5 ms·

The operations you cite aren't free, but they aren't the reason that costs of food for consumers dwarf payments made to farmers. Distribution is not a free mark

The operations you cite aren't free, but they aren't the reason that costs of food for consumers dwarf payments made to farmers. Distribution is not a free market. Farmers sell to monopsony, and consumers buy from monopoly. Firms like Tyson, JBS, Cargill, etc. are not the immense size they are in order to create efficiency but rather to extract rents from abusive market positions.

Retric 5y ago
Many companies buy directly from farmers or actually own farms. This however isn’t a major cost savings. Those distributors are actually doing a lot of work relative to the effort needed to produce it at a farm. Consider even just someone driving a semi truck from Idaho to NYC takes over 30 hours of labor one way and roughly transports one acre worth of potatoes. That’s excluding loading, packaging, unloading, etc or any effort needed to actually sell to each customer.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Of course, none of this would be necessary without the idea that produce grown anywhere should be available everywhere. You don't need all that infrastructure if the potatoes you buy are from a farmer's market and were grown a few miles outside town.
  - brokenkebab 5y ago
    In 90s in my country it was a norm to buy potatoes directly from farmers. Many would find it funny that in richer places people pay more buying it washed, and sorted. However, as economical circumstances enhanced majority of urban dwellers started to pay more for washed, and sorted (and often imported, because you can't guarantee high quality of yield in any given year, at any given place) potatoes. You still can buy directly if you like, but nowadays it's mostly for students, and unsupported seniors. I don't know, maybe there's some sort of cartel conspiracy in US food trade, but consumers paying more for intermediary services is universal phenomenon. Likely after reaching some economical threshold, it becomes easier to spend for a bit of free time, and comfort.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      I have no issue with people paying for processing, only the part where you're buying potatoes from a supermarket that came from another country when there's a farmer growing the exact same thing a few miles away. Reducing logistic complexity is both an inherent good for the environment and places distributive power in the hands of farmers to form a market or a distribution union or whatever form is applicable locally.
      - Retric 5y ago
        There is no where near enough farms close to NYC to meet NYC’s food demands. Buy local can work depending on the local climate, population density, etc but it isn’t inherently more environmentally friendly. Large scale food distribution networks are extremely efficient where farmers markets high markups often mean inefficient practices behind the scenes. At the extreme end you get indoor farms for produce which takes vastly more energy and resources than using sunlight on a farm thousands of miles away.
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        > scale food distribution networks are extremely efficient Financially efficient. Trucking a ton of food 100 miles is worse for the environment than trucking it 10 miles. > There is no where near enough farms close to NYC to meet NYC’s food demands. It doesn't have to be just within the nearest few miles. My general point is that shortening logistic chains is a good thing. Is this a controversial idea? Just because its cheaper to ship products from China or food from Latin America, doesn't mean its better for the environment. It means that capitalism's cost model is completely detached from the actual environmental costs.
        jefftk 5y ago
        Distance is just a really bad proxy for environmental impact, though. Larger trucks are more efficient than smaller ones, rail is much more efficient than trucking, and shipping is much more efficient than rail. (This is part of why I'm so strongly in favor of carbon taxes:. It means businesses can continue to be optimizing for lowest cost, and the tax reconciles places where cost and environmental impact currently diverge)

Retric 5y ago

Many companies buy directly from farmers or actually own farms. This however isn’t a major cost savings. Those distributors are actually doing a lot of work relative to the effort needed to produce it at a farm. Consider even just someone driving a semi truck from Idaho to NYC takes over 30 hours of labor one way and roughly transports one acre worth of potatoes. That’s excluding loading, packaging, unloading, etc or any effort needed to actually sell to each customer.

beaconstudios 5y ago
Of course, none of this would be necessary without the idea that produce grown anywhere should be available everywhere. You don't need all that infrastructure if the potatoes you buy are from a farmer's market and were grown a few miles outside town.
- brokenkebab 5y ago
  In 90s in my country it was a norm to buy potatoes directly from farmers. Many would find it funny that in richer places people pay more buying it washed, and sorted. However, as economical circumstances enhanced majority of urban dwellers started to pay more for washed, and sorted (and often imported, because you can't guarantee high quality of yield in any given year, at any given place) potatoes. You still can buy directly if you like, but nowadays it's mostly for students, and unsupported seniors. I don't know, maybe there's some sort of cartel conspiracy in US food trade, but consumers paying more for intermediary services is universal phenomenon. Likely after reaching some economical threshold, it becomes easier to spend for a bit of free time, and comfort.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    I have no issue with people paying for processing, only the part where you're buying potatoes from a supermarket that came from another country when there's a farmer growing the exact same thing a few miles away. Reducing logistic complexity is both an inherent good for the environment and places distributive power in the hands of farmers to form a market or a distribution union or whatever form is applicable locally.
    - Retric 5y ago
      There is no where near enough farms close to NYC to meet NYC’s food demands. Buy local can work depending on the local climate, population density, etc but it isn’t inherently more environmentally friendly. Large scale food distribution networks are extremely efficient where farmers markets high markups often mean inefficient practices behind the scenes. At the extreme end you get indoor farms for produce which takes vastly more energy and resources than using sunlight on a farm thousands of miles away.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        > scale food distribution networks are extremely efficient Financially efficient. Trucking a ton of food 100 miles is worse for the environment than trucking it 10 miles. > There is no where near enough farms close to NYC to meet NYC’s food demands. It doesn't have to be just within the nearest few miles. My general point is that shortening logistic chains is a good thing. Is this a controversial idea? Just because its cheaper to ship products from China or food from Latin America, doesn't mean its better for the environment. It means that capitalism's cost model is completely detached from the actual environmental costs.
        jefftk 5y ago
        Distance is just a really bad proxy for environmental impact, though. Larger trucks are more efficient than smaller ones, rail is much more efficient than trucking, and shipping is much more efficient than rail. (This is part of why I'm so strongly in favor of carbon taxes:. It means businesses can continue to be optimizing for lowest cost, and the tax reconciles places where cost and environmental impact currently diverge)