4 ms·

Sometimes. Other times, it just goes to waste in the fields and even if they give it away, no one seems to want to pay for hauling it away.

SllX 5y ago
Well that’s unfortunate. Not even used as compost? That doesn’t seem very efficient.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  "Ugly" produce out in a field needs to be picked, transported, and stored. Even if it's going to end up as compost it costs money to get it from the field to where it'll be composted. If it's just left in place it'll get composted when the field is turned over. In the meantime it'll feed wild animals that will themselves feed other wild animals. It's not like it's a total waste, it just doesn't make it to store shelves. Note that produce might be "ugly" because of actual problems with that piece of produce. Unless you can examine every single piece to differentiate between a bruise, rot, or vermin it's probably best just to leave it in the field.
  - SllX 5y ago
    Is it even fair to characterize it as waste at all at that point? If it’s presently not economical to do anything else with it other than leave it in place, that doesn’t seem the worst given that it’ll break down into the soil and/or feed into the wild food chain. Or is food that doesn’t go into feeding people somehow just considered “wasted” under industry nomenclature?
    - brimble 5y ago
      I'm much closer to "let's burn down capitalism" than "the market knows best", but I don't get food waste concerns. There's waste because it's very cheap. There'd be less waste if it were more expensive—but then poor people would suffer (more). That goes for waste in the field, waste in the kitchen, waste in the supply chain and at grocery stores, all of it. Most people don't save veggie scraps or chicken bones to make broth or stock or whatever, unless they really value the improved flavor over store-bought, because it's a really expensive (time-cost) and inconvenient (goes bad faster than store-bought stuff in a factory-sealed container) way to get broth, to pick one example. Same goes for waste at restaurants. A few good apples rot on the ground because you'd lose money saving them, because apples are so cheap. You want less waste, raise prices. Turns out almost no one wants less waste that bad.
    - giantrobot 5y ago
      > Or is food that doesn’t go into feeding people somehow just considered “wasted” under industry nomenclature? I don't know if that's industry nomenclature but more "I want to complain about a topic without thinking about the economics" nomenclature. Some people love to point out "waste" and then point out hungry people and imply that the "waste" could magically feed hungry people. All of the important details are glossed over or ignored. The biggest is that actual waste does not pay. Farmers aren't going to throw away any portion of a crop if they can help it. Someone will usually buy all but the worst bits of produce. If it doesn't end up in the produce aisle it'll end up in prepared food of some type.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

SllX 5y ago

Well that’s unfortunate. Not even used as compost? That doesn’t seem very efficient.

giantrobot 5y ago
"Ugly" produce out in a field needs to be picked, transported, and stored. Even if it's going to end up as compost it costs money to get it from the field to where it'll be composted. If it's just left in place it'll get composted when the field is turned over. In the meantime it'll feed wild animals that will themselves feed other wild animals. It's not like it's a total waste, it just doesn't make it to store shelves. Note that produce might be "ugly" because of actual problems with that piece of produce. Unless you can examine every single piece to differentiate between a bruise, rot, or vermin it's probably best just to leave it in the field.
- SllX 5y ago
  Is it even fair to characterize it as waste at all at that point? If it’s presently not economical to do anything else with it other than leave it in place, that doesn’t seem the worst given that it’ll break down into the soil and/or feed into the wild food chain. Or is food that doesn’t go into feeding people somehow just considered “wasted” under industry nomenclature?
  - brimble 5y ago
    I'm much closer to "let's burn down capitalism" than "the market knows best", but I don't get food waste concerns. There's waste because it's very cheap. There'd be less waste if it were more expensive—but then poor people would suffer (more). That goes for waste in the field, waste in the kitchen, waste in the supply chain and at grocery stores, all of it. Most people don't save veggie scraps or chicken bones to make broth or stock or whatever, unless they really value the improved flavor over store-bought, because it's a really expensive (time-cost) and inconvenient (goes bad faster than store-bought stuff in a factory-sealed container) way to get broth, to pick one example. Same goes for waste at restaurants. A few good apples rot on the ground because you'd lose money saving them, because apples are so cheap. You want less waste, raise prices. Turns out almost no one wants less waste that bad.
  - giantrobot 5y ago
    > Or is food that doesn’t go into feeding people somehow just considered “wasted” under industry nomenclature? I don't know if that's industry nomenclature but more "I want to complain about a topic without thinking about the economics" nomenclature. Some people love to point out "waste" and then point out hungry people and imply that the "waste" could magically feed hungry people. All of the important details are glossed over or ignored. The biggest is that actual waste does not pay. Farmers aren't going to throw away any portion of a crop if they can help it. Someone will usually buy all but the worst bits of produce. If it doesn't end up in the produce aisle it'll end up in prepared food of some type.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]