4 ms·

how does NOT destroying edible food make food more expensive?

groundzeros2015 3mo ago
Because it costs money to store and distribute.
s1artibartfast 3mo ago
They have to deal with less sales and or storing excess inventory. Let's say you have some bruised bananas. You either have to keep them on the shelf till they rot (less space for sellable product) or donate them and then people won't buy as many bananas, so you need to raise the price.
- IneffablePigeon 3mo ago
  People eating donated bananas are not buying bananas if there are none available for free. They are just not eating bananas.
  - s1artibartfast 3mo ago
    Says who? Would you prefer free bananas or paying?
  - jandrewrogers 3mo ago
    Unfortunately, there is an issue with food pantries where people who are not in need use them because free food. People can be shameless. It is a minority but still too common and doesn't come with the stigma it deserves in some places. In Seattle, I've even heard a few anecdotes of people trying to resell food from the food pantries. This behavior does impact prices in the normal market at the margin, particularly if it becomes normalized.
    - charlieyu1 3mo ago
      In UK there is an app called Too Good To Go where you can buy food for about one third of normal price when they are near expiry. As the name implies, there is no particular stigma about using it, you are helping to reduce food waste. It’s often some form of advertisement too
- UltraSane 3mo ago
  Supermarkets and stores throwing away edible food is pure waste and fundamentally immoral when people are going hungry.
  - s1artibartfast 3mo ago
    Why? the two are generally unrelated. Lack of food isnt the bottleneck, there is no shortage. It is usually a host of complex problems. Is throwing away water in a rainforest immoral when there are thristy people in a desert? The problem is connecting the two.
    - UltraSane 3mo ago
      "the two are generally unrelated" This is some truly bizarre logic. The perfectly good food being thrown away can be given to the hungry for free since the company is saying it has no value if they are willing to throw it away. You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding this basic logic.
      - s1artibartfast 3mo ago
        Who packs it up? Who finds the hungry? Who reviews their financial situation? Who delivers it? Alternatively, do you imagine anyone can walk into the store and get it, and decide if they feel like paying today at the register?
        UltraSane 3mo ago
        "do you imagine anyone can walk into the store and get it" YES, BECAUSE THEY WERE GOING TO THROW IT AWAY! You would prefer to see edible food being wasted instead of eaten? That is very weird.
        groundzeros2015 3mo ago
        You have some cultural beliefs about food being of special reverence which is not reflected in its utility and cost.
- zb3 3mo ago
  Or.. lower the price?
  - s1artibartfast 3mo ago
    Lowering the price doesnt solve the problems of lost revenue and higher costs. Most goods are priced such that you cant make more money on increased volume by lowering the cost.
    - UltraSane 3mo ago
      The concern isn't lost revenue it is empty stomachs. You should care more about the empty stomachs.
      - s1artibartfast 3mo ago
        If people dont make money, then nobody grows the food or the store closes. I also dont think hunger is a real problem in the US. Death from gluttony is far more common. For those who are hungry, there are already oppurtinities to get food. Putting more free food there doesnt help if they dont have access, or if they are a crackhead.
    - zb3 3mo ago
      While my sibling comment said it all, note that destroying them also costs money, hence if those can't be sold, it's a loss of profit already, lower the price and let people eat.. > higher costs. Higher costs of what? Of those new fruits? Well, maybe wasting food should cost?
      - s1artibartfast 3mo ago
        Destroying food is pretty cheap. you put it in the dumpster. Picking through it, sending it to a shelter, and vetting the people at the shelter seems more expensive. > Well, maybe wasting food should cost? Why? Wasting food should be be free. The owner paid for it.

groundzeros2015 3mo ago

Because it costs money to store and distribute.

They have to deal with less sales and or storing excess inventory. Let's say you have some bruised bananas. You either have to keep them on the shelf till they rot (less space for sellable product) or donate them and then people won't buy as many bananas, so you need to raise the price.

IneffablePigeon 3mo ago
People eating donated bananas are not buying bananas if there are none available for free. They are just not eating bananas.
- s1artibartfast 3mo ago
  Says who? Would you prefer free bananas or paying?
- jandrewrogers 3mo ago
  Unfortunately, there is an issue with food pantries where people who are not in need use them because free food. People can be shameless. It is a minority but still too common and doesn't come with the stigma it deserves in some places. In Seattle, I've even heard a few anecdotes of people trying to resell food from the food pantries. This behavior does impact prices in the normal market at the margin, particularly if it becomes normalized.
  - charlieyu1 3mo ago
    In UK there is an app called Too Good To Go where you can buy food for about one third of normal price when they are near expiry. As the name implies, there is no particular stigma about using it, you are helping to reduce food waste. It’s often some form of advertisement too
UltraSane 3mo ago
Supermarkets and stores throwing away edible food is pure waste and fundamentally immoral when people are going hungry.
- s1artibartfast 3mo ago
  Why? the two are generally unrelated. Lack of food isnt the bottleneck, there is no shortage. It is usually a host of complex problems. Is throwing away water in a rainforest immoral when there are thristy people in a desert? The problem is connecting the two.
  - UltraSane 3mo ago
    "the two are generally unrelated" This is some truly bizarre logic. The perfectly good food being thrown away can be given to the hungry for free since the company is saying it has no value if they are willing to throw it away. You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding this basic logic.
    - s1artibartfast 3mo ago
      Who packs it up? Who finds the hungry? Who reviews their financial situation? Who delivers it? Alternatively, do you imagine anyone can walk into the store and get it, and decide if they feel like paying today at the register?
      - UltraSane 3mo ago
        "do you imagine anyone can walk into the store and get it" YES, BECAUSE THEY WERE GOING TO THROW IT AWAY! You would prefer to see edible food being wasted instead of eaten? That is very weird.
        groundzeros2015 3mo ago
        You have some cultural beliefs about food being of special reverence which is not reflected in its utility and cost.
zb3 3mo ago
Or.. lower the price?
- s1artibartfast 3mo ago
  Lowering the price doesnt solve the problems of lost revenue and higher costs. Most goods are priced such that you cant make more money on increased volume by lowering the cost.
  - UltraSane 3mo ago
    The concern isn't lost revenue it is empty stomachs. You should care more about the empty stomachs.
    - s1artibartfast 3mo ago
      If people dont make money, then nobody grows the food or the store closes. I also dont think hunger is a real problem in the US. Death from gluttony is far more common. For those who are hungry, there are already oppurtinities to get food. Putting more free food there doesnt help if they dont have access, or if they are a crackhead.
  - zb3 3mo ago
    While my sibling comment said it all, note that destroying them also costs money, hence if those can't be sold, it's a loss of profit already, lower the price and let people eat.. > higher costs. Higher costs of what? Of those new fruits? Well, maybe wasting food should cost?
    - s1artibartfast 3mo ago
      Destroying food is pretty cheap. you put it in the dumpster. Picking through it, sending it to a shelter, and vetting the people at the shelter seems more expensive. > Well, maybe wasting food should cost? Why? Wasting food should be be free. The owner paid for it.