirlsCanCode 8y ago
Having worked in the food industry, I can tell you that "ugly food" was never wasted. It gets used in applications where aesthetics doesn't matter (shredded carrots used in soups or frozen dinners, etc) or at least used as animal feed. So there's a point that it is a "marketing gimmick" to get more profit from food. And this could have a side effect of making food more expensive for people who used to get a larger discount on imperfect food. But the argument that this one company is hurting "the poor" is a stretch.
gorpomon 8y ago
I was an imperfect customer, frankly it figuratively stunk. I was charged $14-$18 per week for around a pound of produce. It was mostly just overstock. Honestly, weird shaped produce was part of the fun for me. It was always on the brink of going very bad, so ironically even though it was just a pound I often threw some away. After a few weeks I realized that I could get the same value by simply buying some older produce at my grocery store for much cheaper. I can get a pound from any store here in the Chicago area for around $5 - $6. Also the "carbon savings" their website gave to me seemed pretty suspect. It seemed they were just spitting an average at me and not doing any hard calculations. It's curious that getting a pound of food each week delivered on a truck could actually be a net positive for the environment. I'm sure they can justify it but the premise itself seems kind of absurd. I was suckered in by the allure this article talks about. No more fancy food startups for me, let me just focus on using all of what I get from a conventional grocery store.
beautifulfreak 8y ago
Maybe supermarkets will begin selling ugly produce now, too, since Imperfect Produce is raising awareness. If they had aisles of ugly produce at discount prices, would it really undercut their sales of pretty produce? Maybe they should run experiments, to see if they can make higher profit margins on ugly veggies, even sold at discount prices, since they have bargaining power over what they pay the producers.
monochromatic 8y ago
>As a nonprofit dedicated to food justice What kind of nonsensical virtue signaling is “food justice?”
djrogers 8y ago
There is some very disingenous sounding hand-waving going on in this article - and it appears to have been successful! Most of the commenters here seem to have come away with the idea that the problem is that Imperfect Produce is taking food that would have otherwise gone to food banks. While the article never claims thus, I think the misunderstanding is intentional on the part of the author. The key point to me is this: > Three years later and with a 30-percent drop in customers and > We lost customers, a lot of customers. With a more careful reading, one can see that the "loss" to food banks is because BeetBox is not making as much money now that they have competition with better marketing. In fact the article even says as much: > subscriptions have fallen so much we’ve had to cut back on many of the food justice programs that our CSA proceeds had previously supported. Sounds a lot less like Imperfect Produce is an evil monster here, and a lot more like they're just a more succesful competitor.
rch 8y ago
I thought that CSA stood for Community Supported Agriculture: https://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/community-supported-agriculture https://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/community-supported-agricultu... Is Community Service Agriculture a new social justice version of that, or was there a typo in the article? CSAs are a great idea for supporting small farms, but adding a social justice mission to an already challenging undertaking seems like biting off too much at one time.

214 points by ericdanielski 8y ago

I almost bought into Imperfect Produce, too, what a bad taste in my mouth that would have left. Thanks for the good read.

jdavis703 8y ago
So when I was a kid my family made use of food banks. Now that I'm doing better in life I give a cut of each paycheck to my local food bank (The Alameda County Food Bank). I don't feel too bad about ordering from Imperfect Produce, it's convenient way to get produce delivered to your door, and I still wind up buying some things from the farmers market and co-op. On that note, it is good to know what consequences new business models have on the surrounding community.
- sithadmin 8y ago
  >I don't feel too bad about ordering from Imperfect Produce Stunning cognitive dissonance going on here. Simply redirecting a portion of one's personal funds towards a local food bank doesn't absolve one of the moral wrongs associated with participation in a scheme that systematically undermines access to food for the least advantaged.
  - loco5niner 8y ago
    > a scheme that systematically undermines access to food for the least advantaged That's quite a claim. Evidence please?
    - sithadmin 8y ago
      Did you actually read the article linked? Imperfect Produce and similar operations divert food that otherwise would be bound for food banks and other sources of food assistance programs towards more affluent segments of the consumer market.
      - jimmywanger 8y ago
        Yes, they found a way to give profit to farmers while still operating as a for-profit. By reducing stuff that is not valuable to the farmer at all they are evil? Food assistance programs take food that is otherwise unsaleable. Making more stuff saleable is how technology works. Considering we have a bustling market in recyclables, is that bad?
      - loco5niner 8y ago
        Yes, I read every word. My take-away was that it was a one-sided defensive (well really, attacking) piece so I didn't believe a word of it. If you have a source from a disinterested party that claims Imperfect Produce is doing a bad thing, I'd love to read it too.
      - phil21 8y ago
        My parents spent a lifetime barely making ends meet as organic vegetable farmers, and will be living the rest of their retirement in what amounts to basic poverty. Anything that increased their revenue on their hard work is a good thing. Asking them to give away otherwise sellable produce is simply asking for someone else to perform charity on your behalf. And if you work in tech you would be a (relatively) rich person asking some of the poorest to do so - which I find both immoral and despicable - since this attitude is so prevalent in these circles. The moral thing to do if you care, is donate to the food bank or otherwise directly support charity - not asking someone else to do it on your behalf.
  - beat 8y ago
    I think this is a very narrow perspective. The situation around access to food has changed radically over the past 50 years or so, in the US and globally. Over that period, the human population has doubled, while the cost of food has actually dropped significantly. Although access to food in the US is sometimes still a problem, it is nowhere near the problem it was for our grandparents' generation. Perspective, please.
  - gizmo686 8y ago
    The marginal effect of 1 person buying ugly produce is that that set of produce does not get donated. In other words, a marginal decrease in inkind donations to foodbanks. This can be directly offset by a monetary donation.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    And this is how you get people who would agree with you and try to help and drive them away.
- 394549 8y ago
  > I don't feel too bad about ordering from Imperfect Produce, it's convenient way to get produce delivered to your door Honest question: are there similarly convent ways to get produce delivered to your door that don't undermine the food banks' fresh food supply? If you can afford to pay for produce, why not pay for the produce that's traditionally been on the market?
  - sithadmin 8y ago
    Local CSAs frequently have a delivery, or convenient nearby pickup option.
    - cwkoss 8y ago
      Bit off topic, but does anyone know of a CSA that delivers in Seattle? I've only been able to find ones that have pickup options.

paxy 8y ago

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

jakelazaroff 8y ago
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.
- macspoofing 8y ago
  >It's just that now someone has found a way to make money off of it. Yeah. The farmers.
- greenshackle2 8y ago
  Farmers are no more on the hook to give free food to food banks than you and I are.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    I'm not saying that they are. I'm saying that food that is donated and eaten is not "wasted" just because no one has paid money for it.

ataturk 8y ago

I stopped reading at "food justice." GTFO.

maxerickson 8y ago

I wonder what's better in the long term for the farmers. Making sure people have food to eat is something society in the US can easily do, I really wonder if the heroic volunteerism surrounding food banks is a good way to do it.

arkades 8y ago

"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 never be used, because we're redistributing it."

hackinthebochs 8y ago
>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.
- arkades 8y ago
  “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.
  - xg15 8y ago
    I think the problem was more with the inverse claim - that everything you can not find a market for were automatically waste.
    - jimmywanger 8y ago
      It's waste for the producer. If you stop giving a reason for producers to produce goods, the goods stop being made.
      - tivert 8y ago
        > 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).

wbronitsky 8y ago

"The company does this by commodifying food that would go to the poor for free" The article provides 0 evidence towards this case. I'm all for listening to this argument, as it is a good one, but are there any facts to support this other than their shrinking user base?

cowpig 8y ago
> Within months of its arrival in the Bay Area, Imperfect Produce fliers were showing up on our car windows, its outreach coordinators were pitching at community meetings, its Facebook advertisements popped up daily in our feeds, and it was edging into community centers we had operated at for years. The marketing blitz paid off. Soon, Imperfect’s single-use cardboard boxes began lining the streets on recycling and garbage days in the East Bay. We lost customers, a lot of customers.
- in_cahoots 8y ago
  So how were the customers or farmers hurt here? It sounds like they chose to switch services, and the only loser is the author of this post. It’s not clear to me how losing customers = food banks suffering.

tedunangst 8y ago

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?

sithadmin 8y ago
>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.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  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.
  - sithadmin 8y ago
    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.
    - maxerickson 8y ago
      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).
    - gowld 8y ago
      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?

jpollock 8y ago

"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 groups shoehorn welfare into other areas. If you've got an income (or cash welfare) problem, fix that.

Swizec 8y ago
It’s crazy the contortions americans go through to avoid having welfare while still trying to have welfare. But god forbid we just have actual welfare. Been living here 4 years, still don’t get it. Prob never will. I’m supposed to only buy expensive produce so the cheap stuff can be left for those less fortunate? Why don’t you just use some of the exorbitant taxes I pay to help the less fortunate directly? Smh
- ataturk 8y ago
  Or stop having the exorbitant taxes and be all right with bad choices people make because every "poor" person I know always has money for booze and cigarettes.
- dcow 8y ago
  I get the sentiment but...we do have welfare programs. If a food source once available is becoming scarce, then obviously they will need to be revamped where appropriate.
  - DubiousPusher 8y ago
    I think it's easy to take that cold engineerlike approach when you won't be the one occupying this gap until it is filled
    - dcow 8y ago
      Cold? Factual, maybe. Are you saying you buy ugly food?

MrEfficiency 8y ago

When I did the math + realized the shipping costs, it was a no-brainer. I know many people who buy into these 'good feelings' products.

sithadmin 8y ago
>I know many people who buy into these 'good feelings' products. Good, quick talk by Zizek on this phenomenon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g
icebraining 8y ago
The BeetBox CSA is also a "good feelings" product. In fact, their Facebook feed is much more about the good feelings than the product itself.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

loco5niner 8y ago

> Some may claim we have a case of sour grapes. This is capitalism at its best, they might say. Based on this biased article I agree.

mombul 8y ago

Sounds like they're really mad they didn't partner up with Imperfect Produce when they were given the chance.

SatvikBeri 8y ago

Imperfect Produce's reply: https://help.imperfectproduce.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004564574-Are-you-taking-produce-that-would-have-gone-to-food-banks-otherwise-Where-did-this-produce-go-before-Imperfect-started- https://help.imperfectproduce.com/hc/en-us/articles/11500456...

neaden 8y ago
I wonder if this has to do with location as well. This reply cites a food pantry in Chicago, an area of the country that doesn't produce much produce. The farms in Illinois mostly grow corn and soybeans that feed cows. The article is in California, which is where a much more substantial portion of produce is grown.
cowpig 8y ago
Beyond the first paragraph which just states that their food would otherwise end up as trash, they don't actually reply to any of the claims in the parent article. The evidence they provide is broad macro-level statistics about how much food is wasted, but not about where the food they're selling comes from. The parent article claims specifically that they are getting their food from sources that would otherwise be going to food banks. The fact that this "reply" repeats talking points with country-level statistics instead of directly addressing the question leaves me feeling suspicious of Imperfect Produce.
- imperfect1 8y ago
  We source from medium and large scale farms where most of the 20 billion lbs of food waste happens. These farmers either let their ugly produce rot in the field, or sell it for pennies to animal feed. Happy to clear up any other misinformation that this article presents.

horsawlarway 8y ago

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 Association of Food Banks states that they have donated 164 million pounds of fruits and vegetables. That's not 164 million PER YEAR. That's 164 million since they were founded in 1995 - or 7.1 million a year. Additionally, the Imperfect produce comment saying 150,000 lbs specifically calls out "From California farmers". While the food banks numbers are simply totals (they likely purchase and redistribute, as well as take donations from out of state sources). There's probably fudging on both sides, but I find this article fairly disingenuous.

VonGuard 8y ago
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.
- darkerside 8y ago
  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.
  - jimmywanger 8y ago
    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.

kbenson 8y ago

> 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 something else, but let's be clear that buy buying this less than perfect produce, they are helping growers, including small growers, by allowing them to capitalize on more of their crop. Ultimately, if you want your social cause to not be a victim of market forces, you either need to work yourself into the market correctly, divorce yourself form it, or find a segregating line that works. If they were taking monetary donations, or allowing write-offs of the produce at full price (something that conceivably could be supported through targeted legislation), then they might be more competitive here. But since they relied on drowers giving them produce that had little or not value, which now does have some value, they'll see the market respond like anyone else. Again, this doesn't excuse businesses masquerading as social causes (which is nothing new, even if it is loathsome in the worse cases), but this article isn't exactly presenting the case in a balanced light either.

ajkjk 8y ago
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 the picturesque small and mid-sized farms it projects in its marketing campaign."
- kbenson 8y ago
  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.

thrower123 8y ago

If I'm throwing something in the trash because it is no use to me, it might be a windfall for you if you can snag it and make use of it. But that's what it is, it's a windfall; you shouldn't get dependent on picking my trash and get irate if I stop tossing out the bits you liked to pick.

sct202 8y ago

I used Imperfect Produce for several months and I wonder how much of it was actually 'imperfect.' Most of it was labeled 'surplus,' as the imperfection, and came in looking identical to the grocery store. I ended up cancelling my subscription after I did the math and it was slightly more expensive than going to the grocery store, and their selection was narrow and seemed to rotate between the same items. Also almost none of it was local to my region--just like a normal grocery store supply chain.

paxy 8y ago

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.

pascalxus 8y ago

I like the concept but Sprouts is hard to compete with -> the prices seem to be pretty competitive.

lacker 8y ago

It seems quite unlikely that this random startup is actually the source of a 30% drop in business at BeetBox. Both of these companies account for a tiny percent of the produce market. BeetBox would be better off working on making their product better, rather than writing articles criticizing a startup doing something similar.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

gjm11 8y ago

This seems to be the exact same thing as https://www.phatbeetsproduce.org/uglyproduce/ https://www.phatbeetsproduce.org/uglyproduce/, discussed before on HN at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17786894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17786894.

komali2 8y ago
Right, I felt like I was going crazy, because I was sure I had read this line before: >Soon, Imperfect’s single-use cardboard boxes began lining the streets on recycling and garbage days in the East Bay. but I couldn't find the linked URL elsewhere on HN! It's almost a verbatim quote from the original article: >Soon, their single use cardboard boxes began lining the streets on recycling and garbage days in the East Bay. The whole paragraphs are nearly identical: >Within months of its arrival in the Bay Area, Imperfect Produce fliers were showing up on our car windows, their outreach coordinators were pitching at community meetings, their Facebook advertisements popped up daily in our feeds, and they were edging into community centers we had operated at for years. Their marketing blitz paid off. Soon, their single use cardboard boxes began lining the streets on recycling and garbage days in the East Bay. We lost customers, a lot of customers. >Within months of its arrival in the Bay Area, Imperfect Produce fliers were showing up on our car windows, its outreach coordinators were pitching at community meetings, its Facebook advertisements popped up daily in our feeds, and it was edging into community centers we had operated at for years. The marketing blitz paid off. Soon, Imperfect’s single-use cardboard boxes began lining the streets on recycling and garbage days in the East Bay. We lost customers, a lot of customers.

nitwit005 8y ago

This is largely driven by a US government programs and tax laws, which the Op-ed completely ignores: https://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/resources/donations.htm https://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/resources/donations.htm If those laws need an update, it doesn't seem like a huge deal. There's a lot of support for food assistance programs. I don't see any reason to villainize people trying to reduce food waste.

CivBase 8y ago

This produce used to be readily available to food banks but now that “ugly” and “imperfect” produce can turn a profit, they are less available to those in need. So the argument is as follows: Farmers were donating food to the poor because they couldn't sell it. Imperfect Produce figured out how to sell that food, so now farmers are selling it instead of donating it. This is bad because now poor people get less food. I don't get it. You could argue that the poor need food more than farmers need money. That same argument could be made to any business, though. Why are farmers more obligated to donate to the poor than anyone else? That is even assuming Imperfect Foods is negatively affecting these food banks. The New Food Economy seems to think so, but Imperfect Foods disagrees. https://help.imperfectproduce.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004564574-Are-you-taking-produce-that-would-have-gone-to-food-banks-otherwise-Where-did-this-produce-go-before-Imperfect-started- https://help.imperfectproduce.com/hc/en-us/articles/11500456... I don't know who to believe, but I also don't think it matters. My takeaway is that the food bank model for donating to the poor is less viable now. We'll have to find a better model moving forward.

sgift 8y ago
> I don't get it. You could argue that the poor need food more than farmers need money. That same argument could be made to any business, though. Why are farmers more obligated to donate to the poor than anyone else? One of the arguments for subsidies to farmers is that they are the "feeders of people". Sounds to me like they want privileges, why not a few obligations for a change?
- CivBase 8y ago
  If Imperfect Foods's business model works out, it sounds like farmers will see an increase in profits. I don't see why that couldn't coincide with a decrease in subsidies. In an ideal world, we could even redirect that money towards the poor - potentially making up for the impact to food banks.
  - datavirtue 8y ago
    You don't know shit about subsidies. Kindly shut up.

ThefinalResult 8y ago

Having a good laugh at the abuse and mutilation of terminology here in the comments section, comedy gold.

k2enemy 8y ago

> This corporate-supported agriculture was avidly commodifying agribusiness’ food “waste” and had little to do with supporting the community. I'm not familiar with the publication's audience, but is emphasizing the word "corporate" supposed to prove a point? Is it taken as given that corporations are evil, and therefore Imperfect Foods is evil?

GirlsCanCode 8y ago

Having worked in the food industry, I can tell you that "ugly food" was never wasted. It gets used in applications where aesthetics doesn't matter (shredded carrots used in soups or frozen dinners, etc) or at least used as animal feed. So there's a point that it is a "marketing gimmick" to get more profit from food. And this could have a side effect of making food more expensive for people who used to get a larger discount on imperfect food. But the argument that this one company is hurting "the poor" is a stretch.

gorpomon 8y ago

I was an imperfect customer, frankly it figuratively stunk. I was charged $14-$18 per week for around a pound of produce. It was mostly just overstock. Honestly, weird shaped produce was part of the fun for me. It was always on the brink of going very bad, so ironically even though it was just a pound I often threw some away. After a few weeks I realized that I could get the same value by simply buying some older produce at my grocery store for much cheaper. I can get a pound from any store here in the Chicago area for around $5 - $6. Also the "carbon savings" their website gave to me seemed pretty suspect. It seemed they were just spitting an average at me and not doing any hard calculations. It's curious that getting a pound of food each week delivered on a truck could actually be a net positive for the environment. I'm sure they can justify it but the premise itself seems kind of absurd. I was suckered in by the allure this article talks about. No more fancy food startups for me, let me just focus on using all of what I get from a conventional grocery store.

beautifulfreak 8y ago

Maybe supermarkets will begin selling ugly produce now, too, since Imperfect Produce is raising awareness. If they had aisles of ugly produce at discount prices, would it really undercut their sales of pretty produce? Maybe they should run experiments, to see if they can make higher profit margins on ugly veggies, even sold at discount prices, since they have bargaining power over what they pay the producers.

monochromatic 8y ago

>As a nonprofit dedicated to food justice What kind of nonsensical virtue signaling is “food justice?”

djrogers 8y ago

There is some very disingenous sounding hand-waving going on in this article - and it appears to have been successful! Most of the commenters here seem to have come away with the idea that the problem is that Imperfect Produce is taking food that would have otherwise gone to food banks. While the article never claims thus, I think the misunderstanding is intentional on the part of the author. The key point to me is this: > Three years later and with a 30-percent drop in customers and > We lost customers, a lot of customers. With a more careful reading, one can see that the "loss" to food banks is because BeetBox is not making as much money now that they have competition with better marketing. In fact the article even says as much: > subscriptions have fallen so much we’ve had to cut back on many of the food justice programs that our CSA proceeds had previously supported. Sounds a lot less like Imperfect Produce is an evil monster here, and a lot more like they're just a more succesful competitor.

rch 8y ago

I thought that CSA stood for Community Supported Agriculture: https://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/community-supported-agriculture https://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/community-supported-agricultu... Is Community Service Agriculture a new social justice version of that, or was there a typo in the article? CSAs are a great idea for supporting small farms, but adding a social justice mission to an already challenging undertaking seems like biting off too much at one time.