6 ms·

That's a great marketing gimmick that some companies have made, but it's largely false. https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/2/26/18240399/food-waste-ugly-produc

That's a great marketing gimmick that some companies have made, but it's largely false. https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/2/26/18240399/food-waste-ugly-produce-myths-farms https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/2/26/18240399/food-waste-...

encoderer 6y ago
Thank you, I remember reading this as a tweet but couldn’t find it (twitter search is.... lacking)
- zem 6y ago
  when you mentioned a tweet i had a feeling it would be by dr sarah taber, and she was indeed quoted in the vox post. i highly recommend following her on twitter; i have learnt a startling amount about food production and the realities of farming in america.
kerkeslager 6y ago
I am highly skeptical. The author of that article makes a lot of claims, but doesn't really go into a lot of how the information was obtained. I'm not denying there's some marketing involved here--I'm sure there is. But there's also some element of truth here. I've worked at a food co-op and they definitely composted a lot of food. In the article's logic, that's not food waste, but I think that feeding people is still a lot better.
- munificent 6y ago
  I think it makes sense to be a lot more skeptical of the claims of companies like Imperfect Foods who have a vested interest in getting people to buy unappealing produce (from them, of course) than an independent food scientist staking her personal reputation on these claims.
- skywhopper 6y ago
  That article is an interview with an expert in the field. You can look up Sarah Taber and find more information and citations. Just because there's not a Works Cited list attached to a Vox interview doesn't mean it's just made up. You realize that crops have to have organic material to grow, right? Using leftovers, spoilage, and damaged produce from the previous crop is how agriculture is traditionally done. If farmers don't use composting, then they have to buy some other source of organic material and fertilizer to grow the next year's crops. You say "feeding people is better", but there's more than enough food for everyone. The answer to hunger is not to force farmers to give the leftover produce to poor folks. Rather, it's to give the poor folks the means with which to buy the food they need. There's plenty to be bought! So much that lots of it gets thrown out! It'd be much healthier for the entire system if we addressed the problem at the source and made use of the systems that are in place rather than trying to short-circuit things, resulting in a lot of unintended side-effects.
  - yellowapple 6y ago
    > Just because there's not a Works Cited list attached to a Vox interview doesn't mean it's just made up. For all I know it is just made up. Maybe if media companies got in a better habit of providing citations they'd be more trustworthy. > If farmers don't use composting, then they have to buy some other source of organic material and fertilizer to grow the next year's crops. Which, from what I've seen first-hand growing up in the rural Central Valley (and what I continue to see first-hand in other rural areas) is exactly what's happening. Those crops ain't being composted with any sort of regularity (I'm sure some of it might be, since store-bought compost has to come from somewhere, but I'm highly skeptical of the idea that the farms themselves are doing it). The nugget of truth in the article is that they ain't getting "thrown away", either. Rather, they're typically getting sold to companies using them for raw ingredients on a more industrial scale (think canneries and baked-goods factories and TV dinner makers and such) and/or (more recently) companies that specifically market "ugly produce", and whatever's left over from that often ends up being animal food (whether through manufacture - e.g. dog/cat food - or fed directly to e.g. livestock).
nitwit005 6y ago
> But when a crop is complete, farmers plow everything back into the soil. Some of it ends up as organic matter that is supporting soil health, and that is okay, too. Basically declaring that the waste is not waste. Solving problems by changing definitions.
- skywhopper 6y ago
  Plowing it back into the fields means less fertilizer is needed for future crops. How is that waste?
  - incelmods 6y ago
    it's not a waste of the veggie, however it's not like a huge amount of different resources were not spent from the time the plant sprouted to the time it was determined "compost this ugly thing." as an far down the line example - we hate DRM being misused, and by composting ugly fruit you are supporting DRM. if you have 1000 acres of crops, you'll need to fix your tractor 10 times (number out of my ass). if you sell a higher% of the food you grow, you now need 700 acres. You now need to repair the tractor 7 times. John Deere now gets 30% less money, and that 30% spent on DRM was the waste. there are other things. like the time of the guy who has to look at the fruit, which there are less of now. he's in the sun, he gets thirsty, drinks water. if he has to be out in the sun 30% more to look through 30% more fruit, he drinks more water. and that's a waste of water.
  - NeutronStar 6y ago
    It needed that fertilizer to grow to even be plowed back in to start. It's just a waste of space for a "good product". It's basically a free pass for next year. No money gained means no profits means profits loss.
  - hawski 6y ago
    That's like a perpetual motion machine. Energy is wasted, there is no way around it.
    - 6y ago
yellowapple 6y ago
There's a fundamental question that the article doesn't seem to answer: if "ugly produce" is a myth, then where are these companies getting their ugly produce, and how are they able to sell it at a discount? I'm fully prepared to accept "it's a marketing gimmick and they're selling at a loss" as the actual answer here, but it seems to go unasked and therefore unanswered.
- coryrc 6y ago
  They aren't selling at a discount, which is why it astounds me anyone pays for it! https://slickdeals.net/article/buying-guide/imperfect-produce-is-it-perfect-for-you/ https://slickdeals.net/article/buying-guide/imperfect-produc...

encoderer 6y ago

Thank you, I remember reading this as a tweet but couldn’t find it (twitter search is.... lacking)

zem 6y ago
when you mentioned a tweet i had a feeling it would be by dr sarah taber, and she was indeed quoted in the vox post. i highly recommend following her on twitter; i have learnt a startling amount about food production and the realities of farming in america.

kerkeslager 6y ago

I am highly skeptical. The author of that article makes a lot of claims, but doesn't really go into a lot of how the information was obtained. I'm not denying there's some marketing involved here--I'm sure there is. But there's also some element of truth here. I've worked at a food co-op and they definitely composted a lot of food. In the article's logic, that's not food waste, but I think that feeding people is still a lot better.

munificent 6y ago
I think it makes sense to be a lot more skeptical of the claims of companies like Imperfect Foods who have a vested interest in getting people to buy unappealing produce (from them, of course) than an independent food scientist staking her personal reputation on these claims.
skywhopper 6y ago
That article is an interview with an expert in the field. You can look up Sarah Taber and find more information and citations. Just because there's not a Works Cited list attached to a Vox interview doesn't mean it's just made up. You realize that crops have to have organic material to grow, right? Using leftovers, spoilage, and damaged produce from the previous crop is how agriculture is traditionally done. If farmers don't use composting, then they have to buy some other source of organic material and fertilizer to grow the next year's crops. You say "feeding people is better", but there's more than enough food for everyone. The answer to hunger is not to force farmers to give the leftover produce to poor folks. Rather, it's to give the poor folks the means with which to buy the food they need. There's plenty to be bought! So much that lots of it gets thrown out! It'd be much healthier for the entire system if we addressed the problem at the source and made use of the systems that are in place rather than trying to short-circuit things, resulting in a lot of unintended side-effects.
- yellowapple 6y ago
  > Just because there's not a Works Cited list attached to a Vox interview doesn't mean it's just made up. For all I know it is just made up. Maybe if media companies got in a better habit of providing citations they'd be more trustworthy. > If farmers don't use composting, then they have to buy some other source of organic material and fertilizer to grow the next year's crops. Which, from what I've seen first-hand growing up in the rural Central Valley (and what I continue to see first-hand in other rural areas) is exactly what's happening. Those crops ain't being composted with any sort of regularity (I'm sure some of it might be, since store-bought compost has to come from somewhere, but I'm highly skeptical of the idea that the farms themselves are doing it). The nugget of truth in the article is that they ain't getting "thrown away", either. Rather, they're typically getting sold to companies using them for raw ingredients on a more industrial scale (think canneries and baked-goods factories and TV dinner makers and such) and/or (more recently) companies that specifically market "ugly produce", and whatever's left over from that often ends up being animal food (whether through manufacture - e.g. dog/cat food - or fed directly to e.g. livestock).

nitwit005 6y ago

> But when a crop is complete, farmers plow everything back into the soil. Some of it ends up as organic matter that is supporting soil health, and that is okay, too. Basically declaring that the waste is not waste. Solving problems by changing definitions.

skywhopper 6y ago
Plowing it back into the fields means less fertilizer is needed for future crops. How is that waste?
- incelmods 6y ago
  it's not a waste of the veggie, however it's not like a huge amount of different resources were not spent from the time the plant sprouted to the time it was determined "compost this ugly thing." as an far down the line example - we hate DRM being misused, and by composting ugly fruit you are supporting DRM. if you have 1000 acres of crops, you'll need to fix your tractor 10 times (number out of my ass). if you sell a higher% of the food you grow, you now need 700 acres. You now need to repair the tractor 7 times. John Deere now gets 30% less money, and that 30% spent on DRM was the waste. there are other things. like the time of the guy who has to look at the fruit, which there are less of now. he's in the sun, he gets thirsty, drinks water. if he has to be out in the sun 30% more to look through 30% more fruit, he drinks more water. and that's a waste of water.
- NeutronStar 6y ago
  It needed that fertilizer to grow to even be plowed back in to start. It's just a waste of space for a "good product". It's basically a free pass for next year. No money gained means no profits means profits loss.
- hawski 6y ago
  That's like a perpetual motion machine. Energy is wasted, there is no way around it.
  - 6y ago

yellowapple 6y ago

There's a fundamental question that the article doesn't seem to answer: if "ugly produce" is a myth, then where are these companies getting their ugly produce, and how are they able to sell it at a discount? I'm fully prepared to accept "it's a marketing gimmick and they're selling at a loss" as the actual answer here, but it seems to go unasked and therefore unanswered.

coryrc 6y ago
They aren't selling at a discount, which is why it astounds me anyone pays for it! https://slickdeals.net/article/buying-guide/imperfect-produce-is-it-perfect-for-you/ https://slickdeals.net/article/buying-guide/imperfect-produc...