3 ms·

This is a myth invented by some food delivery startups. As mentioned in sibling comments, this produce is often used in alternative streams. https://www.vox.com

• ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  I'm open to being corrected but this article doesn't offer much for proof of what this person is claiming. It starts by reaffirming ~161 billion in waste (in 2008) (termed: not eaten) and citing some of the cause of that as cosmetic defects. Then the interviewed person goes on to say it's used in alternative production as mentioned in the other comments, but offers no proof or statistics of this. And the fact that enough ugly food existed to fill the purchase orders of a number of startups going out of their way to sell it kind of implies if they weren't, it would be going in the trash.
  • avgcorrection 3y ago
    > And the fact that enough ugly food existed to fill the purchase orders of a number of startups going out of their way to sell it kind of implies if they weren't, it would be going in the trash. In the same way that a sudden interest in therapy for dogs would prove that dogs were suffering from a mental health crisis. Yeah, you want to sell produce at a premium so that somewhat well-off people can feel like they are making a difference? Sounds good to me, yup yup. I mean the vagaries and arbitrariness of upper/upper-middle class social signaling is a trope in itself.
  • WrongAssumption 3y ago
    No, it implies they were willing to pay more than the alternative user. Makes sense, a retail customer will always pay more for a tomato than a canning factory.