I think I understood the author fairly well, I just find fault in his argument. He hasn't proved "1) the food would not go to waste if it wasn't purchased" AT

I think I understood the author fairly well, I just find fault in his argument. He hasn't proved "1) the food would not go to waste if it wasn't purchased" AT ALL. He's merely implied it through incorrect facts about donations to food banks. number 2 is likely true, but that actually make it MORE likely that the food would have gone to waste. I've worked with donation programs in my local state that harvest crops left in the field. Large farms will leave crops unharvested if the price drops below a certain point (either because of market changes or because the produce grade would be lower). They do this because it costs more to hire the labor to harvest it than the crop will bring in. Small farms are much less likely to do this. Finally: The author of this piece is basically just a competitor in the SAME market. Literally. You can sign up for 16 weeks of BeetBox deliveries for a mere 530 bucks (I'm being facetious if it's not entirely obvious... they're asking 35 dollars a box for self pickup - they're selling expensive freaking veggies.) So I fail to find the argument that this is hurting donations compelling (or even factual) and I don't believe the author's motives are any more pure. Basically - this is a hit piece against a competitor in the same market, and it should be read as such.