5 ms·

When I'm sitting in my chair and reading about bakeries throwing out day-old bread, it sounds wasteful; when I actually go to buy bread, I'm looking for the fre

by wonnage 14y ago

When I'm sitting in my chair and reading about bakeries throwing out day-old bread, it sounds wasteful; when I actually go to buy bread, I'm looking for the freshest, warmest loaf I can get. And thanks to privileged, illogical, fresh-bread-seeking bourgeois like me, the bakery's inclined to toss perfectly good bread. Thinking about this, I'm convinced it's all just because we have enough resources to allow this waste. Nobody weeps over the trillions of dollars that mutely vanish under a "Obsolete Inventory" accounting line item every year; when plentiful, food is just a particularly charismatic inventory item. Morality aside, food in San Francisco physically cannot feed people anywhere else! Personally I try to clean my plate when I eat. But your values may vary, and as we live in an affluent area, there's no objective reason why you shouldn't toss half your food, if you felt like it. So the thinly-veiled finger wagging in this article is a little silly... Americans wasting/not wasting some of their surplus food (in America!) is not going to affect starving people elsewhere, aside from making us look bad.

graeme 14y ago
Surplus food consumption and waste in San Francisco/America raises food prices globally. A lot of that food will be wasted imports, or food that could have been exported if not bought by American consumers.
- mbreese 14y ago
  Only on products that can be exported or are otherwise fungible, primarily grains. But you'd also have to calculate the costs of shipping excess grain to the comparison of global grain prices, because it's a tad bit expensive to ship tons of grain around the world. And then you'd also have to calculate the effects of a smaller market on the produce sellers of the world. I'm sure that farmers who export food to the US do so because the prices they get are better; otherwise, they'd be selling it locally. So, if they sold less to America, they wouldn't be making as much money, which wouldn't be feeding into their local economies. And that will hurt people as well. It isn't as simple of a problem as what you're trying to make it. True, Americans - in general - should probably eat less. But the reason isn't to help global food prices. But, if you're talking about trying to feed under-nourished Americans, that's a different argument. If you really want to help lower global food prices, the first step would be to stop turning corn into ethanol fuel (ethanol for human consumption is fine). Linking the prices of a cereal grain to the cost of energy is a dumb move.
  - nmridul 14y ago
    The economies are inter connected. So you don't really need to export to lower the price abroad. A lower demand for a food item in a big consumer country like US is enough to reduce the food price around the globe. The surplus thrown away food if saved could be money that could have funded another venture or at the very least spent on holiday shopping in the US. So this is a loss to the American economy. In general, wasting is a loss to the economy, loss the environment and to mankind.
    - wonnage 14y ago
      Waste is bad, true. But where is it happening? The article is thin on that detail. It could be that people are buying food and throwing it away, but how would you even begin to evaluate/validate that number? So I think the study must focus on food thrown out by businesses due to spoilage or other reasons, which might actually generate accounting records to work with. But think about the food-service industry - it's one of the thinnest-margin industries in the world. They have every incentive to manage inventory as well as possible. So yes, waste is happening, but it's coming from the necessities of operating a business, not scumbag rich people throwing their sandwiches away.
jrmg 14y ago
Morality aside, food in San Francisco physically cannot feed people anywhere else! Personally I try to clean my plate when I eat. But your values may vary, and as we live in an affluent area, there's no objective reason why you shouldn't toss half your food, if you felt like it. That may be true when you talk of food in its final state - obviously you can't ship your half eaten stale sandwich halfway across the country to feed a hungry child. At a different scale though, by buying food you don't need, but can afford in your affluence, you are driving up the cost of the ingredients for those poorer and in other locations by needlessly reducing supply. Waste by the rich /does/ affect the poor's ability to buy food whether you like it or not.
rjshade 14y ago
Americans wasting/not wasting some of their surplus food (in America!) is not going to affect starving people elsewhere The money used to buy (and then waste) surplus food could be donated to the most effective charities[1][2], thereby saving lives. You could donate directly to charities which feed starving people although these may not do the most good (in terms of lives saved per dollar donated). [1]http://www.givewell.org/ http://www.givewell.org/ [2]http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/resources/charity-comparisons.php http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/resources/charity-comparisons...

by wonnage 14y ago

graeme 14y ago

Surplus food consumption and waste in San Francisco/America raises food prices globally. A lot of that food will be wasted imports, or food that could have been exported if not bought by American consumers.

mbreese 14y ago
Only on products that can be exported or are otherwise fungible, primarily grains. But you'd also have to calculate the costs of shipping excess grain to the comparison of global grain prices, because it's a tad bit expensive to ship tons of grain around the world. And then you'd also have to calculate the effects of a smaller market on the produce sellers of the world. I'm sure that farmers who export food to the US do so because the prices they get are better; otherwise, they'd be selling it locally. So, if they sold less to America, they wouldn't be making as much money, which wouldn't be feeding into their local economies. And that will hurt people as well. It isn't as simple of a problem as what you're trying to make it. True, Americans - in general - should probably eat less. But the reason isn't to help global food prices. But, if you're talking about trying to feed under-nourished Americans, that's a different argument. If you really want to help lower global food prices, the first step would be to stop turning corn into ethanol fuel (ethanol for human consumption is fine). Linking the prices of a cereal grain to the cost of energy is a dumb move.
- nmridul 14y ago
  The economies are inter connected. So you don't really need to export to lower the price abroad. A lower demand for a food item in a big consumer country like US is enough to reduce the food price around the globe. The surplus thrown away food if saved could be money that could have funded another venture or at the very least spent on holiday shopping in the US. So this is a loss to the American economy. In general, wasting is a loss to the economy, loss the environment and to mankind.
  - wonnage 14y ago
    Waste is bad, true. But where is it happening? The article is thin on that detail. It could be that people are buying food and throwing it away, but how would you even begin to evaluate/validate that number? So I think the study must focus on food thrown out by businesses due to spoilage or other reasons, which might actually generate accounting records to work with. But think about the food-service industry - it's one of the thinnest-margin industries in the world. They have every incentive to manage inventory as well as possible. So yes, waste is happening, but it's coming from the necessities of operating a business, not scumbag rich people throwing their sandwiches away.

jrmg 14y ago

Morality aside, food in San Francisco physically cannot feed people anywhere else! Personally I try to clean my plate when I eat. But your values may vary, and as we live in an affluent area, there's no objective reason why you shouldn't toss half your food, if you felt like it. That may be true when you talk of food in its final state - obviously you can't ship your half eaten stale sandwich halfway across the country to feed a hungry child. At a different scale though, by buying food you don't need, but can afford in your affluence, you are driving up the cost of the ingredients for those poorer and in other locations by needlessly reducing supply. Waste by the rich /does/ affect the poor's ability to buy food whether you like it or not.

rjshade 14y ago

Americans wasting/not wasting some of their surplus food (in America!) is not going to affect starving people elsewhere The money used to buy (and then waste) surplus food could be donated to the most effective charities[1][2], thereby saving lives. You could donate directly to charities which feed starving people although these may not do the most good (in terms of lives saved per dollar donated). [1]http://www.givewell.org/ http://www.givewell.org/ [2]http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/resources/charity-comparisons.php http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/resources/charity-comparisons...