4 ms·

> 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 almos

> 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
I don't know how you think producing less food will get more of it on peoples tables. You can argue that overproduction has other problems, certainly the environmental issues are valid, but it is undeniable that producing excessive quantities of food reduces the price. As for why we would produce more than we need, we like options. Maybe I want a salad tonight, maybe a steak, maybe a sandwich. In buying excess, I have all options open to me and I'll simply throw out whatever I don't choose. If that wasted food could magically teleport into the hands of a starving person, then it would be stupid to let it go to waste. But in reality, if I don't buy it then it will just get thrown out by the grocery store, and if they don't buy it then it won't be grown. Yes it costs resources to grow and transport this excess food, but that's what I'm paying for when I buy it. If the farmer isn't using the money I'm ultimately paying him to replenish the local aquifer, it doesn't matter whether the food he produces gets eaten or buried or turned into weird sex toys. As for food insecurity being high in developed nations, when you look at how people actually live and how food insecurity is defined, it makes perfect sense. To not be food insecure, you need to buy (not be given) nutritious, high quality (ie more expensive) food. You can survive, however, without paying for nutritious high quality food. A 30 dollar bag of rice will feed an adult for a month; it might not be pleasant but it will suffice. A regular, food secure diet might cost 10 times that much. It's a luxury most of us can afford, but it's still a luxury. Now consider the costs most people have: rent, transportation, healthcare, food. If you have an unexpected expense, you can't pay less rent, or pay less transportation, or stop taking your necessary medication. On the other hand you have a lot of control over the amount you spend on food. If you need 200 extra bucks, eating peanut butter sandwiches for a few days doesn't seem that bad. Most people aren't food insecure for long periods of time, but briefly tighten their belts (literally) during rough patches. If you want people to not be food insecure, you need to solve the problem of them needing more money to get by, which means either getting them more excess income (getting them out of poverty) or reducing unexpected expenses (more social welfare). But unless you make high quality, nutritious food as cheap as low quality food, there will always be some people who forego the luxury. Hunger is a real issue, overproduction might be an issue, but solving one has no effect on the other.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  > I understand that food insecurity and hunger is a logistics problem I already agree that reducing production won't have as much impact on the distribution side. If you look back again, my point was reducing waste will lead to improvement in the distribution which is slightly different. Perfectly fine food is wasted by retailers and restaurants within easy range of people who might benefit from discounted or free products.

jjk166 6y ago

I don't know how you think producing less food will get more of it on peoples tables. You can argue that overproduction has other problems, certainly the environmental issues are valid, but it is undeniable that producing excessive quantities of food reduces the price. As for why we would produce more than we need, we like options. Maybe I want a salad tonight, maybe a steak, maybe a sandwich. In buying excess, I have all options open to me and I'll simply throw out whatever I don't choose. If that wasted food could magically teleport into the hands of a starving person, then it would be stupid to let it go to waste. But in reality, if I don't buy it then it will just get thrown out by the grocery store, and if they don't buy it then it won't be grown. Yes it costs resources to grow and transport this excess food, but that's what I'm paying for when I buy it. If the farmer isn't using the money I'm ultimately paying him to replenish the local aquifer, it doesn't matter whether the food he produces gets eaten or buried or turned into weird sex toys. As for food insecurity being high in developed nations, when you look at how people actually live and how food insecurity is defined, it makes perfect sense. To not be food insecure, you need to buy (not be given) nutritious, high quality (ie more expensive) food. You can survive, however, without paying for nutritious high quality food. A 30 dollar bag of rice will feed an adult for a month; it might not be pleasant but it will suffice. A regular, food secure diet might cost 10 times that much. It's a luxury most of us can afford, but it's still a luxury. Now consider the costs most people have: rent, transportation, healthcare, food. If you have an unexpected expense, you can't pay less rent, or pay less transportation, or stop taking your necessary medication. On the other hand you have a lot of control over the amount you spend on food. If you need 200 extra bucks, eating peanut butter sandwiches for a few days doesn't seem that bad. Most people aren't food insecure for long periods of time, but briefly tighten their belts (literally) during rough patches. If you want people to not be food insecure, you need to solve the problem of them needing more money to get by, which means either getting them more excess income (getting them out of poverty) or reducing unexpected expenses (more social welfare). But unless you make high quality, nutritious food as cheap as low quality food, there will always be some people who forego the luxury. Hunger is a real issue, overproduction might be an issue, but solving one has no effect on the other.

searchableguy 6y ago
> I understand that food insecurity and hunger is a logistics problem I already agree that reducing production won't have as much impact on the distribution side. If you look back again, my point was reducing waste will lead to improvement in the distribution which is slightly different. Perfectly fine food is wasted by retailers and restaurants within easy range of people who might benefit from discounted or free products.