4 ms·

> World hunger is a symptom of global poverty and underdevelopment, and reducing food waste won't fix those problems, it can even exacerbate them. That doesn't

> World hunger is a symptom of global poverty and underdevelopment, and reducing food waste won't fix those problems, it can even exacerbate them. That doesn't seem true to me. A lot of food is wasted by your retailers, restaurants and households. They are within range of people suffering from food insecurity. > An estimated 43 billion pounds of food were wasted in US retail stores in 2010. 33 This is particularly disconcerting given that in 2016, 12.3 percent of American households were food insecure. 34 Most of the loss in retail operations is in perishables, including baked goods, produce, meat, seafood and prepared meals. 35 The USDA estimates that supermarkets lose $15 billion annually in unsold fruit and vegetables alone. 36 Unfortunately, wasteful practices in the retail industry are often viewed as good business strategies. Some of the main drivers for food loss at retail stores include: overstocked product displays, expectation of cosmetic perfection of fruits, vegetables and other foods, oversized packages, the availability of prepared food until closing, expired “sell by” dates, damaged goods, outdated seasonal items, over purchasing of unpopular foods and under staffing. > US restaurants generate an estimated 22 to 33 billion pounds of food waste each year. Institutions — including schools, hotels and hospitals — generate an additional 7 to 11 billion pounds per year. > Households are responsible for the largest portion of all food waste. ReFED estimates that US households waste 76 billion pounds of food per year. 45 Approximately 40 to 50 percent of food waste (including 51 to 63 percent of seafood waste 46 happens at level of the consumer. 47 In the US, an average person wastes 238 pounds of food per year (21 percent of the food they buy), costing them $1,800 per year. 48 In terms of total mass, fresh fruits and vegetables account for the largest losses at the consumer level (19 percent of fruits and 22 percent of vegetables), followed by dairy (20 percent), meat (21 percent) and seafood (31 percent). Production of food costs in many resources that take a long time to replenish. Even if you remove the world hunger angle from this, why are we producing food in excess? Obviously, there are some good reasons and problems but many countries pile up on excess buffer stock which is a solvable problem without requiring improvement to the storage and other handling infra, right? Same for retailers, consumers and restaurants. To certain extent at least. No one is perfect but the current trend is ridiculous. Check: https://foodprint.org/issues/the-problem-of-food-waste/ https://foodprint.org/issues/the-problem-of-food-waste/

jjk166 6y ago
> why are we producing food in excess Because increased supply is always more efficient. If you want one coconut, growing a coconut tree from scratch is an expensive and time consuming affair. If you want 1 million coconuts, suddenly the infrastructure for growing coconuts is economical. The absolute expense is higher, but the marginal expense is much lower. Food insecurity in developed countries like the US doesn't mean that there is no food available and you're starving to death. Most food insecurity is people who can't easily get nutritious food that will last in socially acceptable ways. You can hand out the food that a grocery store was going to throw away - food a bit past their shelf life or which has some defect - but this would still count as them being food insecure. Only about 20% of the very food insecure (which is 5.7% of Americans) actually report going a single day without eating. Again we have situations of logistics problems. If people in an rural rustbelt town are eating cheap junk food because they need to save money to make their mortgage payments, it doesn't do them much good if a grocery store 2 hours away leaves food on the shelf an extra two days. Getting food to the people who need it at a pricepoint they can afford without causing other quality of life problems is the issue. If you deal with the poverty, none of these people are going to have any problem getting a meal.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  > Only about 20% of the very food insecure (which is 5.7% of Americans) actually report going a single day without eating. Seems a bit much, no? That's almost 19 million people in a developed country. I understand that food insecurity and hunger is a logistics problem but consumer wastage is still huge. So are other forms of wastage that can be reduced without any problems in efficiency. One example I gave was excess buffer stock by government in many countries. You can't buy 12 blocks of grains when you only have 10 blocks of storage. I guess, I am naive as to why someone would do that and waste 4 blocks of grain in the process. There is lack of distribution channels here but why purchase excess grains that you can't distribute anyway? > Because increased supply is always more efficient. If you want one coconut, growing a coconut tree from scratch is an expensive and time consuming affair. If you want 1 million coconuts, suddenly the infrastructure for growing coconuts is economical. The absolute expense is higher, but the marginal expense is much lower. I am aware. As I said, I don't believe it's more efficient in many cases. We can tackle those. Reducing production is a fine strategy. It might cost more in future to all of us. I live in a bit deserted place and people use groundwater for farming. They are using excessive resources for a demand that doesn't exist and is artificially created by few actors. This will increase the price of crops in the long term and may make this land unsustainable.

jjk166 6y ago

> why are we producing food in excess Because increased supply is always more efficient. If you want one coconut, growing a coconut tree from scratch is an expensive and time consuming affair. If you want 1 million coconuts, suddenly the infrastructure for growing coconuts is economical. The absolute expense is higher, but the marginal expense is much lower. Food insecurity in developed countries like the US doesn't mean that there is no food available and you're starving to death. Most food insecurity is people who can't easily get nutritious food that will last in socially acceptable ways. You can hand out the food that a grocery store was going to throw away - food a bit past their shelf life or which has some defect - but this would still count as them being food insecure. Only about 20% of the very food insecure (which is 5.7% of Americans) actually report going a single day without eating. Again we have situations of logistics problems. If people in an rural rustbelt town are eating cheap junk food because they need to save money to make their mortgage payments, it doesn't do them much good if a grocery store 2 hours away leaves food on the shelf an extra two days. Getting food to the people who need it at a pricepoint they can afford without causing other quality of life problems is the issue. If you deal with the poverty, none of these people are going to have any problem getting a meal.

searchableguy 6y ago
> Only about 20% of the very food insecure (which is 5.7% of Americans) actually report going a single day without eating. Seems a bit much, no? That's almost 19 million people in a developed country. I understand that food insecurity and hunger is a logistics problem but consumer wastage is still huge. So are other forms of wastage that can be reduced without any problems in efficiency. One example I gave was excess buffer stock by government in many countries. You can't buy 12 blocks of grains when you only have 10 blocks of storage. I guess, I am naive as to why someone would do that and waste 4 blocks of grain in the process. There is lack of distribution channels here but why purchase excess grains that you can't distribute anyway? > Because increased supply is always more efficient. If you want one coconut, growing a coconut tree from scratch is an expensive and time consuming affair. If you want 1 million coconuts, suddenly the infrastructure for growing coconuts is economical. The absolute expense is higher, but the marginal expense is much lower. I am aware. As I said, I don't believe it's more efficient in many cases. We can tackle those. Reducing production is a fine strategy. It might cost more in future to all of us. I live in a bit deserted place and people use groundwater for farming. They are using excessive resources for a demand that doesn't exist and is artificially created by few actors. This will increase the price of crops in the long term and may make this land unsustainable.