3 ms·

I've no facts to back that up, but my bet is that a) this is true in well off countries, and b) not true in non-well off countries.

• tasha0663 5y ago
  I always wonder what the ideal amount of food waste is supposed to be. Zero is a post apocalyptic hellscape.
  • ggm 5y ago
    In primary production most things you don't consume yourself have either to earn income or cost you money to dispose of, and suddenly zero waste is a big win. Pig slurry has massive costs associated either with remediation of water or cartage. If you can make methane, drive a generator or heat or cool something or run pumps, and then have (in disease terms) sterile and nutrient rich water to use.. it's better. Ploughing in your unsellable fruit is said to be heartbreaking. Suicide in farmers is high. Growing less and getting a better price for it might be better than growing more but losing half the produce to skin taint or bruising. Less inputs, more value per acre worked.
• eco 5y ago
  I remember reading a while back that food waste was roughly similar between developed and undeveloped countries. The reason for the waste was different though. In developed countries it was consumers throwing out uneating food and in undeveloped countries it was due to poor storage environment before the food got to the consumer.
• dane-pgp 5y ago
  When I looked into the figures, a large proportion (a majority?) of the "waste" occurred before the consumer even bought the food, so although the statistic is designed to shame people for their "wasteful" behaviour, the problem can't actually be substantially fixed without forcing people to eat lower quality "food" or otherwise reducing the food options available.
  • riffraff 5y ago
    isn't lower quality food employed in different ways? E.g. recycled as animal food.