3 ms·
That's the point. As consumers we pay the cost of logistics and service, but we also pay for the waste. We aren't paying the cost of a head of lettuce, we are
by ygjb 3y ago
That's the point. As consumers we pay the cost of logistics and service, but we also pay for the waste. We aren't paying the cost of a head of lettuce, we are paying the cost of a head of lettuce, plus a fractional cost of waste produce. From an economic perspective we are paying for the risk the retailer takes in bringing a product with a short shelf life to market.
Grocers offset some of this risk by processing some of the food onsite, selling precooked meals, premade salads, etc.
If it was more profitable to further reduce costs, then they would, but there are diminishing returns on end of the line food processing, since the kitchens and packaging required are generalized for a broad range of foods instead of being a specialized operation that is more efficient.
It sucks, but it's the system that capital built, and pretty much the only thing we can do if we don't like it is to focus on buying local, or electing politicians who will target food waste as a policy.
- sokoloff 3y agoI think it's the system that biology built. Fresh food spoils. Always has. Happens less now with readily available refrigeration, salt, and fast long-distance logistics. Those supply chain improvements make it more feasible to produce a lot of it and have a wide variety available almost without regard to season. Ever since people farmed, they put in all the labor and got out only the portion of product that they could use without spoiling. That's how we got canning, bread, cheese, beer/wine, and other means to preserve the caloric content of agricultural products.
- Eisenstein 3y agoBut there is no biological reason people in the north eastern United States should be able eat fresh oranges and pineapples in December. That is not natural. It is because of financial incentives that it is possible, and it also creates a lot of waste as a byproduct.
- sokoloff 3y agoThere's no thermodynamic reason that my house (in the north east US) should be 68°F/20°C in December either. It's not natural, is because of financial incentives that it's possible, and creates a lot of waste as a by-product.
- Eisenstein 3y agoYes, that is my point.
- sokoloff 3y agoDo only people in capitalist economic systems have heat in their homes in the winter? If so, is that really a scathing indictment of capitalism?
- Eisenstein 3y agoWho is indicting capitalism? Does pointing out cause and effect make an attack?
- ch4s3 3y ago[flagged]
- Eisenstein 3y agoI don't think you understand what I am saying. I am responding to the use of the word 'biology' in the parent post.
- Goronmon 3y agoBut there is no biological reason people in the north eastern United States should be able eat fresh oranges and pineapples in December. If the goal is to be pedantic, then technically the "biological reason" is that nature gave humans the ability to alter their environment in ways that allows the north eastern United States to eat fresh oranges and pineapples in December.
- Eisenstein 3y agoIf you go down the road of 'ultimate cause and effect' and 'what is a thing really' then you end up debating whether hot dogs are sandwiches.
- tomjakubowski 3y agoYes there's a biological reason that should be true. Just as there is a biological reason people migrated to live in places like where pineapples grow and the northeastern United States.
- tick_tock_tick 3y agoBut those same financial incentives are why people aren't staving all over the place. Every attempt to move too far from capitalism just results in mass starvation.