4 ms·

Let's not ignore the voices of UK farmers too, who are switching off greenhouses because supermarkets are paying below cost prices, don't negotiate, and don't p

by imdsm 4y ago

Let's not ignore the voices of UK farmers too, who are switching off greenhouses because supermarkets are paying below cost prices, don't negotiate, and don't pass on profits. If supermarkets increase prices by more than 50%, they can't continue to pay producers the same prices (or only marginally more). Easy to put blame onto farmers but we've all known for a long time how much supermarkets gouge from the whole market. Time for UK & EU fair trade.

vsareto 4y ago
Farming as a whole is probably just going to have to become a sunk cost center for economies. Sure, no one will make a profit and we take money from high margin industries and move it into farming, but you also won't have food shortages.
mrtksn 4y ago
Do you say that there's some kind of market inefficiency where supermarkets are pocketing large profits or do you advocate for price increases?
Nifty3929 4y ago
Well, you can produce more, or have higher prices at the grocery store, or you can have empty shelves, or you can ration, or some combination of those. But that's about it. Of those, producing more sounds nice, but it takes more effort to do so, and you also need the correct pricing signals to make their way to the producers for that to happen. E.g. "Wow, we're getting twice the normal price for our tomatoes - let's grow more of them!" But then this requires a period of socially-uncomfortable profits for businesses along the way. The other three non-production options don't sound very nice, and our social aversion to profit discourages price increases, so we're left with empty shelves and/or rationing fairly often. In this case the grocery store chose to ration rather than raise prices or allow a few customers to buy up all the stock. But then there's no reason to pay upstream providers more, and therefore no incentive for those upstream providers to produce more.
Veen 4y ago
I've read arguments that food prices are unsustainably low, largely because of the pressure supermarkets put on their suppliers (the farmers). It seems that higher food prices are just something we're going to have to accept, which isn't so bad if it results in less waste and a fairer environment for food producers.
callamdelaney 4y ago
This is the key issue, the same has been happening with eggs. The prices supermarkets pay have to start reflecting fair value for farmers, if that means food goes up so be it, people should grow more at home. There should also be more competition in food growth, something that doesn't really seem to happen at all. Monoculture, where we remove the countryside and plant only one crop in a whole field, which then needs hundreds of tonnes of water and tonnes of pesticides spread all over it is inefficient, and killing our environment + natural diversity. We should grow food closer to where it's consumed, and people should grow their own veg.
- seagullriffic 4y ago
  While I agree with you, I'm fairly sure the average UK household's veg requirements are larger than the average UK household garden. I'd love to see some affordable vertical farms small enough to keep at home.
  - callamdelaney 4y ago
    Something like this would grow a good portion of needed vegetables with a little training and minimal work. https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1398989330/ https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1398989330/
- YellOh 4y ago
  > Monoculture, where we remove the countryside and plant only one crop in a whole field, which then needs hundreds of tonnes of water and tonnes of pesticides spread all over it is inefficient, and killing our environment + natural diversity. Industrial farming (single-plant fields, though hopefully with crop rotation) is actually much more efficient[0]. Pesticides, (artificial) fertilizers, and irrigation drastically increase yield, both per unit land and per unit labor. It's generally worse for ecosystems and long-term sustainability, but that doesn't mean it's inefficient. As far as growing things locally - I don't see why this would matter much. Transporting food usually accounts for <10% of its carbon footprint, while for foods like beef it's more like 0.5%[1]. Local food makes the supply more resilient to foreign political/environmental issues (for obvious reasons), but I doubt it's the biggest issue or should be a priority. Trying to switch to local organic food is mostly just going to serve to make food less affordable to the average person. Alternatively, we could change what we eat and subsidize, and therefore make more meaningful changes while also keeping core nutrients affordable. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoculture#Benefits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoculture#Benefits [1] https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

by imdsm 4y ago

vsareto 4y ago

Farming as a whole is probably just going to have to become a sunk cost center for economies. Sure, no one will make a profit and we take money from high margin industries and move it into farming, but you also won't have food shortages.

mrtksn 4y ago

Do you say that there's some kind of market inefficiency where supermarkets are pocketing large profits or do you advocate for price increases?

Nifty3929 4y ago

Well, you can produce more, or have higher prices at the grocery store, or you can have empty shelves, or you can ration, or some combination of those. But that's about it. Of those, producing more sounds nice, but it takes more effort to do so, and you also need the correct pricing signals to make their way to the producers for that to happen. E.g. "Wow, we're getting twice the normal price for our tomatoes - let's grow more of them!" But then this requires a period of socially-uncomfortable profits for businesses along the way. The other three non-production options don't sound very nice, and our social aversion to profit discourages price increases, so we're left with empty shelves and/or rationing fairly often. In this case the grocery store chose to ration rather than raise prices or allow a few customers to buy up all the stock. But then there's no reason to pay upstream providers more, and therefore no incentive for those upstream providers to produce more.

Veen 4y ago

I've read arguments that food prices are unsustainably low, largely because of the pressure supermarkets put on their suppliers (the farmers). It seems that higher food prices are just something we're going to have to accept, which isn't so bad if it results in less waste and a fairer environment for food producers.

callamdelaney 4y ago

This is the key issue, the same has been happening with eggs. The prices supermarkets pay have to start reflecting fair value for farmers, if that means food goes up so be it, people should grow more at home. There should also be more competition in food growth, something that doesn't really seem to happen at all. Monoculture, where we remove the countryside and plant only one crop in a whole field, which then needs hundreds of tonnes of water and tonnes of pesticides spread all over it is inefficient, and killing our environment + natural diversity. We should grow food closer to where it's consumed, and people should grow their own veg.

seagullriffic 4y ago
While I agree with you, I'm fairly sure the average UK household's veg requirements are larger than the average UK household garden. I'd love to see some affordable vertical farms small enough to keep at home.
- callamdelaney 4y ago
  Something like this would grow a good portion of needed vegetables with a little training and minimal work. https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1398989330/ https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1398989330/
YellOh 4y ago
> Monoculture, where we remove the countryside and plant only one crop in a whole field, which then needs hundreds of tonnes of water and tonnes of pesticides spread all over it is inefficient, and killing our environment + natural diversity. Industrial farming (single-plant fields, though hopefully with crop rotation) is actually much more efficient[0]. Pesticides, (artificial) fertilizers, and irrigation drastically increase yield, both per unit land and per unit labor. It's generally worse for ecosystems and long-term sustainability, but that doesn't mean it's inefficient. As far as growing things locally - I don't see why this would matter much. Transporting food usually accounts for <10% of its carbon footprint, while for foods like beef it's more like 0.5%[1]. Local food makes the supply more resilient to foreign political/environmental issues (for obvious reasons), but I doubt it's the biggest issue or should be a priority. Trying to switch to local organic food is mostly just going to serve to make food less affordable to the average person. Alternatively, we could change what we eat and subsidize, and therefore make more meaningful changes while also keeping core nutrients affordable. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoculture#Benefits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoculture#Benefits [1] https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local